Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions about Mormonism and Nicene Christianity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Religion and politics

I'm not sure what this section contributes to the article. Mormonism has had its flirtations with theocracy, and so have many of the streams of Trinitarianism. To really compare the two, it seems as though there would have to be a much fuller picture drawn; and it would inevitably fall into disarray because of the diversity of historical situations and tremendous variety of approaches to such issues even within specific traditions.
And anyway, there are certain modern simplifications of this issue which are not at all helpful. It is common now to hear anyone derisively called a "theocrat" whose sense of duty as a citizen is informed by his religion; but in another day, anyone whose public life was unaffected by his faith would be called a hypocrite.
How can this be discussed meaningfully in such a short space? It seems to invite an essay to illuminate the subtleties, not a simple comparison and contrast; and for that reason I don't think it's appropriate for the encyclopedia or this article. Does anyone disagree? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is a call for another article, but I don't have the time or interest to do so. In the context of the article, I can't see addressing it because I don't see it fulfilling the objective. I support deleting it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I favour keeping it. The "strict policies" of non-political involvement would seem to distinguish LDS from most other Christian denominations - certainly from Catholics and North-American Evangelicalism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What and who is "North-American Evangelicalism"? How could we know if it has a "policy"? A demographic is a circle drawn around some part of the general population; that circle does not make an entity of the people described. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

North American Evangelicals are Evangelicals who live in North America. No, they are not a strictly definined group, but I think you'll agree that they don't shy away from being involved in politics. ;-) DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are some who absolutely refuse to vote, to carry arms, or to swear an oath in court. Who are these people? They are North American Evangelicals.

The portrait of Evangelicals as a vast, easily identifiable, politically orchestrated group is drawn from out of the newspapers' skewing tendency to project onto the group all the attributes of those who lead the group. When the media say "North American Evangelicalism", they mean Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, etc. The fact that such leaders have managed to organize a significant voters' block does not mean that those organized behind them are just like them. There is no sense in which these men speak for Evangelicalism in some official way, any more than they speak for Mormons in some official way. And as a matter of fact, the number of Mormons that they manage to rally to their cause is nothing to sneeze at. And just as the LDS doesn't prevent Mormons from agreeing with these leaders, so Evangelical churches don't prevent their congregants from choosing a political agenda informed by their religious convictions either. They speak concerning where their religious personal convictions intersect with public life, and a significant number agree with them: that's politics, not religion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

After waiting for comments for a week or so, nothing new has come forward on this issue; so, I'm deleting that section. There was nothing in it about the Danites, the militia, or the blood atonement controversy, the Mormon Wars with the United States, theodemocracy, American Zion, or the inspiration of the Declaration or Constitution, about state persecution of polygamists, about the National Center for Constitutional Studies or Mormons as a voting block in the US, about opposition to ERA, about Mormons in public office or in the military, about the defense of the Boy Scouts, or about anything else of historical or present controversial interest in the area of politics. If I were to guess at why it was here in the first place, it was a statement seeming intended to assure the reader that Mormons are not necessarily Republicans, as though hoping to distance them from the present popular annoyance with the political leadership of certain notable Evangelicals and the political influence of the Catholic Church. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Mark, I didn't realise you were waiting for more input. No, I think the section should stay. From the content of the section it would seem that the ban on Mormon church leaders participating in politics makes them different from the huge majority of other Christians. As you see from my comments above (despite their slightly tongue in cheek nature) most other groups make no such ban. Even if we can't define North American Evangelicals with exactitude we can see clearly that they make no ban on their leaders participating in politics (some small subsections do, but that's another story). I'm unclear on the official Catholic position, but plenty of Catholic leaders have played a role in politics. Desmond Tutu would be another good example. I can't speak for the original intention of the section. If it turns out that it is incorrect about the Mormon position then clearly it should go, but if it's correct why shouldn't it stay? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a completely false contrast. There is no such thing as Mormon clergy. Only the tiniest minority of Mormon office holders are paid - and these are the only ones that are prevented from holding public office, to avoid conflict of interest. There is nothing preventing a holder of the Mormon priesthood, even a Bishop, from holding public office. It is incorrect, because the comparison between Mormon leadership and mainstream leadership does not hold.

