Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Religion and politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clergy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ambiguity "one" and "God"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV?

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

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

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

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

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

Nature of man

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

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

1. Nature of man

   Significance of family

   Significance of women

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

Is God genderless in Traditional Christianity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nature of man

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

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

1. Nature of man

   Significance of family

   Significance of women

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

Is God genderless in Traditional Christianity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traditional Christianity

I removed from a reference a statement that "Trinitarian" or "creedal" Christianity will be used to mean non-Mormon Christianity. We've already agreed that "Trinitarian" is inappropriate, and "creedal" implies something about non-Mormons that is simply not true - that they all are based around creedal statements. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Who says that "trinitarian" is "inappropriate"?
2. We can't compare all "non-Mormons". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Trinitarian Christianity is what is being compared. "Historical" and "traditional" only mean something when referred to the creeds of Trinitarian Christianity. To remove this term is to destroy the comparison - as though belief in the Trinity is merely what is accidentally in common between (some) traditions over against Mormonism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to compare Mormonism to the rest of Christianity, you need to have something to tie all of Christiandom together. Given the divergence in doctrine, I think the creeds are the connecting point for these various orthodox and protestant faiths. 65.208.160.194 (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been wanting to broach this subject for a while now. I think there is still a major flaw in the premise of this article and as I've mentioned, I'm still not keen on the title because to me (as it is for many Mormons) Mormonism is the most traditional Christian religion around (being a restoration of the original in our view). As soon as you get into the minutiae of the "Traditional" denominations' respective theologies, you will find a plethora of differences, a number of which overlap in some way or another with the differences being drawn in this article between Mormonism and "the rest of Christianity". For this reason, many parts of the article still seem to be a bit unnatural in the way they attempt to portray the traditional perspective as a single unified faith. A while back we had a conversation and agreed that there is no such thing as "the great monolith we call traditional Christianity". We arrived at the term "traditional" as a way of packaging up all of these other Christian branches into one "kinda united" thing for the purposes of comparing "it" to Mormonism, but that always felt a little strained in my opinion. I've been happy to see distinctions between Greek Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Protestant theologies begining to seep into the traditional Christian sections, which is nice, but a large part of this article is still mostly about (in a round about kind of way) Evangelical Christianty vs. Mormonism. I added the statement DJ mentions a few days ago (minus the specific mention of Trinitarian and creedal Christianity, but I agree with Mark's addition of those terms), because I was trying to find a way to let the reader know what this article means by "traditional Christianity" and I think the article makes the case in favor of several core doctrines which traditional Christians share that are distinct from the teachings of Mormonism:

1. The Trinity (including the dual nature of Christ, the meaning of the oneness of God, etc)
2. Views concerning revelation and scripture (closed cannon, no new prophets or Apostles) etc
3. Doctrines concerning salvation
4. The destiny of mankind
5. Modes and meanings of worship
6. Responsibilities of and qualifications for clergy

But even when you get into the details of this short list, there are a number of subtle differences among the parties that could be rightly found within the pale of traditional Christian orthodoxy. All of these issues and differences were things that were not made firm until the councils from the 4th century on. Even then there were disputes over some aspects of the conclusions of these councils (consubstantial issue, Monophysite schism, and later protestant movements, the cult of relics, etc), and they have been the cause of conflict (even bloodshed at times in history) between fellow Christians for centuries. So I again bring the question back around, why is Mormonism considered distinct enough from these other branches of Christianity to merit the us and them treatment it gets in this article? What we're really talking about here is how Mormonism differs from the current state Christianity at large, which though it is still riddled with schism and theological disagreement, has managed to agree to disagree on certain things and agree to declare essential certain others, whereby Mormonism now finds itself excluded from that particular definition of orthodoxy. This is what the article really ought to make plainer in my view as we go forward, but that is admittedly a far more nebulous (and probably far trickier to accurately represent) definition of "traditional" Christianity. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To claim a thing as "traditional" is not the same thing as claiming it to be "original". Mormonism is "anti-traditional", an "alternative to tradtion", the opposite of "traditional" in any case, because it charges that what is "handed down" is corrupted through the process of transmission by tradition. It's nonsensical to say that Mormonism is more traditional, when by its own claim it charges the tradition as a guilty departure from the original foundation of Christianity, which must be re-founded.

If you really thought that Mormonism does not set "us" over against "you", then you would be amenable to correction by "us" in the interest of repairing the schism you maintain by your distinctive and antagonistic beliefs. The accusation of apostasy upon which Mormonism justifies its permanent separation and antagonism, which is fundamental to your religion, is your own answer to your question, "why is Mormonism considered distinct enough from these other branches of Christianity to merit the us and them treatment it gets in this article?" Obviously. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, Mark. But I would only add that there is a great deal of "Us" and "Them" going on within traditional Christianity itself that does not get called out at all in this article and might lessen the "iron wall betwixt Christian theology and Mormon theology" feel. There are points of overlap in Mormon theology and departures, just as there are points of overlap and departure between Baptist and Catholic theology (transubstantiation, the infallibility of the Pope, the mode of baptism, purgatory, prayer to Saints etc), or Catholic and Lutheran theology (Marrying rights for clergy, The Ninety-Five Theses etc), or Calivinist and Methodist (and Arminianism) (The Predestination versus Free Will and foreknowledge issue, etc), or the conflict over the oneness of God between groups like Oneness Pentacostalism (One God in one person with three manifestations) and other Christian branches (One God manifest in three persons who are eternally distinct), or the Word of Faith movement, versus the rest of Evangelical Christianity (the prosperity Gospel, the "faith is a force, and words are the containers of the force" doctrine, the issue over whether Christ went to hell after suffering on the cross)...All of these conflicts of theology (and that's by no means even remotely complete as a list of conflicts), are significant theological issues. In many instances I would say they are comparably significant to a number of Mormon differences that are considered "controversial". So it is still interesting to me that there aren't other wikipedia articles entitled "Baptists and Christianity" or "Catholicism and Christianity" or "Calvinism and Christianity". You might say they are similar enough on enough points to not merit these articles, but these issues I've mentioned only scratch the surface of the differences and disputes that have existed and now exist between the Christian denominations. It is interesting to me how much attention Mormonism gets. To my knowledge there aren't even articles on "Jehovah's Witnesses and Christianity" or "Christian Scientists and Christianity", but I haven't checked. These faiths are also significantly different from "traditional Christianity", yet if they profess faith in Jesus Christ and are content to describe themselves as "Christian" I don't feel it my place to deny them the moniker.

As for the repairing of the schism, I think the burden is on you guys to accept the restored gospel ;-) (please hear a nudge and a wink in this comment and not a snide remark, it's meant to be good natured)Mpschmitt1 (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, you aren't taking into full consideration the nature of the divisions that exist on account of the Reformation, compared to the nature of LDS claims. This article was predominantly the creation of Mormon editors, as it still continues to be. It was conceived, I think I can fairly say, as an article that addresses an issue that much more directly concerns Mormons than it does "other Christians". It has developed enough that in my opinion it should give any reader a fair idea of how to answer your question.

I can't help but think that you are looking at the world, and this article included, through the lens of your Mormon apologetical arguments. All divisions are significant, because it is the will of Jesus that "they may be one". But obviously, not all divisions are equally significant or important in the same sense. The Mormon relationship to "traditional Christianity" has a character all its own; and it doesn't make much sense to me to try to compare the issues that arise from it to issues that arise from very different sources in very different circumstances. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. We all have lenses and world views through which we process the world. I won't deny that mine has an impact on my perspective.

I actually just looked over the TC sections of the article and found myself pleasantly surprised at how much has been done to call out some of the very issues and differences I mentioned. I should have read more carefully before spouting off on these topics, I think. I would like to see that continue though. I don't think it's entirely out of scope for us to consider the overlaps and differences of the varioius Christian denominations (including the Jehova's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Oneness Pentacostals, and others considered in some way or another "unorthodox" as we are). This would bring more depth to the examination; we'd just have to be careful not to overcomplicate things (my speciality ;-). It is a complex thing, and important to examine some aspects of the disunity within Traditional Christianity to understand the criticism of Mormon doctrine and theology (both from the perspective of it's roots, as well as the differences between the type of criticism that Traditional Christians state about one another versus the all out rejection of any claim to legitimacy that is generally applied by most Traditional Christians to LDS assertions). Mpschmitt1 (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting version of history to say that "Mormonism now finds itself excluded from that particular definition of orthodoxy". Mormonism explicitly set itself up in opposition to the Christianity of the day. Mormons are considered completely separate by most branches of Christiantiy, and are not considered Christian by most of them. Wikipedia doesn't endorse that view, since it would be POV, but in fairness it should report it. Likewise Mormons consider themselves to be the restoration of the true church, with the rest of Christianity being "corrupt" (that' not a view they like to make public but it's still there).

