Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity

Totally disputed

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

Examples of pro-LDS POV:

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

Examples of misstated "mainstream" beliefs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please edit chronologically

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

Subject of this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison is not debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moses 7:29,32,33

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Storm Rider wrote:

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

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

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

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

Matthew 22:36-40

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

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

This is the first and great commandment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move

I have requested a move from Mormonism and Christianity to Latter Day Saints and mainstream Christianity. Mormonism is a deprecated term that is often considered offensive. The Manual of Style recommends Latter Day Saints. The comparison is not with Christianity as a whole, but mainstream (or common) Christianity. Current title uses a deprecated and offensive title for the LDS, and inherently implies "Mormonism" is a separate faith from Christianity (which is the POV of some Christians, not a universal or scholarly consensus). Vassyana 11:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"mainstream Christianity" is a made-up term. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What about "orthodox Christianity" rather than "mainstream"? Actually, although I think that's the proper term to use, it may be confused with "Orthodox Christianity" as specific to the Eastern church. I think it's a good idea to change the "Mormonism" to "Latter Day Saints", but you might have difficulty coming up with the right modifier for "Christianity". I don't think "mainstream" is it. SlackerMom 17:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. These are the most common terms, and its about the religion rather than those who practice it (the topic is not, "Latter Day Saints and Christians"). The current title is silent on whether Mormonism is Christianity. It's titled "Mormonism and Christianity," not "Mormonism vs. Christianity." Keep all of these articles where they are. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 17:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Mainstream is POV, neither this article nor the linked Christianity article have any sources specifying what defines Mainstream outside of Google hits (See Christianity# note-93). The Google hits I looked at all seem to compare Mormonism vs all other forms of Christianity. Also the article Christian denomination#Christianity outside of the mainstream concedes that defining mainstream Christianity is difficult. As far as Mormonism vs. variants on Latter Day Saints (LDS), I'm indifferent and will defer to the LDS manual of style. - Optigan13 01:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the manual would not by offended by "Latter Day Saint movement," but "Latter Day Saints" is wrong in either case (per my comment above, and compare Freemasonry and the Latter Day Saint movement). In any case, I still favor the current, popular, understandable, and succinct title "Mormonism and Christianity." Cool Hand Luke 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Regardless of article move outcome, archives should moved in line. I would also suggest using an archive bot to maintain the talk page. - Optigan13 01:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment does Latter Day Saints cover the entirety of Mormonism? (ie churches other than LDS, such as the in-the-news FLDS and others) 132.205.99.122 20:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, note the lack of a hyphen (which is LDS-exclusive). This would be more clear with "Latter Day Saint movement." However, this is an article primarily about theology, and "Mormonism" is much more common term for that than the ugly neologism "Latter Day Saintism." Moreover, most of this theology concentrates on the LDS strain of the the Latter Day Saint movement. Groups that reject the label "Mormonism" like the Community of Christ are not given more than passing treatment here. Cool Hand Luke 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We would not call an article about African-Americans and middle class society "Negroes and society". I believe that is exactly the kind of error the current title makes. For example, the Society of Friends believes in continuing revelation, similarly at odds with mainstream Christianity. There are many more examples of churches generally well-accepted as Christian (and even ecumenical) that have doctrines at odds with traditional Christianity. That leads to the next point, which is that the article explicitly and openly contrasts the Latter Day Saints with traditional/mainstream Christianity. To assert that such a category doesn't exist is either dishonest or foolish, and additionally runs completely contrary to the article. An attempt to contrast the Latter Day Saints with Christianity as a whole would be POV on its face. "Latter Day Saint movement" would be perfectly acceptable, as it is pointed out that is the preferred term in the MoS. Vassyana 21:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: the contrast with "mainstream" Christianity is incidental - a foil. Mormonism means something distinctive by "Christianity" - to see what it is that is distinctive, it is helpful to contrast it with what is ordinarily meant. Unless I'm misinformed, Mormonism also claims to correct a corruption of Temple worship that followed the age of David and Solomon. It also claims to correct numerous other sources of truth, including ancient mysteries which are found in their corrupted form in Masonry. The appropriate title under which Mormonism gathers these restored or perfected streams of truth would not be "Mormonism versus ...", but "Mormonism and ..." - because Mormonism claims to restore these familiar things in an unfamiliar form.
  The only reason that "mainstream Christianity" comes into this article at all, is because Mormonism in some respects is both like and different from what "Christianity" brings to mind. It is therefore sensible, instead of simply writing a tract that represents Mormonism as the restoration of Christianity, to compare it to what it deems a corrupt or apostasized Christianity superceded by the restored gospel. This article doesn't have much to say about "mainstream Christianity" - except as a helpful comparison to the LDS (and to a lesser extent, as the critic of Mormonism). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot archival of this talk page

Would anyone be opposed to this page being auto-archived by a bot? Since this page is undergoing move discussion I would wait until after that is finalized before proceeding, but that also makes for a good time to discuss this. I would think 14 days would be a good date to set for the age, and possibly a shorter period. All other criteria aside from the counter I would leave to their defaults. See User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo for the bot I am referring to. I have also just brought up this same topic on a similar page, so no you aren't seeing double. - Optigan13 05:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Many" - weasle?

I think that "Many" sounds weasley; but over the life of that sentence in the second paragraph, it continues to show up. I'd like to have an explanation for why it belongs:

Many Trinitarian Christians allege that any who persistently believe in a misunderstanding of Christ, ostensibly including the Mormons, are prevented from believing and proclaiming the Gospel of reconciliation through Christ.

One would think that it is a matter of definition, that Trinitarian Christians would perceive Mormonism to be a misunderstanding of Christ. Also, as a matter of definition, it would seem that a Trinitarian would think that it is a matter of consequence if someone believes that the Gospel concerns two ascended human beings and one pre-embodied spirit entity. To a Trinitarian, the Gospel concerns simply one God - the Father, in whom the Son and Spirit consist necessarily and eternally, without addition, partition or separation. It would seem that if by definition, the Gospel concerns who God is and what he has done in Christ, that it would by definition imply that if one believes that such a God is "absurd", and that Jesus Christ certainly does not reveal this God, then that person is prevented by persistence in unbelief from either believing or proclaiming the gospel of reconciliation to the Father, through the Son of God in whom the fullness of God dwells (as Trinitarianism teaches). If a Trinitarian is not persuaded of this, then is that a Trinitarian? If not, then why would we say "Many" Trinitarians ... But if that is a Trinitarian, what is a Trinitarian; or, what is the person who thinks that word is necessary thinking is meant by the sentence? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a problem when stating what Trinitarian Christians believe. This is not a monolithic group with a unified belief among each Christian. What would be better is to state that Trinitarain churches believe; that can be supported by references while the other cannot.

This is a really interesting position to take because it superceds the power of Jesus Christ as Savior and redeemer. This wrinkle requires the not only the work of believing in Jesus Christ, but one must also believe in him in a specific manner in order for Christ to save you. It is one of the fascinating concepts that developed after Christ's resurrection. It was a way to overcome the problem of the divinity of Christ. If Christ was the Son of God and thus divine and there is only one God, then how can Jesus be the son of himself? Early theology decided upon the concept of the Trinity where though they are distinct, they are one. However, to take that belief beyond any thing that Jesus Christ taught and to limit His ability to save is a remarkable position. Where Trinitarian churches require a specific belief in order for Jesus' power to engage, LDS require certain ordinances be done by proper authority; albiet LDS believe that all will have these ordinances done. Is there any acception to preventing Christ from saving someone if they do not believe in the Trinity? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This, of course, is the Mormon POV. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But to be clear, the article doesn't at this point have Trinitarians saying that Christ is "prevented from saving someone if they do not believe in the Trinity". What it does say is that if you do not believe in the Trinity, you are prevented from knowing what the Gospel of reconciliation is, and consequently you are prevented from proclaiming it in faith, because the Gospel concerns "Christ in you, the hope of glory". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if I misunderstood you; however, I understood you to say that "Trinitarian Christians allege that any who persistently believe in a misunderstanding of Christ, ostensibly including the Mormons, are prevented from believing and proclaiming the Gospel of reconciliation through Christ." When I read this understand you to say that if an individual persists a misunderstanding of Christ (i.e. the Trinity), then it is impossible for that individual to be reonconciled to God, and therefore cannot have faith. What this means is if I do not possess a specific knowledge or understanding of Christ, than the Grace of Christ is beyond me; thus I cannot be reconciled, forgiven, and will necessaril be damned. Please tell me how I misunderstood your statement. Secondarily, please explain "Christ in you, the hope of glory". How does Christ become "in you"? Is this created by a special knowledge or is it an interaction of the Spirit? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to have faith in that which you deny. If one does not believe that Jesus is the Word of the Father, that has no beginning in time, that has no beginning except in God just as the very Spirit within God, then how can one believe that in having the Spirit of God, Christ dwells within us and that the Father dwells in Christ - so that it is entirely apart from our work, but wholly through Christ's that we have access to the Father? If one denies that humanity is entirely different from God who is from everlasting to everlasting, and correlatively denies that Christ is human just as we are, and also is the fullness of God in one person, then how can one believe that by the sacrament, partaking of Christ's body and blood, we receive what does not belong to human nature but is rather a gift that is not obtainable by any human work, but is found in Christ alone - the gift of God Himself? But you want to know is how much of what God reveals in Christ for our salvation can be denied, and still be saved through faith by the grace given to the church. I'm not sure. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]Last first: the context of "Christ in you, the hope of glory" is fairly clear. See Col 1:24-29. The "you" Paul is addressing there is the church -- specifically that at Colossae, but also generally. Christ is in you to the extent you are a member of his body, the church, and this indwelling of Christ -- the cause of hope for our future glory, our "perfection in Christ" -- is the mystery of the fullness of the Gospel. When we receive the word of God, we also receive the Word of God, and if we respond to him we enter the Church and Christ enters us. It follows that if the word is faulty, the Word is not given. Put another way, if "another Jesus" is preached, "another spirit" is received. (2 Cor 11:4). So yes, a correct understanding of who Jesus is, is a very important matter. Therefore, following Paul's direction in Gal 1, the church has always excluded those who preached "any other gospel" according to its understanding.

Your earlier deduction doesn't follow in general, although some churches do teach that. If one cannot preach the true Gospel, that does not necessarily exclude one from reconciliation with God. We know where the Spirit is; we do not know where he is not, nor do we place bounds on what God is able to accomplish. We know he desires that all should be saved. (1 Tim 2:4). The historical tendency has therefore been not to judge those outside the Church as condemned, but to leave them to God's mercy. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is the Roman Catholic expression, and carries with it a number of positive attributes by which someone formally outside the Church may yet be saved. The Eastern tendency is to turn that around and says that anyone who is saved -- and we do not judge as to whom -- must in some sense belong to the Church. Willfully acquiring the Grace of God if you believe in another Gospel is impossible, whereas it's a freely available gift inside the Church, already given and there for the taking. But God does whatever he pleases. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In the scriptures that I provided above, what differences do you see when addressing this concept of being alive in Christ? This concept is so easily wrapped up with other concepts such as "another gospel" and though I understand the motivation or logic of combining (or even seeing it as one subject); the gospels do not make those distinctions. Mark speaks of the apostles who forbade one unknown to them from casting out devils in the name of Jesus. Jesus said forbid him not for he that is not against us is on our part. There was no clarification of requiring an understanding of specific doctrine, which was the motivation of the apostles to forbade the individual I suspect, "Hey, you are not part of us, so you must be doing something wrong; stop it".