Besides this, it presented a gross over-simplification of the contrast. The section read like hearsay, because that's effectively all that it is. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, if that's the situation then yes, the Mormon position doesn't differ much from the mainstream position and the section can go. Most denominations frown on leaders running for office if their being paid to lead a church. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally what do you mean by "There is no such thing as Mormon clergy"? There are bishops and priests who are leaders of the church, which is pretty much the definition of clergy, isn't it? Not having paid leaders isn't the same thing - there are plenty of other denominations who have clergy who are not paid. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What the LDS church will not do is endorse a candidate or a political party or allow a church building to be used for meetings to endorse a political party or an individual. The strongest thing you will hear is an announcement about voting.

The church will take a stand on moral issues, but generally they steer very clear of politics or to be perceived as telling the membership how to vote. As far as party affiliation you will find history of church leaders being both democrats and republicans. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

For example Harry Reid (dem), or Gordon Smith (rep). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Clergy

DJ Clayworth, I hope that a Mormon editor will confirm or correct what I'll say. A bishop is a volunteer, who gives his time to a congregation to guide its members in living out their calling. He is elected to exercise spiritual authority, but he is not paid, and the position is not permanent; although in some cases, in effect, a Bishop might serve for much of his adult life. The Bishop might be the sherrif in town, or the grocer, or any other kind of secular affairs. So long as his secular vocation doesn't interfere with his calling in the church, as long as he feels he has the time to shoulder the weighty job effectively, he donates his time, just as every member of the church is encouraged to do. The Bishop is the President of the Aaronic priesthood (as I recall), and has numerous other roles in counseling and discipline in the congregation. He is a priest, and he holds a position of spiritual authority and oversight, but he is not "clergy".

Priesthood in the LDS is not at all like priesthood in the Catholic Church: a vocation, a special calling which entirely sets a man apart from secular calling for the service of the church, even to the extent of preventing him from marriage. A secular/sacred divide is present in the LDS, but it is a very different concept compared to the mainstream concepts of holy vocation.
A "priest" in the LDS has no parallel in "other" churches. There are two priesthoods - the Aaronic and the Melchizedek . Every male member of the church between 12 and 18 might be enrolled in the Aaronic priesthood - which is a young men's organization in the LDS. Compare it to Webelos in Boyscouts, and you won't be far off. Any male member approved by the leadership, commended for their character and faithfulness in tithing, can obtain the Melchizedek priesthood.
Do you regard the office of deacon to be "clergy", as in the Catholic Church? In the LDS you might meet a 13 year-old deacon. Is an "elder" clergy? All those young guys in white shirts on bicycles have name tags calling them "elder". Is the Bishop "clergy", to your thinking? You're not thinking like a Mormon.
There are, of course, "mainstream" churches that reject the concept of clergy - such as the Brethren and the Quakers. And effectively, many Baptists and non-denominational churches have no concept of a sacred vocation: all the laity has a sacred profession. But the LDS takes the idea that every member of their church has a sacred calling to distinguishing lengths, and organizes these vocations in offices of priesthood, oversight and hierarchy which sound "clerical" to the traditional's ear, but they are not. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I understand. Is the 'ranking' (Bishop etc.) in any way correlated with a church leadership position? Can you be a congregational leader without being a bishop? If you become a priest or bishop are you considered one for life, or only while you are appointed to some task? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoping for correction again: Mitt Romney was a Bishop at one time; he was not a Bishop when he ran for President. He was initiated into the priesthood when he was a kid, and has been a priest ever since. The office of Bishop would be considered "clergy" in a legal sense - it would be entitled by the courts to protections of confidentiality that are conventionally considered necessary for confession of sins, counseling and discipline. So, the function of the Bishop is clergy in a conventional sense, but the office is not. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The calling of Bishop is in reality a lifetime calling; i.e. he may be called Bishop for life. However, his active functioning as a Bishop is for a specific time period. All males who participate in church receive the priesthood as early as 12 years of age. There is one priesthood with two divisions. Males in their youth receive the Aaronic Priesthood; Deacon, Teacher, Priest. As early as 18 one can receive the Melchizedek Priesthood; Elder, High Priest, Patriarch, Seventy, and Apostle. The offices depend upon the calling one has. A Bishop is a High Priest.

