Talk:Mormonism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Cultural Mormonism

There are a few problems with this. It states that following the Word of Wisdom is part of "Cultural" Mormonism. Actually, that's one of Mormonism's doctrines. It is required for temple worship or to be a member in good standing with the Church. I don't know if it might perhpas me practiced more widely in the utah-area than in other places, but it's a doctrine, rather than a cultural thing.

Also, the start says that it is referring mainly to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Cultural section says

"In Mormon fundamentalist groups, the dominant style of dress is popularly called "prairie garb", which might typically consists of long, homemade dresses for women in 19th century stylings, or long skirts and blouses buttoned all the way up, and hair in long braids; and often long-sleeved shirts for men."

It should be more explicitly stated that these fundamentalists do not belong to the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," but rather one of the break-off groups.

Chrieraux 19:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What is truly amazing about this is that there are a plethora of people (Mormons?) who simply will not allow a POV besides their own to be presented on a neutral page. Are you guys assigned to watch over these pages so no one can dispute your POV, then alternate to change them so you don't violate the "3RV" rule? I've seen a number of changes made, and there must be at least a half-dozen people (Mormons?!) who simply won't allow any alteration of the text, nor will they read any of the discussion. Wow. So much for "neutral" and "unbiased". Try: http://www.citizendium.org - that's where wikipedia creators went after dealing with the likes of ya'll.Tapols (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Are Mormons Christians?

The question of classification is way too controversial to be answered in such a flip and unprofessional manner as "nope". If we are to address the question, we need to do so in using NPOV. ex. instead of "Are Mormons Christians", we should have a section something like this:

"Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity"

---Mormons emphatically see themselves as Christians; however this classification is disputed to varying degrees by many theologians. etc. Some Protestant denominations, while disagreeing with tenets of the Church of LDS, believe they are essentially Christian, while others argue that their acceptance of the Book of Mormon etc. (or other reasons etc) place them in a new category altogether. Etc.

(here we could summarize all arguments about the topic and provide info about:

1) the position of Mormon theologians, followers.
2) the position of various Protestant denominations, Roman Catholics etc.
3) the views of most lay Christians/Mormons
4) the politics of categorization.
5) a short list of differences etc. 
6) the position of academic experts on Christianity/Mormonism. 

I do not have a dog in this fight, but I think the current article is doing a disservice to interested readers. Sincerely, --Ampersand 05:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Or one could, as stated in the article, "See Mormonism and Christianity for more information." Val42 06:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that this section is neutral either. It states that Mormans are only "perceived" not to be Christians. Many, if not the majority of prominent Christian theologians do not consider mormanism to fit within the tenets of accepted Christian orthodoxy. Mormans do not believe in salvation by grace, they believe in salvation by works. Furthermore, I have a hard time understanding how anyone who believes that upon meeting the specified criteria, he will become a god of his own world, can be understood to be within what is understood as the historic Christian faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.34.227 (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is meant to discuss the improvement of this article. Please find references for these views then they can be added to this article's page. — Val42 04:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You also might want to look at your definition of Christianity. Your assumption is correct, Mormonism is not orthodox Christianity; it belongs within the Restorationism movement. Orthodoxy is a 4th century product whereas Mormonism claims to be a restoration of 1st century Christianity. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 13:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is an interesting debate between Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Orson Scott Card, author and commited Mormon. Start at the bottom of the page and work your way up so that "Mormonism is not Christianity" is read first. (That was the order of the debate) http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/mormondebate/ Itsadiel 18:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

How dare we make such a bold claim; and, how rude and unChristian! Well, do we make that claim to be mean, or because we have a "bone to pick?" 1 John 4:1 says: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1 Thes 5:21 says: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. So, we are being quite Biblical in comparing Mormon doctrines to see if they align with the Bible. Let's compare Mormonism to the "Eight Essential Fundamentals of Christianity":

1. The Deity of Christ 2. Trinity 3. Bodily Resurrection 4. Salvation by Grace 5. Sufficiency of Scripture 6. Universality of Sin 7. The Atonement 8. The Virgin Birth

So, how many of the eight does Mormonism agree with: ZERO!

We don't make open-ended statements, so here is the evidence to back up our claim that Mormonism doesn't line up with the "Eight Essential Fundamentals of Christianity":

1. Deity of Christ: “Jesus became a God and reached His great state of understanding through consistent effort and continuous obedience to all the Gospel truths and universal laws.” (The Gospel Through The Ages, pg 51)

[Christianity does not believe Jesus was “a God;” Christianity believes Jesus was God: John 1:1.]

2. Trinity: “22. The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22)

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pg 345, 1844)

[Christianity believes in the Trinity – Mormonism believes in three Gods of this world and that there are an untold number of other Gods out there in the cosmos; and, that the Heavenly Father of this world is an exalted man who once lived on another planet in another galaxy far, far away and through eternal progression rose to become a God]

3. Bodily Resurrection: “The plan is simple. Man is in a fallen condition, beset with weaknesses and sin. Means are provided whereby he may rise, and, through the corridors of death and the portals of the resurrection, reach the way of eternal progression. These means are all comprised in obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.” (The Vitality of Mormonism, Ch.19, p.77-p.78, Apostle James E. Talmage)

[Christianity believes man will be resurrected to live eternally with Jesus Christ or to be condemned to Hell. Mormonism believes there is no Hell and man will be resurrected into 3 different Kingdoms of Heaven. Only Mormons can go to the top kingdom, called the Celestial Kingdom, and there they can by “Eternal Progression” become Gods just like the Mormon Heavenly Father of this earth did.]

4. Salvation by Grace: “However, one of the untrue doctrines found in modern Christendom is the concept that man can gain salvation (meaning in the kingdom of God) by grace alone and without obedience. This soul-destroying doctrine has the obvious effect of lessening the determination of an individual to conform to all of the laws and ordinances of the gospel,…” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 670-671, 1958)

[Salvation by grace alone, in Christ alone, through faith alone, is a foundational Christian teaching. Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie in his epic book “Mormon Doctrine” calls the Christian belief an “untrue” and “soul-destroying doctrine.”]

5. Sufficiency of Scripture: “Who, in his right mind, could, for one moment, suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution?” (Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, Orson Pratt, pg 47)

[Christianity believes the Bible is God’s inerrant Word for man. Mormonism believes the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly.” Anytime the Bible disagrees with Mormon Doctrine, it has been mistranslated, and “Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution?”]

6. Universality of sin: “Some may regret that our first parents sinned. This is nonsense. If we had been there, and they had not sinned, we should have sinned. I will not blame Adam or Eve, why? Because it was necessary that sin should enter the world; no man could ever understand the principle of exaltation without its opposite;…” (Journal of Discourses, Vol 10, pg 312, Brigham Young)

[Christianity teaches that all have sinned and in fact have a sin nature. Christianity teaches that the heart of man is wickedly deceitful (Jer 17:9), and all of our righteousness is as “filthy rags” (Isa 64:6), and only through our Savior, the Jesus Christ of the Bible, can we be saved from our sin. Mormonism teaches that Adam and Eve were required to eat of the fruit of the tree and it was not therefore a sin – that man is good and comes to earth to prove himself and earn his right to progress to become a God himself.]

7. The Atonement: “It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol 4, pg 54, Brigham Young)

[Christianity teaches that the blood of Jesus covers all sin (1 John 1:7). Mormonism believes man can commit sins which Jesus’ blood can never remit.]

8. The Virgin Birth: “These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 546-547)

[Christianity believes in the miracle of Christ’s birth (Mt 1:18). Mormonism relegates the conception of Jesus to “same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” Believing that the Mormon Heavenly Father has a body of flesh and bones, it is easy to see how Mormon leaders teach that God had a physical relationship with Mary to produce Jesus.]

So, are we being mean by saying that Mormonism isn’t Christian. No, we are not. Our claim is based on a factual comparison of Mormon doctrines compared to Christian doctrines. We didn’t make this evidence up. This evidence plus volumes of additional evidence to support these Mormon doctrinal positions are available if one simply wants to do the research to find them. Christianity and Mormonism are not the same. Mormonism fails all “8 Essential Fundamentals of Christianity,” yet insists that it really is Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.25.201 (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

your criteria is very narrow. Far more narrow than the Bible. Aside from the fact that you truly don't understand the LDS position, where in the Bible does it say a Christan must believe in all of those things interpreted exactly as you have spelled them out? This discussion should be taken to the Mormonism and Christianity article anyway. Bytebear (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should have a point in the article where they mention that there is a debate whether Mormonism is Christian to avoid being biased. Although Mormon and mainstream Christians have theological and eschatology differences, (for example, Mormon eschatology talks about Nephites) true ones agree on key issues like abortion and gay marriage.--69.234.234.197 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an article called Christianity and Mormonism which covers this topic. It does not belong in this article. Bytebear (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

All such doctrines have been rejected at one time. The Unitarian churches deny the Trinity. Pelagius denied the universality of sin, the atonement and salvation through grace. Sufficiency of scripture is plain odd, given that the bible took some time of getting written. Marcionite Christians even dumped the entire Old Testament. All of these were or are Christians. You can't just qualify Mormons as non-Christian solely on some criteria that were determined over the centuries. Mormons explicitly claim to be Christian. There is no authority that can deny them that, so they should be listed under Christian religions as a category. Ofcourse it can be said that other Christians don't agree with this. DDSaeger (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Unitarians aren't accepted by Orthodox or Protestant churches as a "denomination" either. While having roots connected -- in some fashion -- to traditional Christianity, the belief system is so vastly different as to be something else entirely. So it is with Mormonism. Hence, my ongoing effort to reflect the truth of the connection, which has been repeatedly -- in an organized way -- repudiated by a small army of propagandists clearly bent on promoting a biased, half-true statement regarding that relationship. My note to "Bytebear" on my and his talk pages:

"Isn't it interesting, Byte, that you can make assertions such as "This is primarily due to the fact that adherents to Mormonism claim that the movement is a restoration of the earliest Christian and Judaic doctrines" and yet don't feel the need to support YOUR statements with evidence, except that "we say so." The issue of whether you claim to be Christian isn't an issue in my edits. The FACT is that Orthodox and Protestant churches DO NOT accept that Mormonism is a "denomination," rather that it is a completely different belief system. Mormons do not accept the Trinity as a core belief. It is exactly that CORE that unites Orthodox and Protestant DENOMINATIONS and precisely why they do NOT accept Mormonism as related.

It's not my POV, it is a fact. Whether or not 52% of "Christians" surveyed think so or not is equivalent to saying "52% of Mormons believe Polygamy is OK and should practice it," and then expecting the LDS leadership to say, "OK, fine. We'll do that then." That's not how it works, and you know it. Nor does asserting that "This is primarily due to the fact that adherents to Mormonism claim that the movement is a restoration of the earliest Christian and Judaic doctrines" accurately describe the FACT that traditional Christian churches -- from the LEADERSHIP OF THEM -- do not accept any relationship, spiritually, with the LDS church.

Before you start just deciding that someone is wrong on FACT, consider your own POV and the propaganda you're offering. I have tried to be fair with my statements to reflect FACT, not spun according to an effort to mainstream something that cannot and will not be mainstreamed because of core disagreement.

I am happy to review the other page as you have suggested, however I am really not interested in debating you on it -- simply trying to have the facts reflected in a public forum. The thing that is really dismaying is that there seems to be an organized effort to "protect" the language on a public page that clearly reflects a bias."

Again, whether someone wants to argue "Christian or not" isn't my issue here. What is the issue is making sure that the relationship between traditional Christianity -- e.g. Roman Catholics at least ACCEPT that Methodists, for example, hold the same CORE beliefs, even if they don't agree about who's in charge -- and belief systems that have no such relationships (e.g. Mormonism/Unitarians/Jehovah's Witnesses with RCC, Greek Orthodox, Lutherans, etc.) is reflected accurately. They ARE NOT accepted by the leadership of these traditional churches as related, and they will NEVER be. Let's just say so and be done with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.162.109 (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The assertion that Mormonism is a type of Christianity is simply untrue. Mormonism is not even a monotheistic religion, believing that God was once a man and that men become gods. This is not a matter of bias, it's just a matter of definition. Christianity is a monotheistic religion. You can't say "I'm an atheist, except that I believe in God." For the same reason, it's nonsense to say, "I'm a Christian, except that I believe in many gods." It is not useful to miscategorize belief systems.68.217.242.252 (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume that the anon above is really Tapols, which would also make this editor having far exceeded WP:3RR. Regardless, this is a very tiresome issue that has more to do with other churches than the topic of the article. THe article is Mormonism and not how other churches view Mormonism. If it is to be brought up it does not belong in the introduction. Second, what definition of "Christian" are we going to use? If we are going to use the common definition, a follower of Jesus Christ and the Bible, then the argument is moot. If we are going to use the issue of only those who believe in the Trinity can be Christian, then we have to dismiss Jesus and all of the apostles and early disciples. None of them explicitly taught this 4th century doctrine, i.e. for being the CORE teaching of Jesus it is obviously not what Jesus taught as his CORE teaching or did I miss something in the four Gospels.

What is the problem is the 4th century Christianity came to an agreement as far as doctrine and the Trinity is their main plank. All churches that descend from this church claim the doctrine. Mormonism is a Restorationist church and makes no claims whatsoever to be descended from 4th century Christianity. They claim to be the restoration of the original church of Jesus Christ. It does not matter if anyone else thinks that it is true; in fact, it is entirely beside the point. The topic is this religious movement and not what others think of it.

In summary, I have no problem including the intolerant positions of other churches, but it just does not belong in the introduction. It can go at the end of the article. It is a lot like saying we need to include the statement that the Catholic church article that it is the Great Whore of all the earth in that article's introduction because some Christians think it is. Additionally, define Christian when you make the allegation because it is unique to the churches making the allegation and is not found in any dictionary. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ You entirely miss the point. The language of the article should be neutral; by suggesting that the "primary reason" is narrow and untrue. It's a POV statement. Only LDS members would promote such an idea. The "primary reason" for others to reject this assertion is buried, in this language, under the LDS "Restorationist" propaganda. To suggest that Mormonism is a "denomination" is to suggest that there is some common ground. Except for a belief that Jesus is/was an actual person, there simply isn't. Orthodox and Protestant Christianity simply do not and will not accept a "brother" to Jesus in lucifer. That chasm is too much to bridge to suggest there is a relationship other than to acknowledge Jesus. The LDS belief system has not had an "uneasy" relationship with mainstream Christianity "primarily . . . " as is noted, except for the fact that there is NOTHING similar beyond the name of Jesus. Tapols (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's all nice and all, but it simply isn't the point. This article isn't about how you view Mormons. It's about how Mormons view themselves, and how they have been accepted in the world. Only one very tiny minority of Christianity would classify Mormonism outside of the Christian umbrella. Find me one reference to world religions that classifies Mormons outside of Christianity. And your statements about how Mormons view Jesus Christ are simply false. Please, read "How Wide a Divide?" and find some references to back your statements and we will consider them. I will not hold my breath. Bytebear (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Cite your source for "Only one very tiny minority of Christianity would classify Mormonism outside of the Christian umbrella." Tapols (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How about every category or article on Christianity on Wikipedia for one. I also recommend you read the article on Restorationism and nontrinitarianism. Here are some others [1] [2] [3] This one I think you will find particularly interesting [4] Bytebear (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[5]

It is very easy to get off topic here because of the utter stupidity of the proposition. I understand that Tapol, and his fellow "Christians" seem to think that belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, born of a virgin Mary, lived a perfect life, was crucified for our sins, rose the third, went to the Father and will return in the future is insignificant. I understand that this knowledge and profession of faith pales next to the belief that God created all things, including Lucifer and in that creation Lucifer is classified as a fellow brother of all the children of God. However, for Mormons, nothing is more important than Jesus Christ. Mormons would say that if there is any Christian church that believes Jesus is secondary to any other statement of faith then that church is not part of the body of Christ. What Christian church actually claims that belief in Jesus as one's Savior is insufficient? BUT, I digress...it is completely off topic.