If we are still looking for a word to describe Christians other than Mormon then "non-Mormons" would be the most technically accurate, but reads badly. "Trinitarian" is not good because a) a significant number of non-Mormon Christians are not Trinitarian b) it focusses the difference on a single issue, when the reality is much more complex. "Traditional" seems to be favourite at the moment; "Mainstream" has been used in the past, and I'd be happy with it if that's what people wanted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Two caveats DJ (not to be contentious only to clarify)...I think the phrase "Mormonism now finds itself excluded from that particular definition of orthodoxy" is perfectly fine. My point in saying that is that we are talking about Mormonism versus Christianity as it stands today, not the thousands of other permutations of Christianity that have existed since Christ established the Church. By 1st century Christian, or John Locke's or Erasmus' standards, we might have been regarded as Christian. By Luther, Calvin or the Roman Church, certainly not. It wasn't intended to be historical revisionism, so please don't take it that way. It is true that the LDS Church holds an unpopular position about the corrupt state of Christianity at large. I wouldn't say it's something that the Church tries to cover up though, since it is emphasized in every Missionary lesson on the subject of the restoration as well as a in our scriptures, in a large number of magazine articles and lesson manuals, and during practically every General Conference. We're not the only Church to adopt such a position though. Traditional Christian denominations had been regarding one another as corrupt or apostate for centuries before we ever appeared on the timeline. I don't think, though that it's fair to say Mormonism set itself up in opposition to the other creeds of the day so much as an agent for refining and drawing in the faithful of other "less perfect" Christian systems into the "perfected" system of revealed religion. The message of the Church has always been, "Take the good you know and let us add to it and filter out the false beliefs added by the traditions and philosophies of men."

Now I'm confused about one other point... If a significant number of non-Mormon Christians are indeed not Trinitarian (I assume you mean groups like Oneness Pentacostalism, and Assembly of God), That brings up the question about why it's such a big problem for the Christian world at large that Mormons are not Trinitarian. Probably not a topic for this but if anyone would like to enlighten me on my talk page about that, I'd really like to explore that topic further.... Mpschmitt1 (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We're a little off topic here, but yes, there are other Christian groups that do consider they are the only true Christians and that all others are corrupt. Mostly though they aren't complaining that they are 'excluded' by the other groups (who wants to be included in a corrupt group, after all?).

To go back to writing an encyclopedia article, I don't believe the article should be only about the relationshop between Mormons and Christianity as it is now? Why shouldn't it also be about the history of that relationship? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, we are off topic, but one last caveat that does have some bearing on the purpose of the article. The issue for Mormons is not that we're not included in the Traditional Christian Club. I understand that can never happen without impossible compromise of theology on one or both sides, and as you say, who wants that? The issue is rather the exclusive claim of traditional Christianity to the word "Christian". To me Christian denotes any person who professes a faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, regardless of whether the entirety of their personal theology squares up on every particular with my own. I have many friends from other Christian denominations whom I regard as Christian despite the things in their particular traditions with which I disagree. And see much in their lives to denote (as John Locke advocated) the evidence through their good works of the genuine nature of their relationship to Christ and their conversion to his ways. I don't regard them as personally corrupt. I want that to be clear - I love them and what they stand for in their lives. I see God in their lives, but I also see aspects of their traditions that were added or changed by men.

Now to the task of writing an encyclopedia article... :-) I think you're right, the history of the relationship between Mormonism and other branches of Christianity is important. But you run into trouble there in that Christianity itself since about the end of the first century on has not had a neat and tidy history theologically or otherwise and has changed it's position in the world and key players, and modified the list of "essential" doctrines about once every 200 years since then. I would posit that Christianity from the 2nd century on has had many of the same quarrels with itself that it now has with Mormonism. From a strictly historical perspective, Mormonism is but another of a series of movements in the history of Christianity that has challenged established authority and norms, advocating a return to fundamental principles and a primitive Church. That's what the conscientious objectors to the expanding authority of the Roman Church were seeking. It is what the reformers were seeking during Luther's time. It is what the early evangelicals were seeking in England. It is what the Protestants who left England to come here were seeking. And it is what the American Christian movements were seeking during the first and second (contemporary with the birth of Mormonism) Great Awakenings. The difference is Latter-day Saints advocated a full and and divinely authorized restoration rather than a carefully and Biblically reasoned reformation. The notion of where Mormonism fits (or doesn't fit) into this history of Christianity as a whole is interesting, but I wonder if we can concisely explore that in the context of the article. If we can, I do think it would be a useful and balancing aspect to the article. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Non-Mormon" is the opposite of a "technical term". It is practically useless.

When you depart from the Trinity as a basic term of comparison, you are no longer comparing Mormonism to anything but merely expounding upon it in relation to literally anything that is not Mormon but calls itself "Christian". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that, if there is to be a comparison to Mormonism, there must be something chosen for the terms of comparison. The terms chosen here are not random but obvious. If you depart from these terms, it will be entirely arbitary deciding what will be included and what will not be included. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize a point made by Mpschmittt above regarding being Christian. I have heard many accuse the LDS Church of individual Latter-day Saints of wanting into the group of Christian churches. Neuhaus' Catholic Matters was the most recent place where I read this, but there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what LDS are saying. LDS do believe in an apostasy and teach that as doctrine. However, the Church never teaches that other churches that teach of Jesus Christ is not Christian. The Church never denies truth regardless of where it may be found. The exact opposite is taught...to seek out truth. The Apostasy does not mean an absence of truth, but rather an impurity in teachings. Truth remains, but it is clouded by false teachings. We desire to recognized as followers of Jesus Christ; nothing more and nothing less.

To be denied the label of Christian for members of the LDS Church is an effective tool by those who seek to denigrate the Church's teachings, but it is only a contrivance. One creates a definition of Christian that is restrictive and then presents it as if it were "the" definition. This is why the Church so often identifies this definition as being of the 4th century. Given the definition used against LDS to deny them their "Christian-ness", one must also deny all of the 1st century Christians for the same reasons. If one used the Bible's teachings of a follower of Christ, the first thing that falls away is all of the restrictiveness created by men to differentiate between who is a real Christian and who is not the same. It summary, LDS may say a church is in a state of apostasy, but you will never hear the Church state another is not Christian. Call us apostate, heretics, etc., but please do not deny our belief in the Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what prompted your comment. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As for me, I don't think that it can be profitable to discuss in the article whether Mormons are Christians; and so I have earnestly avoided trying to do that in the talk-page of the article, too. It has seemed important to me to maintain distance - to describe the foundational claims of Mormonism over-against the divided traditions of "Christendom". Alongside of this, to avoid reproducing in this article the debate itself, I've thought it to be helpful and informative to place, not an argument against Mormonism or a refutation of its manifold accusations and boasts, but simply a description of the tradition which, divided in many obvious ways is also in obvious ways in agreement. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

In doing that the opportunity only rarely arises, to engage in direct debate with Mormonism. Usually all that is called for is a description of the broad consensus. It is because of this agreement that many narrower arguments exist within that broader consensus. But, that such a consensus exists is just as obvious as that, in view of present fact, it has been ineffectually unifying. Just because what the Reformed have in common with the Roman Catholics is not sufficient to resolve their differences, does not negate the fact that Mormonism differs from them both in ways that show their common family-traits; but it usually is left to the Mormon sections to point out how they alike are different from Mormonism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this has got a long way off the topic of an encyclopedia. I disagree with most of what Storm Rider wrote above, but if anyone wants to know why they can ask me at my talk page. And I'll bo on a Wikibreak for a while, so it will have to wait a couple of weeks. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

recent move

Where was the recent move discussed? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would sure like to know that same answer. Do you even know the editor? I recognize the name, User:CrazyInSane, but I am not sure I have worked with him before. Strange to just make a change without ever having editing the article before. Reading his User page he is young, but still an odd action. Thoughts about his move? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit note argued that C comes before M. That's a silly reason. Supposing it's not just mischief, the editor might have thought that the titles are simply equivalent, as "2 + 3" is exactly the same as "3 + 2". But the article is not about quantities, but the subtleties of human relations; and switching the terms reconfigures the meaning. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