The only offices that are called for life are those Seventy who serve in the 1st and 2nd Quorums of Seventy. The other Quorums of Seventy serve for a period of time and then are either released or elevated to the first two quorums. The first two Quorums of Seventy, the Apostles, and the members of the First Presidency are called for life and I think one would equate their calling to what is traditionally thought of as a "sacred calling". Every other priesthood leader is functioning in the capacity of a sacred calling, but it is for a limited time frame. As an aside Bishops usually serve at least five years; sometimes less and sometimes for much longer. I know of several instances where they served for 10 to 20 years, but I think those are the exceptions today. Hope this helps. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically, the only offices that are called for life are the Apostles (members of the Quorum of the Twelve). Those in the First Presidency are called from the Quorum of the Twelve, with the President being called for life. His (typically) two counselors are called from the Quorum of the Twelve, but upon the death of the president, will return to their places in the Quorum of the Twelve (that is, one who once was in the First Presidency isn't guaranteed to remain a member for life). While technically those in the 1st and 2nd Quorums of the Seventy are called for life, they are relieved of active duties and granted emeritus status at age 70, while a member of the Quorum of the 12 will remain there for the rest of his life.R. G. Israelsen (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I never knew any of this. I'm wondering if it should become a subsection of the article? It's different enough from mainstream practice to be noteworthy. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the Aaronic priesthood has 4 offices: Deacon, Teacher, Priest, and Bishop. Bishop is an Aaronic priesthood office, but it must be held by one who is an Elder in the Melchizedek priesthood. The Aaronic Priesthood is a temporal priesthood, and the Melchizedek is a spiritual priesthood. So, the bishop is in charge of the tithing, fast offerings, welfare and food storage, and the general temporal welfare of his ward. Why must a Biship be a High Priest? Because he is not a direct descendant of Aaron (or Levi). If he were, he could hold the position without that stipulation. At least that is how I understand it. Storm Rider is welcome to correct me. Bytebear (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, Storm Rider, to compare the life calling of Apostles and the First Presidency to more traditional ideas of a clergy, or holy vocation. But of course, my view from outside is bound to be blindered. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And I appreciate the correction, instead of two priesthoods, two divisions of one priesthood. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Iwould agree with you that there remains a difference between the Orthodox view of clergy and the LDS view. I would take a more narrow approach to grasp the difference and consider only the priesthood order as viewed by the Catholic church and other similar views. Once you move to a married clergy I think the comparison becomes much easier to make when we are talking about life time committment and the work of clergy, church adminstration, sheperding, etc. Would you agree or am I missing something in your thinking? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we're exploring something subtle, here; and I'm not sure that it's very accessible from the outside. I've heard the "Bishop" described by the media as a "lay leader" or "lay pastor". But does this accurately express the way he is thought of within the LDS? It sounds a bit light, to me. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The office of Bishop, as with most other offices in the Church leadership is an unpaid, lay clergy position. But this should in no way minimize the amount of commitment required by a faithful Bishop in the fulfilling of his duties. Being a Bishop is often described by those who serve in that calling as a tremendous blessing that brings with it tremendous responsibility. A Bishop is expected to hold down a full time job outside of his church duties while at the same time caring for the spiritual and temporal welfare of his own family as well as his ward family (or congregation). He has councilors and auxiliary leaders to rely upon for help, but there is still a great deal on a faithful Bishops plate, even after he delegates all that he can. It is definitely not a light calling. I think those who serve successfully Bishops, Relief Society Presidents, Elders Quorum Presidents, High Priest Group Leaders, Ward Mission Leaders, or Youth or Primary leaders, all invest a considerable amount of time, talent, prayers, and spiritual preparation in order to faithfully carry out their roles in the Church. This talk by President Hinckley does a fairly good job of describing all the various concerns of a Bishop in an LDS ward. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity "one" and "God"

I think that there is an important ambiguity throughout the article, in the LDS sections, about what is meant by the word "God". I know that this topic has been a cause of mild irritation, but I'm sure that the LDS editors can appreciate that there is some silent mental work going on in your minds when you encounter this word in its different contexts, so that you know what is meant but those outside of the LDS don't know what you mean. In some places, "Godhead" seems to be what is meant. In other places, "God the Father" is meant.

The same is true of the phrase "one God". When speaking of the Father, you seem to mean "one" in the sense of singularity (always the ultimate reference of "he" and "him"). When speaking of Jesus as "the one God" you seem to mean "one" in the sense of "united in will and purpose". In plain speech, it appears that you mean that there are many Gods (in the sense of participation in Godhood: exaltation), and there are only three who are one God (in the sense of enrollment in the heavenly council: the Godhead ), and there is only one that is God (in the sense of singular identity: the Father).