Wikipedia does not give a fig what others think about Mormons. It is certainly appropriate to mention that there are churches and individuals who do not claim Mormons as fellow Christian brother and sisters, but that is NOT THE FRIGGING TOPIC OF THIS ARTICLE. I wonder how often I have to repeat that before it is understood. When you express ownership of an article to the point that it must meet your specific agenda is when you have to admit you are outside the policies of wikipedia. Please review them the five pillars before making another edit. No one is saying the your statements should not be in the article, but I am saying they should not be in the introduction. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

alright, how about just deleting the POV re: "primarily due . . ." since that reflects propaganda instead of uncontested fact? 67.185.162.109 (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This article should neither be about how Mormonism is viewed by Mormons nor how Mormonism is viewed by Christians. It is about what Mormonism is. And to say that Mormonism is a denomination of Christianity because they believe so is the same as saying Mormonism is unrelated to Christianity because Christians believe so. Agree on a neutral point of view such that it reflects the many views OF Mormonism in the Mormonism article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.185.137 (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned IP: The neutral, worldwide point of view is that Mormonism does class as a Christian religion. If you really believe your analogy holds up, try changing the Catholic Church article to read that "some believe it is a Christian religion." --TrustTruth (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Latter Day Church of Christ, Matthew Gill

User:69.27.11.50 (I assume Matthew Gill) - can you provide a copy of documentation that your religious organization has been registered as such, according to the laws of Great Britain? We need additional verification of the sect aside from your blog (the in the mouth of two or three witnesses thing works on Wikipedia too). Also, can you provide membership statistics? (its not that we don't believe you, its just that there are thousands of people claiming to start a new religion, and ususally more than three months of history can be provided - we just need some verification or official status, and until it is obtained, your group may not qualify as an official church or religious movement).

The section you added would be better placed at Latter_Day_Saint_movement, and will likely be moved their in accordance with Wikipedia Style guidelines, after details you've included are verified. Please do not revert the current changes, as Wikpedia is not for advertisting, and the section as it was written was quite commercial and against wikipedia guidelines (see Wikipedia:NPOV. Continuing to revert back to such a commercial is considered vandalism, and may result in your IP address being blocked. Thanks and happy editing. -Visorstuff 17:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Reasons Mormons may not be Christian

My edits keep being removed, although my points are legitimate -- the doctrines of the "plurality of gods" and "god/man" are MAJOR sticking points for any serious consideration of Mormonism as Christian. I have provided sources all along -- and the primary source is Joseph Smith. Why won't the Mormon apologists here allow Smith's own words to be quoted? And why won't they allow these issues to be raised? RossweisseRossweisseSTL (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Added: I have added a link to Joseph Smith's sermon on the plurality of gods to support mention of Mormonism's polytheism. Worshipping all the gods in their theology isn't necessary to make them polytheists -- simply acknowledging them will do it. The whole idea of men becoming gods is antithetical to Christianity. (I've also added the Anglican Communion to the list of church types, since we are the "Via Media," or Middle Way, being Catholic -- having the apostolic succession, three orders of clergy, liturgy, etc -- as well as Protestant, and thus sui generis.)

All of the wikipedia pages on Mormonism look like they're part of the Mormon mission effort; this one is just one step above pure propaganda. Maybe it should be a little harder to edit something so controversial. [User: RossweisseSTL]

Even the Criticism of Mormonism article looks like part of the Mormon mission effort once you brush away the innuendo and intensifiers and let the facts stand on their own. It's called NPOV. --TrustTruth (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Today I removed the following new edit:

In particular, Mormonism differs from mainstream Christianity, in that it is polytheistic, i.e., it teaches the existence of many gods, and that man may attain divinity. In contrast, mainstream Christianity is strictly monotheistic, and as such precludes man attaining divinity

For this to be acceptable, you need to provide a reference for the statements that Mormons believe and worship many Gods. There may be some clarity needed on definitions. Mormons believe in Theosis, but you will find that theosis is most believed by some of most Orthodox of churches. In addition, Theosis does not create divinity to be worshipped in the LDS sense, LDS believe the Bible when it says we will be coinheritors with Christ. Whereas mainstream Christiantiy attempts to take One God in three persons (the Trinity), LDS take three persons in One God.

You will also find that many religions would claim that the traditional Christianity is not montheistic. Islam is adamant that Christians believe in more than one God; they find the Trinity to be three persons impossible to equal one God. I am more than willing to further the conversation, but to include this information in the article you need to source the allegations to be in keeping with WP:NOR. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There was actually a citation provided, from the King Follet Discourse. However, I am willing to admit that Mormon's, although they believe in a plurality of gods, concentrate their worship on "the god of this world." As such they may be considered henotheistic, as opposed to polytheistic. But this is a distinction many may not grasp. In terms of theosis, there is a vast difference between sanctification, as presented in mainstream Christianity, and Mormon exaltation, in which one assumes the very essence and divinity of God. With all respect, it doesn't matter whether Islam considers Christianity polytheistic, because Muslims do not claim to be Christians, and Christians do not claim to be Muslim. However, I will re-edit this to more reflect the concerns you have stated. CBadSurf 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

With the many differences between Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity, why single out one issue to expand in this article? I think that the section under discussion should be brief then link to the other article for all of the details. Val42 17:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Val42; this is a significant topic that can not be appropriately handled in this article; one of the reasons for sub-articles. This is a recurring problem on Mormon or LDS articles; new editors with valuable contributions seek to expand information that is already covered elsewhere. The purpose of this article is to briefly identify Mormonism and point readers to main articles or subarticles. Mormonism is much broader than just the LDS church. Everything that you have added would be strongly rejected by the Community of Christ branch of Mormonism among others.

I may accept the term heotheistic, but you will find the vast majority of LDS would proclaim to be strict monotheists. It is very similar to Muslims that accuse Christians of being polytheistic because the the doctrine fo the Trinity does not make sense to them. It is impossible to have three distinct persons, but only one God. Where mainstream Christianity focuses on One God in three persons, LDS state it differently, three persons in One God. The fact that LDS believe in Theosis does not make them non-Christian. This is a common red herring that anti-cultists and others bring up. They change the definition of Christianity to fit their specific objective. If one relys only on the New Testament as a guide, it is impossible to develop a definition of Christianity that is limited only to believes of the Nicene Creed; a fourth century doctrine. When you begin to really get into the argument, what is really being said is that Mormons are not part of the 4th century Christianity and the churches that descend from that movement. LDS gladly agree with that statement; LDS are restorationists they firmly believe that their church is restored and does not descend from the apostasy.

I am deleting all information that can not be accepted by all the churches of the Latter Day Saint movement because that is the only information appropriate for this article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I can agree that the entire topic can be better covered elsewhere, for example in the Mormonism and Christianity article. However, one has the impression from reading the discussions that this article is treated as the property of LDS, and a presentation of facts other than what is considered suitable by Mormons is not allowed. That really isn't what wikipedia is about. Case in point is the additions I made. First you said that they were not cited well enough. When I cited them, you now say that this "is a significant topic that can not be appropriately handled in this article." On the other hand, you allow a lengthy quote from Gordon Hinckley (which by the way is not cited) to remain. This does not seem entirely honest to me intellectually.

By the way, the Nicene Creed is not a fourth century doctrine -- it was a fourth century formulation of beliefs held by orthodox Christians from the time of the apostles. The reason for the Nicene Creed was to create a standard by which one could judge orthodox Christianity from heresy. Heretical and gnostic teaching had, of course, been a problem from the days of the apostles. But of course, this is a long discussion which we will not come to agreement on here -- and I don't intend to start a debate on it.

By way of compromise, I propose this section be removed, or contain only the link to the Mormonism and Christianity article.

CBadSurf 04:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

CBad, I would not retract any of my statements. I have been editing Wikipedia for a while now and I have seen the same comments come up consistently. One of the things that is a problem, as I stated above, is how articles bleed all over. New editors on Mormon related articles, both pro and con, will read a single article and then begin expanding the article including information that takes the topic beyond its parameters. It may be that we need to review the other articles and merge them; I personally think there are too many of them, but trying to delete articles is almost an impossibility on wikipedia. Previous editors do generally do not appreciate such drastic change. The result is a plethora of articles.

You may want to review how other church articles are written. I particularly recommend the Roman Catholic Church article. This article is virtually devoid of any critical commentary, however it has been recognized as the Whore of Babylon since before the Reformation. Today there are many Protestant churches that do not recognize it as even being Christian. Further, it has played a role in throughout the Middle Ages that was not in keeping with what one generally would associate with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet, none of it is mentioned in the main article.

Conversely, you will not find a single article about Mormonism or any of its churches without some critical commentary. If one is going to accuse a group of "owning" an article or refusing to allow criticism, it is would not be justified in any of the churches of the Latter Day Saint movement. Not only do we allow critcism, but we write it ourselves. I am not saying we are perfect and free from our own POV, but we, the editors both pro and con, are not deserving of your accusation.

My objective is to ensure well written articles meritorous of an encyclopedia. Articles should match their topics and be in keeping with WP:NPOV and all other policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to accomplish personal agendas, attempt to share the truth about one's own religion, or write religious tracts. My expertise is religion and thus you will find that I edit predominately those articles. I have a particular expertise in Mormonism and early Christianity. I hope that we can work together in the future. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, Let me clarify that I did not suggest to delete the article on Mormonism -- I suggested that the section Mormonism and Christianity refer readers to the Mormonism and Christianity sub-article, where as you rightly observed, the issue can be treated more fully. Although I am new as a registered editor, I am well aware of how wikipedia works. I am certainly not of a mind to accomplish personal agendas (I don't have one) or write religious tracts. But I am certain you were not suggesting that this is what I was attempting. But I must say that, though I am not Catholic, I do take exception to you stating that many Protestant churches do not consider Catholics Christians -- with the exception of Bob Jone's type fundamentalists, I know of few Protestant Churches that would say this.

Nor do I consider my contribution critical commentary. Was what I wrote inaccurate, undocumented, or represent an attack on Mormonism?

Right now, what I am concerned about is reversion of edits without even entering a discussion as to why they may be relevant.

For example, why is it even relevant to have this section if there is an entire sub-article devoted to the subject?

My background is from a Lutheran seminary, in particular Church History, so I am sure we will work together in the future. --CBadSurf 07:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the section has merit only because it mentions a significant point; that mainstream Christianity does not consider Mormons to be Christian. If it was not at least mentioned, the article would be accused of being deficient. Further, I suspect it take no more than one week before it would be added back by a new editor.

I would agree that groups who consider the Catholic church to be nonChrisitian are generally fringe, but it might be a more common concept than you might think. I grew up in the south. There were two groups that could be very friendly because of shared tribution, the Mormons and Catholic kids; neither was considered Christian enough for our good Southern Baptist friends.

You will find that some editors (read me) are impatient at times. So much of what I see is stuff that I have seen before and have discussed repeatedly. It is possible that I am too brusque and have a knee jerk reaction. I should take more time to explain reversions and other edits with editors with whom I am unfamiliar. Regardless, when you have an idea or concept please make a new section on the discussion page and present it. You will find a number of editors that would gladly respond. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your civility, and I do recognize that I am new to this article. However, you say you want this section to remain to make the point that "that mainstream Christianity does not consider Mormons to be Christian" but the effect of the wording is to suggest that only those Christians who do not accept the Nicene Creed do not accept Mormons as Christians -- whereas in reality the acceptance of the Nicene Creed is the definition of mainstream Christianity. You may argue that mainstream Christianity is apostate, but acceptance of the Nicene Creed is none the less the definition. (Hence, according to Mormonism, mainstream Christianity is apostate). In fact, keeping the section heading, but providing the link to the sub-article would better achieve what you say you want to accomplish.

In this case, the apologetic quote by Hinckly takes most of the wording in the section. This could tend to lead readers to a different conclusion than what you propose.

Even though I am new to the article, that does not mean I cannot make a contribution. I believe this section to be inaccurate, and would like to see it improved and made more accurate. Can we work on a compromise together?CBadSurf 17:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

(I will begin a new entry so that we don't get too far over). If I understand your proposal correctly, are you suggesting that we simply list the title, provide the link, and delete the text? The motivation being that the full argument agains being Christian is underrepresented while Hinkley's statement provids too much pro information. I am not sure deleting all the text is best. An alternative could be to shorten it to something such as Mormons firmly claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, but most mainline Christian churches believe they are not Christian. I suspect it would work, but it also seems like an invitation to other editors and/or readers to elaborate. Why aren't they Christian, why they are Christian, etc. It may actually be better to delete the section in its entirety. There is already the listing for the subarticle under the "See Also" section. What do you think? Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you have understood what I was saying now. I can agree with any of these proposals, but I think that to delete the section entirely will be to re-invite its addition later. Perhaps the best would be to keep the section, and add text along the lines of "A complete discussion of Mormonism and Christianity is outside the scope of this article. Please refer to the Mormonism and Christianity article for a complete discussion." Would this work? CBadSurf 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it!

You may want to check out how they handled it on the Mormon. I have always found it interesting how it is appears impossible for an article to focus on Mormonism rather than how others feel about Mormonism. It is one of the reasons I apprciate the Catholic article so much. Readers are able to read an article that is simply about the topic. There are other articles that address the critiques, contrary perception, and anti-Catholicism. I have pretty much capitulated to the fact, but I would like to emulate their articles. It would seem like there should be one standard, but there are obviously standards for the majority and then different standards for minorities. C'est la vie, on y va. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As they say, the devil is in the details. (No pun intended) I agree with you on the Catholic site -- even though as an ex-Catholic I would have strong views on a number of items there. In this particular case, I did not add anything to the overall article out of respect to group being able to create a balanced presentation. It is just I felt this particular sub-section inaccurate. Not because Mormons are a minority -- indeed in this world any person of faith is becoming a minority. Ça aussi, c'est la vie. CBadSurf 03:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotation marks necessary?

Mormonism is a term used to describe religious, ideological, and cultural aspects of the various denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement. The term Mormonism is often used to describe the belief systems of those who believe in the Book of Mormon, a "sacred" text which Mormons believe was translated by Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1829 from golden plates, described as the "sacred" writings of the inhabitants of North and South America from approximately 600 BC to 420 AD. In 1830 Smith published the Book of Mormon and restored the Church of Christ, and the faithful were known amongst themselves as Latter Day Saints. Outside the church, church members have come to be called Mormons because of their belief in the Book of Mormon as the restoration of their religion. As the result of a "revelation" in 1838, the name to the Church was officially stated as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".[1] After the death of Joseph Smith, a succession crisis ensued and the church membership was divided among various sects. The largest group accepted Brigham Young as the new prophet-president of the church and followed him West to the Salt Lake Valley in the current state of Utah. However, there was a large faction that did not accept Brigham Young's claim to leadership and remained in the Midwest. The Community of Christ is the largest church that emerged from the Latter Day Saints who did not follow Brigham Young and it also claims to be the original church founded by Joseph Smith, Jr..

Notice how there are quotation marks around sacred and revelation.