The main issue is that this position that can be so divisive, even with TCC's further clarification and softening, it is something that never came from Jesus' mouth. I would hope that the article can make a clear distinction from what is Tradition and what is scriptural. I understand that the first is built upon the second; but they are not the same. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

First, we are not free to ignore scripture we find distasteful. The church has included the letters of St. Paul in the Biblical canon, and I have not heard that LDS has chucked them out. There is in this case no question of mistranslation: Paul wrote to the Gentile churches in their own language, Greek, and in Orthodoxy we have always read them in the original. (The KJV does a reasonably good job of translating the NT absent a few particulars that won't enter in here, so that's the specific version I'll cite.) So whether you think Jesus expressed this sentiment or not, we can't disregard what Paul says.

This isn't really being about being "for" or "against" anyone. Casting out devils isn't life in Christ in and of itself. There were professional exorcists at the time who did that kind of thing by various means: what we have here is a record of an exorcist who noted that Jesus had power over devils and so added his name to the repertoire of those he invoked -- or, since it always worked, began invoking it exclusively. It worked because for whatever reason (unstated in the Gospel) the name of Jesus was effective even coming out of that exorcist's mouth. This is precisely the kind of thing that makes us hesitate to draw hard lines about where the Spirit is and is not. (We know that not everyone actually could cast out devils using Jesus' name from Acts 19:13-17, so there must have been some sort of grace given to that exorcist from Mark in particular.)

But it's not correct that Jesus said nothing like what Paul did, although when he did he expressed it the other way around. In John 1, Jesus is said twice to bring "grace and truth". We cannot worship God except "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23-24). It is the truth that sets us free (John 8:32). Jesus is "the Way, the Truth and the Life. (John 14:6) The Paraclete, the "Spirit of truth" will guide us "into all truth" (John 16:13). Jesus has told us over and over again: The truth is important, and is essential to a full life in Christ. On this point Christ and Paul are in full agreement. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I should add a further clarification: Tradition is not built on Scripture. Scripture is part of Tradition. The most important part, but Tradition nonetheless. The truth cannot contradict itself, so nothing else in Tradition may contradict Scripture -- but what is it that tells us what is Scripture and what is not? It's not the Bible publishing houses, it's Tradition. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(indent anew) CTT, everything you said in the last paragraph is doctrine of the LDS church. Where we seem to differ, even though I sense your understanding of scripture and mine to be very similar in many areas, is that orthodoxy seems to move from Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life to Christians must understand/accept/believe in the Trinity for Grace to truly be viable. This is a step that LDS and many Protestants simply would never condone or accept as a teaching of the Bible.

Though it is true that I have a preference for the Gospels (I and all LDS accept the entire Bible to be the world of God), nothing in the Bible goes so far as to say what Tradition states. Again, if it was to be the defining doctrine of Christianity is it not appropriate to think that Jesus would have taught it explicitly? Please note the only point I am trying to make is there is a difference between the explicit teachings of the Bible and the teachings of Tradtion. Tradition is of significant value to you, but to those outside of your system, it may be appreciated, but it is not the source of truth that guides such an important question.

As an aside, we have many LDS who would have a relective belief system as some of things stated above...that there is one true church and all others are damned. That is reflctive of a seriously deficient understanding of scripture. I tend to think in terms of one Kingdom of God and all those who are lead by the Spirit, who have become a new creature, are members. All who wish to be saved through Jesus Christ will be; the Spirit works wherever there is truth, it is never prevented from functioning because of the individual's beliefs; rather it guides us to all truth.

Are we talking by one another? I sense that regardless of what the scriptures say or my personal belief in Jesus Christ that your chruch would teach I am incapable of feeling the Spirit while still being a LDS. Further, if LDS did feel the spirit it could not possibly be the Holy Spirit i.e. LDS are lead by demons. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 10:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For LDS there is only one single ultimate judge of truth and that is the Spirit. Just as it was with Peter when he came to know who was Jesus, so it is with us. For Peter it was not scripture, the words of learned men, or spiritually gifted men, it was the the Spirit. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 10:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Where we differ is what it means to believe in Jesus. If you believe in an imaginary person labeled "Jesus", then what do you believe in? An imaginary person cannot save, but that's what you get when you believe in some Jesus other than the real one. I say he is God made flesh, both fully human and fully divine; the Son who is begotten of God the Father from all eternity and consubstantial with him as God himself; the eternal Logos by whom all things were made. You believe otherwise. Both cannot be true; one must be fictional, "another Jesus". If the Jesus you know is the fictional one, then you do not know Jesus. He himself said explicitly that knowing him is a characteristic of his followers. "And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.... I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." (John 10:4-5, 14-15)

Paul -- who, again, we are not free to disregard anyway -- merely restated it when he said, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed (ἀνάθεμα)." (Gal 1:8-9) He is not contradicting Jesus here or teaching something Jesus never taught; he's restating that which he received (παράδοσις, that which is received, translated "tradition") originally given by Jesus.

Of course the Spirit is the touchstone of truth; I never said otherwise; and if you think I ever implied the Spirit is incapable of working with anyone at all, you haven't been reading very carefully. I said the exact opposite. That does not mean there is more than one true Church. Scripture is clear on that subject. "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." (John 10:16).

I believe I have made it sufficiently clear that I wouldn't automatically say that any spirit you felt was demonic. The question I'd ask would be, is that spirit leading you into truth or into falsehood? Or are you just kidding yourself? We call that plani or prelest in Orthodoxy, and it's a very common spiritual pitfall, especially if you're not watching out for it.

I have a hard time understanding why you think either Mark or I said that the "defining belief" for Christianity is to require orthodoxy on the person of Christ. (I think that's what you meant, anyway. The pronoun's antecedent is ambiguous.) It's one of several indispensable requirements for Church membership, full stop, and it is in Scripture, as I explained above. You disagree with it. Are you seriously trying to tell me that LDS membership is not denied to anyone, even if (for example) they refuse to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet or that anything he said was true? Or that someone who professes what I professed in the first paragraph of this post and refuses to change his mind would be accepted, if for some reason he wanted to join? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe if you read below, Mark made it clear that the doctrine of the Trinity is the lode stone of orthodoxy and Christianity. What I disagree with is the inability to distinguish what the scriptures say and what is expanded doctrine. Jesus said all who believe in Him shall be saved; there was no clarification of belief, no requirement that to believe in Jesus Christ you must believe in a specific doctrine of the nature of God. He said if you believe in me, I will save you! What a LDS would say is that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus; albeit that each of us is at a different area of progress in following Christ; of being his disciples. Some possess more truth than others, but Jesus is the key. It appears that the doctrine taught by orthodoxy is different; that there is no brotherhood in Christ until a specific set of beliefs is professed.

Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ; LDS do not deny his words, please never say otherwise. There is only one gospel of Jesus Christ; anyone that teaches differently than Jesus was born of virgin, lived a sinless life, bled from every pore in the Garden, was crucified and died, yet rose again on the third day, and will one day return to earth just as He ascended does not possess His Gospel. Jesus lives; He is the Savior of mankind, through His Grace man is forgiven completely and wholly and He is our salvation. There is no other name given than Jesus Christ whereby humans can be saved. There is only One capable of responding to the prayer of faith to God the Father in the name of His Holy Son because none is greater than He. To be a member of His Kingdom is to follow Him; He guides all His children that seek Him. This is LDS doctrine and it is the teaching of the Bible. The distinction between LDS Church teaching and orthodoxy would appear to be that there is more required. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not hard to understand that, our doctrine is only "expanded" to distinguish it and to defend it from what is incompatible with it.

Anyway, as I've said before, I don't want to take away from the belief in the Christian gospel as you have it right now. You say that you trust in Christ - I say, you are right to do so; and I have reason to hope for you. You say that you know God - I say, that is eternal life; and I have reason to be interested in what you say. But, if it is from the heart that we believe, then we must seek the spirit of these words.

If one speaks, it is because one seeks to be understood. That much is not different with God. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would not say that more is required than belief in Jesus. The question is, who do we believe in when we say that? The real Jesus, in the fullness of who and what he is? Or a phantom of our own devising?

However, I think C.S. Lewis had it right in The Last Battle with regard to the young Calormene. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(newindent) Csernica, again you and I agree; that is a favorite scripture of LDS. To love the Lord is to follow His commandments. Simply knowing the name of the Son of God does not save a person. As I also indicated above, we must follow Him; we must be disciples that seek to emulate Him, share His Spirit with others. LDS do not send out their young men and women into the world to garner the acolades of man, but we go because we love the Savior and He has commanded us to preach the gospel unto all the world. It is the will of the Father that the Great Commission be fulfilled. It is not something to be done by others, but by all those who seek to follow Christ. The scripture you used would be very hard indeed to condemn the LDS people. That is not to say our members are perfect, far from it. They fail, some of us miserably, but we seek the mercy of our God and have faith that through the atonement of Jesus virtually all can be forgiven and we can try anew to follow Him. No Christian church emphasizes more than the LDS church to seek the will of the Fahter, that the heavens remain open, and one of the great gifts of God is that of the Spirit to answer our prayers, to lead, and to guide us.

I have long enjoyed Lewis, but in this instance he has only echoed the word of the Gosepl of Matthew. In the same chapter we find another way of identifying followers of Christ; Jesus said, by their fruits ye shall know them. His disciples will be recognized by the works they do; those works are the work of Jesus in us.

Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." Paul says, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Csernica says "The question is, who do we believe in when we say that? The real Jesus, in the fullness of who and what he is? Or a phantom of our own devising?". Now we are told that the LDS agree with Csernica. Is that true? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is funny to me. What we have here are two groups using the identical scriptures; both claim to be correct and both claiming the other is incorrect in their understanding of scripture and nature of divinity. I don't know why one should be surprised given one believes in Apostolic authority and the other believes that through the Apostasy the authority was lost. LDS firmly believe members of orthodox churches worship Jesus Christ, not some phatom. We believe the Father hears and answers your prayers. The same apparently is not something orthodoxy can say of LDS.

We also believe that your understanding of the Godhead is faulty; that it is a fabrication of man and is not supported by scripture. However, that incorrect understanding does not prevent the Father and Son from hearing your prayers or guiding and directing you. For me personally, the mere concept is anathema; it inverses the relationship we have with God. In fact, we believe the mere desire to communicate with God is enough to allow Him to come into one's heart. He will force no man to heaven, but he will always respond to the broken heart regardless of knowledge. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone says that idolatry is an obstacle to knowing God, this is "anathema"? I doubt that this is really the teaching of the LDS.

It seems to me that what Csernica was saying is that it really does matter who is Christ, and who Christ is. He sounds as though he might go on to say, be careful of those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine taught; and not to be naive; because, the unity to which he has been called matters, and the doctrine which confirms him in it is important. But to be clear, he also went on to indicate that, God knows who belongs to Him; and so, he is not condemning anyone, which would lead him to appreciate and to commend doing good wherever it is found, including in the LDS. That's what I understood him to say; and it doesn't at all look like what you said. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed my point again. To me personally it is anathema for man to dictate who God will save and who He will not by a fabrication. If the Trinitarian doctrine were the most important belief for Christianity, one must assume that Christ would have dictated it. Orthodoxy has condemned others throughout history for a doctrine that was not taught or required by Christ to become His disciple or follower. LDS do not deny Christian-ness to others based upon beliefs outside of those that I quoted above; however, that Christian brotherhood is not shared by orthodoxy.