Naturally, this article necessarily says a lot more about how Mormonism stands in relation to Christianity (that it is Christianity from the Mormon perspective, but not the Christianity of historical orthodoxy) than the other way around. It doesn't work the same, the other way around. For example, it is not an explicit part of my religion to have any opinion at all about Mormonism. All views of Mormonism in my faith are implicit. My faith can be fully expressed without any reference to the Book of Mormon, Mormon history or Joseph Smith. However, it is not possible for Mormons to fully express what they believe without reference to "Christendom", Christian history, the Christian church, Christian creeds, or Christian Scriptures. That's why the proper title is "Mormonism and Christianity". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the way the article is written I agree that the more proper title is Mormonism and Christianity. Some of your reasoning is interesting. For example, Christian Scriptures are LDS scriptures. LDS do not recognize "a" Christian church, but a plethora of churches all using the same Bible, but each preaching a different gospel. Christan history, in many respects for LDS, stops after the first 100 years. That is not to say that LDS do not find much to admire in the rich history of countless individuals who gave everything in the service to Jesus Christ, but most LDS simply pay a great deal of attention beyond the organizational apostasy. As I think about it, I could easily say the same thing as you, my faith in Jesus Christ, his gospel, his scriptures, and his restored church need never speak of other Christian churches. Why would you think LDS are dependent upon you? For that matter, I thought you were a Calvinist. Your history is fully dependent upon the Catholic church for its existence whereas Mormonism would only point to the Church of Jesus Christ. Interesting perspectives. Cheers.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The parallel you are looking for is something like the following. I am Protestant - meaning that, I can only explain what that label signifies about my beliefs over against what Roman Catholics believe. I am Reformed - meaning that, I must explain what I practice over against what Roman Catholics practice, and in terms of developments before and since the Reformation. I am nevertheless, Catholic - meaning that I take seriously the institutional church: its whole history is my history. But it is confusing when a Protestant tradition calls itself Catholic. That confusion can be repaired with a little information, and aside from it being motivated by purposes of self-promotion and defensiveness, it could still be just as legitimate an article as this one if only the matter is notable enough. The proper name for an article explaining such a relationship, describing that viewpoint which rejects developments in the Roman Catholic church and yet is itself an historical reform movement originating from within it, would be, "Reformed Protestantism and Catholicism". — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

The analogy holds this far: although the LDS church does not see itself as a development of the history of the Christian church, and has additional Scripture, different foundations, different prophets, different apostles, different temples, different rituals, different ideas of God, of man, of angels, of creation, and of salvation, etc., than does the Christianity known to history, yet, it still calls itself "Christianity" much as the Reformed call themselves "Catholic". That's confusing. That confusion can be fixed with just a little information, as this article provides. The proper name of such an article is "Mormonism and Christianity". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

On the title we agree; would you like to make the change? Also, would it not be more appropriate to say "catholic" and not "Catholic"? I have always understood them to have very distinct meanings and the way you are using them seems to conflict with them. Semantics is a fun game to play, but I believe we both know where we stand and we both should be ever so grateful that we have only to answer Him who died for us and redeems us from our sins. Cheers.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for the best way to do it? I guess the only way is to copy the content into the original article, change this to a redirect, and then work through the double-redirects (or just let the bot do it). Is that it? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "catholic" instead of "Catholic" is one of those little ways to reduce the kind of confusion I was illustrating. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit history moved to Christianity and Mormonism. What a nuisance. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. I was trying to find out if an easier way existed and you got it done! Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Accepted Scriptures

Should the section on scriptures include Joseph Smith's proclamation that the Song of Solomon "is not an inspired work"? JeffDaniels (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Too long

The article is a shipwreck. It is at present 128 KB long. Please consider splitting information into different sub articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Preeminent scripture

There are plenty of references for BoM being "preeminent" over the Bible, including reference 57 from Book of Mormon.

Once again we need to balence Joseph Smiths statements about being "sensitive" to other Christians with his statements that their faiths are "corrupt", "an abomination", and many other things. It is simply biased to include one kind of statement without the other. Unfortunately a look back at this article will see that the 'negative' statements keep getting gradually removed while the 'positive' ones seem to be kept. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Profesors of religion

Storm Rider, I'm surprised at you. I would have expected you to know what "professors" or religion means in the 19thC i.e. those to "profess" religion, i.e. everybody who "lays claim to" or "openly declares" their religion, i.e. pretty much every Christian. The most charitable interpretation could be that "those who teach religion are corrupt", which is still pretty inflammatory speech. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not the context of this verse. Please click on "professors" to see the explanation of the intent of this word. It is specifically discussing the leaders of churches, not members. It is the equivalent of false prophets, etc. --^StormRider 18:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Where would you like me to click on "professors"? I did so on the LDS scriptures site and it gave me a lot of verses on apostasy and nothing about 'professors', which really backs up my point. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Just click on "professors" it takes you to Jude 1:4 (that is the only refernce provided for the word), which reads:

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

In other churches who is ordained? All all ordained men or is the leaders, the teachers of religion? How does it equate to all members? There is a difference between explaining differences in religion and flatly misinterpreting a religion's scriptures. Are you actually saying that non-Mormons know what Mormon Scripture means better than Mormons? Do you have any reference for your interpretation? We cannot use primary sources when the interpretation of the verse is so obviously misunderstood. I will provide some references for LDS scholars. I assume you have references other than your opinion for the same. Cheers. --^StormRider 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Ordained" here does not mean ordained in the sense of "made a priest" it means it in the sense of fore-ordained, i.e. foretold. In a more modern translation it reads: "For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.". DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated, our opinions about what verses say is meaningless. We need to support the position with a reputable source that supports the position you are taking for Joseph Smith 1:19. Do you have one?--^StormRider 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The only thing you have supporting your view is a reference to a Bible verse which does not in any way support the view that Smith is talking about "leaders" - just your interpretation of an out of date translation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous? Let me get this straight, DJ. You want to tell a LDS the interpretation of LDS scripture. When you are corrected, you call foul and say any one who disagrees with you doesn't know what they are talking about. I have pointed out the Primary texts are not acceptable references per policy when it is not clear. This is obviously not clear because your interpretation is not supported by the text, i.e. it needs interpretation. I have asked you to provide a secondary source. Are you refusing to do so or you just don't have one? I am almost certain that you can find one. But, I will then add LDS scholars explanation of the scirpture you have cited. We can then make this already overly long article longer. --^StormRider 19:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't even seen any evidence that the interpretation you give is the official LDS one. All I have seen is your interpretation, plus a reference to a Bible verse that does not talk about leaders. If you can cite evidence that the offical LDS interpretation is as you say then I'm fine with making that clear. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyrum W. Smith in the church's 1916 Conference report seems to indicate that "professors" was understood as ministers, as well as what was meant by "corrupt". The relevant paragraph can be found in the CES Doctrine and covenants student manual, pg 68 in the lower left corner. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

DJ, where is your evidence? I am sure you are not saying you don't have to provide any. This is a little confusing when policy dictates that primary sources cannot be used to support a fact unless it is obvious. This scripture is not obvious given your interpretation being so different from others. If you have a secondary reference, please provide it. If you do not, then the article will be corrected, citing the reference. I suppose I can research the anti-Mormon websites and get the reference for your position and then we could set the record straight on reality. Such is the pattern with anti-Mormon writings: mis-characterize, misquote, feign shock they are wrong, then deny LDS know what the "real" meaning is, and continue doing exactly what they have been shown to be wrong. Those people that do this...those are some of the same people this scripture is condemning. Cheers. --^StormRider 23:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, let's look at the context of the statement again..."they teach for doctrines the commandments of men"...if we look at who was responsible for the teaching of doctrine in most other Christian denominations of the day, it was the ministers, not the lay folk. It's clear from what I've studied of Joseph Smith that his issue was with those who set themselves up as a light to the people, but lacked the priesthood keys to lead in purity of doctrine and therefore mingled the pure doctrine of Christ with the philosophy of men. The same issue that the Lord raises with Isaiah in Isaiah 29:13-24, which is the proper context within which one ought to view Joseph Smith's statement. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentally I think what DJ is attempting to develop is that Smith and/or other leaders of the Latter Day Saint movment spoke badly about other Christian churches. I personally have spent some time looking for a quote that could fulfill this purpose for DJ, but I have been unsuccessful. Smith, in particular, is more known within the LDS Church for his respect for other religions. Are any of you familiar with a quote that could achive DJ's objective?--^StormRider 21:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

FyzixFighter's reference convinces me that the LDS interpretation of "professors" is "teachers" so I'm happy to let that stand. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that Fyzix was able to help. I understand that it is better to prove to you by providing references rather than just telling you what I know.