Are these necessary?Erik-the-red

I noticed this as well when reading the article, and I wondered if this was a deliberate insult by someone or an attempt to point out perceived bias. Then again, the whole intro is garbage -- it reads more like an LDS pamphlet than an encyclopaedia entry. AntarcticFox 03:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the quotes. AntarcticFox, do you have a proposal for what information can be deleted so that it does not read like a pamplet. I am not sure I agree with you on you statement, but if you have a constructive recommendation to improve the article, please propose it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I take exception to the description of the Book of Mormon as a sacred text, as according to the second sentence, as opposed to a more encyclopaedic statement that it is a text held sacred by Mormons or, perhaps, less elegantly described as a religious text. This is not a result of my beliefs -- it is merely the result of what I believe to be a rather poor choice in sentence structure. Then again, further research into LDS related articles on Wikipedia has shown me that most of them suffer from NPOV problems, as do most articles on Wikipedia where there is at least one person on the planet with a computer and an axe to grind about the topic. -- AntarcticFox 04:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't oppose your edit; however, the sentence states:

• "The term Mormonism is often used to describe the belief systems of those who believe in the Book of Mormon, a "sacred" text which Mormons believe was translated..."

To me qualifying the sentence with no less than 3 "believe/belief" would seem to make it clear to the reader that this text is something believed only by Mormons and not anyone else. I would gladly accept your proposal if we can get rid of the repetitive qualifiers of believe. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I started to write a lengthy reply to everything that was wrong with your response, and then I realized that, fifteen months later, I don't really care that you couldn't comprehend the point of my posts. AntarcticFox (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

AntarcticFox - nor do you apparently care about Wikipedia's code of civility between editors. The tone in this section has been cooperative and helpful. Insulting others is inappropriate. Please be constructive. WBardwin (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, nope, I didn't insult anyone, WBardin. This may come as a shocker to you, but I don't really give a damn what you think. If you want to preach to someone, go start your own church.

Oh, by the way, THAT was an insult. Civility also includes not interjecting your unsolicited hall monitorship where it is not appreciated.AntarcticFox (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Quetzacoatl, Kolob, and the Endowment ritual

I may have got some of this stuff wrong. Please let me know (specifically) what is incorrect. I am doing my best to understand LDS with the information that is available to me. I focus on these particular issues because I find them interesting and they are not in the current article. I find them interesting for various reasons: I find them strange and novel, they are quite different from other related religions (i.e. Christianity), they are intriguing due to their secretiveness, and they are a subject of ongoing controversy due to outsiders misunderstanding and misrepresenting them and due to LDS members' secretiveness regarding them. Please, by all means, correct what is possible to correct as I am certain I am misunderstanding some of this, and have been told I am misunderstanding some of this. Yes, some of it I already know is incorrect and I am simply filling in the blanks (making it as easy to correct as possible) because I do not have all the information.--24.57.157.81 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs/Gospel

1. Gods and spirits are corporeal beings. They are supernatural beings with real, human, bodies (I will refer to them as spiritbodies for now.) They do not shapeshift, even if it was within their supernatural abilities, and they always appear human.
2. A spiritbody, whose name is Jesus, has appeared on Earth a number of times throughout history. One instance of Jesus' appearance (apart from His appearance as Jesus Christ from 0-30 BC) was that of the Mesoamerican God Quetzalcoatl [6][7]. Drawings of Quetzalcoatl as a snake or dragon are said to be stylized drawings of Jesus, not literal representations.
3. Jesus travels to and from Earth from a planet near a star called Kolob. The manner in which He and other spiritbodies travels is unknown, and it is presumably supernatural. Jesus is also Jehovah.
4. Kolob is within our physical universe, however the location of Kolob is unknown. The planet can be visited through non-supernatural means, such as a spaceship. This area of the physical universe is known as Heaven. The spiritbody Elohim (LDS God) is also on this planet.
5. All human beings are descendants of the spiritbodies of a man and woman named Adam and Eve, who came to Earth from the planet near Kolob in or around the year 6,000 BC.

First, you are getting into deep water and I am not sure you have any foundation to understand. Jesus Christ talked about drinking milk before eating meat; this is one of those situations:

We do not use the terms supernatural beings generally. I am not familiar with a Christian religion that would use those terms. Our Father in Heaven is God. As God we believe He can do anything He chooses to do. The concept of shapeshifting is forgein to Latter-day Saints. I am not aware of any doctrine in any Christian church that preaches this concept. I am aware that in mythology there are such concepts, but that is outside the parameters of this conversation.

Jesus, the Son of God, gainied a physical body by coming to this earth. We believe that all things are spiritual. Within Mormon doctrine at no time do we believe that Jesus came as anyone else other than Jesus Christ. He never appeared and use another name. Quetzalcoatls is white god found in ancient American belief systems. Mormons would say that there is a high probability that this is a residual belief, though twisted, of the original appearance of Jesus in the Americas after his resurrection as recorded in the Book of Mormon.

Kolob is believed to be a star close to the throne of God. It serves no pupose in Mormon doctrine other than that statement. No prophet has provided more information than that. Some have speculated further, but it is speculation and is not doctrine.

Adam and Eve were not spirit bodies; they were persons of flesh and blood. They became/were mortal. Yes, Mormons believe that Adam and Eve were our first parents. I am not aware of any doctrine that they came from the throne of God. What we teach is that we were all together in the Spirit world before this earth. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nauvoo Endowment ritual

An initiation ritual LDS members go through is called the "Nauvoo Endowment." This ritual is performed before the LDS member begins his or her missionary work and/or before the LDS member marries and is done at the discretion of a higher priest. The ritual takes place inside the Temple, and is usually performed as a large group of members of identical Priesthood.

The ritual is comprised of religious cleansing and religious instructions and revelations kept secret from lower members. The instruction and revelations imparted depend on the Priesthood level of the group, but the rest of the ritual is the same. Both sexes perform the same ritual, more or less.

LDS members performing the ritual do the following:

In private, they remove their current clothing and dress in a single piece apron, called the "Shield." The apron is plain green and has a fig leaf on it. They proceed into a room called the _______ Room, full of small curtained areas, each with a person called an Officiator (male Officiators for male members, female Officiators for female members). Individually, each member enters one of these areas.

Inside the curtained off portion, the Officiator blesses the member by lightly touching various parts of their body with holy water and consecrated oil. The Officiator provides religious counsel and provides them with a spiritual name. This name is unique to that particular ceremony, not the person. However, due to the secretive nature of the ritual, most members believe, for the duration of the ceremony, that their spiritual name is a unique to them. The members then undress. The Officiator helps them into their Temple Garment, an undergarment which has spiritual symbols on it, which they are told to wear for the rest of their life. The Officiator then dresses them according to sex. Members are dressed all in white. Women wear a white veil, white dress, white sash (a girdle worn as a sash), slip, and pantyhose. Men wear a white hat (resembling a pastry chef's), white pants, collared shirt and tie. Both sexes drape a white sheet over a shoulder and wear white slippers.

After each member has performed this part of the ritual, they gather in another room, called the _______ Room. This room is the Temple theater. Members are seated based on sex: males on the right, females on the left. They receive an introduction from an Officiator, and then watch a re-enactment of the book of Genesis, as interpreted by the LDS church. In contemporary times, the re-enactment is presented as a film on a large movie screen. In the past, however, this part of the ritual was live theater (by various Officiators playing the parts of God, Adam, Eve, etc.).

At different points during the re-enactment, the members are asked to pray and make various oaths, and move their robes from one shoulder to the other. Members are told of sacred religious signs (based on the level of Priesthood they are attaining) they must use in order to get into Heaven once they die, and are instructed to keep these signs secret. The signs are various hand gestures--folding the fingers a certain way--and various handshake grips. Revealing this signs, they are told, is heretical and Satanic. Prior to the 1930s, members had to make a verbal agreement that they be eviscerated (and, thus killed) should they reveal these signs.

After the film and the religious instruction, members then leave the theater and queue up at a curtain to another room, the Celestial Room. Before entering through the curtain, each member is tested on his or her memorization of the previous instruction, including the hand gestures. Members then enter the Celestial Room and the ritual is over.

Upon completion of the ritual, members have attained a higher level of Priesthood.

If two members are getting married, they proceed to the Sealing Room.

This is close, but it is full of errors. This information is already fully covered in Endowment (Latter Day Saints). At now time is anyone told it is heretical or Satanic to reveal the signs and tokens. We covenant with God not to reveal them. Is is Satanic to break a covenant with God? My personal beliefs is that the Evil One does all he can to thwart the will of God. He relishes when any human breaks the laws of God. Mormons are covenant making people. I wish that we never broke covenants or promises, but we all fall short in one thing or another. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was perfect, in fact I explicitly said it was not. I would not say a list and a short paragraph describing the ceremony constitutes "full coverage." The entire Endowment article is basically history and poorly explained theology. The religious understanding is explained poorly (heavenly gift? What's that?), the only symbolism discussed is washing and anointing which is just a rehash of that article, and the actual ceremony is described, in point form, in two paragraphs at the end of the article. That's not full coverage. What I wrote for the description above is in fact shorter than what is there now, and manages to describe the entire thing from start to finish.--24.57.157.81 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

---

IMPORTANT NOTE: (Storm Rider's reply is regarding what I wrote before. I erased it because it was getting messy, and also to temper the negative tone I used initially.) --24.57.157.81 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is too rich. Please, please let us all know about where Extraterrestrials come into play in the Endowment. This is the worst form of Anti-Mormonism; it has no basis in reality and is made from whole cloth. Please do some bloody research. The web is full of exact quotes of the Endowment and no where will you find anything remotely like this is "secret knowledge" left to be revealed in the temple, oooooohhh; scary stories to tell "Christians" to warn them from the evils of Mormons. Did you know that Mormons also have horns; of course they only come on on Blue Moons after raping their 18th wife when she is two, but has born 87 children and she jumped off the Salt Lake temple's top most spire into the Great Salt Lake (several miles away) and swam to safety after walking barefooted to the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas and was saved by the preacher who raised her to adulthood. She now, SAVED, teaches the good Bible believing holy rollers about the wickedness of Mormons. I think Mormons eat their young; don't they? I am almost certain they do.

This is going to be a fun ride. You best pull in your minister now, because you are getting way out over your skies on this one. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What an interesting stereotype of me you've provided for the peanut gallery: an ignorant bigoted Christian in over his head and trying to smear Mormonism. Do I have horns, too? --24.57.157.81 18:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, now, let's not forget that you are saved and it is only us cultists Mormons that have horns. Feigning humility is unbecoming. This is not personal, but it is infuriating and rather common for new editors to come in on a crusade to "proclaim the truth" of Mormonism after they have only read base, common, anti-Mormon literature. The vast majority of which, as evidenced by your edits, has nothing to do with Mormonism and everything to do with the creative minds of some Evangelical. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I would like to know which rumors about Mormonism are true, and which are not. If some of the rumors I've heard about Mormonism are true, then Mormons are not Christian. However, some of the rumors I've heard about Mormonism do not affect the debate either way. I regret not using the Book of Mormon for my research, but I suppose asking a Mormon if any of these rumors are true are the next best thing.--69.234.195.3 (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe they keep coming back because what you think the truth is is not in the article. How about you provide a referenced paragraph which counters these "anti-Mormon" misconceptions? Wouldn't that solve the problem? The reason I added these things is because they aren't in the article, nor is anything contradicting them in the article. p.s. your stereotype is still interesting but I'm not Christian. --24.57.157.81 06:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

All of this is already covered in other articles. If each article only repeated what other articles had then every article would be extremely long. This is supposed to be a very brief description of each of the groups within Mormonism. LDS articles are well researched and referenced and I encourage you to spend a little time reading them. I am curious, if you are not Christian why do you only spend time reading anti-Mormon literature. I find that very odd. When I study Islam I read the Quran; when I study Catholicism I read the Catholic Catechism and other teachings. Strange method of research, but I assure you that at the end of your research you will have no understanding of Mormonism. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I always thought it was we Jews that were supposed to have horns. Where did the Mormons come in? that being said, yeah, Mormons are Christians. they's just a weird bunch of Christians. 68.36.214.143 (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, there. That's how the Muslims feel about Jews. Christians and Jews just have a few differences. What unites us should be greater than what divides us. We are both waiting for the Messiah to come. Jews wait for His first coming, we wait for the Messiah's Second Coming, as we believe that the Messiah is Jesus Christ and that he'll come again. In a sense, we Christians are fulfilled Jews because we believe the Messiah has come. He left, so that is why we are also waiting for him to come. I'm under the impression that Orthodox Jews provide an example to Christians when it comes to sticking to moral principles. This is because my father's ex-coworker (well, actually this ex-coworker was in a higher position) believed in following God's example, even though he wasn't aware that God had come to earth in human form. For example, this co-worker wouldn't work on the Sabbath. As for Mormons, I've heard rumors they're waiting for the Messiah's third coming. Mormons are nice people, but I'm not sure that they're Christians. I mean, I thought that the Messiah would visit the Jews during his second coming, not visit the Maya.--69.234.195.3 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I read "anti-Mormon" literature because I find these specific rituals and beliefs fascinating, strange, and disturbing, and I would like to know more about them. Since no one in the LDS church will talk much about these issues, "LDS approved" information is extremely limited and hard to come by. I am not studying Mormonism, I'm studying these particular rituals and beliefs. The same way I would study the Eucharist ritual for instance (Now that I've seen it, that article is worse than the endowment article, I'd say). --24.57.157.81 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This article not consistent with the article on Joseph Smith Jr

Section 1.3 the Succession Crisis of this article states that "There is little dispute that Joseph Smith, Jr privately and publicly taught and practiced plural marriage; he certainly alluded to the practice in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132." However section 2 of the article Joseph_Smith,_Jr. is a discussion of the uncertainty and controversy on whether Joseph Smith did teach and practice plural marriage.

I just wanted to point this out so that folks more knowledgeable on the subject can address the inconsistency.64.105.48.146 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)APF

Reform Mormonism

This group is using wikipedia to promote itself and it is a very small group - see the yahoo discussion group --Trödel 22:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Book of Abraham

I read more about the controversy about the Book of Abraham. Very insightful material in the FAIR website. I will make a change in wording. An unsigned user had added the assertion about the Book of Abraham translation, based it would seem on very shallow research. Reiddp

Just be warned - FAIR is a hardcore spin machine run by mormons. While I specifically haven't read their info on the Book of Abraham, i figure it's likely the most spin-oriented article they have. The actual source document Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham from has been found and examined by egyptologists, and not surprisingly turns out to be ancient egyptian funeral texts (which is why Joseph Smith found them in a sarcophagus along with a mummy) For exaple, examine the funeral related images at Sacred Texts with the facimilies in the Book of Abraham, particularly Facimili 2

Alienburrito 00:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Most reknown?

"Momonism is now not only the most reknown religion but the most practiced religion, in the world Mormonism and most of mainstream Christianity[1] have had doctrinal disagreements since the beginning of the Latter Day Saint movement in the 1820s" - Even assuming a full stop after "world", the first part of this is ridiculous: "most reknown"? "most practised"? meaning? reference? --Hugh7 20:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ishmael

I was wondering if Mormonism has any specific view that coule be added to the Ishmael article. --Aminz 08:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Critics or controversy

I am very concerned looking through several Morman articles that there is no discusion of criticism or contrversies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.194.79 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

This comes up from time to time. The article you are looking for is Criticism of Mormonism. Val42 02:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

MORE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE NEEDED.