I have attempted to use humor to get both you and TCC to see the silliness of this dicussion. It is so easy to see that the pot is calling the kettle black. We both use the same scriptures to condemn the other. You ignore history when it offends and hold to history when it aggrandizes orthodoxy. The reason there is not an even wider range of Christianity today is because throughout history those heretical groups were killed, burned at the stake, and/or exterminated. Please do not attempt to enrobe that history as if it was a pure, undefiled oneness of doctrine. Mark, given your knowledge I cannot believe you are not fully aware of that history. Orthodoxy is known as such today solely because they were the victors, not because of some benevelent outpouring of the Spirit and unity of the faith. That supremecy of that doctrine was ransomed by the blood of saints. My intent is not to offend, it is not to debate, but it is to put an end to representing a history of Christainity that only exits in beliefs, but is not in historical fact. Devout scholars know this to be true and understand that it does not demean the faith. Both of our groups are known for using what we call "faith promoting stories"; it is appropriate when teaching the faith, but it is not acceptable to assume that they are the sum total of history for either group.

We are getting too far afield and we are losing the focus of the discussion. The objective is to improve the article; exhanging beliefs is appropriate to gain understanding, but attempting to prove the truthfulness of one's own religion is completely inappropriate and ineffective in this context. I do not understand anything in your second paragraph above. I stated above that I thought we had to be talking past one another, I still think we are. It seems like the more I edit, the more I repeat myself, and the more my word seem to convey no meaning. I cannot imagine how I can be more clear in defining what it means to be Christian and I refuse to repeat it fully again. In brief, LDS believe if one follows Christ one is a Christian. It appears that to be Christian for orthodox Christians one must believe in a specific creed that describes the their perception of the nature of God. I will go back to the article and make sure that is how it is presented. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say that I miss the point, when you simply say what I've said: You did not express LDS doctrine, it was your own feeling. You change what you've said - but the point doesn't move much: we haven't fabricated what we believe in concerning God, but if one did do so, it would present an obstacle to knowing God.

Jesus did "dictate" our belief. He said "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life". He said, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent". He said, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man." He said, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me". And he said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." He says, "I will not leave you as orphans, I will come to you". He says, "I am with you always, even to the end of the age." It is said concerning him, "in the beginning ... the Word was God". The whole Scripture is his word, and the Scriptures teach us to believe this. The Spirit of Christ preserved us in this faith. Now, if you were really asking me where Jesus gives us our doctrine concerning himself, this sort of thing would answer you: since you did not ask me to prove this, but simply to explain ourselves. But it just isn't profitable to answer if that's not what you are asking for. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 09:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Mark, I didn't mean to leave you hanging. I find I'm having to limit my Wikipedia time lately so as keep stress to a manageable level. (This is only one of many, many sources.)

Mark fairly summarized what I was saying above, so I really don't see what Storm Rider's problem is here. Neither Mark nor I has been condemning anybody, and I cannot see good faith in the continued assertions that we are. History? Who's been talking about history? What do you have in mind that you're dragging in here so you can tar us with it? (But much of what you did say is wrong. I'm not going to deny atrocities committed. The church has never been a monolithic organization, not even those parts in communion with each other, so everyone has some "deniability" about one or the other, but no one's hand's are entirely clean. However, let that be due to those actually committed and not those invented for no other reason than to bash the church. The version of history you present is a gross distortion of the facts. I will say this: those who suffered the severest persecution from my own church disagree with LDS doctrine every bit as strongly as we do. But we're not about that here, or shouldn't be.)

Storm Rider, I have no idea what you've previously encountered among Christians, but please answer to what's here and not to what is not. It's very frustrating to explain yourself at length and get a reaction as if you've said nothing at all. I see you're complaining about the same thing. Since I have taken great pains to answer, specifically, every point you've raised in your assertions about what you think traditional Christianity teaches, I can't think it's me. When I give you specific scripture showing that what you say is not in the Bible, in fact is in the Bible, and you go blithely on as if I hadn't said anything -- who's not paying attention? If LDS read these verses differently, then explain that. Don't pretend I said nothing. When I explain at length that we don't judge anyone outside the Church but leave them to God's mercy, and don't attempt to set bounds on where the Spirit might go -- but you say I'm condemning you -- how am I supposed to understand this? If you don't believe me, say so and say why.

Nor do I see you answering any of the questions I asked. If you don't want to answer, fine. Say so. But to ignore them just makes it look as if you're not paying attention.

I haven't seen any humor here, frankly, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Look, the point of all this was that you, SR, made some contrafactual statements about what traditional Christianity believes and expressed a lack of understanding about some crucial differences. That's really what both Mark and I are trying to address here. You're the one giving us an argument about it as if we were trying to prove anything except our own statements about the content of traditional Christian belief. If you'd quit trying to show your own confessional superiority and tone down the triumphalism, we might be able to have some meeting of the minds here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I see two questions that I did not answer specifically:

1. "is that spirit leading you into truth or into falsehood?" I have been a student of truth since late childhood. I have never felt the Spirit lead me into falsehood. I believe that the Spirit will lead all people in truth and not into falsehood. I thought this was rhetorical because it seemed like a rather obvious answer. If I asked it of you I would assume you to answer in a similar manner.
2. "Are you seriously trying to tell me that LDS membership is not denied to anyone" No current member of the LDS church would be excommunciated for beliefs outside of the LDS orthodoxy. However, if such individual chose to begin preaching contrary/false doctrine and would not cease after being told to do so, there is a high probability that individual would eventually be excommunicated. The point is not believing in false doctrine,the point would be not responding to repeated requests from priesthood authority.

If there is another question I missed please ask it again and I will gladly answer.

I would also appreciate you answering all my questions so that we both know that we are being heard --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have refactored the original response since, as signified by my two separate signatures, the material in the new subsection was intended as a separate post, which I would like to use as a way of refocusing the discussion.

There was, to be fair, only one real question there. It was largely my frustration and fatigue talking, and I ought to have examined my misgivings before saving a bit more closely. The first question was rhetorical. Obviously you think whatever spirit you think you're feeling is leading you into truth, so were you to answer I'd know what to expect. These were intended to be questions any Eastern Christian (at any rate) would ask himself as part of discernment.

Some of your questions were directed to Mark, and I never intended to answer any others than those you either asked me directly or those which I chose to answer because I felt like it. My first post to this thread was of that nature. But as far as I can tell, all the questions you asked have been answered, to the extent they're valid questions and not based on faulty assumptions. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Basis for proceeding

Let's get a few things out of the way so that we're all on the same page. Mark, please forgive me if this is not to the point, but I confess that after all this I'm still unclear on what the article is supposed to be about. I agree that it shouldn't be a "vs" kind of thing, but a correct representation of traditional Christian belief is going to be important regardless, I think.

Storm Rider, you're trying to get us to say that the Trinity is the most important "doctrine" in traditional Christianity. First, it's a dogma. Doctrine means "teaching" and is a very broad term; a dogma is specific kind of doctrine. There is doctrine about which you can differ and not be considered in serious error. Dogma you may not differ with and still be a Church member in good standing. This is not because it's particularly important, but because it's a statement which the Church has accepted as the truth and at least implicit in Scripture, both formally in Ecumenical Council and organically as the people of God, and where it considers that significant spiritual harm can be result if something contrary is taught. The number of dogma is more or less based on confession, but in no case do I think you'll find anyone elevating one over the other in terms of importance. There is broad agreement across all confessions, excluding the Nestorians and Oriental Orthodox but including Protestantism, on the dogmas of the first 6 councils. (On the 3rd, even those who do not say "Theotokos" affirm the theology behind it.) Is it absolutely crucial that everyone understand and believe all of them to be Church members in good standing? No. Some of them are rather abstruse. But to the extent they affect our more practical understanding of salvation and the relation between God and man -- and they all do -- they're important regardless.

We obviously agree that LDS does not subscribe to them, and that its reading of Scripture does not support them, in distinction to traditional Christianity. You need not rehash that once more. My point, again, is for there to be no misstatements about traditional Christian belief.

"Christian" vs. "the Church": "Christian" is a very broad term. In a pluralistic society, and in the main, most traditional Christians are willing to accord the name "Christian" to each other without affirming anything other than that they seek to follow Christ. Also, in the main, most traditional Christians are not willing to extend that name to the LDS. The general feeling is that the LDS idea of Jesus is somehow "outside the pale" of what is acceptable belief to still be following the same person. This, SR, is why it's important you believe me when I described this difference.

It's not the Trinity or any other one dogma per se, as one may well call Christian any number of groups that reject nearly all of them, some nontrinitarian groups included, but the cumulative effect of LDS belief.

Now, this is my own formulation, so Mark may not agree and we'd need references besides. The cumulative effect of the LDS doctrines that 1) God the Father has a body; 2) The Son before his incarnation also had a body; 3) Jesus is merely the eldest of the Father's children; and 4) The Father begot Jesus with Mary in a literal, physical way, presents a Jesus and a Godhead so alien to anything any group called "Christian" has ever believed, excluded groups like Arians and other nontrinitarians not excepted, that the name cannot properly apply.

We cannot ignore distinctions that appear superficial but really are not. LDS and traditional Christians use words like "divine", "God", "salvation", "exaltation", "the fall", "heaven" and so on to mean entirely different things. If SR's assertions are correct, LDS tends to gloss over this, at least in conversation with traditional Christians. But we should not or we're going to get hopelessly confused, if we are not already. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify a few of your misconceptions. This is one of the those situations where someone who is not LDS telling a LDS what they believe. After being thrashed by Mark becasue any LDS would dare to summarize the beliefs of MCs, I am surprised.

1. Jesus did not have a physical body prior to his birth; this has no basis in LDS doctrine. We believe the Son, Jesus Christ, has a physical body today.
2. Jesus is more than just the "eldest of Father's children"; this is a misrepresentation of LDS doctrine. There is no comparison between the Savior and every other creature of God the Father.
3. Jesus was born of virgin birth; that is the doctrine of the LDS church. You are referring to a statement made by Brigham Young, who we believe to be the second prophet of the restoration. It is not LDS doctrine and has never been LDS doctrine; if it were you would find it in scripture.

That list of accusations is a wonderful example of third rate anti-Mormon literature; you would do well to disabuse yourself of such misrepresentations of LDS doctrine or teachings. I suspect it is not the first time you have been told this TCC, it is time to let it go. I suggest from this point forward in your life that you reference and quote your statements from doctrinal sources of the LDS church. Also, please let's not get into that wonderful conversation about when does a man speak as a prophet and when does he speak as a man. I think Catholicism has done an adequate job of providing a similar answer. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well then I have no idea what you're doing here. I got all this from Mormon-related articles here on Wikipedia. They plainly some attention from informed editors as they are apparently "third rate anti-Mormon literature". Or it may be a case where the same words are used differently, or I misread because it was late and I was tired. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Get the story right, if this is something you really want to discuss, Storm Rider. What I "thrashed" them for, was for proceeding as though I had said nothing at all, and calling this collaboration. What I would like to "thrash" you for is always answering with a defense and with counters to what you perceive to be accusations, instead of with an explanation that would enable us to move on. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I believe I still have an accurate measure of this conversation and its paucity of fruit. As I have said previously, there appears to be no merit to this conversation. Edit the article, use references, and move on.

TCC, this is a public encyclopedia. I do not vouch that it provides an accurate portrayal of the doctrines of any religion, but it generally is a good place to start. My statements are accurate and correct regarding LDS doctrine. There is a difference between doctrine, theology, and speculation. If you did not understand my statements or if you have specific questions, I am more than happy to answer them. If not, let's move on and stop wasting our time.

I have stated my objectives for the article; would that we all could be more like Lawrence on this day and find a more amicable way of communicating, but we have all failed spectacularly. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

First let me add that the last thing I wanted to do was make "accusations". It was intended to be a straightforward list of key differences in doctrine. If I am mistaken, correct it, but there's no need to fly off the handle.

On re-looking over the articles I consulted, the statement that Jesus had a body before the incarnation was definitely a misreading on my part, and I apologize. The rest are all accurate summaries of what Wikipedia says on the subjects.