I was doing some additional reading tonight and found the following link. I did not read it all; this doctoral dissertation is nearly 400 pages; however, I skimmed several sections. In regards to this current topic, after Joseph & Hyrum Smith were murdered the members of the Church really did take on an "us vs. them" mentality. They felt completely and wholly persecuted by Christians. Removing themselves from persecution by going west only increased the feeling of isolation. During this time I think we will find statements made that equated all other Christian churches as belonging to the Great and Abominable Church of the Devil, etc. However, even during this period this thinking was not absolute. The LDS Church has always in its history focused on preaching the "Word", spreading the message of the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than focusing on the doctrines of other churches. That is not to say that Church leaders and missionaries did not identify false doctrine, but rather they focused on proclaiming that which they thought was true. I hope you are able to see the distinction? --^StormRider 05:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Smith 1:19

DJ, this is getting a little bit silly. The verse reads,

"19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Attempting to say that professors of religion are the same as members is not supported. One way to get to where you want to go, is to have a reputable reference that supports the POV you are trying to portray. --^StormRider 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the normal meaning of professors under the circumstances:"one who professes", i.e. declares their religion. A dictionary will back it up. The likelihood that Joseph Smith is attacking senior university lecturers (the only other possible interpretation) is too ridiculous to even consider. Do you have evidence to the contrary? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That is also not what is intended by the verse. Please just click on professors in the verse and tell me what it says. --^StormRider 18:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

See above. Not that calling all leaders of a church corrupt isn't inflammatory enough, of course. DJ Claywocrth (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The intent isn't that they are corrupt as in evil, but that the doctrines they teach are corrupt from their original form. It isn't and never was meant to be insulting. it is simply a statement of belief, that the doctrines taught by those professors are incorrect. It isn't about character, but about belief. Bytebear (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that we could include a list of epithets both sides have issued. I don't really know what purpose it would serve. What is absolute fact is that there is an entire industry called anti-Mormonism and there is absolutely no comparison on the Mormon side. This is an absolutely childish bit of stupidity that should have never gone on as long as it did. Desperately attempting to prove something that you are told multiple times the position is incorrect is perplexing. What exactly is the point you want to make? Can it be made in another way, rather than by twisting LDS scripture? "Joseph said God said," is not really an indictment against Joseph Smith, is it? --^StormRider 05:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that you can fairly say that there is "absolutely no comparison on the Mormon side". The Mormon enterprise as a whole is comparable. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pleas, find one anti-Catholic, anti-Baptist, anti-anything on the DeseretBook site. The closest thing I can think of is Talmage's book on the apostasy. It is nothing compared to what you find in some Christian bookstores. Although I have found it is really only evangelicals and southern baptists who really rally on anti-Mormonism. Bytebear (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark, if that were the case then the Reformation would be classified in same vein. I think you and I both know that is as preposterous as you saying the "Mormon enterprise as a whole is comparable". You have stretched the context so far that it becomes meaningless. Anti-Mormonism is dependent upon Mormonism for its existence whereas the LDS Church exists as a complete whole independent of any other Christian church. --^StormRider 23:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that they are the same. I said that they are comparable. The very idea of Mormonism is premised on an accusation. Its entire justification for existence is negative. Is that really something only non-Mormons can see? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And of course, Storm Rider, the Reformation is also a complaint of a comparable nature - a fact easily discerned from the name (Protestant). But, we expect if we've made a complaint against the medieval development of doctrine and government in the church, that we will be answered with a defense of that doctrine and a counter-criticism of Protestantism. We don't posture ourselves as victims, cry foul and complain of being persecuted if we are answered. We don't posture ourselves as victims because we are answered. Debate and refutation, the attempt to win back those who have been persuaded by us, even gross misunderstanding, are not persecution. So, we don't call such things "anti-Protestantism". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) I do think it is a perception that is unique to some Christians; though a warped perception of the reality of Mormonism...one that seeks victimhood. Restorationism by its very nature believes in a previous apostasy. Therefore, if individuals are seeking to be offended by the existence of any Restorationist group then it is possible to take offense. However, IMHO this logic is based upon a weak premise. Every Christian group that has ever existed believes in some form of apostasy in some degree. Heresy has existed from the time of Christ; to now state that calling something an apostasy is somehow verboten denies Christian history or is ignorant of it. We are talking about a matter of degrees, but heresy is heresy.

Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. Anti-Mormonism is not criticism or disagreement over doctrine. You and I both know what anti-Mormonism is; we know it when we read it and see it. No scholar, LDS or of any other religion, is offended by doctrinal disagreements being discussed; it is the purview of responsible theologians and philosophers. Anti-Mormonism is not a discussion and its objective is not to discuss, but to destroy by any means necessary. It uses deceit, misinformation, and bald lies upon which to attack another faith. --^StormRider 03:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There's an enormous gap in perceptions. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that is your opinion, but can you document this for Wikipedia? What is needed is a reference that documents how the LDS Church publishes books full of lies, deceit, misinformation, etc. used to destroy other churches. I sure this must be an easy thing given the LDS Church has its own publishinng company, Deseret Book. Again, we are not talking about doctrinal disagreement, but something in the mode of "The Godmakers" film, which has even been condemned by other Christian churches as deceitful, lies, misinformation, etc. A scholarly position is of more value here than one's opinion, which everyone has whether informed or ignorant of the topic. --^StormRider 03:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Was Fawn Brodie an "anti-Mormon"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To a degree. By her own admission she felt Smith made the whole thing up, and wrote her book accordingly, ignoring some facts, and exaggerating others. Bytebear (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would not call her an anti-Mormon. She was a historian that wrote with a narrow objective; i.e. she stated she wanted to disprove Joseph Smith's story. I don't think she ever purposely lied or misinformed her readers. What she did was omit information that would have conflicted with her objective. As far as being a historian goes, I don't respect her work as much as others because I am forced to understand that she is only telling part of the story; her position is incomplete. Anti-Mormons would be individuals such as Ed Decker and his ilk. --^StormRider 18:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that to call her an "anti-Mormon" exaggerates the similarity between her work and motives and that of sensationalists like Decker. I'd say that this application of the label is a distortion, and that it is prejudicial and not fair. And since you've claimed that there is "absolutely nothing comparable on the Mormon side", this itself is an exaggeration and not fair. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Byte has said to a degree and I have said she is not. There is no application, therefore no distortion or being unfair. Do you want us to think of her as anti-Mormon or are you simply not reading our responses? --^StormRider 20:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Where's the difficulty? Brodie has been labeled an "anti-Mormon". Not by you (personally), only "in part" by Bytebear. Others haven't been so circumspect. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what is the intent of the author? is it to destroy or discredit the church? Or is it to only disseminate information? Brodie's intent was at least in part to do the former. The Tanner's have that as their primary objective, as does Decker. Bytebear (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) I am not sure what the above conversation had to do with the topic of Anti-Mormonism and the LDS Church activities vis-a-vis other religions. Mark, you have alledged that the LDS Church does the same thing as other groups and I had asked for a reference that supported that allegation. Which books does the LDS Church publish that a RS views as strictly focused on the destruction of other churches or religions? It is without question that the LDS Church publishes books that are focused on proclaiming what they view as the restored Church of Jesus Christ, but I am not aware of any book whose sole purpose is the destruction of another religion. I am curious if your opinion is supported by responsible scholars. --^StormRider 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

More accurately, Storm Rider, I said that what the LDS does is comparable - I didn't say that they are the same.

Bytebear, your definition is different from Storm Rider's. He described anti-Mormons as sensationalists who seek "to destroy by any means necessary". You define them as those who seek to destroy, to discredit: much more open-ended. It isn't fair to put the Tanners alongside Decker. According to the Tanners themselves, Decker fits Storm Rider's more defensible definition.

And to answer you both, I don't see the difference between the basic Mormon account of how the Scriptures and the doctrine of the church were corrupted, and Brodie, the Tanners, or other similar radical critics. What is the difference? Furthermore, I see some but not much difference between Decker's sensationalist attacks, and the "Protestant preacher" portion of the old Temple ceremony for example. Do you still really see "absolutely no comparison"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I see minimal room for comparison. The comparison above is apples and oranges to what we have been discussing. The premise is that an entire anti-Mormon industry exists within the Christian world. We are not talking about apologetic groups or even anti-cult groups necessarily; however, the last group has a rather unsavory reputation for their lack of scholarship and their zeal for sensationalism.

The LDS Church is unequivical in proclaiming that it is the restored Chruch of Jesus Christ upon the earth. It recognizes no other priesthood except its own and therefore it recognizes no other ordinances/sacraments performed by other Christian churches. In this process of proclaiming itself, I can see how some would consider the words and actions of the Chruch to be offensive or even comparable to the activities of anti-Mormon groups; however, I think is a poor comparison and stretches the definition.

Printing books, making films, which are all focused upon the misinformation, if not outright lies, to destroy another church is very different than portraying Protestant preachers as the purveyors of half-truths or a water-downed version of the fulness of the Gospel of Christ. The difference between a proclamation of an apostasy, which is never explained in any detail other than to say there was one, is very different from Ankerberg, Decker, and others. They are the purveryors of the sensational andn this is simply not done within LDS Church activities. When you have prophets from Joseph Smith who invited Methodists preachers to preach in Nauvoo to LDS to Jewish Rabbi's to do the same to other events today where scholars and ministers from other religions speak to LDS groups; there is no comparison here.