Let me remind everyone this is Wikepedia - not a forum for evangelism. I'm sure somebody, somewhere from the LDS church is monitoring this webpage 24/7. Why not, countless non-Mormons access the site everyday. It’s a great opportunity but it's also a violation of the “unbiased” policy of Wikipedia.

The LDS community needs to provide more facts. For instance, you cite a "Great Apostasy" in church history after the Apostolic age. But you fail to mention WHO was involved, HOW it happened or even WHERE it happened. What proof do have - historically that the Gospel of Christ was ever changed or corrupted by this "Apostasy"? It's a romantic idea and reconciles your deepest belief, but it provides little creditability to unbiased researchers accessing the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmirarchi (talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

No, Mmirarchi, I think you misunderstand what Wikipedia is and should be doing in this article. Wikipedia is not asserting any of what Mormonism believes to be true, not even the existence of God. Further, Wikipedia is not asserting the existence of Jesus Christ, Moroni, the Gold Plates, the Great Apostasy, etc. etc. If you think that this article is worded in such a way that any religious doctrine is being asserted as fact, feel free to identify that passage because it should be reworded.

What Wikipedia should be doing in this and every article about religion is stating the fact that adherents to this faith believe X,Y and Z. Thus, we can say that "Mormons believe that there was a Great Apostasy, etc etc" and this is a statement of fact. If we say "There was a Great Apostasy." then we are stating religious doctrine as fact and this is inappropriate.

I don't see the words "Great Apostasy" in this article. Perhaps it is mentioned in the article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Feel free to review all the LDS-related articles to ensure that the wording is couched in the NPOV stance that I described above.

--Richard 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All this information is here, just not in this article. This is just a summary article. For more detailed information about LDS views of the apostasy, see for example Restoration (Latter Day Saints). COGDEN 04:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmirarchi, you have been making many edits of late, which I have reverted due to their tendency to state your opinion rather than referencing them with the statements of reputable experts. In addition, you have to spend a little more time getting to know all the articles regarding Mormonism and the LDS faith in particular. For example, this article is "Mormonism" it is similar to Latter Day Saint movement in that it is a catch all for all of the groups that descended from Joseph Smith. These churches or sects are not uniform in their beliefs, but are quite distinct in some of their beliefs. The Community of Christ resembles more a Protestant church in many of their doctrines (they ordain women to the priesthood, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, and deny many of the latter revelations of Joesph Smith. Other groups, subsets of this particular group, are even more adamant in rejecting Smith's later prophecies and denying that polygamy was never taught by Joseph Smith, but retain many other beliefs similar to the LDS church. The bottom line is you can't paint all of them with a single brush so you must be more careful.

In closing, and as an aside, the Apostacy for LDS is real. When you see over 26,000 different, distinct Christian groups in the world today, I find it difficult that anyone can come to a conclusion that there has not been an apostacy to a significant degree. In many ways, as a student of religion, how do any churches exist except they claim direction from God. However, very few of them do. Roman Catholicism claims apostolic succession from Peter forward. Not one Protestant group claims a restoration or authority to create their church came from God; rather each was created by a man with doctrines they felt were more true than those taught by Catholicism. There was one Jesus with one baptism and one doctrine; now there are over 26,000 different ones. How does one not think there was an apostacy? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, thanks for your comments. It should be noted that many of my edits derive from common knowledge about Evangelical Christianity & Judaism. I also noted that a substantial amount of your edits (along with others) don’t cite references either. As a scholarly community, it's assumed that we don’t need to cite every stroke of our pen - our professional knowledge serves as a reference itself in many cases. Our scholarly ethic depends on integrity. If our doctrine is in question, it can easily be verified through additional research by anyone.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmirarchi (talk • contribs)

Um, sorry to interject my opinion here, but the above is just plain wrong. Wikipedia is NOT a scholarly community. The odds are against editors being scholars. There may be some scholars who are editors but it's more likely that most editors are not scholars and even if they are, there is no guarantee that they are scholars in the field of the article that they are editing.

If you want an encyclopedia edited by scholars, go check out [www.citizendium.com Citizendium].

In any event, whether the editors of an article are scholars or not is irrelevant, the "professional knowledge" of the editors is considered highly suspect at all times and can NEVER "serve as a reference itself" in any case. That is why verifiability is king. No Wikipedia editor is a reliable source unless he/she has published a work that has gone through a professional publication process (one with a review process). And even then, it is not the Wikipedia editor who is the reliable source but the publication. Thus, if a Wikipedia editor who has published 50 books and 300 journal articles asserts "X" but is unable to cite a published work that asserts X, X is still considered an unsourced statement and therefore subject to deletion at any time. No kidding. Read the policy.

What allows us to make edits without citations is the general consensus that what we write is true. If anybody challenges the existence of the consensus by disputing the assertion, the choices are (1) provide a verifiable citation to a reliable source or (2) be prepared to see the assertion deleted.

That is how Wikipedia works.

--Richard 07:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In turn, what I'm seeing is the systematic elimination of contrary views. I’m convinced that even if I placed a reputable source (as I did on several edits), my words would be edited through bias.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmirarchi (talk • contribs)

This kind of broad generalization is difficult to respond to. Perhaps you would care to provide examples of those sourced edits and we can review and discuss them on a case-by-case basis.

--Richard 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Now for the Great Apostasy question. You raise a good point. How could there be 26,000 different Christian denominations if there was no "Apostasy"? Well, as a University Graduate student majoring in World Religions, I can assure you there's not nearly that many. By definition, the term "Evangelical" represents a single sect of Christianity. Evangelicalism has over 30 million adherents. Do the math...the population of the earth isn’t large enough for 26K "different" Christian faiths (30,000,000 X 26,000). And that would be assuming everyone alive is Christian - which we know isn’t true. Let’s not get into the 1 Billion Catholics – that would through your math off the chart.

Mormons cite an "Apostasy" but have no historical evidence that it took place. Catholics KNOW the date and circumstances in which the Church was formed. Protestants KNOW the date and circumstances surrounding Martine Luther's "reformation". The notion of a "Great Apostasy" is like telling a patient they have Cancer but not specifying what type, how long they have to live or how to treat the disease. It's vague. Who would trust that doctor with their care? I would want specifics - Wouldn’t you?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmirarchi (talk • contribs)

The above discussion of the "Great Apostasy" is not directly relevant to the editing of this article and has been moved to Talk:Mmirarchi. --Richard 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge with "Mormon"

The "Mormon" article is stated to discuss the "usage of the word" and not the faith or the organization. This seems to me a dictionary entry masquerading as an encyclopedia article meaning that it violates Wikipedia policy. Regardless, its content could easily be merged into this article without any confusion to the reader.

Comments?

--Mcorazao 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to favor that. They could easily be combined. They are really the same concept: a Mormon by definition practices Mormonism, and Mormonism by definition is the beliefs, practices, and culture of Mormons. We just need to keep this article distinct from Latter Day Saint movement. COGDEN 22:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Next question: Are you motivated to do it? I'm not particularly an expert on the subject. --Mcorazao 03:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The term "Mormon" has usage beyond what Mormonism is. See "Christian" which follows the same idea. Christianity does not necessarily reflect the "Christian World". Neither does Mormon culture necessariliy reflect Mormonism. Also Mormonism should not have information about early usage of the term (by non-Mormons) because that is no longer part of Mormonism, but it is relevant to the term "Mormon". Bytebear 21:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed content

I HATE when people remove my comments from talk pages. Please see previous version here. Incidentally, when you say you are "moving a discussion" please move all the text of the discussion. People like me like to keep track of what they say in conversations. Historical Wiki and my comments are important to me. Removing them is censorship, and violates wikipedia guidelines. That said, my removed comments may be found [here] and should be kept for historical purposes in the least. -Visorstuff 23:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an unrelated issue to the one above, but I removed some content and so put it under this heading. The text I removed is posted below in case anybody wants to fix it and return to the article:

"In the Judeo-Christian tradition, including in the courts of the land, a testimony presented by two competent witnesses is considered more convincing than the testimony of one, especially if that single witness is testifying in his own cause. The Bible and Book of Mormon set forth the Divine practice of furnishing "two or three witnesses" to important Divine acts.(Deut. 17:1; 2 Cor. 13:1; Ether 5:4) Every religion except that taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has only one witness and that is the religion itself. Latter-day saints have witnesses from each of two widely separated nations for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, one book originating in ancient Israel and one in ancient America, and the two testify of the same God and each other. Those nations produced the Bible and the Book of Mormon, "the stick of Judah" and "stick of Ephraim," which agree in one in testifying that Jesus is the Messiah, the true and livng God of Israel.(Ezekiel 37:15-19; 2 Nephi 3:12; 29:2-14; Isa. 29:11-18; Gen. 48; Jer. 3:18; John 10:16; Acts 10:34-36; Alma 46:24-26; 3 Ne. 10:16, 17; 15:16-24; 16:1-7; 20:22; D&C 3:16; 20:11-12; 42:11-12)[141]"

This radically violates NPOV; it clearly reads like a true believer evangelizing to the reader. If it's going to be in the article, every statement needs to be qualified in order to clarify that this is Mormon belief, rather than God's truth. Frankly, though, it's only vaguely coherent as it's written, so I don't know that it should go back in at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.191.87 (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

REMOVED CONTENT

Some of the discussions not germane to revising this article have been moved to Mmirachi^(talk). Please join us there. Thanks. Mmirarchi 21:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly my issue - the content wasn't "moved" it was deleted. My comments appear nowhere on your talk page. There is not another page in your namespace that I saw with my comments. Don't say it was "moved" unless you've really "moved" the content. Don't delete comments, rather archive them, and then "move" the comments in their entirety to your talk page. -Visorstuff 14:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Gold verses Golden

The first section mentions the "golden plates". The first, and many, references on church websites, use the phrase "Gold plates". Would not the term gold plates be better and more historically correct? Gunnerclark 21:38, 21 May 2007 (cst)

Golden plates is used about as much as gold plates, at least based on my crude Google search. It's a close call, but I see no compelling reason to rename the golden plates article. I think I like it better, because golden plates always refers to these particular plates, whereas gold plates could also refer to dishware. COGDEN 23:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles of Faith

The LDS Church's Articles of Faith have been copied wholesale into the article several times, and I have deleted them citing Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. There's no need to copy the Articles of Faith anyway, since all the topics therein are discussed in the LDS Church's article. Moreover, the AofF has never been considered a definitive or complete statement of LDS beliefs: it's sole purpose, from the moment Smith included it in the Wentworth letter, has been to serve as a proselytizing tool, which makes it inappropriate to cite verbatim as if it were the church's creed, even if there were no Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources policy. COGDEN 00:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

On another point, this article goes beyond the LDS Church, and includes cultural Mormonism and fundamentalist Mormonism. People shouldn't be deleting information about these elements of Mormonism. COGDEN 00:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Articles of Faith are published as part of the Pearl of Great Price - a book included in the LDS Scriptures. How is that not definative? Unless you mean "complete" by the term "definitive"? True, they're only a very very basic summary, but do hit some of the highlights of unique doctrines of the church. Alienburrito 02:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Beyond the issue of Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, I think COGDEN's point is that "Mormonism" can refer to the beliefs or practices of groups other than the LDS Church, as well as the LDS Church. Some of the Latter Day Saint denominations do not include the Articles of Faith in their canon. While they may be a definitive statement of some LDS Church doctrine, they certainly don't necessarily define what is "Mormonism". –SESmith 21:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What is "Traditional Christianity"?

If you are christian, dosen't that mean you belive in Christ? If so, aren't mormons Christian? Or am I missing something? If my defintion is correct, then what is traditional christianity? Or when you say "Traditional Christianity" are you refering to the Catholic church? If so, what right have you to say that the Catholic church is the "Traditional" church? How do you know that what Christ established on this earth was the Catholic Church? Or any other Christ centered church? Why can't that church have been the mormon church? Zarahemla resident 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Traditional Christianity" means those who believe in that the Nicean Creed defines their Christian belief. I prefer the term "Nicean Christians" or "Nicean Christianity". I believe that these terms better define what is meant, but the consensus has gone against me on this. What do you think? Val42 15:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

One major difference bewteen the LDS and mainstream Christianity (which is what i assume you mean by traditional) is their view of God.

For example, I was told by a pair of their missionaries that Jesus is our spiritual older brother, a spririt child of God just as everyone is, just that he's the first born. To mainstream Christians, Jesus has always been God from before the beginning of time to beyold the end of time. The beginning/end of time does sound contradictory, but the main idea is that Jesus, being God, exists outside of time and has no beginning or end. Any of you mormons want to elaborate on this point? Alienburrito 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

You are correct; mainstream Christianity believes that God and Jesus are the same God. The concept of the Trinity is beyond understanding. LDS believe that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ are separate and distinct beings or individuals. LDS believe that the scriptures are clear that when Jesus prayed to the Father he was not praying to himself and when he stated on the cross, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me, he really was forsaken by his Father and not his ownself. I will also say that mainstream Christianity is absolutely clear that the scriptures support their position of the Trinity; when you have seen me you have seen the Father, the Word was with God and the Word was God, among just a few passages of scripture.

Jesus is unlike any of the other sons and daughters of God. He was and is unique in all the universe. Though LDS believe that he is the Son of God, Jesus was the creator, at the direction of the Father, of this world and all other worlds as a spirit. He is eternal and yet he is the Son. He is Alpha and Omega, first and last. There are similarities and conflicts between the two belief systems.

As an aside the doctrine of the Trinity for LDS is the doctrine of men created to placate the concept of One God teaching of monotheism. For LDS there is one Godhead, which is one God, but it has three separate, distinct, beings in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Many LDS are adamant they are monotheists, others will call LDS Henotheistic, which may apply, but the fit is not complete.

You have a penchant for the mysteries of God. If you are really interested in the mysteries I would recommend a book by the name of Jesus the Christ by Talmadge. Most find it very dry; it is heavily footnoted. I found it to be absolutely fascinating and read every word of it. I would not recommend reading it unless you possess a serious interest in knowing the Savior in more depth. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey stormrider -

I started reading Jesus The Christ years ago. Now that I think about it, it's been about 20 years, 1986 or 87. Wow time flies. Admitedly i was in college at the time, and yes, the book WAS dry, but it did interest me enough that i've been meaning to get back to it.

I must say, thought, stormrider, sometimes your choice of terms confuses me. I'm very unclear what you mean by 'a penchant for the mysteries of God'. If you mean I'm interested in the nature of God, or at least various people's ideas on the nature of God, that would be a definate yes. Alienburrito 03:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Articles of Faith Response

The Articles of Faith are the basic fundamentals of the Mormon Church! Why should they not be included in the article? Zarahemla resident 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Zarahemla, Mormonism is a generic term that can apply to all the groups that fall under the Latter Day Saint movement. I am not sure whether these Articles are valued across the board within the groups.

Regardless, we understand the value you place on the Articles of Faith, but this article is not the best place for them. Further, rather than write them all out, it would be better to simply link to them. Does that help you understand a little of the thinking of others? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"traditional Christianity" vs. "mainstream Christianity"

There are a number of problems with the phrase "traditional Christianity" when used in this context. First, it's POV because there is a possible inference that "traditional" is good and "untraditional" is bad. Second, because Mormons are considered Restorationists, there is the strangeness of considering Mormonism a restoration of primitive early Christianity vs. what? "traditional Christianity"?

"Traditional" usually implies "older". If the rest of Christianity is "traditional", what is Mormonism? "modern Christianity"? That would suggest a different claim that what I understand Mormonism to claim.