In "merely the eldest of the Father's children" the only thing I can see you might be objecting to might be "merely", but the point of that word is that you do not believe Jesus to be only-begotten, but first-begotten, at least with regard to the Father's "spirit children". This is what Mormon cosmology says, and it looks to me like a fair summary of the references, which are from official LDS publications. I understand that you do believe Jesus to be "only-begotten" but not in the same sense as traditional Christianity; see below. Please don't gloss over the point in order to find fault.

The statement in Mormon cosmology about the Father begetting the flesh of Jesus on Mary is referenced not from BY, but from an article by President Ezra Taft Benson: "God was the Father of His fleshly tabernacle and Mary, a mortal woman, was His mother. He is therefore the only person born who rightfully deserves the title the Only Begotten Son of God." Was he wrong? Traditional Christianity uses "only-begotten" in an entirely different sense. You can add it to my list of examples of such words above. Mind you, the Wikipedia article actually says "liternal", which could be a typo for either "literal" or "eternal"; it looked closer to the former to me but does not appear wrong either way. You might argue that I'm misunderstanding President Benson here, but it seems perfectly accurate as I originally put it. I said nothing about sexual intercourse, whether it's Mormon doctrine that it happened in this case or not, but that the Father begat the Son physically, in some way we can understand as "begetting". If this is not the case, then I can't see how President Benson's reasoning on "only-begotten" makes any sense.

I notice we can also add to my list of major differences that in LDS thought the Father is not the creator the same sense as in traditional Christianity. (So we can add "creator" to that list of differently-understood words as well.) We believe that all things except God had a beginning in time and that God created them, and time itself, ex nihilo; whereas you believe that all matter and spirit is eternal. That's also from Mormon cosmology, which appears to cite valid LDS sources, both official and unofficial but heavily pro, in support. If that's to be understood differently, it needs to be clarified. If it's correct, then this is another major difference in our understanding of Jesus, who in traditional Christianity is the incarnate Logos by whom all things were made -- "made" understood in the sense of bringing into existence, not organization alone.

What "wonderful conversation about when does a man speak as a prophet and when does he speak as a man?" I have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop dragging things in from elsewhere. I have neither the time nor the patience to follow the rest of what's been said on this page, and I wish you would cooperate in trying to refocus instead of going off in all directions again.

It would be helpful if you could show for your part that you acknowledge and understand the distinctions Mark and I have been making about LDS vs. traditional Christian thought. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian Opinion of Mormonism and Vice Versa

From the title of this article I was expecting a simple and straight description of how the two groups view each other. There is a little bit of how Mormons view Christian as churches who lost their way, but nothing the other way around. This is besides all the theological details. (Mike Morgan 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

Trinitarian Christianity is not founded upon the rejection of Mormonism, and has no "doctrine" concerning Mormonism. In defense of their own doctrine, mainstream Christians might criticize Mormonism (and they do: this is called "apologetics"). There are whole Wikipedia articles dedicated to a description of these criticisms of Mormonism; but, this isn't necessarily one of those. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the title may or it may not indicate that there are "two groups". Since Wikipedia is both gullible and agnostic, it may be that to be anti-Mormon is to be anti-Christian; or, it may be that Mormonism is anti-Christian; or there may be some grounds for mutual acceptance - Wikipedia doesn't know. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Mike is looking at this article more the way I would like to see it. How has Mormonism interacted or reacted to other Christian churches and vice versa. How do they cooperate on social issues. There is a lot missing from this article when you only focus on doctrine. For example, the Boston Temple had a lot of resistance from the local non-Mormons, but the Catholic church (among others) supported the LDS Church's position on freedom to erect the building. There is also no history of other denominiations in Utah and how they were greeted. The LDS Church recently gave donations to the Catholic Church for the restoration of the Cathedrial of the Madaline in SLC. Why is this not mentioned in the article? Perhaps we are being too narrow on our scope. That is why I prefer the historical approach as opposed to the point-by-point doctrinal approach. It certainly makes things easier to reference. Bytebear 19:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything preventing this development - and as far as I'm concerned, I think that would be a good thing. However, it is a mistake if the article is too narrow in being limited to theological issues, to try to correct this by limiting it to an historical approach. Even if you were to approach the issues in terms of historical developments, you would be forced to compare the distinctions of doctrine - because these are above all what typified or aggravated those developments. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think we can weave in both together. Rather than say "Traditional Christians reject doctrine X", instead, say "In a letter written by so-and-so, Church Q has said in regards to doctrine X, bla bla bla". This way, you have to reference everything, and you get a more balance. The article should not be about who is right, but about how one side has reacted to the actions of the other. Bytebear 21:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good. I would caution, however, that the back-and-forth style of debate-point-counter-point-rebuttal, even (or perhaps especially) in the style of a history, makes a weak and unreadable article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency with practice

I find some passages like this in the article: "leaders of the LDS Church from the time of its founder Joseph Smith have counseled members to be sensitive, to exercise caution, and to avoid contentions in their preaching". Shouldn't we contrast this with the way several early LDS leaders did preach, which was in fact insensitive and contentious? 199.71.183.2 19:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have references to this "insensitive and contentious" behavior? Can you give examples? Bytebear 19:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the early LDS leaders who referred to the other churches as 'corrupt' and 'apostate' and some less polite terms. 199.71.183.2 20:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the farthest that you can go is to explain how the LDS now interprets these judgments of "corrupt" and "apostate" - "what does the LDS mean by this?" - and in what sense then do they see themselves as being consistent with this, and with the admonition not to be insensitive, brash and contentious. I don't think that Wikipedia can report "inconsistency" as such. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we contrast the 'counseling' of the LDS leaders with what was actually said? Things were said that were definitely insensitive and contentious (on both sides), and it seems to be glossing over the facts to report that they "counseled members to be sensitive" without reporting what was actually said. However you interpret 'corrupt' and 'apostate', calling another church that was certainly not sensitive. 199.71.183.2 20:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to tread carefully on that point. It is a standard anti-Mormon argument that the church pushes intolerance of others based on the idea that all other churches are "corrupt and apostate". However, that particular phrase acutally only appears in the 1838 version of the First Vision. In practice and doctrine, the church has always taught tolerance. See the Articles of Faith (Latter Day Saints) #11: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." I think you need to present specific examples or references so I can understand your point. Please provide the facts that are being "glossed over". Bytebear 21:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly candid, the LDS has only multiplied and magnified its accusations. But, that does not take away from the fact that they admonish their members to be inoffensive and reasonable. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we remove the statement about "counseling sensitivity", or denying that they "admonish their members to be inoffensive and reasonable"; but we also need to record what was actually said, especially if it doesn't agree with what was supposed to be said. I'm also aware that mainstream Christians weren't models of tolerance in the same period.

Incidentally, here are a number of references:

1. "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" (Orson Pratt,The Seer, p. 255).
2. "I was answered that I must join none of them (Christian Churches), for they were all wrong...that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight" (Joseph Smith History 1:19)
3. "The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church, is the great corrupt, ecclesiastical power, represented by great Babylon...." (Orson Pratt, Orson Pratt, Writings of an Apostle, "Divine Authenticity," no.6, p.84)
4. "After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christiandom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common orgin. They belong to Babylon." (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, p.324)

199.71.183.2 22:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

< But the article does have statements to this effect already — in fact, at least at the moment, it has such a statement in the opening sentence, and re-iterates the charge in the overview, and by inference accentuates and clarifies the accusations in the articulation of its claims for itself. The linked article on the Great Apostasy goes to great lengths to spread the blame around to non-Mormons who have held such a view, as well as to explain further what Mormons mean. But, this does not mean that they are inconsistent, to nevertheless strive to be personally inoffensive. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Scripture and Tradition in the intro

There has been some back and forth on the second paragraph of the intro and the explanations confirm a misunderstanding of motive. The sentence in question now reads as follows:

For their part, Trinitarians by definition teach that the gospel concerns who Christ is; and by direct inference, the Tradition alleges that any, ostensibly including the Mormons, who depart from the biblical understanding preserved in the catholic churches are prevented by their doubt of the scripture's own teaching from believing and proclaiming the Gospel of reconciliation through Christ.

First of all, I still believe that the revert by Csnerica leads readers to a conclusion that is POV. The current sentence does not make it clear that it is catholic interpretation of scripture, but it takes a stronger position by stating first those "who depart from the biblical understanding". IMHO, the sentence would be both more neutral and accurate by stating:

For their part, Trinitarians by definition teach that the gospel concerns who Christ is. More importantly, Tradition proclaims that all who depart from the catholic churches' biblical understanding are prevented from believing and proclaiming the Gospel of reconciliation through Christ.

This more accurately reflects the references provided, no? Also, it is not so much biblical interpretation, but it is Tradition that really provides the meat for this doctrine. It may be even better to drop the "biblical understanding" completely. This doctrine in a historical perspective really got its legs with first Irenaeus and then Athanaisius among others. Irenaeus, though adamant about beliefs, was just as strongly adamant about authority and where there was no apostolic authority there was no church. It was a much more definitive position than that of the Catholic church today. For him, there was only one church and there was no room for anything remotely similar to ecumenism; all non-Catholics would be damned in his world. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Who are we to say what is "more important". More important to whom? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And what does "neutral" mean, in your comment? It's the Mormon view, not the mainstream view, that the Trinity is "not so much biblical interpretation". It is true that, the boldest clue that the Bible is being messed with, is when someone takes the Bible and pulls out of it something incompatible with what the churches have believed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What is "the gospel" anyway?

There has been a lot of discussion where the label "the gospel" has been thrown back and forth. Here are a few of the ways 'gospel' has been used in these discussions.

1. restored gospel
2. The Gospels
3. the full gospel
4. the fullness of the gospel
5. the true gospel
6. gospel as "power of God unto salvation"
7. principle(s) of the gospel
8. ordinance(s) of the gospel
9. Jesus Christ's gospel
10. gospel of Jesus Christ
11. the Father's gospel
12. the gospel of God
13. gospel plan
14. Gospel of reconciliation
15. Gospel of reconciliation through Christ
16. gospel of reconciliation to the Father, through the Son of God
17. another gospel
18. gospel concerns who Christ is

LDS are accused by MC (Mainstream Christians) of believing in a 'different' Christ, a 'different' gospel. According to the LDS Bible dictionary:

The word gospel means good news. The good news is that Jesus Christ has made a perfect atonement for mankind that will redeem all mankind from the grave and reward each individual according to his/her works. This atonement was begun by his appointment in the premortal world but was worked out by Jesus during his mortal sojourn. Therefore, the records of his mortal life and the events pertaining to his ministry are called the Gospels; the four that are contained in our Bible are presented under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The four Gospels are not so much biographies as they are testimonies. They do not reveal a day-by-day story of the life of Jesus; rather, they tell who Jesus was, what he said, what he did, and why it was important...

I know that many MC would disagree with some or much of the above definition, but I think we can all agree that when the word 'gospel' appears in the New Testament it means 'good news'. I think we also can agree that the essence of the 'good news' is summarized in John 3:16

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

LDS editors have tried to explain this, both here and in the article. Mark has repeatedly responded more or less like this:

You may use words that belong to us, but you do NOT belong to us.

'Gospel' is one of those words, both MC and LDS use it. It is often used today by both groups as a label for the doctrines of Christ's true church, or in other words, "the gospel" is the correct interpretation of "the gospels". I think we agree that the word 'gospel' can mean that, but we disagree on the 'correct' interpretation.