I would offer the sentence for an example, under Nature of God where the statement appears, "The Father is the one true God". Jesus (YHWH per the LDS) is not, therefore, "the one true God", since Eloheim is not YHWH; that is, "YHWH is the one true God", meant in the same sense as "The Father is the one true God" ,is a false statement.

Can you sympathize with the difficulty in perceiving what you mean, when this ambiguity is silently exploited to mean two or three different things? And can you appreciate how this ambiguity is arguably the chief focus of interest when informed "mainstream Christians" encounter LDS doctrine? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark, I absolutely sympathize and have felt at certain times some of the same confusion you have. I've studied this topic fairly exhaustively for the past several years and have come to some understanding that I didn't have before on it. I don't think though that it's any more mysterious than Trinitarian doctrine(reading the Athanasian creed for example has made my head spin on more than one occasion...). But like the doctrine of the Trinity there are a number of facets that need to be understood so that the bigger picture becomes clearer. Since I'm a big fan of bulleted lists, I will favor you with one here outlining the basic doctrines of the Godhead from an LDS perspective with links to supporting scriptures (please read these scriptures as they will answer your question far better than my attempt at a synopsis):

The presiding council of Heaven consists of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, three distinct personages who are "one God" see Alma 11:44
Heavenly Father (Elohim) presides in the Godhead see this chapter in the Joseph Smith manual.
Doctrine and Covenants section 20 makes reference to God as "the only true and living God", describing the Father as the Almighty God (verse 21) and a few verses later also declares that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost "are one God, infinite and eternal" (v 28)
When we talk about The Father we are generally referring to Elohim (just as Jesus does in a number of places throughout scripture), but Jesus occasionally has the name-title Father for at least three reasons: 1. He was the Father of heaven and earth, and under the direction of the Father created all things. Mosiah 3:8 2. He is the Father of our Salvation and we are spiritually reborn in Him when we accept him as our Savior (see Mosiah 5:7) 3. He was conceived by the Power of God and is therefore referred to as the Father because of his Divine paternity and the Son because of his flesh (see Mosiah 15). This scripture requires a lot of prayerful consideration.
The Father, Son and Holy Ghost each have distinct physicality and identity. The Father and Son have bodies of flesh and bone, but the Holy Ghost has a body of Spirit, which enables him to dwell in us. D+C 130:22
Jesus taught in his great intercessory prayer (see John 17). That we would be one even as he is one with the Father. We do not believe that Jesus is one in substance with the Father. In our view, if that were so, John 17 would make the righteous who overcome through Christ in this earth lose their own identities in Heaven and become a part of God. This is not what we believe. We believe that we will be one with the Father as Jesus (and for that matter the Holy Ghost) is (are) one with the Father: In the sense of being completely united in all things. When one reads through the Doctrine and Covenants carefully, it is clear that Jesus Christ is the one revealing the words to Joseph Smith. Nevertheless, on a number of occasions, he speaks in the voice of the Father, using phrases like "Mine Only Begotten Son" (see D+C 49 for an example and compare the early verses to the last verse). This concept is not without Biblical precedent, however. On a number of occasions in the Bible, the Angel of the Lord speaks in the voice of the Lord himself (see Zechariah 3, Genesis 16, Genesis 22, Exodus 3 for examples) In LDS Theology, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are so united that they will not do, say, think, or feel anything that is out of harmony with the others, yet they maintain their distinct identities as personages. We believe that we will one day share in this unity and that this is what is meant by "being one" as Jesus describes it in John 17. There is one very important distinction, though, between us and the Godhead. We are elevated to the position of Sons of God by the righteousness of Jesus Christ, whereas they are not. They are already in an exalted state, whereas we need to be lifted to that state by supernatural means. Jesus was a member of the Godhead before his birth in the flesh. We were not.
Several places in the Doctrine and Covenants, Jesus also refers to himself as God (see D+C 19 for example. And the Holy Ghost has been referred to as God by a number of General Authorities (as well as the obvious implications from the scriptures I've shared here.
So to sum it up (I'm still leaving stuff out by the way, but there's only so much time, so please follow up with questions to fill in the gaps :-):
- The Godhead consists of Father, Son, Holy Ghost which are One God, eternally united in all aspects except their individual identities. They are not one in substance
- In this sense it is appropriate to refer to the Father as God, the Son as God and the Holy Ghost as God
- It is also appropriate in this sense to refer to each, any, and all member(s) of the Godhead as the one true and living God because they are all a part of the same presiding Divine Council and every other God is false. Nothing truly exists outside of that which is true. The only true and living God is that God which truly lives and governs and presides over the universe. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as a council are the only beings who fit that bill. The Father (Elohim), since he presides over that council and is the Father of both the spirit and body of Jesus Christ and the spirit of the Holy Ghost, may also in this sense be justly referred to as "the only true and living God"

Hopefully that makes some sense of it for you...

