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)

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)

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)

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)