If I have understood Mark correctly (I've been seriously wrong before<g>), he has suggested that the MC belief is that the Trinity is the most important interpretation of "the gospels", and is the heart and soul of Christ's true church. Mark previously quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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

As we all know, LDS have a different view of God and Jesus Christ, and I also think that LDS have a different view about how important a perfect understanding of the nature of God is to one's eternal salvation. As a result, the MC seem to insist that LDS don't belong to them, but according to the LDS editors here, LDS believe that although misguided, MC do in fact belong to them. Or, in other words, MC believe that the gospel taught by LDS is fatally flawed and will lead those who follow it away from salvation, but LDS believe that the gospel taught by MC, while flawed, is mostly correct and will lead sincere MCs toward salvation.

Ok, so now the point.

• a) Have I understood the MC position correctly, re: "you are not part of us"?
• b) Is this a difference that belongs in the article?
• c) Does this difference have potential to become the core of the article?

If I have understood correctly then I think this is important, I think this might become the launching point of the article, with further exploration of why MC and LDS feel the way they do about each other, and the past and present day results of these attitudes. Also, clearly the LDS attitude towards MC has changed, the 'whore of babylon' statements made by LDS leaders in the past about MC would never be repeated today. The MC attitude toward LDS has also mellowed somewhat, at least they're calling for picket lines instead of lynchings.

The thing I like most about this approach is that it would be easier to present the two POVs in a NPOV manner, without turning into a back and forth debate. 74s181 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

74, whatever we say in this article, that is what the Gospel is about according to two very different but comparable perspectives. I don't understand why you're talking about a "launching point", though - as though we have only just begun to speak about this, or only now approached it. As far as I'm concerned, I've never at any time spoken of anything else. I have never understood any of you to be speaking about anything else, either. I think that you can find this being discussed in just about any one of the previous 15 archives. You use words that belong to us, because they came from us. You do not belong to us, because you mean something different by our words than what we meant when we gave them to you, and you do this in order to remain separate from us.

As for the relations with "mainstream" Christians, the LDS no longer has someone who sounds like a raving egocentric lunatic raising an army within the borders of the US and US territories. It no longer endorses polygyny. It no longer bars some races from the priesthood. These and other things have helped. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"You use words that belong to us, because they came from us." Frankly, I'm getting just a little bit tired (again) of your attitude on this. The words came from the same place (God), we both got them the same way (someone wrote them down). From the LDS perspective, MC forgot the original meaning of the words and added the words of man, which ultimately became more important than the original words of God. I am sure that MC believe the exact same thing to be true of LDS. We disagree. Duh. Why continually repeat the obvious? 74s181 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"...you do this in order to remain separate from us." Mark, one of the biggest complaints you've had is the LDS attempt to find common ground, one of the biggest complaints that MC have about LDS in general is their efforts to reach out to MC. Who is trying to remain separate from whom? 74s181 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"...raising an army..." Even if this is an accurate description of something said by a LDS leader, let us not forget who it was that not only called for an army, but succeeded in raising one and using it to drive the LDS from state to state and eventually out of the USA, killing the top leaders of the LDS along with thousands of innocent women and children along the way. 74s181 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"...no longer bars some races from the priesthood." Kind of hard to be ordained to the priesthood of a church when you can't even become a member. Unlike the MC, the LDS have always accepted members of all races. 74s181 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"...why you're talking about a "launching point"..." Yes, Mark, you started this with Comparison is not debate, but I thought that discussion had gotten way off track and I wanted to get back to the original question. I think I'm in agreement with you, the idea that MCs say that acceptance of the Trinity doctrine is essential, fundamental. LDS don't agree with the Trinitarian view of God, and I'm not sure that LDS even agree that the definition of God is as fundamental and critical as MC do. Don't misunderstand, LDS believe it is very important, but I think that LDS believe that there are things more essential for salvation than a perfect understanding of the nature of God. 74s181 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, did you really mean it when you said that MC believe the Trinity doctrine is "...the central mystery of Christian faith and life"? LDS don't believe in the Trinitarian definition of God, and don't believe that any definition of God is "...the central mystery of Christian faith and life". Did you really mean that "...not belonging to us - this must be what the article is about"? LDS believe that many MC are, in fact Christians, in spite of their misunderstanding of the words from God that we have in common, and their insistence that he loves His children less today than in times past, and could not have something additional to say to his children today. 74s181 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So, Mark, here are two major differences, at least I think this is what you meant. Do you agree? 74s181 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There are few things so arrogant about Christians than their seeming endless ability to claim God as their own. Instead of God owning them; it is turned around and God is owned by them. He and His words are theirs and anyone they do not identify as "us" is incapable from touching the Spirit of God, because he is their sole property. For LDS nothing could be further from the truth; it is strictly a teaching of man and has no part in God. God owns us, we use His words, but we do not own those words. We are His instruments to be directed at His desire. The Spirit is not hindered, controled, or directed by the silly concepts of man. The Spirit is the author of all truth; where ever there is truth to be found upon this earth, there you will find the Spirit. Truth is not controled by a specific religion and it never has been and it never will. All religions and peoples on the earth have degrees of truth. This arrogant belief is a defining difference between orthodoxy and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say it is a little troubling hearing Mark condemn the actions of Mormonism, while at the same time somehow ignoring or denying the volumes of heinous crimes of Christianity throughout history. Bytebear 05:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

74s181 and Storm Rider, the temptation is strong to try to refute, or to console, or something ... But this rush of feeling and flurry of accusations, piling up words, that so often greets me in this discussion, is better ignored. The only explanation I have is, your argument is not with me. No one except you have said that what is being compared is a "perfect" understanding of God; but at least it should be the faith given to the churches, and even if an angel from heaven or another apostle were to preach a "God" different from that, a "salvation" different from that, it is not arrogance, and it is not cruel, if we say that it is different. That's just telling the honest truth - and that much is not meant to belong only to "us" and not to "you". Telling the honest truth about that difference is something that we ought to share.

Bytebear, I didn't condemn anything that I recall. I simply said that it's easier getting along with the LDS, because of certain changes. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

But, religious belief was not a factor at all in the Mormon War. Polygamy was only a part of the issue of the Utah War. It was much more about politics than religion, and although the term "theocracy" is thrown around, it wasn't that Smith's religious teachings caused much of the friction. It had more to do with land deals, immigration, and voting blocs. Sure, the disidents and the Nauvoo Expositor gave an excuse to get Smith, but that wasn't why Smith was arrested or killed. He wasn't killed by jealous husbands. So your assessment of his character is really not founded in truth. But putting that asside, Cnristians have an easy out on issues within their own "group". the Christian group isn't actually conheisive like Mormons, so you can condemn evil Popes as not being part of your Christianity, even before the protestantant break, and the inquisition and holy wars are either justified or condemened as "those people" not "my people". And the evils of evangelical ministers are pushed asside as an individual's act, and not the act of the body of Christ, even though such actions are done in the name of Christ. So you have an easy out, whereas Mormons are condemned by every statement by every leader in their history. If I were to quote some bizarre statement by a pope, or even brought up issues like the excommunication of scientists for defying the prevailing belief that the Earth is the center of the universe, I would be reverted immediately for bias POV. So why the double standard? I say, because you have an easy way out, and 1000 plus years of the past to distance yourself from such issues. Those excommunicating popes were just ignorant of the times, but Smith and Young should have knowm better. I suspect in 400 plus years, Mormonism will smooth over the rough spots as well, but the anti-Mormon's will try to keep those wrinkles in place as best they can. Bytebear 06:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bytebear, if this is what you mean by an "historical approach", I hope it's evident to you that this doesn't make any sense for a Wikipedia article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you quoted the Catholic catechism and interpreted it to say that the Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life, the heart and soul of Christianity. You have said repeatedly that rejection of the Trinity doctrine is what makes LDS not 'Christians'. This is what I meant by "perfect" understanding of God, it was the only way I could think of to express the difference between MC and LDS that I thought you were driving at. 74s181 06:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not what the words '"perfect" understanding' mean. The heart and soul of Christianity, is to be reconciled to the Father, to be sanctified in the knowledge of him in Christ, by the Holy Spirit. Yes, indeed, the Holy Trinity is what Christianity is about. But, we don't claim to understand God.

You accuse me of saying "repeatedly" that the LDS are not "Christians". I may hold this view; or I may not; or I may go back and forth on the issue - you cannot know, if I do not say; and I have firmly resolved not to say. One way or another, you have earnestly fought to get me to make some final pronouncement on the issue. If you managed to trick me into it, when was it?

Obviously, if you say that you believe in Christ, I do not want you to now doubt Christ; rather I hope that you will grow in faith. If you say that you know God, I don't want you to reject what you indeed know; rather, I hope that you grow in knowledge. But if there is to be an article on "Mormonism and Christianity", it is merely a point of information that Mormonism is both like and different from what is ordinarily meant by Christianity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, didn't you say "...you are not part of us?" 74s181 16:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I now see that trying to find the "heart and soul" of mainstream Christianity is, in fact "the question", I apologize again. But, what then do we compare? 74s181 16:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

74s181, our "common ground" is in things that are the same, between us. The Bible is the same (at least, the KJV is the same) so that for example, our different beliefs are put in the same words, the time-line of the life of Jesus (things said, to whom, when) is very nearly the same, and our understanding of the second table of the Law is very closely comparable. Besides this, of course, we are alike human, and regardless of what we think we have the actual reality in common. But, the LDS message says in countless ways, that "mainstream" Christianity and Mormonism are two different things. There is common ground between the two, but it is not in what we believe. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

74s181, yes, although this is not the only difference, it is obviously important. I appreciate your efforts to find an issue of difference that we can compare, that you want to allow the LDS and MC to explain their own views on their own terms, and to compare and explain. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you said "That is not what the words '"perfect" understanding' mean." What I meant by "perfect understanding of the nature of God" was that the 'mystery' aspect is part of the perfect understanding. That is, the MC have this formal definition of God and Jesus Christ, part of that definition is the mystery, and any attempt to explain or explore the mystery is a violation of the 'perfect' understanding, i.e., would be NOT the Trinity, therefore, heresy, therefore, something other than Christianity or IOW, not part of Christ's true church. Does that sound right? 74s181 02:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about it a bit more and I don't think that exploring this difference is "the question", so I'm going to try again. Mark, just so we're clear I'm not asking what you believe. I'm asking you what you think many or most MC churches teach or believe. We would need a WP:RS to put this in the article, but I'm trying (again) to find out if there is something here worth researching and talking about. 74s181 02:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Do many or most MC churches teach or believe that belief in the Trinitarian doctrine is the heart and soul of Christianity? I know it is important to MC, but I think you were saying it is most important, the defining attribute of MC. Did I understand that correctly? 74s181 02:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would think that this question would be answered by the fact that "mainstream" Christianity is defined. How does Roman Catholicism most prominently define itself? What is the "Orthodoxy" by which Eastern Orthodoxy represents itself? What distinguishes "traditional Protestantism" from offshoots like the Jehovah's Witnesses? What are the "Ecumenical Creeds" - what do they concern? What is issue of concern in the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedon Creed? All of these have the same answer - that beginning with baptism, there is thrust before the attention of Christians, the name into which we are baptized, the name of our salvation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The creeds work, ut using the words for baptism does not; LDS baptize as follows, "Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". This is a similar problem with TCC comments above; as soon as scripture is used the position begins to fail because LDS use the same scripture(s). The position is more clearly defined when creeds are used. Of course, the LDS position is that the creeds were created by the councils of men and are the doctrines of men; the time of their creation or observance is meaningless. If time equated with "truth" then we would all still observe the Law of Moses.