I think one really has to stretch to put these two activities in the same manner of process. I can understand an individual who thinks Mormonism is a heresy. I can understand the rather sheltered, uneducated fellow who thinks it is anathema to hear anything that takes away from what he perceives as the One and Only Holy Roman Catholic Church. What I can't understand is an educated scholar having the same reaction or feelings.

Personally, I cannot get passed the reality of Jesus Christ found within Christian churches. My belief in the Apostasy does not entail an absence of truth, but rather an absence of a fullness of the truth and a loss of authority. I learn an immense degree of truth and way of Christian discipleship from reading the words of other Christian leaders (past and present) as I do from reading the words of the current prophet and apostles. I am not sure you understand or appreciate those feelings of respect and admiration, but they are real for me. --^StormRider 23:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't complain about being offended, or other feelings, either. If you mean to talk about the same thing I'm talking about, I said it isn't fair (I mean, it is not accurate) to say that there is "absolutely no comparison on the Mormon side". For example, you say it's a "stretch" to compare Decker to what until recently was sewn right into the fabric of Mormonism (a depiction of Evangelical preaching as inspired by, and under the pay of, the devil). I'll grant that Decker doesn't seem to claim that his denunciations of Mormonism are directly inspired by God (as far as I know).

Regarding the side issue of what "anti-Mormonism" is, it seems to me you're letting your definition slip closer to Bytebear's, when you include Ankerberg. From describing lack of principle you're shifting now to talking about questionable diligence in scholarship. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dubious Premise

This article begins by stating, "...from the standpoint of the traditional Christian faith, Mormonism significantly departs from Christianity." Implicit in this article is the false idea that there is, or ever was, such a thing as "Traditional Christianity." It is referred to throughout the article--"Mormons believe x, but Traditional Christianity teaches y..."--as if all readers know that such a thing exists, and they know exactly what it is. The reason the article List of Christian denominations exists is because there is no consensus about what "traditional Christianity" is (or isn't). (It says there are about 38,000 Christian denominations today.) Even Paul's letters to the early church show that a uniform belief system was lacking in first century Christianity (or at least, the various churches couldn't agree on one).

This article does a disservice by creating a false image of a unified "Christianity" vs. Mormonism. Mormonism is similar to primitive Christianity in at least one way, and this article makes it apparent--it flies in the face of traditions, and as such it is attacked by adherents to those traditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.176.171 (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The term "traditional Christianity" is used because that's the best compromise that the editors could agree upon when referring to Christianity outside the Mormon tradition. Other suggestions are welcome, but most have been thought of and rejected.

The article, by the way, is not meant to be Mormonism versus anything, but is a comparison of Mormonism and other bits of Christianity, as well as a description of the relations between the two. It is not meant to be antagonistic. While there is a wide variation in the beliefs of non-Mormon Christianity there is also substantial agreement, including agreement over things that are substantially different from Mormonism. While it is not possible to contrast Mormonism with all the Christian variants, it is possible to give useful information about the differences. You will notice that Mormonism itself tends to refer to other parts of Christianity as though they were all the same. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The article never says that there is a "unified Christianity" in an institutional sense. However, unified institutions do exist - the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, for example - which represent on the order of hundred millions, or billions, respectively. Anonymous speaks as though these institutions no longer exist. He speaks as though they have nothing in agreement with one another over against Mormonism. He pretends that the catholic creeds to which trinitarian Protestants adhere do not represent agreement or historical commonality, over against Mormonism. This point of view can't be followed and yet leave anything intelligible of the article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, this article needs fixing. As mentioned above the reason there's an article on different denominations is because no one agrees on "traditional Christianity". As such the premise of the article falters. Not only that, but the text is huge and unorganized. Clearly needs fixing for accuracy and overview. Necz0r (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The terms that are provided do describe an agreement - not in every detail, clearly - but one that holds over against Mormonism. The article does not pretend that there is a monolithic consensus, but neither does it deny that there is a line of continuity between these divided traditions from which Mormonism departs. Like anonymous above, this kind of exaggeration, saying "no one agrees", does not clarify and it certainly doesn't plot a course toward shortening this article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We may be able to return to the article and make it more clearly define what is meant by the term "traditional Christianity"; however, I think Mkmcconn and DJ have a correct understanding and purpose of the article. There are groups that are more alike than the same groups are when compared to the LDS Church. These groups, not only from a doctrinal position, but from a historical position can be aligned more easily. On the other hand, Mormonism, as a true Restorationist church, demands a historically different path. In addition, though there are many similarities there are real doctrinal conflicts.

Do you have any specific recommendations? --^StormRider 05:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We could remove the sub-sub-section called "Implications and misunderstandings". It's not that it's uninformative, but it's one of the weaker segments of the article and in my opinion it has a direct adversarial tone that most of the article succeeds in avoiding.

Although we've had a few comments recently complaining about the length of the article, fully a quarter of the length is taken up with footnotes. And yet, even if some of these are shortened, or even if the unencyclopedic notes are replaced with better, tertiary sources, much of the article is not as well-documented as it could be. The fact is, the best way to shorten the article is to improve its references and that would grow (not reduce) the footnote section. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Along these same lines, it is simply inaccurate to imply that all Trinitarian Christians believe Mormons are not Christian. I've added an additional sentence to the intro to clarify this point, citing a recent Pew poll. SLCMormon (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The "standpoint" is not the same thing as an opinion. If it were 99.9% who departed from Trinitarian orthodoxy, it is nevertheless a departure. Regardless, it is an interesting statistic, which shows that for that percentage surveyed doctrine plays no role in their understanding of what Christianity is. It is a useful and clarifying addition to the article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to look closer at the survey cited, however, if it can be found. The linked article says that "1 in 3" of those surveyed do not consider Mormons to be Christians. Whether 2/3 would state the opposite is an inference. It may be that some portion would have no opinion, or would answer that they know nothing about Mormonism, or about Christianity. The cited article does not directly support the citing sentence's claim. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mark, I think it is a misuse of the reference. The reference can be used to say many things, but the current purpose is not proper and misleading. --^StormRider 21:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mark, I went back again to confirm the reference and under the Table, "Seeing Mormons as Christians Matters" it states 68% of respondents state Mormons are Christians. I will revert my change to the article. Obviously, I was too quick to draw a conclusion. The author of the article seemed to ignore this part of the findings. --^StormRider 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I split the sentence in two, and put my reason in the edit summary. It's a minor edit, but it appears in the lead where it's a significant change; I'd think there would be no objection, though. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced perspective - pov tag

The article presently provides arguments and points about how Mormonism is Christian. it is not balanced. I am editting the beignning section. --Fremte (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Begun to add some additional clarifying material. It would be helpful for additions to be made that clarify divergence. Also, it would appear that much of the present article is apologetic in tone and should be revised or removed. --Fremte (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion, what is the purpose of the article? --^StormRider 20:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the references your have provided for statements are for the LDS position, but not the Chrisitan counter. For example, LDS believe God created other worlds and that those inhabitants also have the gospel of Christ, which you provided a reference. Where is the belief in Christianity that states God only created one world, or that God creates worlds, but only this world has the gospel of Christ? It may be a work in process, but without additional referenes you are not being helpful. Further, the intro is a summary of the article. Please read the entire article to make sure what is stated and what is not. If what you want is a confrontational article, rather than a scholarly discussion of similarities and differences then I am not sure I agree with you POV. --^StormRider 21:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to present the differences I think, not just explanation that some people would like it to be the same. Please see what I've added. When I read the article freshly, it really didn't tell much about the differences, it launched into statements by an LDS person in the vein of apologetics. If you can add to the factual contrasts I started, please do. I don't think there's anything confrontational in what I added; I don't engage in that sort of thing. Please say what you think is controntational or reword. Do you think the points I added are acceptable? If not, why not? The article is noted as very long also, so some more work is certainly needed. I think it is pretty clear that mainstream Christianity does not baptise by proxy, have multiple heavens, additional holy books, propose other worlds, thinks that Christ visited the Americas etc. It is not okay to say it does unless you can show reference to scripture, a pope saying saying so, etc. An article on Mormonism and Christianity should have clear indications of such things. Respectfully --Fremte (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That all said, if there is a better tag that a POV one, that's okay. Maybe a request for an expert contribution? --Fremte (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Fremte, I think we have worked together, but it has been a while (years?). Good to have you here. What I support is a scholarly article that identifies similarities and differences. The difficulty is that Christianity is not monolithic, but quite diverse. For example, when does additional scripture become a problem? Is the Apocrypha acceptable or not. Why is the concept of additional scripture important, but acceptable when it comes to these other books of scripture? Different kingdoms is a difference in interpretation of the Bible, not not a novel concept. As far as references go, unless scripture is clear and without any contradicting interpretation, I would stay away from it as a primary source. Secondary and tertiary references would be more acceptable. IMHO, the POV tag is overkill; I generally don't favor tags unless they are accompanied by specific statements that clearly identifies what needs to be improved and how. That way other editors can quickly improve the article and overcome the problem. I will hold back a bit just to make sure I understand where you are going. I would be careful on the introduction because it is so important to the article. It may be better to discuss those changes first, but being bold is not so bad either unless someone expresses a "slowdown and let's talk." Cheers. --^StormRider 22:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange noun/adjective disagreement throughout

This article refers to the "LDS Perspective" versus the "traditional Christianity perspective." This should, however, be "Traditional Christian Perspective." Although "Latter Day Saints" is neither an adjective or proper noun, I am not sure what else to substitute in place of "LDS Perspective."