Some "mainstream" Christians would claim that Mormonism is a new and modern adaptation of "traditional Christianity" because of the addition of new scriptures and new doctrines. But, this is plainly POV and thus unacceptable in Wikipedia.

This is why I replaced "traditional" with "mainstream". I'm open to discussing a better term if someone wants to propose one. I just think "mainstream" is superior to "traditional".

I don't think that we can characterize the difference between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity as solely or even primarily Nicene vs. non-Nicene. There are non-Trinitarian churches whose primary difference is the Nicene creed and it Trinitarianism. The Jehovah's Witnesses is one of them. Except for this primary difference, the rest of the doctrinal differences could be ascribed to varying interpretations of Scripture. Well, even non-Trinitarianism can be ascribed to a different interpretation of Scripture but the point I'm making is that non-Trinitarianism is the major sticking point for them.

For Mormons, non-Trinitarianism is not the only major sticking point. The addition of new scriptures to the canon is the other major sticking point. Polygamy is a bit hard to swallow but there are scriptural and historical bases for it and most Mormons don't make such a big deal of it any more anyway. All the rest of the doctrine could probably fall under the category of "varying interpretations of scripture" although the claim that men can become "like Gods" is probably also a sticking point.

In any event, "non-Nicene" is not a good way of characterizing the differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity.

--Richard 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream isn't very good, either, because many Mormons would disagree that Mormonism is outside the Christian mainstream. Since a suitable word or phrase does not really exist, I think we have to chose the least of several evils. As to traditional Christianity, I think that's fairly good, because really, Mormonism isn't based on tradition. Even though it claims a connection to 1st century Christianity, that connection is not one of tradition, but of restoration. COGDEN 18:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with COgden. The term "tradition" bring a context to the conversation that mainstream does not. That context is not present with Evangelicals, but all of the high church Protestants definitely understand the importance of Tradition and its value to Christianity today.

Personally, I have always interpreted the term mainstream as more power-packed as a term. If you are not in the main, than you must be strange or wierd.

I recognize that the term traditional Chritianity has its short comings as highlighted above. Mormonism believes the church is the restoration of the original church; thus some Mormons think of it as the traditional church. Another term that I have used, but comes with the same problems, is Historical Christianity. It brings the acknowledgement of recognizing that Christianity today has existed for a long period. I have generally found orthodox Christians to be comfortable with the term and Mormons can be comfortable with it because they feel that history demonstrates the Apostasy. Just some thoughts. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would definatly say that "mainstream" would be the right term to use in regard to the Trinitarian view, one of the major disagreements between Mormonism and most of the rest of Christianity. I'd say its apropriate because of the sheer numbers - the last set of numbers I've seen for Christianity in general is about 2.1billion then about 13million for the LDS Church, and if i read their stats page right, about 7 million for Jehovah's Witnesses. Feel free to comment if you think there's more to the term mainstream than just numbers. Alienburrito 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Nope you have the gist of it. Traditional Christianity is also used often, but mainstream here on Wikipedia is used most often. There is not really a perfect term, but what we are trying to communicate is the Christianity that descends from the 4th century after the council of Nicea where the doctrine of the Trinity was accepted as sacrosanct for the Christian church. All churches, except those that claim to be Restorationist, are the theological children of this mother church. You are aware of the importance that Tradition plays in the orthodox churches; Protestants genearlly forget Tradition and focus on what the scriptures say. I am painting with some broad strokes here and there are exceptions.

I would also say that Catholics highlight that they origin is straight from Peter and thus they possess the same apostolic authority of the original apostles. Protestants generally believe in the priesthood of the believer; that there is no Apostolic succession per se. That would seem to be a prerequisite for a protestant church to have broken away from the Church that claims this priesthood succession.

Mainstream Christianity accepts certain bedrock truths, the Trinity being the major foundation for the appelation. LDS see this "requirement" as the result of the doctrines of men. The great councils decisions were the result of discussio, debate and by final vote; there was no claim to revelation. The concept of prophet and twelve apostles that lead the church had been lost by this time. Good questions and thoughts. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Tried to edit "Other" out of the PP - once again confronted with propagandists. Instead, how about "traditional" or "orthodox" as "other" connotes acceptance by both sides of an argument, which clearly isn't the case~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.47.19 (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I resent being called a propagandist -- remember civility is important at Wikipedia. There is no definition of "Christian" accepted by all faiths, denomination, study groups, scholars, and individuals. As explained on this and other pages, over and over again, followers of the Latter Day Saint Movement (of whatever stripe) consider themselves Restoration Christians. Since the days of Joseph Smith, Christ has been the center focus for the LDS based 1denominations. Other doctrinal issues exist, and will always exist, which distinguish LDS movement churches from other Christian traditions. That said, there is also no generally accepted definition for "traditional" Christian. Traditional under what tradition - Catholic? Arian? Coptic? Orthodox? Lutheran? - Calvanist? Methodist? Baptist? Pentacostal? As for your argument that '"other" connotes acceptance by both sides of an argument', many "other" Christian churches accept LDS denominations as Christians. It just happens, it appears, that yours does not. Don't generalize. Why not simply say (my church, _______________) does not accept that Mormons are Christian? That is at least honest and probably verifiable. WBardwin (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Transhumanism

I understand why a transhumanist would want to have an outlet to attract people to their movement, but it has nothing to do with Mormonism. Further, it is spam. It professes to have nothing to do with any religion; thus it is not Mormonism or anything that could be classified as Mormonism. It is a movement that some, seemingly few, Mormons have joined. I say great, but you can not advertise a private group unaffiliated with Mormonism and parade it like it does have something to do. We do not allow Mormon Rotarians to advertise, or alumni associations, or any other group that has members that are LDS. It is simply not done on WIKI. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Strom Rider, your particular perspective on Mormonism is not in force here. The items in dispute are as relevant as others you have kept in the list. --Arosophos

I appreciate your personal agenda, but it has no place. Please address the issue: are they notable? What do they have to do with Mormonism? As far as I can tell nothing. If you do nothing to explain why the revert will stand. Are there any reasons to keep them other than they are you personal soapbox? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As Mormons, our agenda certainly has a place here, and it should be presented objectively -- not merely through the lense of Storm Rider. Are Mormon Transhumanists notable? Yes. They were recently on the cover of Sunstone magazine, which is a notable Mormon journal. Do Mormon Transhumanists have anything to do with Mormonism? Yes, but you don't have to take my word for it. If you would like, you can read about them here: http://transfigurism.org/community/files/11/sunstone_west_2007/entry2338.aspx

Of course, I don't expect you to agree, but that does not seem to be the most important matter here. This page is not about what you agree with. How do you propose we resolve this, despite disagreement? --Arosophos

What you are trying to do is make Transhumanism part of Mormonism. It would seem that Mormonism has nothing to do with it, but that Mormons are transhumanists. This distinctionis significant. Based upon your logic; we would need to have links to Mormons who are gay, Mormons who are golfers, quilters, chemists, engineers, rotarians, etc. Mormonism is not Transhumanism; if it were, then I would support it being added.

I sense that your interest in getting it added to bring attention to something that is important to you, but that importance is not directly related to Mormonism; it is "other".

My actions are not personal in nature. LDS and Mormon articles periodically get all kinds of links added to them. If you research the archvies and the history you will find a number of links that have been deleted. What we seek on Wikipedia for the links section are those that pertain directly to topic. A Mormon can be many things, but Mormonism and the LDS church is rather narrow in scope. Does this make any sense to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That does make sense, but I disagree that it applies to the current situation. Mormonism, arguably, IS a form of Transhumanism -- not in the historic sense, but in the ideological sense. That's the importance of the relation. Transhumanists are not monolithic, and are not all atheists or secular, as implied in your original description. The rise of Transhumanism has been effected not merely by secular humanists, but also by religious humanists, among whom we should count Joseph Smith. I'm not trying to make Transhumanism part of Mormonism; I am pointing out that Mormonism is a form of Transhumanism, definitionally, in that it is an ideology that posits imminent fundamental changes to the nature of humanity toward physical immortality, and that our actions will have something to do with it. Arosophos 06:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any significant scholarship that has made this connection or defined the relationship of either the LDS church theology or Joseph Smith in such a way. If you have references it should not be a link, but a section in the article. What is your relationship with the link in question? I read on the web site that there are not very many LDS who fit within this movement currently; what is your motivation in having it linked? These questions are not to break the ongoing line of questioning and my position, but it will help me to understand your motivations.

You have made some very broad assumptions; currently I would say that they seem more a personal perception than an actual scholarly percerption. It still feels like it isn't really notable, and more a desire to gain attention to a movement that is quite small. I may be too much a puritan in the context of links on all of the Mormon articles to which you have added these links, but it still seems like your are stretching. I look forward to hearing more and I would like to hear from other editors. I may just be off in lala land. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, again I would like to remind you that this article is not about the LDS Church exclusively, or its doctrine in particular. The article is about Mormonism, which, even among members of the LDS Church, is more diverse than LDS Church doctrine -- and, so far as the LDS Church is concerned, this appears to be quite intentional. Recognizing that there is already an article on the LDS Church, we should here make an effort to portray Mormonism accurately in the broader sense. Such accuracy necessitates a portrayal of the complexity, nuance and diversity of Mormon thought. If we do not do this, we are poorly representing the ideology. It is my opinion that your narrowing of material is misdirected. The article on the LDS Church is too broad, and this article is too narrow. Indeed, I would be quite comfortable with seeing the non-LDS Church links from the LDS Church article moved here, and the external links in the LDS Church article narrowed to those that are explicitly representing or criticizing the official doctrines of the LDS Church.

Regarding the academic importance of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, you may also see an article written by a non-Mormon scholar, James Hughes, who has been observing and writing about religious influence among Transhumanists. James Hughes is a well-recognized secular Transhumanist, and a professor of bioethics and sociology at Trinity College. Here is a link to the article, which makes substantial reference to the Mormon Transhumanist Association and one of its publications: http://ieet.org/archive/20070326-Hughes-ASU-H+Religion.pdf

Regarding the personal matter, I am a Mormon, a member of the LDS Church, and a member of the MTA. My motivation, here, is much like yours: to ensure my understanding of Mormonism is represented, not to the exclusion of others' understandings (pro and con), and not out of balance in relation to the influence of other understandings, but certainly as a part of the overall tapestry, so to speak. This is how we pursue the Wikipedia ideal of objectivity. Arosophos 12:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I will start a new paragrpah thread given the number of indents.

Yes, Mormonism can be used to describe all groups that have evolved from Joseph Smith; however, most reject the term. It is specifically applicable to the LDS church. The Fundamentalists enjoy using it because they find it aggrandizing to ride on the coat tail of the LDS church. The article itself points this fact out. It is not used by the other significant groups such as the Community of Christ, Bickertonites, etc. What you are looking for is the term Latter Day Saint movement; this is term is equivical in its breadth and ecompasses all churches that descend from the Joseph Smith.

Although I agree that groups identifying as "Mormon" are only a subset of those that identify as "Latter Day Saint", there are nonetheless many non-LDS groups that identify as "Mormon". This article only recognizes the fundamentalists (which are actually many groups), but that is not for lack of others. Furthermore, LDS Mormons are far from monolithic in their perspectives, and there does not seem to be much attention given to that fact in this article. In addition, I'll point out that the fundamentalists simply will not agree with your characterization of their use of "Mormon", and I suspect you know that despite your comment. Arosophos 17:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any references for how many Mormons are Transhumanists? Just curious, but I suspect we are not talking about huge numbers of people. The links are not used for advertising groups, as I said before Mormons come in all types and sizes, but that does not make every club, association, etc. a particular Mormon joins part of Mormonism. I am a bit flummoxed by this insistence that somehow not lising your link on nearly all of the main Mormon related pages is censorship or portrays a lesser form of Mormonism. I still see this as a personal issue.

There are roughly 60 members of the association, and around that many more who, although not explicitly members of the association, are aware of and sympathetic with the association. Beyond that, there are many other Mormons who hold similar views without knowledge of the applicability of the label "Transhumanism". Furthermore, this is not just another club or association that some Mormon has joined; it is specifically an association related to Mormonism, and particular views of it. For example, I would not be disappointed if you tried to prevent the posting of a link to the NRA simply because a Mormon joined it; however, I would be quite disappointed if you tried to prevent the posting of links to Affirmation, FARMS, Reform Mormonism, FAIR, the Mormon History Association, Sunstone, or even New Order Mormons. It is not objectivity that would prevent these links, but rather a narrow subjective perspective on Mormonism. Arosophos 17:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please review external links and then let's talk again. Some of the items particularly germane to our conversation are the following:

Links normally to be avoided

"Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate #material" or "unverifiable research".
3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.
7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.
8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.
9. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.
10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked."

I would still think other editors should comment to ensure that I have not misunderstood policy. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the criteria for links to be avoided. The links I provided certainly provide unique resources that are not intended to mislead readers. The links are not intended for promoting a site, except to the extent that the site reflects the intention to promote an important aspect of Mormonism. The site does not exist primarily to sell products or services, and it is owned by a non-profit organization. The site does not contain advertising, does not require registration to access content, and should be accessible to all web viewers. While one link does go to a search engine, it is not to a results or aggregated results page; rather, it is to a search engine that enables persons seeking more information about Mormonism to access it more directly, without trying to sort among non-Mormon related search results -- certainly a valuable tool for increasing understanding of the article's subject. The links do not go to a social network, blog or wiki. Most importantly, the links are to sites that are directly and obviously related to the article's subject. Arosophos 17:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I went to the Mormon Transhumanist Association link that you have added. I found their FAQ which has the following to say in the second question:

What is the relationship between Mormonism and Transhumanism?

Few have recognized the relationship between Mormonism and Transhumanism. On the one hand, Mormonism is a spiritual ideology of the Judeo-Christian tradition that advocates faith in God leading to salvation. On the other hand, Transhumanism is a mostly secular ideology that advocates ethical use of technology to extend human capabilities. However, Mormonism and Transhumanism advocate remarkably similar views of human nature and its future ....

This seems to say that there is no recognized relationship between the two other than what Mormon Transhumanists say there is. That is, there are Mormons who are Transhumanists and vice versa, but they are not comingled. This web site itself shoots down your argument to add it to this article. It may be more appropriate to add this to add this link to an article about Transhumanism. Val42 17:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not say there is no recognized relationship. It says that few have recognized it. Those who have recognized it include editors of notable Mormon magazines and notable professors of bioethics. A growing number of persons are recognizing the relationship. There are, for example, Transhumanists calling for a Transhumanist religion, which, when exposed to Mormonism, have asked whether it might be what they are looking for. Arosophos 21:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe this link should be on an article about Mormon Transhumanism because it would serve to illustrate such an article. Nevertheless, it still does nor serve to illuminate this article. Val42

I disagree, of course. However, given that the current consensus appears to be to keep this topic extraordinarily narrow, I will wait to see if that changes in the future. As soon as other external links are added that demonstrate a broader focus, I will revisit this. Arosophos 00:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

How do the LDS determine what is doctrine?

I recently have had some conflict with a mormon on another page that I edited, and it got me thinking. I posted this same set of questions and comments on his personal page, but I thought it might be good to post here too. How exactly does an LDS determine what is church doctrine and what is not? I would THINK that a sermon by Joseph Smith would be accepted as an official statement of doctrine or practice. Apparently it's not. Some comments from mormons have indicated they believe that only the Scriptures of the LDS church (http://scriptures.lds.org) qualify as doctrinal statements or guidelines for practice. Yet at the same time, it appears that the church does teach things that at best are only hinted at in the scriptures. An example of this would be the idea of a Heavenly Mother. THere's a song in the church hymnal about it, Hymn 292 , and several articles at the church website that refer to it, for example Daughters of God from the Nov 1991 Ensign by President Hinckley. There's no references to this idea anywhere in the scriptures that i'm aware of, except perhaps in a very vague way. (And no, I don't plan on getting into the flap i've heard about surrounding this issue. I just want to use it as an example of a belief that is far from being clearly stated in the scriptures).