It is without doubt that there are differences between LDS doctrine and the doctrines of other Christian churches; however, to define Christian by forth century standards results only in a contrived definition to meet specific goals. I think that most LDS would accept the definition if at least Christians were honest about the fact that it has nothing to do with being a follower of Christ or a definition that Jesus, Peter, Paul or any other of the early apostles would recognize. This is always perplexes LDS; for us it is easy to say what would Jesus say or do and try to do that. Mark and TCC, do you really think that Jesus would recognize this position that MC churches take about defining a Christian or a follower of Jesus? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But that would be dishonest, Storm Rider. Because, quite apart from any arguments with Mormons or anyone else, we seek to know and to live in the salvation into which we have been baptized. So, on the assumption that you're asking for information and not just setting up another argument: we received our doctrine from Christ; and that is why we follow it. We have clung to him who defended us; and that is why we have kept our defense. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"...LDS baptize as follows..." Yes, Storm Rider, we're using the same words, but as Mark repeatedly has said we mean something different. I've seen baptisms performed where the officiator left out 'and of' or just 'of', that is, he said "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" and had to repeat the baptism, because without all three of the the 'of' it isn't correct. In fact, it sounds like the Trinitarian formulation. Yes, I agree with you that from the LDS perspective we mean to do the same thing for the same reason even with all three of the 'of', in the sense that the baptism is about Jesus Christ. But Mark, representing the MC in this discussion, insists that LDS mean something different than what MC mean when they do the same thing with almost exactly the same words. And in fact, we do mean something different, and while that difference isn't the most important thing to LDS, it is the most important thing from the MC perspective. 74s181 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to participate in the debate, I'm not trying to come up with an objective definition based on the Bible (that would be "the question"), but I am trying to understand the debate so I can better describe it. LDS have a view of what makes someone a Christian or not, so do MC. There is a major disconnect between the two groups. I'm trying to understand it, but it is a forest / trees thing, it is so fundamental to both sides that it is hard to step back and 'see' it and talk about it. But I think I'm finally getting it, maybe I'm just dense and the other LDS editors have gotten 'it' for a long time, but I don't think so. 74s181 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you do not want to debate. The discussion will move along only if debate is avoided. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So, Mark, assuming my explanation above is close, at least as close as it is possible for a non-MC to get in understanding the MC position, I now want to take a chance and restate what the MC position looks like from the perspective of LDS. I apologize in advance, I know that even if I have understood what you have been trying to say it will be very difficult for me to explain it from an LDS perspective without sounding like a slap in the face. I will try hard to not be offensive, but knowing how your statements appear to me and the other LDS editors, I have to assume that no matter how careful I am, my statements will probably be just as offensive to you. Please try to understand that I am trying to understand as best as I can, and that offering a statement like this is the only way I can test my understanding. 74s181 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

MC have a formal definition of God, a statement about the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This formal definition is so fundamental, so essential to being a Christian, that from the MC perspective, anyone who believes something different about God or Jesus Christ is worshiping a 'different' God or Jesus Christ, and therefore, is not a Christian. MC consider the proper understanding of God to be so important that they believe that any person or church that teaches a different understanding of God is doing more harm than good, regardless of whatever other truths or virtues they may teach. 74s181 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You misrepresent the view, when you continue to think that it's a "formal definition" that we believe in. The "formal definition" is only a symbol of what we believe in. We believe in the Father - not an exalted being like ourselves, but in him who from everlasting to everlasting is God. We believe in Jesus Christ the eternal word of the eternal God, the uncreated wisdom of the uncreated God, the revelation of the nature of God, the pure expression of his very being and the manifestation of his purposes, who is incarnate for us and for our salvation by the Holy Spirit. We believe that the Spirit of God is not a breath from without to give God life, goodness, holiness, and power - but is the very goodness of God from God, who given to us creates within us a likeness of God's pure Word, the Son, and conforms our hearts and minds to his image. This is the holy faith of the church, which the enemy continually seeks to overwhelm by the flood that proceeds from his mouth. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

LDS teach many things about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that are similar to what MC teach, but they also teach things that are incompatible with the formal MC definition. But LDS don't think that a perfect understanding of what the prophets (past and present) have taught about the nature of God is what makes someone a Christian. Rather, LDS emphasize the 'Good news' and the importance of living a Christ-like life, and of trying to follow the example and commandments of the Savior. If someone who is not LDS claims to be trying to follow the Savior, LDS will happily accept them as brother Christians and try to teach them more about Jesus Christ and His gospel as LDS understand it. 74s181 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What I find "similar" in what they teach, rests on the fact that man is made in the image of God: being believed to be a man, the Father as you understand him is like the God in whom we believe. But in that you speak of a man, you do not speak of the God in whom we believe, but of a likeness to him. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

LDS teach certain doctrines about the nature of God, some of these doctrines are considered to be more important than others, such as the doctrine that God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son are physically separate beings with bodies of flesh and bone. However, LDS believe that an understanding of the 'mysteries' of God is something very personal and sacred that grows in each individual over a period of time. While certain specific doctrines taught by ancient and modern prophets are taught in LDS classrooms, public discussion about 'mysteries', or, in other words, speculation about things that are not doctrine is discouraged. 74s181 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think? Is what I've said more or less correct? Because if it is, I think we have some major work to do on the article. The lead is pretty close to focusing on this idea, but the body of the article does not. 74s181 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What matters is the revelation of God in Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures, as taught in the churches from the beginning, by the Holy Spirit. The creeds churches defend this revelation, by their creeds. It makes the LDS sound either ignorant or argumentative, to have them saying "LDS don't think that a perfect understanding ... is what makes someone a Christian."

But, it's hard for me to believe that it means so little to you to know who God is, when the Scriptures make quite a big deal out of that. I think you're over-stating the issue for rhetorical purposes when you say it's a "personal" and "sacred" matter, as though we were talking about your underwear. If your idea of who God is were so insignificant as that, you would drop it and embrace what the churches have taught from the beginning. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would say the opposite is true. Mormons try not to offend, so they say, "it doesn't matter what your belief in God is to be a Christian", and that may be true, but what they mean to say but will not for fear of being offensive, is "We know what God is like, and you don't, but we will accept you as Christians because you are blinded by a faith in a man made creed that defines God incorrectly." Mormons claim to know God from the First Vision and subsiquent revelations trhough Joseph Smith. They claim those revelations are not incompatable with the Bible. MC has their creeds which they claim are not only compatable with the Bible but ARE what the bible teaches. Both sides "know" what God is like, and both sides are incompatable, so it becomes either a compromise in saying "we accept you anyway" (the LDS position, and some MC), or "we reject you and you are not welcome" (the majority of MC thought). So, Mark, do not misunderstand, you are right to say "it's hard for me to believe that it means so little to you to know who God is" because it is crucial to salvation, but Mormons are not prepared to condemn all of mankind to hell just yet. So they are giving you a pass, as it were. Final judgement will come from God. Bytebear 18:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mormons place great importance in having a personal relationship with God. Unlike many MC, we not only pray to God, but we expect an answer. Sometimes the answer is expressed as a feeling, sometimes by actual words, sometimes by another person. Each person is expected to recognize these promptings of the Spirit.

So, in answer to your above question, it isn't that Mormons don't think that knowing who God is unimportant - quite the opposite. However, we think it is more important that people develop that relationship than they understand the actual nature of God.

I think a good analogy would be that each of us have formed relationships with other Wikipedia editors. Some we feel we know fairly well, or at least we understand what they think and feel about certain topics. However, few of us know what color hair they have, how tall they are, or any of the other characteristics that most people think of when asked what somebody is like. Mormons believe they know God because of the interaction they have had with God. They are less concerned about what most creeds address, and they are generally unconcerned about what 74 refers to as "the mysteries." -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 18:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Bytebear, that is the honest answer. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

wrp103 (Bill Pringle), Aaron made a golden calf, and he said to Israel, "This is your elohim O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt!" Because this is condemned, we would understand this to mean that, what God reveals concerning himself is a matter alongside and equal to what he has done. "I bow down toward your holy temple and give thanks to your name for your steadfast love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word."

The prayer of our Lord is "I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me." - therefore, we conclude that concern for the one-ness of God is necessary to both, our wholeness and our witness.

It is concerning this, that Paul wrote, "Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith ...". Our whole obedience is bound up in declaring the mystery of God. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I think you may have misunderstood the LDS position; what we believe is of ultimate value is to have faith that Jesus Christ is the Savior, the Messiah. It is not that we do not value truth or the knowledge of God. As I have said above as Light comes into one's life, more Light is added to that person. The context of this discussion was what is the most fundaemental truth or concept. For LDS it is the knowledgeof the Son of God, that He lived, sacrificed His life, and rose again. For LDS that is the elemental step in being a Christian; with those beliefs it is impossible to deny Christian brotherhood. When you bypass that step and require that one must also believe in the Trinity as a prerequisite for Christianity to exist you have moved beyond Christ.

Bart D. Ehrman and L. Michael White, among many other historian, have done an excellent job of proving that during the first several hundred years of Christianity there was not "one" church or "one" Christianity. At most one can say there was a proto-orthodoxy, but even it can not be equated to the orthodoxy that developed in the 4th century. This is historical fact that conflicts with personal beliefs, but the facts still remain. This requirement of belief in the Trinity was and is a requirement that has nothing to do with Jesus Christ or being His disciple and everything to do with the church of the 4th century. To believe in the Trinity is to be in an acceptable communion with that church, but that church is not the sum total of Christianity. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that 74s181 misrepresented the LDS view, by making it seem as though it doesn't matter what you mean by "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" - as though there were not a specific LDS view on the matter. I think I've now been told that I am correct. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"What matters is the revelation of God in Jesus Christ..." Mark, rather than answer my question it sounds like you're quoting something, but I think you're agreeing in concept, even if you disagree with my wording. I'm not trying to threaten or criticize, I'm trying to understand. I warned you that my words about MC belief might seem offensive. In case you didn't know, your words about LDS belief are almost always offensive to LDS, but now I understand that it is not your intent but rather the fundamental difference in our perspective that makes it seem offensive. 74s181 19:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Agree" with what concept? Anyway, you're the guys who are always talking about being offended. I didn't say it was "offensive" - I said that you make the LDS sound ignorant of what the MC teach, or as though they're obstinately refusing to understand. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mystery - just to clarify what I meant by 'mystery' from the LDS perspective. There have been times on this talk page where I have shared ideas about 'mysteries' and have been gently chastised by Storm Rider or other LDS editors. These things are not considered important. Belief that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate beings with physical bodies is important, but I don't think it is important enough to keep someone from being baptised. If you believe in God the Father, in his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost, and if you accept Jesus Christ as savior and redeemer of all mankind, I think that is all you need to know about the nature of God to get baptised, for that matter it is enough knowledge about the nature of God to get a temple recommend. 74s181 19:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that the LDS does not have a doctrine of God ... that the faith that you are instructed in may or may not be Trinitarianism, it doesn't really matter? I do not believe that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"...it's hard for me to believe that it means so little to you to know who God is..." As others have said, it matters very much to LDS 'who' God is. On the other hand, what matters less but what MC always seem to focus on when talking about LDS belief is 'what' God is. Does that make sense? 74s181 19:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What makes sense is that you do not believe that the catholic doctrine of God is true. You are unpersuaded of its age or widespreadedness, you don't believe that it can be defended from history, from tradition, or from Scripture alone. And this unbelief in that doctrine is your doctrine. That's all you've been saying, but you take a long time to say it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"...historian(s) have done an excellent job of proving..." Let's put the debate aside for a bit. Mark and other MC believe that the Trinity doctrine is a only a clear statement of what has been taught since the begining. On the other hand, LDS believe that Jesus Christ and the writers of the New Testament taught something different than the Trinity doctrine, and that LDS today teach what Jesus Christ and the early apostles taught. MC believe LDS are wrong, LDS believe MC are wrong. Let's agree on that for now and move on to trying to understand the prominence of the Trinity doctrine in MC faith, and let's try to find the doctrine of similar prominence in the LDS faith. 74s181 19:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, 74s181. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"...74s181 misrepresented the LDS view..." If so, it was unintentional. It matters what we mean when we say "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that is why the 'of' is important. However, we don't define a person's Christianity, LDS or not, by their definition of the relationship between the Father and the Son, or by their belief in 'one-ness' or 'three-ness'. 74s181 03:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If so, then drop your definition of the Father as an exalted man. Drop your definition of the Son as another god. Drop your definition of the Spirit as the means by which the Father is omnipresent. If these are obstacles to your unity with other Christians, and they are not important to you, then let them go. Otherwise, stop saying that "definitions" are important to us and not to you, and try to encourage other LDS to stop mocking the catholic faith. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't drop these doctrines because I know that they are true. However, I realize that these doctrines are not the most important or first doctrines that one needs to learn on the journey towards salvation. But it seems that MC think that the Trinitarian doctrine is one of the first and most important doctrines to learn, don't some MC churches teach young children to memorize the Trinitarian formula? LDS teach their children to memorize the Articles of Faith (Latter Day Saints), the first one says "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." That's all, no mystery, no 'three-in-one'. 74s181 05:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No. We baptize them in the name. We train them in what it means. Most of us baptize children - so you're certainly not talking about us, when you speak of "perfect understanding". If you can't drop these doctrines, then it is not true that "that's all". It matters to you what is meant - and what it means concerns things that you do not explain because you can't explain them. The idea that we should not believe in God because "three-in-one" is too much, sounds awfully strange coming from the LDS. What are you trying to compare, when you take this approach? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 09:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"...you make the LDS sound ignorant of what the MC teach, or as though they're obstinately refusing to understand." I'm still not sure I understand what you're saying. At one point it seems like you're saying that acceptance of the Trinitarian statement on the nature of God is the definition of Christian. This makes sense, I've heard other MC say things that support this. Then you say "The "formal definition" is only a symbol of what we believe in." I read the words you wrote after this, if you left out the explicit rejection of the 'exalted man' doctrine most LDS would have no problem with it. Some might question your use of 'uncreated', but really, the LDS doctrine you seem to be focusing on is NOT the core of LDS belief, I don't think it is even taught as part of the curriculum. It is true, but it isn't 'core' or 'defining', except to those who seek reasons to criticize LDS. In fact, I have known faithful members of the church who were uncomfortable with some of the doctrines taught in the King Follett discourse. Interestingly, your description said nothing about 'one-ness' or 'three-ness'. 74s181 03:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is that interesting? I am talking about meaning, and you are focusing on mere empty words apart from their meaning - even going so far as to say that you "would have no problem" with what I'm saying, unless I use certain words.