209.159.249.193 (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Views of baptism among Protestant Christians

To get nit-picky on accuracy, the Baptism section seems to state that only Baptists do not practice infant baptism/sprinkling/christening. This is not at all the case; several other denominations and associations practice only "believers' baptism," or baptism of only those who've made a decision of faith in Christ. The independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, for example, are rather famous for this, no less so than the Baptists (these groups cite that every specific instance of baptism in the NT followed faith in Christ). I wonder if that statement even needs to be there, though, since it gets more into differences among Christians than between Christians and Mormons; in other words, it doesn't seem to specifically address anything from the Mormon perspective in the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.142.196 (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

biased user - Stormrider

The personal control Stormrider is exherting over this page is based on his own personal beliefs. He is one of the reasons that wikipedia is a joke. If you try to make additions that he does not personally agree with then he just removes them. He does not add meaningful interaction concerning the disputed addition. Wikipedia will be a distortion of the discussion as long as people like him run roughshod over it.74.203.158.34 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Was told to take it to the discussion page which I have done but I am ignored and Stormrider continues to delete my additions! What a hypocrite! 74.203.158.34 (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss the content of your edit here, not other editors. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem discussing my edits but that is not Stormrider's method. After I made my additions, he deleted them without any discussion at all even though it has a citation. Also, the additional links were deleted even though there was no POV involved beyond what the sites themselves have. Later when he chnaged the wording for the links, he removed any reference to mormonism which does not acurrately explain the point of the links. One is a former mormon that point is valid to the discussion. The other I made mention that even thought it is not dedicated solely to mormonism it does discuss it. So I ask what is wrong with my edits? 74.203.158.34 (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please review Wikipedia policies. Assume good faith by other editors rather than attack them for what you perceive as personal shortcomings. Second, when you see that other editors have a problem with your edits, the first thing to do is begin a discussion on the talk page to seek consensus. Third, editors must adhere to several policies, the first one is neutrality. The reason you edits have been reverted is they violate this policy along with original research.

Let's review your first edit; you wrote:

"This is because the different mormon churches use the same words as Christians but apply different meanings to them that most Christians are unaware of. For example, Bruce R. McConkie stated "The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man" in A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p.64. Their use of the term Father for God would lead many to believe that they are Christian. Yet when you learn that their belief is not in a God that was before all things and the Creator of everything, but is rather a created being himself then one can see the difference between their belief and Christianity." Also, Bruce R. McConkie is not the doctrinal tribunal of the LDS Church; he was an apostle, but not even an apostle gets to proclaim Church doctrine; doctrine is only found in the scriptures of the LDS Church. Everything else is opinion.

You began by making a statement, "different mormon churches use the same words...but apply different meanings" then proceeded to make the POV statement that draws a conclusion without any support, "Their use of the term Father for God...believe that they are Christian". Who believes they are Christian? This draws a conclusion in the introduction of the article, without providing any evidence but your opinion. Wikipedia does not accept the opinions of anyone, editors seek to quote or summarize the views of experts or reliable sources, which is another important policy of Wikipedia. You then went on to state, "Yet when you learn that their belief is not in a God that was before all things and the Creator of everything, but is rather a created being...one can see the difference between their belief and Christianity." Have you reviewed any of the scriptures of the LDS or is you whole position built on something else? None of this is supported by references, but is just your opinion. Wikipedia cannot be placed in the position of supporting such a claim. A better way is to claim that XYZ expert or XYZ church states...

Introductions for all articles are important. For those that are controversial, they typcially are the product of much discussion. When introducing a highly POV piece into the introduction without any attempt at conversation or discussion, it would be best to discuss it first.

You also entered links, but your language was highly POV making them acceptable. I edited the language to make it more neutral; you reverted those back to unacceptable language. I had also deleted several other links to Latter Day Saint churches, but I noticed you left those deleted. I will make your links neutral language. However, they are probably more appropriate for the Criticism article.

Also, if you want to become a serious editor you might want register a name rather than remain an ANON; you will find that all editors find greater respect after editors have registered. That is just reality and all of us can find fault with that perspective, but it is real none-the-less. --^StormRider 17:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Article structure - opening paragraph

Can there be an initial paragraph that much more concisely states the main issues or description? The rest of the material could then go later? Just a thought. I'd like to wait for some comments before doing anything myself. Just for info, I had started to do some things with this article in the past, more about content. Presently, however, looking at it freshly, I think the first paragraph is too long. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fremte (talk • contribs)

Definitely. I think the introduction should go as follows: (1) state the article's topic, (2) very brief description of main similarity with forms of traditional Christianity, (3) very brief description of differences, (4) very brief description of dialogue between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity. Parts 2 and 3 might draw from the current summaries found in the present LDS Church article in "Comparison with other Christianity" and "Distinctive doctrines and practices". COGDEN 18:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Might a version of the very beginning be enough:

According to Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Mormonism is the literal restoration of the original church of Jesus with the fullness of his gospel. However, from the standpoint of Trinitarianism,[1] Mormonism significantly departs from Christianity.[2] A 2007 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that over two-thirds of Americans surveyed do consider Mormons to be Christian.[3] --Fremte (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Significant Inaccuracies/Biased Point of View

This article contains some significant inaccuracies and biases. For example, it states that the Pew survey found that 2/3 of Americans do not consider Mormons to be Christians. In reality, that study found that the majority of Americans do believe Mormons are Christians. See http://pewforum.org/surveys/religionviews07/

Additionally, most objective scholars agree that Mormons are Christian. Consider this quote from an academic book entitled “Anthology of World Scriptures” by Robert E. Van Voorst.

“…the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints…see themselves as Christian, and most experts in comparative religions would view this labeling as basically correct. That they…accept the Christian Bible as their first cannon is a good indicator of this. Moreover, “outsiders” to [Christianity], such as Buddhists, would almost certainly recognize them as belonging to the stream of Christian tradition.” SLCMormon (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The survey is of ~3000 Americans. This info could be added, though it is obviously not a world-wide view and is only one such survey. It'd be helpful to have more than one. --Fremte (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "most scholars agree." It's based very largely on religious lines, I would think. Much religious literature I've read published by the LCMS, for example, doesn't classify Mormonism as a "Christian" religion because it does not adhere to the ecumenical Christian creeds and is non-trinitarian. (This is similar to the views held regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Unification Church.) A point you made though: I think those who are unaffiliated with Christianity and Mormonism however would overwhelmingly consider Mormonism to be part of Christianity. A lot of that I think would be due to differing views on the definition, since Mormonism and mainstream Christianity both share "Christ." Perhaps there should be a section addressing these views, since it's obviously an issue of contention and inquiry. Anton.hung (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Intro rewrite

I apologize for reverting you this morning Fremte and my desire was not to offend or to hinder the direction you are taking, but we may achieve a better product by working here first. Maybe you can propose what you want the intro to say here, a cooperative effort can follow, and then add the finished product to the article.