Mpschmitt1 (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read this quickly (as you can tell from the time-stamp); but it seems to me that you are saying that there are indeed two different senses in which you mean "God" and "one God". Do you find specific fault with my very brief summary - leaving out that it is not an explanation but a summary? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I mostly agree. But there are very important subtleties that will only emerge as you dig in a little deeper in our scriptures (please also see that bit I just added about the Angel of the Lord above). The Father is the Father. The God of all of us. The one whom Jesus referred to as "My God and Your God" in the Bible. He is our God. The one we pray to in the name of the Son. Even Jesus was careful to point out that the glory went to the Father. Yet we will also worship and praise our Savior for eternity for what he won for us. In this sense he is our Father and our God because he is the Father of our salvation and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Doubting Thomas exclaimed "My lord and My God" when he saw the risen Lord before him. There is yet another subtlety you're missing though. You can't put a wedge in our theology between the Father and the Son. The Son is the Word. He delivers the message of the Father to his people. His is the voice in the revelations received by John at the end of the Bible (and Joseph Smith for that matter). In D&C 1:38 Jesus says that if we receive a message from him by his own voice or the voice of his servants, it is the same. By the same token, the Father would say "If you receive a message by my own voice or the voice of my Son, it is the same." That is why he always said "This is my Beloved Son, Hear Him!" He was allowing the Word to fulfill his divine role as the member of the Godhead who delivered the word of the Father to His Children. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark, one other thought. Even if you view things from a Trinitarian perspective, doesn't this phrase from John 17:3 present the same theological problem and ambiguity? --> "the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (emphasis added) Mpschmitt1 (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not meaning to start a tussle over who has the more unintelligible definition, I feel like responding to your implied allegation that the doctrine of the Trinity is hard to express without ambiguity (not touching the idea that it is hard or impossible to understand, since no one would argue with you there). It is not hard for a Trinitarian to say that the Father is the only true God, and that believing in Jesus Christ we believe in this same God. We do not mean two different beings, but one Father from whose very being the Word and Spirit eternally proceed without separation (that is, this expresses who God is, not an act that God began or might cease). We cannot, in this conception, imagine God as divided into three parts; we understand by "person", "relations", but not "people". Complications that become necessary to add to this example of a rather simple expression arise in response to the demands to clarify how such terms are consistent with one another or even meaningful, let alone possible - but the idea seems to me to be less subject to confusion of expression if you remember that the Trinity is an eternal spirit, not three bodies.

This is quite a different problem I think, from the problem encountered in Mormonism, where it is not so much difficulty of conception as ambiguity in expression. In other words, I perceive that you really do mean "there is only one God" in very different senses. Depending on the context you really do mean that there are three different beings who share a collective identity; and in another context, you really do mean that this identity derives from only one of the three beings; so that your idea of "God" is stratified into two distinct senses (Father, Godhead), to which a third sense (or 1/2 sense - a sense of participation rather than identity strictly speaking) is added when you speak of exaltation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I get where your going a little better now...Yes...I think what you're getting at in our theology is better expressed thus: "There is only one Godhead: Father, Son, Holy Ghost who are one God in the sense of their being united in all things except identity." This is the first sense of the phrase "God" or "one God" in LDS theolgy. This can be followed by: "There is only one true and living Father of all mankind in a spiritual sense and that is Elohim, our Heavenly Father, our God" (I could throw in that there is only one physical Father Adam who was the first man and a distinct person from Elohim ~ and not - contrary to anti-Mormon liturature - identical with the Father or a member of the Godhead) and again "There is only one Son, Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, the Savior of the Children of Elohim, our Lord and our God (in the sense that Thomas expressed it)", and finally "There is only one Holy Ghost, the Comforter, the testifier and teacher of all truth. The third member of the Godhead" The Son testifies of the Father, the Holy Ghost testifies of the Father and the Son. Clearly the Father is the focus of the testimonies of the Son and the Holy Ghost and the One to whom they point as the object of our worship and praise (though Jesus clearly receives worship and praise as well for his role as Savior, as does the Holy Ghost for His role).Any other beings - real or imagined - who propose to be our God or who demand of us our worship (e.g. Satan,idols, etc) are false gods and have no power to save us. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The wording might need to be tweaked to even more clearly express your intention, but I think what you've written is helpful. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think for example, that you might mean "united in all things except being", since they share one collective identity - but that's pretty clumsy in that sentence. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No I'm very careful about the term identity which I mean in the "the distinguishing character or personality of an individual" sense. They are their own persons. They have their own individual consciousnesses, but exist in total harmony and agreement. There is no schism in their desires, attributes, choices, love, etc...Does that make sense? If not try these articles by President Hinckley and Elder Jeffery R. Holland Mpschmitt1 (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