Therefore, we must supply more words in order to make clear that we do not mean the same thing - which you already knew. We worship a single spirit in three persons, and three persons which are one spirit: God. If we speak of the Father, we mean the Father in whom is the Son and from whom is the Spirit: distinct and yet without seam. We mean the Son in whom is the Father, who sends the Spirit of Christ from the Father and not separate from him, for our salvation. We mean the Spirit, who is the Temple of God, the Father's house, infinite, eternal and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. We address no person of God without addressing the fullness of God, the Father, the Son and the Spirit. We address no threeness of God, that does not contain each in Himself Father, Son and Spirit. We know no Father who once had no Son or to whom the Spirit is an external power: except our own fathers, men who are made in the likeness of God and are made in need of Him. We do not have three Lords, but one Lord; not three Gods, but one God. This is the greatest commmandment, so that our hearts will be simple and undivided and undoubting: "The Lord Your God is ONE" God, our God, is ONE Lord. "And you shall love the Lord your God with ALL of your heart, with ALL of your soul, with ALL of your mind, with ALL of your strength"; and the second commandment is an image of the first. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"...love your neighbor as yourself," you left that part off, I think it is kind of important.

If you know what I mean, without me saying, it's the same as if I had said it; just as, if you change what I mean, regardless of what I say, it's the same as if I had said nothing. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If I wanted to engage in the debate I would ask, "where is the resurrected Jesus Christ in this explanation?". But I'm trying to understand the debate, not engage in it, so I'll say, yes, I understood that you meant the Trinitarian formula. I think your original and follow up statements are interesting for two reasons. First, the contrast between your initial presentation of the catechism enthroning the Trinity doctrine and your later statements refering to the Trinity formula as "...mere empty words...", and second, because your commentary on the Trinitarian formula is so 'heavy', it reads like a textbook commentary on a Bible verse rather than a personal interpretation of an important doctrine. 74s181 05:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If I tell you what we say - you read into it meaning that isn't there, as though the words were empty of meaning. If I tell you what we mean, you complain that what I've said is too full of meaning. That's not helpful — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Final judgement will come from God." I agree with what Bytebear said. Ultimately, Christ will decide who is a true Christian and who is not. LDS believe that Christ taught "Judge not, lest ye be judged", if someone says they are trying to be a Christian we assume good faith. LDS do, however, believe that all must belong to Christ's true church, and here is another difference, LDS believe that the church that Jesus Christ established is a formal organization, not just an association of like-minded believers, and that all who will be saved must formally join the organization thru baptism performed by one who has authority from Jesus Christ to do so. LDS are committed to provide that opportunity to all, living and dead, and that is a core doctrine. From what I've heard here and elsewhere, MC believe that baptism is optional, and that it doesn't matter which church organization you affiliate with, as long as you believe... what? "...the revelation of God in Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures, as taught in the churches from the beginning, by the Holy Spirit"? Well, that's what LDS claim to believe. So I guess we're left with the Trinity or ? 74s181 03:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Let the "mainstream" Christians say what they teach for their own doctrine, without taking everything they say as though it were about Mormonism - because, obviously, it is not. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for LDS and MC. Let the LDS say what they teach for their own doctrine, and what is important to them, stop trying to thrash them with doctrines that, while true, are rarely taught. Mark, when you quoted the statements from the catechism I thought you were saying that the Trinity is the most important thing to MC, I thought you were saying that the LDS rejection of the Trinitarian formula was why MC say LDS are not Christians. I thought we might be able to identify and present a parallel LDS view. But clearly the Trinity is not it for MC. Or, maybe the Trinity is like the Trinity, it is, and it isn't, it's a mystery. Either way I guess this discussion was fruitless. Sorry for wasting your time. 74s181 06:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for letting the LDS say what they teach - I'm all for helping you to say it so that it can be understood by people who don't agree with you. That's what I want for both parties - and I think that at times in the past we've accomplished this. But this time around, what we believe is perceived as a comment about what you believe. And, underneath it all, cluttering things up, is your issue of whether LDS are Christians. That's what I perceive you asking after, over and over. And evidently that's what others perceive as well - because I am getting reactions as though that's the question I've answered. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 09:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I will try again. Short and to the point, assume that the statements below represent my current understanding and I'm looking for correction. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the Trinity doctrine, the Trinitarian formula, and the various MC commentary about the Trinity were all written long before 1820 and are therefore not 'about' LDS. However, it seems that rejection of the Trinitarian formula is the most offensive thing about LDS belief to other Christians, or IOW, MC. It may be that the most offensive thing to LDS about MC is the MC refusal to accept LDS as Christians. Maybe that is useful. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Even though MC belong to many different organizations that teach slightly different doctrines, they are all more or less unified on the formal definition of the relationship between God and Jesus Christ known as the Trinity doctrine or Trinitarian formula, and accept all who teach this doctrine as Christians. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
2. MC believe that the Trinity doctrine is a formal statement of a doctrine that was taught by Jesus Christ and his original apostles. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
3. LDS believe that the Trinity doctrine is a doctrine of man, and that the Trinitarian formula is not a correct statement of the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ and his original apostles. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
4. MC believe that anyone who teaches a definition of God or Jesus Christ that is different from the Trinity is worshiping a different God, or a different Christ, and is therefore not a member of Christ's church and is not Christian. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
5. LDS teach that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two separate beings with physical bodies, and acknowledge that their understanding of God and Jesus Christ is different than the Trinity doctrine. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
6. MC believe that Jehovah's Witnesses and LDS are two groups that teach a misunderstanding of Christ. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Some MC organizations require study or memorization of the Trinitarian formula as part of the process of joining the organization. Some others require only acceptance or acknowledgement of the doctrine. All consider the doctrine to be fundamental, and teach it early in the process. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
8. LDS believe that at the begining of our journey it is enough to understand that "God so loved the world...", that we must pray to God in the name of the Son, and that we receive answers to our prayers and other light and truth through the Holy Ghost. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
9. LDS believe that at the end of our journey a correct understanding of the nature of God will be essential, but also believe that we will learn more about both 'who' and 'what' God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are as we travel along the path, both here in mortality and later in our post-mortal existence. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Most MC believe that being a Christian, belonging to Christ's church, and believing in the Trinity doctrine are more or less synonymous. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
11. LDS believe that one can be a Christian without belonging to Christ's church, and without accepting the LDS doctrines about God. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Some MC believe that baptism is essential to salvation, others believe that it is important or useful as a symbol or demonstration of faith but not essential. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
13. LDS believe that baptism is essential because it is the method by which one formally joins Christ's church. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Most MC accept baptisms performed by other MC. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
15. LDS only accept baptisms properly performed by LDS. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to put these in some kind of logical progression, but the main thing is, here are some statements of difference / comparison. Do you agree that the statements are correct? If not, which ones are wrong, and how could they be restated to be more correct. Or, am I so far off that what I've done here is a complete waste of time. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would add 14.5 - Most (Some?) MC do not accept baptisms by LDS. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 14:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Leave our doctrine alone. You neither believe it nor understand it. Stick with your own. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason this approach wastes my time, 74s181, is because it's only driving at one thing. Your agenda is to write an article that discusses how the LDS are not regarded as Christians, and why. Read the list: are you really unable to see that? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's try it this way:

1. Most catholic churches baptize their children using children; all use the Trinitarian formula according to words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19.
2. Churches that do not practice child-baptism have some form of brief catechization for adult candidates for baptism, using for example, the Apostles Creed, which affirms faith in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the catholic church and the communion of saints; or some similar brief statement of faith in Jesus according to the Scriptures is used.
3. The creeds of the traditional churches use language that is not in Scripture, in order to distinguish the Biblical faith traditional faith of Scripture, from those who from the Bible traditional Scripture have derived a doctrine of God that differs from the catholic faith into which they are baptized. baptized, and other rejected teachings that have spread abroad in the churches.
4. The catechisms and/or liturgy of the orthodox churches instruct in the understanding of the profession of faith, and inculcate that understanding through preaching and the rites of the church (chiefly, communion, but typically also other sacraments) - unto the obedience of that faith into which they baptize.
5. Churches that practice the baptism of children typically also recognize baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. An exceptional example of this is the Episcopal church, which since the first encounters with Mormons in the Utah territory has accepted converts from Mormonism without requiring re-baptism, although it is recognized that Mormons intend to instruct in a different doctrine of God, by the name into which they baptize. Most traditional churches do not recognize Mormon baptism.

Can you make a comparable list? Can you, in your list, put the relationship to the "mainstream" Christians in perspective and balance? If your practice is explained by criticism of the churches, then put it where it belongs. If it is foundational, then put it there. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I am sorry you were offended by my list, but it doesn't matter, you provided what I was looking for. Some of your statements still have a flavor of trying to 'prove' something but I'm sure that the statements I wrote are just as guilty from your perspective. 74s181 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If by "offended" you mean, I think your list is useless, then let's just stop making useless lists mocking and distorting one anothers' beliefs.