Let's stay away from the obvious. When one religion states they are the one true religion, it goes without saying that all others disagree or they would choose not to exist. Either we delete such statements or refrain from positing the converse that others don't agree. In addition, attempt to not use "some think" or "some believe;" it is better to identify exactly who "some" are. Make clear, concise statements that essentially summarize the article that follows. I hope this helps and again, I apologize if I offended you. --^StormRider 17:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph

Having another go after a lengthy hiatus. Editted this to state more plainly the topic. I removed one reference which was simply an explanatory statement of writer's view and use of the term 'trinitarian'. There is another problematic reference in this first paragrpah which is actually also not a reference, but another explanation and statement within 'ref' tags. The goal here is plain language and statements, with no undue weight given to the desire to exclude or accept the internal Mormon/LDS ideas about this group being Christian, nor the view by other Christian groups that they are not. As noted in the heading immediately above, my prior edit was simply reversed and I decided to just not bother. I will not accept this as reasonable this time around. Please understand that there is no ownership of the article. --Fremte (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The openning section is too long overall, and immediately jumps into an apologia for the group. Wrong spot for it. So the second paragraph which quotes a particular person's opinion is the first to go or to be moved. Perhaps this man is famous enough or enough of an authority to have his quote in the article, but this is not the right place. If someone wants to move it or thinks they know where it should go, then go for it. --Fremte (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The current first paragraph is a good improvement. Clear and straightforward. Thanks! --Fremte (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"proclaims" is a wrong word for the start of first paragraph. This may be some "theologically correct" wording, but this is non-standard usage in any dialect of English. It needs to go back to "claims" or choose another word. Maybe "believes" or "holds". The reference to WP:WTA does not apply here, if you look at the example within: Acceptable use: "Scholar Smith claims that absolute truth cannot exist. Philosopher Peters claims that it must exist in order for the universe to function. Thusly 'Mormons claim one thing, orthodox Christianity claims another'. --Fremte (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Claims" is listed as one to avoid. I am confused why you think proclaim is not accurate. It means "to indicate or make known publicly or openly". It is a rather common term in all English dialects (common English is hardly a dialect). What do you think it means? It is not a theologically correct term, but is simply a statement of fact, "A proclaims X". -^StormRider 21:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Claim or claims are words to avoid in some contexts. Not in all contexts. Perhaps you did not read fully the guideline you cited. Proclaim in standard usage in UK and North American English is in the sense of making a particular proclamation, such as proclaiming a law or other significant announcement. The usage here is awkward and unusual, and uncommon. Your online dictionary reference does convince those who own Oxford and Webster volumes. No comfortable with this word choice, however much you like it. I will revert this word choice for now and ask that you dicuss further edit in this direction here before additional edits on it, which has been your prior advice to me. --Fremte (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think that a church making the statement that it is the restored church of Jesus Christ perfectly fits with making a proclamation to the world. It is to publicly proclaim or announce their belief. Proclaim is not unusual and it is not awkward; it is standard English.

Do you have any reference to back up your position or is this just "I don't like it". I don't know what more I can do. I have provided a dictionary definition that supports the use of the term. I have explained the meaning. I just don't like it is not a sufficient reason. Also, because a word is not used in your personal vocabulary does not mean that it cannot be used. This is just strange; do you just not know the word or do you interpret it to mean something else?

If you want to use claim, then please change every other term used by other Christian church statements to "claim" as directed by the policy. If that is not done, then the term violates policy because of its negative connotation. -^StormRider 22:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we might be able to agree to not use the word "claim" nor "proclaim" and I am happy with a third word choice. The problem with proclaim is that things in relgious contexts get "proclaimed from mountaintops" etc. The context is all wrong for it. I did not get the negatives about "claim" which you have nicely clarified. Maybe "believes" is not right in this context either then. Would "states" do? --Fremte (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

External Links Section

Pretty sure this section could use some work.

There seem to be some pretty good links here, that showcase both sides of the debate, as well as links to discussions between individuals about this topic. However, some other links dont really seem directly relevant, and some are simply attacks. For example, the link: "Watchman Fellowship - Website of Christian organization that tracks cults and exposes the truth about what the teach" doesn't really seem to take an even remotely unbiased or objective approach, which it seems the rest of the article is trying to attain.

Additionally, I think it seems like the links lend themselves to categorization - maybe we could sort the links into sub-categories by general topic?

Looking for some additional feedback here before making any changes.

LukeWalker (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This thing is a mess

This is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry, not a book-length apologetic that attempts to pretend that Mormonism is under the umbrella of Christian faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.228.240 (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

McConkie reference

It appears that this guy's book (ref 3) shuold be replaced by something accepted by this religion. Mormon_Doctrine_(book) indicates it is controversial. Someone who knows something about this topic should get a better ref. --Fremte (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The book reflects the most popular LDS position on most issues (often because Mormons have just adopted his views), but it does not reflect the official position of the LDS Church. I see nothing wrong with citing him as "a prominent Mormon position". You have to be careful, though, because parts of his book either contradict the current official doctrine of the LDS Church, or are considered obsolete or quaint. As to footnote 3, I don't think we ought to quote his exact language, because it is misleading. His point is that Mormons believe their religion is the same as the Christianity of Jesus. Most Mormons would not argue that traditional Christianity (i.e., Protestantism, Catholicism, etc.) is not Christianity. COGDEN 18:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please rewrite or leave as you think best in this case. Your suggested resolution to the main LDS article convinces me you have a gift for finesse with such matters. --Fremte (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I kind of did more than just rewrite. I kind of just revamped the first two paragraphs. Hopefully the revised version is better. In particular, I thought the prior version implied that violent conflicts between Mormons and non-Mormons were about whose religion was right. Actually, the conflicts and wars were about the fact that non-Mormons viewed Mormon doctrines and practices (such as alleged abolitionism, block voting, theocracy, and later polygamy) as subversive. COGDEN 00:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the McConkie reference is important. It is succinct, clear and representative. I think that Mormon editors who worry that mainstream readers will misunderstand it are worrying too much. The article only confirms the quote, and effectively removes the risk of misunderstanding.

The expansion of the introduction to, now, two rather long paragraphs explaining the Mormon version instead of the previous one, is not helpful if the goal is to introduce the comparison and contrast that follows. If there's another goal - perhaps, for example, to make the Mormon position more clear and complete even at the risk of redundancy - then the two paragraphs do that. Is that really what you want? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I just read the intro, changed a few words, but then began to read the rest and I am not comfortable with the language. The LDS Church teaches an apostasy, which was not an absence of truth, but the presence of error. The LDS Church does not teach that it is the only Christian church, but rather it teaches it is the true church within Christianity. The current intro uses statements and language that are not common within LDS teachings and in fact conflict with doctrine. -^StormRider 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

StormRider, Maybe you could give some examples. I'm not sure I understand the distinction between the absence of truth versus the presence of untruth, which in my mind is the same thing. Mark, as to McConkie's view that Mormonism was "indistinguishable from Christianity", I just don't think it accurately reflects the most common Mormon perspective. That predominant view is that Mormonism is a subset of Christianity, though the only true and valid subset of Christianity. As far as I know, this was the predominant view both in early Mormonism, as well as later Mormonism. McConkie had very strong opinions about other Christian religions, once going so far as to call the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon, for which he got scolded by the more temperate and moderate David O. McKay. So I wouldn't necessarily take his views on this subject too seriously. COGDEN 09:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Better said would have been not an absence of truth, but a presence of error. For example, the teachings of Jesus have been present since the time of Christ. This is the presence of truth. An absence of truth would be complete i.e. there is no truth, which does not make sense given the teachings of Jesus presence. To have a presence of error does not deny that presence of truth, but that the teachings of man entered into theology. LDS teaching would say the doctrine of the Trinity is a teaching of man and that it is error; that the simple truths of the scriptures have been confused by the teachings of man. Trinitarian doctrine did not fully flower until 325 when it became a prerequisite for the faithful. The doctrine and the requirement of belief in it are viewed as having nothing to do with Jesus Christ and his teachings. Does this clarify better?

I agree completely with your summary of the LDS view of Christianity. The LDS Church has never denied the Christianity of others; however, there have been individual members/leaders who have made some outlandish statements and have been scolded for such. Early McConkie writings were quite strident, but as he aged I found that he softened considerably. He is an interesting fellow.

I don't have time today, but will give examples later. Always good to have your input, COgden. -^StormRider 17:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

COgden, maybe the statement reads differently in its context, but it sounds no more strident than it is to say "Mormonism and Christianity are not two different things". I find such anti-abstractionism refreshing, in the context of debate on this topic. But it's up to you. On the other topic, I would like to see the two paragraphs shortened to essentials. Since they state the Mormon side, I would rather see the Mormon editors try to fix them. To me, they sound desparate, argumentative and preachy, and I doubt I can do justice to their intention. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If McConkie's statement were a Venn diagram, I would interpret him as saying that the circle labeled "Mormonism" and the circle labeled "Christianity" were equal and co-extensive. That differs from the most common Mormon perspective, which says that Mormonism is a subset of Christianity--that is, that Mormonism circle is entirely enclosed by the Christianity circle. Other possible non-Mormon views might be that the two circles partially intersect--that is, that some of Mormonism is Christianity, but some of it isn't--or that the circles are nonintersecting and separate--that is, that Mormonism is entirely outside of Christianity.