But to be clear, no we do not believe they are one in being either. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Mp, you did a very good job. I certainly can understand Mark's position in his first statement; although I am always surprised at when an orthodox begins by saying (s)he does not understand how we can say we monotheistic. Trinitarianism is just very difficult to understand; but it is not alone. As a young man I can remember foolishly thinking that LDS doctrine of the Godhead was easy. It was not and I would almost say that it is almost, if not more so, as incomprehensible as Trinitarian doctrine.

The one thing that Mark alludes to that continues to cause great concern from orthodox Christians is the concept of becoming "gods". LDS use the term loosely, but believed to be in the same manner in which Jesus and the apostles used the term. Most Christians simply do not use the term at all and are completely uncomfortable with the term. It is foreign to them. This needs to be treated such that LDS doctrine is explained and differentiated from what is complete supposition. In reality there is very little accepted doctrine about what it means to become a "god" and more often then not the explanations given are more in what nonmembers have interpreted our doctrine to be. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We are all made in the image of God, and "sons of the Most High" in that sense. We are already now "gods" in the sense of psalm 82, we are already as though we were each of us another "God" in the sense of Genesis 3, "and yet" the scriptures say, "you shall die". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think the LDS doctrine is hard - What's hard are all the things that are supposedly not doctrine, depending on who you ask. But in any case, it is frankly very hard for me to understand why you call it "theism", let alone "monotheism"; but that's the difference between us in a nutshell. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree Mark. Part of what makes it hard is that every Mormon (just like every other Christian) is at varying levels of understanding and testimony concerning the deeper aspects of the doctrine. And some Mormons are wiser than others in shying away from the speculative and theoretical extensions some have appended to the core doctrines we have in the Standard Works of the Church (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) and the official, unanimous, approved messages that come from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. If we were content to search these sources alone, we'd have more than enough to keep us busy, and our doctrine would be purer and easier to understand to those outside of our Church like yourself who are only seeking to understand precisely what it is we teach. Another aspect that makes it hard is that sometimes Mormons (as do many other Christians) get stuck on one or two aspects of the Gospel or one or two statements on a subject from a particular favorite General Authority and over-emphasize these aspects at the expense of the bigger picture. Mormons also sometimes forget the charge given by Joseph Smith and many other Presidents of the Church throughout the years that we are a Church that embraces every true principle, wherever we find it. I think sometimes we become so intent on being a "peculiar people" that we under-emphasize the vast areas of common ground we hold with many other Christians around the world. To be sure, the differences are significant in many places, but as I've opened up to being taught by other Christians about what they believe, it has only served to expand my understanding and appreciation in what I believe and caused my heart to grow in a feeling of brotherhood and respect for those of other Christian denominations. My spiritual life has been enhanced by the examples of God fearing Evangelicals, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Muslims, and many others. There may be differences in Theology at times (and those are important to understand), but on many occasions, their zeal and faith in God has led me to repent of my own lukewarm condition and better my own relationship with Him whose children we all are. Now in saying all of this, I'm not advocating relativism by any stretch (I do believe in Absolute Truth), but I do echo the sentiments of Joseph Smith, when he said (several quotes strung together here from different sources):