I've also always been given the impression the church also promotes itself as having prophetic leaders who can speak by inspiration, which solves the problem of people having wildly different views of the Bible because of its lack of clarity on certain things.

So, back to the origional question. How does one determine LDS doctrine? from the LDS Scriptures? From the public statements of the church's prophets? Some of both? Pick and choose the stuff you like from both and ignore the rest? Some other totally different way? Alienburrito 22:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to your question and different LDS will have different opinions on the matter. It's a matter of considerable debate within the LDS Church. For an official statement from the LDS Church on what is doctrine and a discussion about the statement, see this blog entry HERE. As the bare minimum that most LDS would accept, doctrine is defined by what is in the Standard Works and official statements made jointly by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Others would add statements made solely by the presidents of the church, but many others would disagree and say that if the entire First Presidency and Quorum of 12 don't ascribe their names to the statement, it is not doctrine in the strict sense. Thus a statement of Joseph Smith that is not otherwise legitimized in the Standard Works or a joint statement is not necessarily doctrine. Still others might include any statement made by a member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve, or even anything said by a general authority. There is no answer, other than the doctrine of the church is what the church claims it to be. If it's something that someone has said or is in a hymn, but is not otherwise legitimized by the Standard Works or a joint statement, chances are the church leaders view its truth or falsity as something that doesn't really matter in the scheme of things so they don't bother to "confirm or deny". –SESmith 02:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

---

SESmith - to me, your explanations makes the LDS sound pretty much like Christianity in general. Some christians say the Pope is the final authority, some catholics even reject Vatican 2's approach to practicing the faith. Most baptists would say mostly interpretation is up to the consience of the individual member, many christans are somewhere in between. The LDS say the leaders of the church are prophets - see Gordon Hinckley's profile at Families Forever - I would hope having a prophet around would avoid disagreement about what was doctrine or not. What I don't get I guess is what use is it to have someone that claims to be a prophet if they can't proclaim or clarify doctrine authoritatively. Just seems pretty useless to me. I'm leaning towards the prophet thing being a scam to be honest. Alienburrito 03:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Some of the same debates on doctrine and authority to declare it that exist in Christianity exist within the LDS Church—it is not a monolith, despite the perceptions of many. The "prophet" can and does do what you suggest (define doctrine), but when he speaks to define doctrine it is always done in the form of what I referred to as the "joint statements". The most recent examples are found HERE and HERE. Much of the prophet's role is to remind the LDS of the doctrine that has already been revealed in the past—primarily in the Book of Mormon—or to focus the LDS on what particular doctrines are important for them at that point in history. –SESmith 03:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting points. What i'm pondering now is this. From the reading I've done on the LDS Church, the vast majority of Joseph Smith, Jr's teachings weren't joint statements, they came from him and him alone. There's a handful of revelations published in the Doctrine and Covenants where some of Smith's associates were invovled in receiving the revelation, but the vast majority are solo. Yet it seems that some of Smith's doctrinal teachings are rejected in modern times, which is where I ended up butting heads with a mormon or 2 here. It also seems that the prophet going solo on revealing or clarifying things has gone by the wayside, and I don't get why. Alienburrito 03:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Yeah, that's interesting. It seems that if the LDS Church wants to accept something JS said as "doctrine", what they do is canonize it and put it in the D&C. There's a lot of stuff he said in the D&C that was not a "revelation"—stuff from letters, sermons, etc. I agree that there's been a change, and that the prophet doesn't usually go off on his own like JS did and declare doctrine. I think this might have something to do with the fact that JS is viewed as "THE" prophet of the restoration—it was his job to do the heavy lifting of restoring all the lost truths, and that while subsequent prophets have the same type of calling, they are not required to "restore" truths in the same way JS did. Also, the church accepts all the members of the 1st pres. + Qof12 as prophets, so maybe the idea is that if doctrine is going to be declared then all the prophets have to agree on it? –SESmith 21:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I would clarify that prophets are not "required" to do anything. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve as viewed as prophets, seers, and revelators; however, that does not mean that each or any of them act in the capacities of these callings or positions. They possess the keys of those offices, but the vast majority of the time they act in the role of "adminstrator". For some, to act as a prophet is simply to lead; for others it is to guide by specific revelation. Most LDS would say that each President of the church operates in that function, but seldom have we seen a prophet function in the same capacity as Joseph Smith. He was unique among the Latter day prophets up to this date. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant "required" in the sense of God asking them to do something. If they felt God asked them to do something, I think they would view it as a "requirement" of their calling. –SESmith 22:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

SESmith - here comes the $64,000 question now, the one I was hoping to get to eventually. Why are some of Smith's stuff cannonized and some not? Have the followers of Joseph Smith just decided they're gonna pick and choose what things they like and don't like? It sure sounds like it from what i've read so far. That definatly puts some dents in the church, the current leaders especially, as something/someone to look to for information on God and salvation. Alienburrito 02:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

I don't know the answer to that and I don't know if there is an answer out there that the church has put forward. If I had to guess I would say that that has been one of the roles of subsequent prophets—deciding what statements of Smith's are important enough to canonize. They would probably claim to have made those types of decisions on canonization under inspiration from God. If an adherent were to believe that God was guiding the process, I don't see how it would put dents in the church or the leadership. It's kind of similar to how many other Christians see the process of compiling the Bible. If we look through history, the choice of what went into the Bible and what was excluded can seem awfully arbitrary. Some devout Christians get around this by arguing that all along God was somehow guiding the process.

All that being said, I should re-emphasize that just because a statement of Smith's is not canonized doesn't mean it's totally dismissed in the LDS Church either. There is fairly widespread respect for Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, a collection of (mostly) uncanonized teachings of Smith, as well as some of his writings or his scribe's writings in History of the Church. As I mentioned above, although there is no consensus, you can probably find a fair number of LDS who would consider the statements in either of these sources to be doctrine. –SESmith 10:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, at this point, I'll chalk our disagreements on this stuff up to different understandings of what a prophet is. I must admit I expect that a prophet, when he speaks about God, to be teaching doctrine. A prophet's teaching needs to also fit in with previous prophets. Not that a prophet can't teach something that previous prophets haven't taught, but his teaching does need to be consistent with previous prophets. I'll use Jesus as an example. His teaching is very different from those of Moses, but the New Testament cites numerous statements of the Old Testament Prophets to support the idea that his coming and the new approach was part of the plan.

Of course, that does seem pretty simplistic, but then again, in recent years, I've come to the conclusion that most of Chrisianity is irrelevent to my life, partly because of such overly simplistic stuff as above. Alienburrito 01:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

?? I wasn't advancing any personal "undertanding" in an effort to convince you of anything—I was just trying to answer your question and offer my understanding of the way different LDS approach the issue differently. I therefore don't understand what "disagreements" you are referring to ... ? It sounds like your vision of what a "prophet" is would gel nicely with many LDS people's views; there would also be LDS that disagree with that approach. –SESmith 10:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To my mind, canonized doctrine should last for all time. It should relate to everyone, and not just be for a small group. The ten commandments, for example, relate to everyone. Everyone is commanded not to kill. Scriptures should also come from Prophets, since they are supposed to be God's mouthpiece for such doctrine. But if Joseph Smith mentioned something obscure, or said something that was personal and directed to only one person or small group of people, it would not be of as much worth to the church as a whole as something that was meant by God to be given to a larger group. Keep in mind that Joseph was there when it was chosen which of his revelations would be "canonized". He sought direction from the Lord when it was compiled, and did it using his authority as a prophet. Also keep in mind that according to Joseph Smith, everything spoken by a servant of the Lord with the Spirit of the Lord is scripture. Whether or not it will be printed and how it will be printed is determined by later revelation, but anything God directs his prophets to say is scripture. That is what Mormons believe. Wrad (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, on the question of how to tell if something is doctrine. If it's in the standard works of mormonism (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price), and the leaders of the Church teach it, and the Spirit confirms that it is doctrine, then it is doctrine. Those are kind of the three keys to knowing if something is totally off or if it is accurate. Wrad (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

References

This is just a comment, but isn't 4 references pitifully small for such a large subject, with such varying and controversial content? Can at least a dozen other good sources be found? silvarbullet1 (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I certainly see your point. But this is just one of many articles about the Latter Day Saint movement. As Mormonism is considered a nickname by many adherents, this is basically a side article for those who search by that name. You might look at History of the Latter Day Saint movement, Joseph Smith, Jr. and associated bio articles about him, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well as many more specific topics. Lots of sources in Wiki, just not all on one article. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger

Which argues for my long-standing advocacy for merging the Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement articles. — Val42 (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the merger, because much of Mormonism is cultural, and particularly the culture of Utah. As the LDS Church expands, the cultural influence may fade, but the Latter Day Saint movement is more historical, but Mormonism is more cultural. Bytebear (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is an argument that I've lost several times before. If someone were reading this article, they'd see in the introduction, "of certain branches of the Latter Day Saint movement, specifically, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)." We can agree that it applies to the latter, but which other "branches" does it apply to? That isn't defined in this article nor clearly in any other article. — Val42 (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is why this article needs to define its focus. Mormonism is really about the LDS Church, but more cultural than doctrinal, although there is certainly overlap just as there will be some overlap with FLDS or even RLDS, but when described in the general sense, it is about LDS alone. It should be better defined. Bytebear (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Begin new discussion on Monotheism and "Christian"

Rather than add to a very old discussion, I am bringing it to the bottom. Please do not respond to the old discussion. Bytebear (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like user:RossweisseSTL is getting close to a 3RR violation. Please discuss before you get blocked. You need a reliable source that says that Mormons are not Christian (and Evangelical anti-Mormon sites don't count). You also need reliable sources that talk about polytheism. Right now you are putting up a lot of original research. I don't want to discourage you from editing, but you need to realize that although you may believe that Mormons are not Christians (that's your POV), the vast majority of historians of religion put it squarely in the Christian category. A good neutral source would be adherents.com. Bytebear (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed merge of Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the debate was no consensus

Merge

Why two articles? Why are Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism two separate articles? The intro to the latter even says that it is the about the "the religious, ideological, and cultural elements of certain branches of the Latter Day Saint movement." What is there to the Latter Day Saint movement that is not religious, ideological, or cultural? These seem like redundant articles, and neither one of them is particularly long, so I propose they should be merged. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 11:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've brought up before that they should be merged, but to Latter Day Saint movement. It should go this way because Latter Day Saint movement is a broader topic. I'll let the other contributors explain why they have opposed this merger in the past. — Val42 (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree - but fix by renaming I agree they should be merged: the topics are nearly identical. I read the arguments, above, against the merger, and the primary argument seems to be that the Mormonism is more cultural; and LDS movement is more historical. That is a valid point, and perhaps the best way to address that is to get the words "Historical" and "Cultural" into the titles. In other words:

• Leave Latter Day Saint movement title alone, and make it primarily a historical overview of Mormonism
• Rename article Mormonism into Culture of Mormonsim or Culture of LDS movement
• Mormonism would redirect to Latter Day Saint movement

This has the benefit that future editors, when they have cultural information they want to add into an article, would see the Culture of Mormonsim article and put the info in there. Noleander (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The Articles Both Need Revision

Please see the official style guide for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/style-guide) It would be a good idea to rename the article entitled "Latter Day Saint movement." It is important to note that the other sects that broke off from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the official name as of 1838) during and after Joseph Smith's life are not sects of Mormonism. The term Latter-day Saints refers specifically to official members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and not members of other churches or break-offs. The Associated Press Styleguide also has information regarding the connection of the break offs to Mormons and Latter-day Saints. The title "Mormon Church" is not the official name of the Church, and church officials discourage its use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibitor (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the LDS Movement Article is about a "group of religious denominations and adherents who follow at least some of the teachings and revelations of Joseph Smith, Jr.". Isn't this Mormonism article about the people who follow all the teachings and revelations of Joseph Smith, Jr.? I think the LDS Movement article is describing a denomination of the LDS church. If so, then the articles are significantly different. ~ Bella Swan 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Ibitor is mistaken. S/He is confusing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the Church of Christ which was established by Joseph Smith, Jr. There are many Latter Day Saint churches, and almost all of them claim to be the Church of Christ established by Joseph Smith, Jr. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the largest of these and certainly the most prominent, but adopting a NPOV requires that it be given no priority to the status of the "true" church that Joseph Smith established.

I oppose the move. The Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism are not the same thing. The Latter Day Saint movement consists of a group of churches, most of which claim to be this original church that Smith established. "Mormonism" consists of the beliefs and teachings and culture of the people and churches that are part of the Latter Day Saint movement. Snocrates 02:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I too oppose the move, for much the same reasons as Snocrates above. However, it would be nice of this article reflected more of "...the beliefs and teachings and culture of..." and less repetition/redundancy of many other existing articles. There is an article on Latter Day Saint culture (title escapes me - ah, Culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) which might be a better merger candidate. However, Mormonism as a nickname of parts of the LDS movement is inescapable. We should probably, at least, retain a page which defines the term. WBardwin (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference I'm still not clear on what the purported difference is. What kind of content would be in one article, but not in the other? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 09:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the groups is distinct: some believe in the orthodox teaching of the Trinity, whole most others do not. Some still practice polygamy, but others do not, some have active missionary programs, but some do not, some allow women to hold the priesthood, but others do not. Most have different scriptures (modern day revelations) in their respective canon. These are some of the differences just off the top of my head.

The LDS church would say that Mormonism is most appropriately used to describe their beliefs and not those of other Latter Day Saint denominations. Coincidentally, some groups also reject the term being applied to them while others feel it is appropriate. The movement is for all groups and Mormonism is debatable whether it should be applied to all. Does this make sense? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay Even if I grant that difference, that still doesn't justify two articles - LDS movement could be the article, with a section being Mormonism (or "Mainstream Mormonism.") The articles are still short and overlap by and large, so it seems like merging them is appropriate. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 10:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is the articles need not be short and they are underdeveloped. In fact, List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement was recently separated from the main article because it was too long. The Mormonism article is way underdeveloped and the way to remedy this would not be to merge it with a topic that a number of editors recognize as being almost entirely distinct. Snocrates 01:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what is best; however, one thing is certain is that I do not want to see a regurgitation of information in other articles in this article. It may be the best thing to combine the two articles under the title Latter Day Saint movement given that Mormonism is a subset. I don't feel strongly about this and so I have been a bit hesitant to comment on this specific issue.