I don't know what you're talking about, when you speak of having the "flavor" of trying to 'prove' something. You are simply, flatly, and unequivocally mistaken. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond in more detail, but I will say for now that although understanding why MC don't consider LDS to be Christians is important to me personally, my goal for the article has been to understand more about how MC view and use the Trinity doctrine since it seems to be very important to MC, and then to try to organize a more or less parallel set of statements about LDS doctrinal priorities, belief and practice.

One quick question, when you use the word 'catholic' with a small c, I assume you mean 'universal' and you don't mean specifically Roman Catholic (capital C), is that right? 74s181 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If understanding is your goal, then can we now pursue your goal? "catholic" in that case is not necessarily the Roman Catholic Church, except perhaps to Roman Catholics. Although this concept gets blurry in Protestantism because of divisions, "Christianity" is discussed as though it were a philosophy, but to Christians it is a people, the church. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

One more. Are any of the statements I made about MC belief correct? Specifically, my statements #2, 4, and 10, I really tried to construct these based on statements that you have made. I thought they were accurate and non-judgemental. Also, part of the article title is 'Christianity', the topic of 'Christianity' is going to come up in some form, I'm trying to do it in a way that will be positive and educational. 74s181 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Every statement you made is nothing except your own view of what we teach. Every statement you made is nothing but an argument, couched in your unbelief in what you are describing. And as far as my comments are concerned, you purposely falsified what I've said, by placing comments I've made in the context of a question that I have told you repeatedly I will not answer. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We're going to have to talk more about the phrase "...faith into which they are baptized." I feel like there is some meaning assigned to the phrase beyond what the words say. 74s181 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If the words "mean" something to you "beyond" what they "say", then you are simply misunderstanding the words. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the caliber of conversation that is wholly unprofitable. Mark, you seem to be fully capable of stating what LDS believe, but deny any LDS from doing the same thing about orthodoxy. I don't think you even realize how incredibly condescending you are. During the past I have tried to ignore what you say and simply add my comments; I have tried confronting you by using your own style of writing which is offensive; and I have even tried just not editing, but nothing works. Making logical deductions from stated beliefs is appropriate on this page and yet you sense anything that may put a negative light on orthodoxy is unacceptable, but you have no problems doing exactly that for LDS doctrines.

The LDS movement professes to be Christian and yet most of Christianity denies that claim. It is obviously a significant issue. It is also just as important to understand the premise for the claims of both sides. Though too much time has been spent on trying to understand personal views, what is needed are referenced statements from individual churches in the article.

What I seek for this article is to discuss what is both in common and what is different in the beliefs, doctrines, and cultures of LDS and other Christian groups. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in stating what the LDS believe: that's what I want you to do - so do it, and stop focusing on me. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested primarily in logical deductions, then state them for yourself. As for the mainstream view, our doctrine is the explanation of our belief concerning what Christianity is. Let us state it, in our own terms, for our own purposes. If under those terms you feel unfairly excluded then say, "Mormons feel that the mainstream Christian understanding is unjustifiably exclusive". But speak for yourself. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

But read any exchange above, and understand this: "why Mormons think they are Christians, and why non-Mormon Christians think they are not" is not a discussion of doctrine, but of the implications of doctrine. Because the implications offend, this kind of discussion cannot produce any profitable collaboration - this is a fact demonstrated by years of working on this topic. It is a fact acknowledged by both, LDS and other collaborators.

There is no doctrine concerning "what Mormonism is not". If this is what we discuss, then there will be no clarification of what the doctrine positively is, and we will be stuck unprofitably talking about hurt feelings, and boasting. But it may be possible, if we do discuss positively what the other view is, that we will be able to understand the implications and to express them informatively, instead of provocatively. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore, to do that in any meaningful way, we must acknowledge real sameness where it exists, comparability where it exists, and real difference regardless of superficial similarity, where that exists. Anything else would be collaboration in a lie. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I'm still trying to follow up on the discussion you started in [is not debate]. After quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church you said:

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

"But surely you can admit that this is not the central issue of Mormonism." You are correct in two ways:

a) Mormons don't accept the Trinitarian definition of the nature of God. 74s181 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

b) The equivalent Mormon doctrine about the nature of God is not central or at the root of LDS belief. 74s181 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

However, God, even the trinity (little t) IS at the root of LDS belief. See LDS Articles of Faith, probably the closest thing that LDS have to a catechism, first article:

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

Mark, you have often said that LDS use the same words but mean something different. This is literally true, but I think you are focusing on something that LDS don't focus on. 74s181 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously that is right, 74s181. Therefore, you must allow us to explain to you how and why this is important. In order to be assured that you are hearing what we are saying, it makes no sense to tell us your reaction to it. You must say what we say, the way we say it, when you represent our beliefs to us. If you do not, you cannot convince us that you have heard what we have said and you give the appearance of refusing to understand. Do not empty the contents of your wheel-barrow into ours: this does not fill up understanding of what we mean; instead, it is only substituting your meaning for ours. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For example, I attended a baptismal service of TCoJCoLdS last night. Because I had been participating in this discussion, I paid particular attention to how the speakers presented certain topics. Baptism, confirmation, God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost were all discussed. If you read a transcript with all references to the name of the church removed, I suspect you might have thought it to be the baptismal service of a Protestant church you were unfamiliar with. 74s181 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that this is true, 74s181. Speaking for myself and my own approach to this issue, I want to escape the trap of anti-Mormonism, and point out how from our own perspective the LDS has richly benefitted from the proclamation of the Gospel. If by teaching "you shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor" we were to discover that those who do not believe in God nevertheless are chastened, so that they hate covetousness, why do we complain about that? To do so seems covetous, does it not? So, if you say that you are like us, and you mean by this that this is a good thing, I cannot see any merit in complaining about this even if you do not believe that it is because of us that this likeness has appeared. The rub comes in saying that you are the same as us, one of us: this is no more true than the atheist who hates covetousness were to say that he is one of us - for this is covetousness. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Present at the baptism were children of various ages and younger adults, no teenagers. I was the oldest person present. When the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" were said, I feel fairly confident that I was the only person in the room that had any thoughts relating to the unique LDS doctrines of the Godhead that are so offensive to MC, and the only reason I was thinking about those doctrines was because I had been thinking about this conversation earlier in the day. Most of the adults in the room were endowed members, they would be familiar with these doctrines. The young children would know that God is our Heavenly Father, the older children would know that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are physically separate beings but they wouldn't understand the significance of that belief. In fact, I suspect that most of the people in attendance would be thinking many of the same thoughts that MC would think at one of their baptisms. I've never attended one so I can't say for sure. Maybe the specific Trinitarian doctrines on the nature of God would be emphasized? If so, that would be different. 74s181 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That God is as God has been revealed would be understood throughout, even if it is not "emphasized". This is the very core of believing in Jesus Christ, the Word of Father, the Son of Man. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is this. There is much that is similar, but from the perspective of this LDS it seems that when talking about LDS belief, MC express much more emotion (anger? it seems so) about the LDS doctrines concerning the nature of God than LDS do when talking about MC belief in the Trinity doctrine. On the other hand, the thing that seems to anger LDS about MC is their insistence that LDS are not Christians. That is why your statements about the importance of the Trinity doctrine caught my attention, that is why I have been pursuing this angle. I really think that the Trinity doctrine is key in understanding the feelings that MC have about LDS, and vice versa. 74s181 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are trying to understand, then why do you ignore what I say? When you say "belief in the the Trinity doctrine", this is ignoring what I say. You substitute your meaning for what you know that I have said: which is ignoring what I say. When you say "MC ... insistence that LDS are not Christians", this is ignoring what I say. You want to discuss "feelings", which would seem to be very difficult to talk about at all, if we do not understand one another - your persistence in this, despite its obvious unfruitfulness, is ignoring what I say. You repeat distortions, you give indication that you are ignoring me, and yet you reassure me that you are working with me. You are miring our discussion in what you yourself have called a "personal" obsession, with a question that cannot function as the basis of our work together. This makes me angry. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, maybe it really is symetrical, maybe what makes MC angry is LDS insistence that they are Christians, and what makes LDS angry is MC insistence that LDS are not Christians. 74s181 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, the cause of anger is the appearance of flattery and deceit. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that I am trying to deceive you, and I am certainly not trying to flatter you. I can only guess what you mean by "flattery and deceit". 74s181 16:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Maybe 'deceit' is when I or other LDS say that a particular doctrine isn't the most important or 'core' doctrine to us but you think that it really is? 74s181 16:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Maybe 'flattery' is when I or other LDS say that we accept MC as Christians but you think that we really don't? 74s181 16:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Maybe because you think we belong to the church of Satan then everything that comes out of our mouths or fingers is automatically "flattery and deceit"? This isn't a rhetorical question, I've met and tried to talk to people who feel this way, it is impossible to have any kind of religious discussion with them because, by definition, everything I say must be wrong, even if some of it sounds like something they already believe. Maybe that is the problem here? 74s181 16:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Or something else? What, specifically, do you think is "flatter and deceit" in my recent comments? 74s181 16:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I said, "the appearance of flattery and deceit". Unless you want to discuss accusations that I want to presume untrue, I don't think it's safe to pursue this very far. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is safe with you, Mark. I have once again learned that I really don't understand you, and now I believe that you don't want me to understand you. You insist that I must repeat back to you the words that you use to describe your belief, verbatim. Such a repetition proves nothing more than that I can use cut and paste. It doesn't tell me if I have understood anything. The fundamental requirement of understanding is that A explains to B, B explains back to A in his own words, and A either says, yes, that's right, or says, no, you've misunderstood in this particular way, then the process repeats. If you say that such a dialog is off-limits then you are saying that you don't want to be understood, or you don't care if you're understood, or that you don't understand the process of information sharing. Either way, I'm done. Goodbye. 74s181 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. You must repeat back to us, in our own meaning, what we have said: not your meaning read into what we've said, otherwise I am sure that you are not "hearing" you are only "arguing". You have done this in the past; and in doing so, you were much more productive than the average LDS collaborator. You are not doing this now. Goodbye. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, why on earth make the accusation if you are not going to explain yourself? If you don't want to talk about it, just don't say anything. This is puzzling bahavior. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth turn into an accusation what I haven't said? And why are we always talking about me, with you? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussing implications

It may be possible to describe comparable beliefs, give the LDS view, give the MC view, and then discuss the implications for the relationship given these similarities and difference under a separate sub-heading. I would like to see some example of that model actually working, before splattering graffiti all over the article - but as Storm Rider says, and as 74 has always insisted, what really matters to the LDS, and always has been in these discussions, is the effect created between the two communities. Keeping in mind, however, that "impact" is a subjective matter - and this is not a symmetrical comparison - it seems to me that this has the potential of creating a lot more confusion, and I doubt its likelihood of success. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Storm Rider. I let this get deep under my skin, and I got angry. I apologize. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mark that trying to include reactions to doctrine when discussing doctrine probably won't work. At the same time, the "why don't MC consider LDS Christian" is a significant POV that (IMHO) should be covered somewhere in the article. Perhaps in the "Reactions" section, we can include something addressing this issue. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 08:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that it must address this issue. The difficulty in doing so is obvious from the fact that we have Archives full of attempts to do this, and it has not happened. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Less active.

There is only so much time in the day, and there are priorities in my life that need more time and attention right now. So, while I don't expect to be completely absent from Wikipedia, don't be surprised if days go by without any contributions from me. 74s181 14:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And, there is even less time in the day to waste trying to communicate with someone who only wants to appear to communicate. 74s181 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)