“I have the most liberal sentiments, and feelings of charity towards all sects, parties, and denominations; and the rights and liberties of conscience, I hold most sacred and dear, and despise no man for differing with me in matters of opinion. The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren... If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a ‘Mormon,’ I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves... It is a love of liberty which inspires my soul—civil and religious liberty to the whole of the human race. Love of liberty was diffused into my soul by my grandfathers while they dandled me on their knees. … If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way...While one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes ‘His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.’ [Matthew 5:45.]...We admit that God is the great source and fountain from whence proceeds all good; that He is perfect intelligence, and that His wisdom is alone sufficient to govern and regulate the mighty creations and worlds which shine and blaze with such magnificence and splendor over our heads, as though touched with His finger and moved by His Almighty word. … The heavens declare the glory of a God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork [see Psalm 19:1]; and a moment’s reflection is sufficient to teach every man of common intelligence, that all these are not the mere productions of chance, nor could they be supported by any power less than an Almighty hand.”...God sees the secret springs of human action, and knows the hearts of all living.”...The purposes of our God are great, His love unfathomable, His wisdom infinite, and His power unlimited; therefore, the Saints have cause to rejoice and be glad, knowing that ‘this God is our God forever and ever, and He will be our Guide until death.’ [Psalm 48:14.]"

I agree wholeheartedly with these sentiments. As for the issue of what sort of "ism" may be applied to Mormonism (theism, monotheism), I only know that I believe in a true and living God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth and all things that in them are. Who knew me and formed my spirit before I was formed in my mother's womb. Who gave His Only Begotten Son to be my Lord and Savior and gave us the Holy Ghost that we might discern between truth and error and know with total assurance the path of salvation. On that I will rest and leave others to decide how they chose to label it. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

When this information is used in the article, I think that it should include this explanation from "The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent" by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland at the 177th Semiannual General Conference, October 2007.

Our first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.

— Val42 (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I had already added that quote a while back to the Nature of God section. :-) Mpschmitt1 (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. I should have checked first. Please continue your discussion on this point of consistency. — Val42 (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Val...I'm not sure what you mean, could you clarify? Do you mean you want to hear more about the topic from the perspective of Elder Holland's talk, or is there something more specific you're looking for? Either way, I'd be happy add more to the discussion. Just let me know more specifically what you'd like to see more of here...Mpschmitt1 (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I just meant that you should continue what you were doing, ignoring what I brought up (because it had already been taken care of). — Val42 (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

Have we addressed all of the outstanding NPOV issues? I'm removing the NPOV annotation at the top of the article for now since I don't see any specific issues being called out at present, but if anyone still has an issue with the neutrality or factual accuracy of the article, please undo my edit and let's discuss it here and get it resolved. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The complaint was originally that the mainstream view is not represented in a neutral manner, or left the notable perspective under-expressed. Since DJ Clayworth has been the chief supporter of that opinion (although from a position polar opposite to the original complaint), I'd be interested in knowing if there is a complaint outstanding. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The first complaint was motivated by the charge that the most obviously representative group of "Christianity" is not being proportionally represented (by which the editor meant, Roman Catholicism), and for that reason the article was not "neutral" because it gave undue weight to proportionally insignificant views. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

Nota bene: the later charge is exactly the opposite: "Christianity" may (for the argument's sake) be defined for the technical purpose of comparison, in a manner that is thoroughly fair and informative in its description of a broad tradition to which Catholic, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist and modern pentecostal and charismatic Evangelicalism, etc. in some sense subscribe, or even formally endorse. But, if this practical definition excludes any "non-Mormon" "Christian" group from the comparison that, like the Mormons reject that historical connection and the consensus represented by it, then the article is "not neutral", according to the new complaint. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

If this issue is ever to be put to rest, even more thought must given to explaining in the article how and why the terms of comparison have been chosen. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nature of man

I think that we're missing a more direct treatment of the difference in anthropology, the nature of Man. Aspects or portions of this topic are mentioned in various places, but there is no direct discussion of the comparable views. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that we might try something like this:

Nature of man
Significance of family

Significance of women

This anthropological approach would bring forward numerous comparable and contrasting elements, I would think. We might even be able to lift out and re-work the material on "Heavenly Mother" and the paternity of Jesus, in that context. That would be good, in my opinion, because in its present place under the "Nature of God" it fits awkwardly. What do you think? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is God genderless in Traditional Christianity?

I heard a rather prominent Evangelical apologist today make a statement of a doctrine I had not heard much before. He said that in the traditional Biblical Christian view, God "transcends" gender. In other words that God is a spirit and therefore neither male nor female. Is this a widely supported view in traditional Christianity? If so I think it ought to be mentioned in the traditional portion of the Nature of God (with a corresponding mention in the LDS portion) since I think this is a significant difference between LDS theology and Trinitarian Christianity. Any comments from the Trinitarian Christian contributors? Mpschmitt1 (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check out Gender of God; there is a high degree of editing going on over there right now. I am just observing it. It seems like the article already fully covers the LDS position (physical body, etc.).