Snocrates, do you think that we can expand the article without repeating information? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I think the article as it stands now is next to useless. It doesn't focus on what "Mormonism" really means, which is the beliefs, practices and culture of Latter Day Saints. That's just my opinion, though. Snocrates 03:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

STRONG SUPPORT OF Latter Day Saint movement - I'm not a member of the movement but I'm a Missouri history buff and have written some significant pieces of the Mormon War history. Right now I'm trying to clarify the articles in Independence, Missouri at Temple Lot (I have on my to do an article about the City of Zion focusing on eviction from Jackson County). In any event it's much easier and more accurate to write to Latter Day Saint movement rather than Mormonism given the significant differences in Missouri. Americasroof (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. From a history point of view, many things fall under "Latter Day Saint movement" that are no part of Mormonism. Mormonism also has various cultural aspects, from seagulls to green Jell-O to seminary which do not fall under the Latter Day Saint banner. Bytebear (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion closed - no consensus to merge - --Trödel 03:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

??wikiproject christianity??

this should not be a part of wikiproject christianity because mormons are not christians--Charlieh7337 (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay While Mormons clearly aren't mainstream Christians, and one is free to not consider them actual Christians, it is equally clear that Mormonism is a phenomenon that comes from Christianity. If you really want to discuss the matter, you should post on the talk page of that WikiProject. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case it should be part of wikiproject freemasonry. Rumor has it that Joseph Smith blended Freemasonry and Christianity to create Mormonism.--69.234.218.126 (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

19th century Cult

Why does this article not have the tags of cult, 19th century religions, religions founded in the USA, etc? Since Mormonism was ment for white americans should'nt it have a tag for that? There racist dogma about Native Americans and Africans should also be place on highlight. --Margrave1206 (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

19th Century Mormonism was no more racist than any other Christian church at the time. In fact, it was far less racist than the majority of Christianity at the time. Find a reputable source that says Mormonism is a cult, and we will be happy to add it. (Key word: reputable). Bytebear (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Even though the people in those 19th century southern Protestant churches were racist by no means did they rewrite the Bible and or write their own Holy Book out of the air. Does reputable mean only sources you agree with? I like facts and historical truth.--Margrave1206 (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Margrave, we look forward to your participation. It appears that you have at least been perusing colorful anti-Mormon websites; those are great, but pretty one-sided and short on facts. I'm not sure an in-depth response is appropriate on this page given the topic. This article does not go into any real depth regarding doctrine because there are so many different groups that can legitimately be included and they all have different doctrines and beliefs.

As far as racism goes, membership in Mormon churches was always open. This conflicts with many of the Protestant churches of the day such as the Southern Baptists, which were distinctly racist and did not allow blacks to join their churches. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but a public encyclopedia for information regarding a whole host of subjects. You might want to open your own blog where you can focus only on the issue that are of concern to you. Alternatively, you might want to do some exploring and find the great number of articles that already include some of your hot buttons. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

2 Nephi 5:21-23: "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

"And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."

"And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done."

"And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey."

In 2 Nephi 30:6, "...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people." [8] I can assure you one thing, that people have been cruel and prejudice for centuries, however no one can say that they made up a religion on the spot out of a magic hat that spouted racism. My point being is that that instead of white washing the part of the Mormons all of this info should be added. Should'nt we have a section about Mormonism and their racist doctrine that is an intricate part of there church? Did the mormons change their doctrine that the Native Americans are the Lamanites and are cursed because they are dark? Store Rider don't candy coat the facts. The article needs work and it needs to show people who read it the facts about Mormonism.--Margrave1206 (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Which fits entirely with the 19th century CHRISTIAN dogma of the Curse of Ham, not at all uncommon at the time. There are several articles, like Blacks and Mormonism that cover this information quite thoroughly. Maybe you should find the appropriate article, and work on that. Bytebear (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Bytebear I was waiting to hear this. That is my point the curse of Ham dogma was used to the means of those people to have African slaves. However this is a mis interpretation of the Bible. Unlike the Mormons that wrote a book that by all means directly assaulted particular people with overtly racist doctrine. I am sorry however the Bible does not condemn Native Americans nor Blacks as cured. Back to dealing with the curse of Ham did the original authors of the Holy Scriptures use thousand of years ago use the Scriptures to justify slaver as 19th century white southerners? The article needs to be change to reflect the truth.--Margrave1206 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But the Bible does condone, and in fact encourage slavery. Bytebear (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You are delightful Margarve; unfortunately, you are ignorant of the LDS church and its origins and not very original in your diatribe. By your comments I would guess you are more familiar with some of the anti-Mormon websites of poorer quality.

As I have stated already, Mormonism is a much broader topic because it addresses many different churches than what you are looking for. You might want to work on Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; given your penchant for racism that article is what you are looking for.

As an aside, I would be very careful about your snide comments about any religion. It shows an extreme lack of understanding of any religion, particularly your own, and is the sign of a patheticly rude individual. Other than that have a great day. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Storm Rider if snide means truth then I am so sorry. I am very sorry that Joseph Smith made stories about how Native Americans and other groups are cursed. You cannot rewrite history to make Mormons look better. This is an encyclopedia and not a place for your personal wants and needs. You cannot change the past, and I don't care for those who white wash history. The article needs to reflect the bias doctrine. As for this bias article, it needs to be addressed and labeled so. --Margrave1206 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is beginning to look more like troll behavior; let's not feed it anymore! They tend to die when ignored. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Margrave1206, you will need to review Wikipedia:Five pillars. — Val42 (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving discussion here

Did you not read what I had on the edit note? There is in fact a reason why it was edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynehart (talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read your edit summary. However, the changes you made were a point of view that has already been discussed on the talk page. Please review what has already been said on the topic on the talk page. If you have any new information, please add it to that discussion. In addition, it may be helpful to review the Wikipedia policy at WP:NPOV. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The changes I made are in no way a "point of view". Explain to me how a religion with so many disagreements with Christianity's core principles can be called Christian by anyone with a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynehart (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is more appropriate at the article's talk page rather than mine. I am moving it there. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of polygamy

I have a question regarding the intent behind the Mormon practice of polygamy. I have been told, by a former Mormon practitioner, that in the founding days of the belief men who were followers were often attacked and killed by people of other groups (no specifics about who). With widowed wives and fatherless children increasing in number, the decision was made to bring the victims' families into the home of another provider already married, thus an apparent "plural marriage."

This is of course complete hearsay, and I have not been able to confirm the claim. Has anyone else investigated this, or is anyone else interested in the matter? More importantly, has this claim been proven or disproven? I would prefer not to add anything to the article until there is further information. DerekMBarnes (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a several articles that address this topic, but the reason provided above is more speculation of why it was practiced. The real reason that plural marriage was practiced by LDS was that, LDS believe, God directed Joseph Smith to teach the principal to the Church. It is completely speculative to attempt to explain why God would say something, but the killing of men, or them simply dying, leaving wives and children without a provider is one plausible reason. I am sure there are others just as plausible. Many societies throughout history have practiced polygamy and many continue to do so today.

As you study the topic more you will find that marriages were performed with young girls to much older women. In addition, you will find that only a distinct minority of the LDS people practiced plural marriage; it was the exception rather than the rule. I hope this helps. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

All of these questions (and implied questions) would be better dealt with on Plural marriage or Polygamy in the United States articles. — Val42 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism is not Christian, and this is held up by 98% of Christians in the world today.

Ok, this must be clarified here. Mormonism is regarded as a non-Christian religion by Protestants, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians. This makes up over 98% of all Christendom. Not only is it regarded as non-Christian by nearly 100% of all Christians, but many of it's beliefs are considered blasphemous and heretical by Christianity. The single thing that is used to classify what is a Christian religion and what isn't is the Nicene Creed. This was formed between 325 and 381.

According to the wikipedia article: "The Nicene Creed (pronounced /ˈnaɪsiːn/) is an ecumenical Christian statement of faith accepted in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Communion, and almost all branches of Protestantism, including the Reformed churches, the Presbyterian Church, and the Methodist Church."

While a few things may differ between the different branches of Christianity, ALL agree that it is true and anything that deviates from it is heretical and even blasphemous.

I think Wikipedia needs to conform to traditional Christian definitions of what defines Christians and Christianity. Right now it seems Wikipedia is using very secular definitions that are contrary to Christians and what they believe. This is NOT about who is "right" or who is "wrong". We are NOT saying Mormonism is wrong by not classifying them as Christian. We are simply stating facts about them.

Example... If a Republican politician came forward, and started publically believing in very Democratic/Liberal views, would he still then be considered Republican if the Republican party disowned him?

This is the same thing... There ARE set definitions in Christianity as to what is Christian and what isn't. Those definitions are set forth in the Nicene Creed. Mormonism does not agree with the Nicene Creed, and many of it's beliefs contradict it. It is thus rejected as Christian by Roman Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox etc...

Christianity is not just a very grey area now. You cannot just believe that Jesus is the messiah to be considered Christian. One of the primary things Christians believe and always have is that Jesus is also one part of the Holy Trinity, that he is God. (not a single deity/god as many Mormons believe)

There are many Mormon beliefs that contradict Christian ones that are set forth in the Nicene Creed. Christians believe that the Nicene Creed is one thing that defines Christianity and what Christians believe, so therefore, going by what Christians believe, and what the Nicene Creed says, Mormonism is NOT a Christian faith. It is a religion unto it's own.

Like I said, this is NOT saying whether they are right or wrong. We say Islam is not a Christian faith, even though in it's early days, it espoused very (heretical) Christian and Jewish beliefs. And even though they believe in Jesus, they don't believe in him in exactly the same way as Christians. Therefore, they are not Christian.

It isn't about who is right or wrong, its about putting forth the facts, and showing that they aren't considered Christian by Christianity and it's official definitions. This does NOT mean they are wrong in their beliefs, it just means that they aren't considered to be part of a differing religion. --KCMODevin (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review the Wikipeia policy on Orignal Research which all of your comments appear to be. There are countless reliable sources which call Mormonism a branch of Christianity, specifically a branch of restorationism. Creedal Christianity is only one portion of Christianity, and does not define Christianity for everyone else. Bytebear (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

See Lincoln Chafee. The political party analogy is actually a good one. While Chafee didn't believe everything other Republican senators did, he still caucused with them and counted towards their majority in the senate. Some didn't want him to belong, but he belonged nonetheless. However, whereas the Republicans could probably have kicked him out of the party if they really wanted to (there is a definite head of and hierarchy within the party), Christians cannot do that to other Christians because there is no ultimate person of authority or hierarchy in Christianity. You may not agree with LDS doctrine, but there's really not much you can do to keep others from calling them Christians. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm perfectly 100% Correct... You guys trying to secularize Christianity and blur the lines between what is Christian and what isn't is a completely new phenomena born of the modern movement which is completely UNCHRISTIAN and is completely contrary to Christianity of the past 2000 years. It DOES NOT matter what a single person regards themself as.

I do not think ANY of you understand the history of Christianity. For the first 1000 years, Christianity had one Church, with 5 main Apostolic Sees in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Each bishop of each Apostolic See was completley equal, however no decision was made without consulting the other bishops. Christian beliefs were clarified and defined ONLY by Ecumenical Councils. The first Ecumenical Council was in 325, however the first Church Council was MUCH earlier, in fact it is written about in the New Testament, it was a council in Jerusalem, attended by bishops as well as the Apostles.

In the New Testament, it was clearly defined as to who is a Christian and who is not. The Apostles and Christ all warned against false doctrines and anti-Christs (which are anyone/anything that replaces or is contrary to Christ). We know for sure that the Apostles, especially Paul wrote against people who considered themselves to be Christians, but taught false doctrines. In the Book of Revelation, Christ spoke against the Nicolaitans: "Nicolaism (also Nicholaism, Nicolationism, or Nicolaitanism) is a Christian heresy whose adherents are called nicolaitans, nicolaitanes, or nicolaites. They are first mentioned (twice) in the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. According to Revelation 2, vv. 6 and 15, they were known in the cities of Ephesus and Pergamos around AD 99. The church at Ephesus is commended for "hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate" and the church in Pergamos is blamed for "having them who hold their [the Nicolaitans'] doctrines". There is no other first-hand evidence to give us certainty about the nature of this sect." From the New Testament, we know that heretics are NOT Christians and are even spoken against and rebuked by Christ and the Apostles.

You must realize that Christianity has set definitions, and for 1600 years, those definitions have been set forth in the Nicene Creed. Anyone that doesn't believe in the doctrines set forth in the Nicene Creed are therefore not Christians. You CANNOT believe anything you want as a Christian just because you believe in Christ as the messiah. You MUST believe certain things to be considered a Christian, and it's been like this ever since the days of the Apostles.

This is a time of great tolerance and of attempts to not offend anyone. However this is a great phenomena. Before recent times, people knew who were Christians and who weren't. Heretics may have considered themselves to be Christian, but in fact, they were not Christians, but rather heretics.

Like I said, saying Mormons aren't Christians is not the same as saying they are wrong, it is simply stating a fact. Secular authorities have no right and no ability to define what is Christianity and what isn't. The definitions for Christianity have been CLEAR CUT for a very long time. Only when modernists and secular people have stepped in has the boundaries and definitions tried to be blurred. --KCMODevin (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I edited the article to present BOTH points of view. Originally it had primarily the Mormon POV on the issue. I edited it so it can present the Mormon POV and the POV of Christians on the issue.

"Mormonism sees itself as a restorationist Christian religion.[9] Thus, Mormons regard themselves as Christians, however this differs from the view of other Christian faiths in the world.

Mormons do not adhere to the official Christian statement of faith, the Nicene Creed formed in the 4th Century A.D. Because of this, they are considered a non-Christian faith by many Christians. The traditional/mainstream Christian branches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and most branches of Protestantism do not regard Mormonism as a Christian faith, but rather a unique faith unto it's own. However some Christians regard Mormonism as simply a restoration of ancient Christian heresies such as Arianism, Nestorianism, Gnosticism etc..."

It is NOT fair to Christians to quote a Mormon website and call that true. Instead, we need to present BOTH points of view on the issues. --KCMODevin (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. This equine expired long ago. Let's not keep beating it. Please read the archives. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

YOU CANNOT CITE AN LDS WEBSITE AS FACT!!! YOU HAVE TO PRESENT BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE!! I couldn't care less if it's been discussed before. As the article was, it certainly was NOT NPOV and was extremely bias towards the LDS and Mormons. It cited LDS.org for the so-called "fact" that it's a restorationist Christian religion. However, you completely DOWNPLAY the fact that because they do not adhere to the Nicene Creed, that the mainstream Christian denominations see it as heretical if not completely non-Christian. You CANNOT present ONLY the LDS view on this issue... --KCMODevin (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy with the article saying just:

Mormonism sees itself as a restorationist Christian religion.[10] Thus, Mormons regard themselves as Christians.
However, traditional Christian faiths, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and most branches of Protestantism either regard Mormonism as a non-Christian faith and/or as heretical Christianity.

I don't see what is so wrong and bias about this? --KCMODevin (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems fairly balanced to me, but you would need a reliable reference. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Nicene Creed rejection is not downplayed, it is covered fairly thoroughly in the article. And yes, one can cite the LDS website as fact vis-à-vis what the Mormons believe. --TrustTruth (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, it isn't just Mormons who see themselves as Christians, or as a restoration branch of Christianity. Every secular historian would classify Mormonism as such, and many Christian churches including Catholicism consider Mormons Christian, but not part of the Apostolic Christian tradition. So, you can't just say "Mormons believe this" because a lot of non-Mormons, including Christian leaders, think so too. Bytebear (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

KCMO, I take it then that you would think it appropriate to also list the Roman Catholicism is viewed as a cult in its article because many Protestant churches believe that to a fact. Of course it would not be appropriate; just as it is not appropriate to create a definition of Christianity that only suites Trinitarians. The doctrine of the Trinity is not greater than the doctrine of Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, bled in the garden, was crucified, rose the third day, returned to the Father and will return again one day. He is the only path to return to the Father. Jesus testified of his divinity and his saving grace just as the ancient apostles did. Followers and belief in Jesus in the fashion define Christian and not the teachings of man 325 years after the resurrection of Jesus.