Some theologians I think can be interpreted to mean that God transcends even spirit. Mankind is supposed to have a spirit, but that spirit is nothing in comparison to the Spirit God. Though there is an overriding concept of masculinity in God, there is not concept of sex in God. Interesting topic and a good suggestion. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't want to be the one to add the Trinitarian view to the section though, because I don't feel I understand it well enough. If someone else wants to take a crack at it, I'd be happy to add the LDS perspective.Mpschmitt1 (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In other words, God is not a creature. All mankind is made in the image of God; "male and female" are creaturely and sexual terms, as it says: "in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark, since you seem to have a handle on that. Would you mind at some point (if you haven't already) taking a crack at expanding that description of the Nature of God from a traditional point of view in the article? I think it's an important and interesting distinction between traditional theology and LDS. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Chrisitians do not believe that God, as the incomparable and only infinite spirit, non-created, is a "guy". That isn't hard to express. Beyond that, other issues are opened, regarding "univocal" or "analogical" language - even if we say that God is not to be compared to a man in univocal terms, as "a male", it still must be decided whether "He", "His", "Him", etc. are to be preferred for reasons of analogy, over "She" or "It". How that issue is decided in practice comes down to the perceived normativity of either, Scripture/tradition on the one hand or reason, circumstance and experience on the other. Such an elaborated discussion seems to me to be outside of our scope of comparison; not that its irrelevant - Mormonism after all does suggest belief that God is a male in univocal terms, a "guy". But, to go farther than that is no longer to compare Mormonism and traditional Christianity, but becomes a comparison of traditional and non-traditional approaches to the transcendence of God. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the easiest contrast to point out is that Mormonism teaches that Man is the same species as God, where traditional theology defines God as a unique entity altogether. I don't know how prevalent the belief is that this entity is genderless, however, but I have heard that angels are genderless, which also is not true for Mormonism which puts angels as the same species as man, and in fact, are men who have or will have been in Earthly mortality. Bytebear (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

On several occasions I've been told with some urgency that it is not Mormon doctrine to say that God is the same species as man, but an issue of speculation. But if I'm not mistaken, it is indeed Mormon doctrine that God is a male in precisely the same, univocal, sexual gender sense as a man is a male, which is clearly not the traditional doctrine. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on who you talk to, and certainly you can't call it official doctrine, but you can cite Acts 17:29, and find some quotes from LDS leaders to emphasize the LDS interpretation of this and other verses. The significance of this verse, is that it is interpreted in LDS belief that this means literally in spirit, and though adoption spiritually. But the "image" of God is literally what we are made of. So there are several points to consider. Bytebear (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

When you say, "the image of God is literally what we are made of" - is that exactly what you mean? Do you mean, we are made of the same stuff? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is spirit matter, and physical matter. Both are infinite and cannot be created or destroyed. That is the substance that makes up all things. But more importantly, although not canon, many would use science to describe God as having the same genetic DNA as man, but that his essence is perfect. We have the ability to be perfected as well. Some would even say that Jesus was made up of 1/2 genetically perfection from his Father, and 1/2 human imperfection from Mary, his mother, but let me me this clear. This is not doctrine, and doctrine does explicitly say that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus, and although his conception was a natural occurrence, it was still a miracle, and God and Mary did not have sex. Bytebear (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) Byte, I would not go as far as you have and would even say that you have gone too far. LDS believe that God is the father of our spirits. Our only relationship to God is through the spirit. DNA relates to physical attributes and has nothing to do with the spiritual. There is only one Begotten Son and he is our intermediary to the Father. Because of Jesus' atonement we may join as joint-heirs with Christ and it is possible only through his atonement. Wouldn't you say this is a more correct understanding of LDS theology? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Some stop at where you are but there are many who would say that God is generically identical to humans, but an "exaulted man", meaning his genetic DNA is perfect, whatever that means. And as I said, this is not LDS doctrine, but God is not a separate species as man. We are the same species, both in spirit and body as God, but in an imperfect and incomplete form. Bytebear (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nature of man

I think that we're missing a more direct treatment of the difference in anthropology, the nature of Man. Aspects or portions of this topic are mentioned in various places, but there is no direct discussion of the comparable views. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that we might try something like this:

Nature of man
Significance of family

Significance of women