What you are confusing is the teaching of the Catholic Church and those churches who splintered from them that retained the teaching. Sometimes we call it the historic Christian churches; I prefer to just call it orthodoxy. Regardless, orthodoxy does not own the term and discipleship is not determined by their teachings. It is fine that you believe it and have that POV, but it is acceptable on Wikipedia to demand that all Christian churches meet your standard. More importantly, it is not appropriate to rewrite history so that your POV is protected. Christianity has never had a unity of the faith or of teachings. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

-Storm Rider, I am not confusing it. I do not believe the Roman Catholic Church to be the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Rather, I believe that to be the Eastern Orthodox Church. But I do not let that effect my views on Roman Catholicism as a Christian faith.

Christianity has never had a unity of the faith or of teachings.

My friend, you REALLY need to learn your history. In the Acts of the Apostles, a council was called in Jerusalem by bishops and the Apostles to settle a dispute in the Church. This was the first official council. Eventually in 325, the next official council was called in Nicaea by Constantine. It was attended by hundreds of bishops, and by the heads of the Apostolic Sees around the empire. The decisions of this council, and the following six were accepted by all Christians. Those Christians that refused to accept them were considered to be heretics and were not allowed to partake of the Eucharist in the Liturgical services of ANY Christian Church. The early Christian Church had hierarchy and there was most certainly unity and contact between all Churches. Christians may have believed heretical teachings out of general lack of knowledge of theology. But those who believe them and know the true teachings of the Church are heretics.

When I say "The Church", I'm referring to the One Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church. Originally, the Church had five main Apostolic Sees (founded by the Apostles), Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. NONE of these Patriarchs had authority over the other, and all were equal. They could not interfer in each other's jurisdictions, and doctrines/canons could not be formed without the unity of all of them in a Council.

So to say there was never a unity of faith is completely untrue. We KNOW there was unity in the Early Church... The only difference in opinion comes at the Great Schism when conflict between the Church of Rome and the four other Churches became too great and they split. Protestants believe since then, all five churches have strayed from Christianity. Catholics believe they were right and the Eastern Orthodox (the five other churches) are wrong, and the Eastern Orthodox believe that they have preserved the Apostolic Tradition and see the Catholics as straying from tradition.

This comes to Mormonism. Mormons (from what i've read on Mormon sites and literature) see mainstream Christianity as straying from original Christianity almost from day one. They believe Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox all are wrong and strayed away. They believe they are restoring original Christianity and they do not even accept the Nicene Creed (which all mainstream/traditional Christians accept).

On this article, we NEED to clarify that the Mormons view themselves as a Christian religion. However that Christian religions do not see them as Christian, but rather a heretical faith. Especially because it is not only the Nicene Creed that the Mormons differ from Christians on.

The article NEEDS to state this plainly in the beginning of the article. Many people do not go through an article and read everything. Many just read the beginning of the article to get an idea about the subject in the article. This is why it's important to clarify/summarize it in the beginning and make sure there is a NPOV stated early on.

Here is what the article ought to say:

Mormonism believes itself to be a restorationist Christian religion.[11] Thus, Mormons regard themselves as Christians.
However, traditional Christian faiths, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and most branches of Protestantism regard Mormonism as being heretical.

--KCMODevin (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Try making a similar edit in the Roman Catholic Church article. It will never go over there; it shouldn't go over here. --TrustTruth (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with saying "Mormonism believes itself to be a restorationist Christian Religion?" --KCMODevin (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you're not going to get very far acting uncivilly (see Wikipedia:Civility). Secondly, it has been thoroughly demonstrated that a detached, neutral third party would classify Mormonism as part of Christianity. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias as well. --TrustTruth (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

CAN WE GET A NON-MORMON IN ON THIS DISCUSSION? --KCMODevin (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So secular non-Christian "officials" now decide what is Christian and what isn't? When the hell did that begin? --KCMODevin (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Around the time the Royals became universally recognized as a great team, in other words never. It's about a consensus of opinion among observers, not about appearing before some group of "officials" and being granted the Christianity designation. You may not agree with it, but that's your opinion. Here we're striving for a neutral view. --TrustTruth (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

HOW THE HELL IS IT NEUTRAL WHEN YOU CITE LDS.ORG???!!! IT ISN"T NEUTRAL!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE CITING A MORMON WEBSITE, NOT A SECULAR/NEUTRAL WEBSITE!!!!!!!!!!!! --KCMODevin (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

LISTEN, if you are going to cite LDS.org... Then you HAD BETTER cite other Christian sources showing the opposing opinion. --KCMODevin (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(after several ec's) One problem is that others who are not Mormons also believe this. We have reliable scholarly sources (which are the preferred sources on WP) that group Mormonism within Christianity:

• 2001 American Religious Identification Survey
• Yearbook of Canadian and American churches 2007, Edited by Lindner
• Christianity

I'm sure there are others, but these are also used for why Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement denominations are included in the Christianity categories, listed underneath Christianity on List of religions and spiritual traditions, and under Christianity in the religious demographic breakdown on the US state articles. This is such an old debate and the resolution was reached a long time ago. As one editor once said on another talk page: "Can we nip this discussion in the bud? We've had it before. We'll have it again. The shorter it is, the better. We refer to JWs and Mormons as Christians whether they "really" are or not."

And how do know who and who is not Mormon. Dismissing the view of other editors based on religion is quite against WP policy. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am non Mormon. I have a problem with LDS sites being the only justification for saying Mormonism is a restorationist Christian religion. It may be, but it needs independent justification for the claim. I also have a problem with saying "as they consider it to be heretical" without a reference of any kind. What's good for the goose.......Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen... Go to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox articles...
Eastern Orthodox: "It is considered by its adherents to be the very same Church established by Christ and his Apostles."
Roman Catholic: "The Catholic Church maintains that it is the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" founded by Jesus"

This is the SAME thing... Mormons regard themselves as Christians is the more correct (and NPOV) way of saying it rather than saying Mormons are Christian.--KCMODevin (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the NPOV view is that Mormons are Christians. I have cleaned up the references and added another, non-lds.org reference. Seriously, this has been covered before ad nauseum across Wikipedia, and the consensus has always (as far as I can tell) been that -- from a neutral point of view -- Mormonism is a Christian religion. And I don't really hate the Royals, I'm just bitter from their 12-2 drubbing of my D-backs back in June (I was there). --TrustTruth (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit is MUCH better and thank you for adding non-LDS references... However I still have a problem with the sentence: "Mormonism is a restorationist Christian religion" Like I pointed out above, it's the same thing as the two statements in the Catholic and Orthodox articles. To be more correct and to provide it as a NPOV, we should say that: "Mormonism sees itself as a restorationist Christian religion" It would be best and would be neutral. Like I pointed out above... The statements in the Catholic and Orthodox articles do not say that one (or the other) is the original Church, but rather that they believe themselves to be the original Church. --KCMODevin (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement is not saying Mormonism is the true church, it's stating that it is a part of Restorationist Christianity. If it were the former, I would agree that the statement should begin with "Mormonism sees itself...", however it's the latter. --TrustTruth (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You must keep in mind... In the Orthodox/Catholic articles, you could possibly cite secular sources that cite the Catholic church as being the original church, and cite secular sources that say the Orthodox church is the original church. It mostly depends on where you are geographically. Western sources may not cite Islam as having origins in heretical Christianity, while some Eastern secular sources may say Islam was indeed influenced and some of it's beliefs originated from heretical Christianity.

Same here, some secular sources will cite Mormonism as Christian, and some will cite it as non-Christian.

So the best thing is to simply say, that they believe that they are Christian.--KCMODevin (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it be proper to say that: Mormonism is a restorationist non-Trinitarian Christian religion?--KCMODevin (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you really want to slice and dice things. See nontrinitarianism#Modern Christian--TrustTruth (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, I'm fine with your edit as long as the statement about those denominations regarding the church as heretical and the non-trinitarian clarification can remain.--KCMODevin (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know why other churches' opinions matter in the article, but I guess it's doesn't really hurt. I fixed the paragraph's flow. --TrustTruth (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO it matters because it isn't proper to ignore the differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. Without clarification, people reading the article (or rather, skimming over it, as many don't read the whole thing) might assume that Mormonism is considered completley Christian and considered to be ok by other Christians. With the clarification, they know that Mormonism is considered Christian by some, however that position is contested by a large number of Christians out there. Ignoring 97% of the world's Christians just isn't acceptable IMO, even if it is in the spirit of "tolerance".--KCMODevin (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Jehovah's Witness article has this in the opening paragraph of the article:

Identification of the religion as Christian is disputed due to rejection of the Trinity, which most Christian religions regard as a fundamental doctrine.

Maybe we could add a reference or note that clarifies "Christian religions" as being the denominations listed in the paragraph on this page.

Mormonism is a restorationist nontrinitarian Christian religion. However, given its stance on the Trinity, traditional Christian denominations such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and most branches of Protestantism consider the Mormon church heretical.

Mormonism is a restorationist nontrinitarian Christian religion. Identification of the religion as Christian is disputed due to rejection of the Trinity, which most Christian religions regard as a fundamental doctrine.

Just wondering if this would be more proper considering how it also appears on the JW's article --KCMODevin (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a question? Are you going to go to all the Christian articles and say that Muslims consider them heretical and false? After all, there are more Muslims now than Catholics, and as such, they now win the truth by numbers. My personal belief is that the opinion of other religions is irrelevant, but if you think not, then I expect the Cath9lic article to say that Muslims consider it heretical. Bytebear (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm... I don't think you understand the issue here... Mormonism considers itself to be a Christian religion. However, Christianity is not a faith that you can just say you are a part of and thus be a part of it. It requires a certain set of beliefs to be a part of it.

Your analogy is NOT the same as what we are discussing here. Christianity doesn't consider itself to be a Muslim faith. Therefore, it doesn't need to be stated that Muslims don't agree with Christianity being a part of Islam since Christianity doesn't make the claim to be Muslim. The same here, Mormons are claiming to be Christian, however the traditional and mainstream Christian faiths dispute this. Therefore, it HAS to be stated. Christians don't claim to be Muslim, therefore, there is no reason to state that Muslims do not agree with Christianity. --KCMODevin (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you can say you are a part of Christianity, because Christianity is not monolithic. You have already said that Trinitarianism is a requirement, but there is a whole article not about Mormonism called non-Trinitarian Christianity. So you see, the Mormons did not split up Christianity. It was divided long before they came along. Are you prepared to remove all articles on non-Trinitarian views an force them to say they are not Christian beliefs? You have a lot of work ahead of you. By the way, Mormons baptize in the name of the Father, Son an Holy Ghost, which simply shows you are making edits about a subject you have no real knowledge of. Bytebear (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Devin, you are confused with the definition of orthodox Christianity and Christianity. Why don't you look at any dictionary to see how Christianity is actually defined by scholars. Christianity is not defined by orthodox Christianity. No says it does but orthodox Christianity. Many Baptists churches think Catholicism is a cult; do we add that to the Roman Catholic Church article? Of course not. If those Baptists what to label another group cult, they can put it on their own page. It is irrelevant what other groups think about Catholicism. Does this make sense to you?

Also, what you are parading as the definition of Christianity was not taught by Jesus Christ. In fact, it meant nothing in Christianity for over 300 years after Jesus. Who created the Nicene Creed? Yes, a group of MEN. Not God, not in the scriptures, but a group of men that got together, had a very heated debate and then voted on the language. This is what you want to measure all Christianity by?

I suggest you do some reading. Try reading Bart D. Ehrman's books or White's "From Jesus to Christianity". Neither author is LDS. Both discuss how Christianity eventually developed into an orthodoxy and the diversity of beliefs that existed and still exits within Christianity. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bart Ehrmen was a Christian, and in fact an evangelical I think. He believed that Scripture was infallible, and was totally inspired by God without any errors. A common misconception among Christians who aren't aware of the truth. As he read scripture and researched it's history, his research came into conflict with his beliefs, he came to the conclusion that scripture is not valid whatsoever and was entirely written by man. Thus he rejected Christianity and ceased to be a Christian (by his own admission). A podcast by Dr. Jeannie Constantinou called "Search the Scriptures" has been doing a LONG series on scripture, it's origins, etc... She specifically speaks about Bart Ehrman and his writing. We KNOW that scripture was written, edited and changed by man. The Holy Spirit did not overtake the human beings writing it, and there are errors, but they are not a big deal. In fact, many of the additions are wonderful, and we need to bless the editors for adding. Originally, the stories in scripture were transferred orally and were not written down. Much of the epistles are letters to various churches by the Apostles and were not initially scripture. And even the Apostles did not write many of the letters themselves, but rather had their disciples or followers write for them. Men did get together and formed the Creed in several councils. Just as men gathered in Jerusalem and made the decisions they made there. The Apostles and Disciples were ALL men, and all had faults and made errors. That is completely acceptable. But that does not mean their decisions were not guided by the Holy Spirit. You are just NOT understanding what I've been arguing here. Mormonism initially was considered non-Christian by everyone. Eventually, as they've become less and less strict and less like original Mormonism, they've desired to be considered Christian by everyone. However, their rejection of BASIC Christian beliefs is what separates them. Baptists considering Catholicism to be a cult is not important, because Baptists are one small portion of Christianity. Here we are talking about the VAST MAJORITY of Christians. If you want to include non-trinitarians in that number, then the number of Christians who do not accept Mormonism as Christian is indeed still above 90%, therefore it is valid and important to include it in the article.
Like I said before, what makes you all so important that you deserve to be considered Christians without dispute while the Jehovah's Witness article clearly states that their status as Christians is disputed by the majority of Christians? What makes YOU more special than them? Answer that...--KCMODevin (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia. Anyone can add anything to any article and simply because one article says something does not make it correct or proper for every other article. Does that make sense to you?

Further, it is good that you know who Ehrman is. However, his personal religious experience is not the topic of his books. Ehrman and White are just two of hundreds of authors that have documented the diversity of Christianity from the beginning of the movement until today. What is important is that scholars have documented it repeatedly.

What you are attempting to do is say that the only type of Christianity is orthodox or mainstream Christianity. That is a POV, but it is not factual. It is factual that some Baptists think that the Catholic Church is a cult, but it is irrelevant to Catholicism. It is also irrelevant what Catholics or anyone other group think of Mormonism.

Lastly, this article is entitled Mormonism. Within Mormonism are groups that are Trinitarian in doctrine, the Community of Christ being the most significant. Your edit is not an accurate description and is in fact false using your own preferred definition on this article. Please do not edit about topics that you obviously have a less than full understanding; it just creates more work for everyone else. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Christians - yes or no?

Seeing how many sections in the talk page redundantly argue (in some cases uncivilly) whether Mormons are Christians and should or should not be described as such in this article, I have decided to contribute my thoughts to the matter. If this starts another half-page of cyclical dispute with no real resolution, let it be on my head.

This is what Wikipedia says about about Christianity as a whole:

"Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament. Its followers, known as Christians, believe that Jesus is the begotten Son of God and the Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament (the part of scripture common to Christianity and Judaism). To Christians, Jesus Christ is a teacher, the model of a virtuous life, the revealer of God, and most importantly the saviour of humanity who suffered, died, and was resurrected to bring about salvation from sin. Christians maintain that Jesus ascended into heaven, and most denominations teach that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead, granting everlasting life to his followers."

Any religious group which holds these beliefs may therefore be defined as Christian, including Mormonism. This is a neutral, academic definition, and as an open agnostic it is the standard I intend to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekMBarnes (talk • contribs) 06:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahem... The name of the church is The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. Raekuul 12:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raekuul (talk • contribs)