I do agree that the intro needs a bit of shortening, and that there are redundancies that need to be removed. I might take a crack at it if I have time, or someone else can take a stab. COGDEN 18:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"That differs from the most common Mormon perspective, which says that Mormonism is a subset of Christianity--that is, that Mormonism circle is entirely enclosed by the Christianity circle. Other possible non-Mormon views might be that the two circles partially intersect--that is, that some of Mormonism is Christianity, but some of it isn't--or that the circles are nonintersecting and separate--that is, that Mormonism is entirely outside of Christianity."

This is precisely what needs to be in the article I think. That these are the viewpoints or perspectives. And the reason the article is important, is that the containment or overlap (either) is quite substantial if when of considered at its minimum levels. --Fremte (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The terms: Mormon & 'latter day saints'

Are members of the Mormon church themselves called 'latter day saints', and if so, is the convention to capitalize it to 'Latter Day Saints', or does the capitalization belong to the formal church title? This also might represent a contrast in that the term 'saint' is reserved for the officially canonized by the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches (ongoing) and for those canonized prior to the reformation in the case of most of the others. Thanks. --Fremte (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

When identifying members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we write Latter-day Saints. The shorter designation LDS is also used and refers to the members and their church.

When Latter Day Saints is used, it can refer to some of the small denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement. You will also find some that will write it in all caps (the same way) to designate all members of the entire movement. There are additional prefixes that are used, Fundamentalist or FLDS, and in the past the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was RLDS (they are now the Community of Christ), but they have off-shoot groups that still use the term RLDS. I hope this helps; it can be quite confusing. -^StormRider 19:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Saved by Grace

It is LDS belief that we are saved by Grace i.e. that we cannot earn salvation by ourselves. However, LDS do believe that faith demands good works and that there are sacraments/ordinances that are needed. These sacraments/ordinances do not earn salvation but demonstrate willingness to obey and follow Christ. --^StormRider 21:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

New Christianity

The LDS Church does not teach or think of itself as a new Christianity. It teaches that it is the literal restoration of the primitive church organized by Jesus Christ. It does not even think of itself as "true" Christianity, but more the one true church of Jesus Christ. This does not mean that other Christian churches do not teach truths, but that the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ is found within the LDS Church.

The Apostasy as taught by the LDS Church is the loss of the authority of God. The loss was complete in that the keys of the priesthood were lost. This would mean that all eternal ordinances or sacraments were without any sealing in heaven i.e. in the sense that what is sealed on earth is sealed in heaven. Thus baptisms, confirmations, ordaining of religious to the priesthood, etc. were done after the 4th century without the God's authority. In addition, truths were both lost and new doctrines created. --^StormRider 02:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Poll vs. general references

@Scoopczar - the main reason I removed your statement citing the general references was because it was OR and the cites really don't support the claim, at least as I read the sources. For example, I see no where in the CIA where it talks about self-identification - it simply categorizes Mormonism as part of Christianity. Likewise in the EB, I do not see where in the article it discusses or even mentions the "nuances of categorizing the religion with reference to Christianity". At best the EB discusses similarities and differences in doctrine b/n LDS and orthodox Christianity, and makes only one statement (when talking about LDS views on the apostasy and restoration) where you can maybe read in that EB puts LDS outside of Christianity, but such a vague read-between-the-lines claim is way too much OR and certainly doesn't even approach a description of such nuances of categorization. On the other hand, the statement that cites the poll on the other hand is simply restating one of the findings of the poll with little to no OR on our part as editors. It's also relevant and fits the summary nature of the introduction - we have a statement that summarizes the view of mainstream Christianity and the poll summarizes the view of the US public at large. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, Fyzix. I'm okay with leaving it at that. Scoopczar (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Trinity discussion

Can we change the references that state traditional Christianity believes in God as "three persons" or "persons", The Gospel of John says "God is spirit", God, Jesus & Holy Spirit are one and the same just in different forms. So could we change all instances to say "three forms", this is a very distinct difference, that christianity doesn't recognize God or the Holy Spirit to be "persons", only Jesus was God in human form. --Alan355 (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Alan, do you have any references for such a statement? Does any Christian church use the term "forms" to describe the members of the Trinity? --^StormRider 20:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you I don't know of any that use persons, let me get back to you with more specifics.--Alan355 (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthdox Church both use person(s) when discussing the Trinity. For example, the Catholic Catechism states: "255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance." Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship." "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son." In fact, there are 121 uses of "person(s)" in that document. The Nicene Creed uses the term "Being". --^StormRider 21:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

One God in three Persons is the classic Protestant expression, same as Catholic and Orthodox, e.g. Westminster Confession: "In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost." [God, and of the Holy Trinity] Actually, three "forms" sounds like Modalism, a 3rd century heresy that taught one God simply had three faces as perceived by men. Scoopczar (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you are correct most of the writings I have looked at use the word persons, I was meaning that in the context of the section, this is a very distinct difference between mormonism and christianity, and readers who belong to neither faith may have problems understanding the difference. The term persons is used in protestant, etc. church literature, with the understanding that they are one and the same, like scoopzar said God the father, etc. & John 1 says the word(jesus v14) was God. Many of the church statements have cited this difference as major. Maybe the words are fine, it just seemed to me to be very similar to the LDS perspective and that is not the case. --Alan355 (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the language is very similar between LDS doctrine and Trinitarian doctrine. Trinitarianism focuses on One God in three persons whereas the LDS Church focuses on three persons in One God or Godhead. The LDS are comfortable stating there is One God as in God the Father because that is the God Jesus taught everyone to address in prayer. On the other hand, LDS are just as comfortable acknowledging there is one Godhead made up of God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit and each of them are God or Gods. We see them as one in purpose, but not a single entity. Trinitarianism states they are three distinct persons, but one God sharing the same substance. LDS doctrine does not have a concept similar to substance; it is unknown to us. LDS are not Trinitarian because they acknowledge that all three members of the Godhead are a God. Either doctrine is very difficult to comprehend.

Unsigned author, I appreciate youe efforts to make LDS theology on this issue sound more like traditional Christianity, but this is a major difference in understanding that is not as similar, as you describe it. TC, as quoted by the official statements of the Lutheran, Baptists, Methodists, etc. churches believes that God, Jesus & the Holy Spirit are not 3 seperate beings serving the same purpose like an earthly committee, rather they are all forms, persons or extensions of one being described in a way that is understandable in our physical realm. The Gospel of John states that that Jesus is the word and the word was God, not that they worked together. This was an important theme in early Christian creeds as it is today in modern Christian theology, that the LDS and Smith denounced. Mormons are welcome to believe differently, but this article is supposed to deal with the relation to Christian, similarities and differences. If the LDS perspective sub-division of that section needs to make the case for similarity that is reasonable, but TC views the LDS perspective on this to be very divergent, some consider it heretical, and it should be recorded thusly, I can provide references if needed.--Alan355 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This quote from the Bruce R. McConkie might distinguish TC from mormonism: "Plurality of Gods: Three separate personages: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods" (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577). Smith even described it as a "plurality of Gods" in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" so can we discuss how to more accurate portray this difference, these teachings are not even in the same ballpark as trinitarianism. Can we include the McConkie quote in the LDS section, he is quoted in other places?--Alan355 (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

John 10:16 Reference

The article (and subsequent others), refer to John 10:16 as the foundational teaching for the LDS, “…And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd”. In effect, the article(s) suppose Jesus was referring strictly to the “Ancient American People” in this passage.

Here’s an alternate view from a Judeo / Christian perspective (relative to this particular article): Contextually in this verse, Jesus was speaking directly to an audience composed almost entirely of Jews. In turn, we know that the Hebrews were God’s chosen people – the sheep of His pasture. But believers assert that one reason for the Messiah's coming was to share and extend the Gospel message to the Gentiles (the "other sheep" not of the "Jewish fold"). Until Jesus, Gentiles were a group excluded from the inheritance and blessings of Israel. I believe Christ was saying that through Him, Gentiles and Jews would together become “One Fold” with “One Shepherd”. Essentially, Jesus was including all mankind into the inheritance of God – who's presence was no longer reserved only for the Jewish nation. The Apostle Paul says something similar when he calls the Gentiles “grafted branches”. Not to mention the Bible, in several locations, clearly identifies these two named groups (Gentiles and Jews) being joined together under One Messiah. Apart from the loose application that “Ancient Americans” were by definition Gentiles, how does John 10:16 absolutely define Mormon teachings as proposed? In effect, Ancient Americans were no more “Gentiles” than any other non-Jew throughout history. Why do the LDS interpret (based on John) that Christ positively meant that he would visit Meso-America with the Gospel? An alternate view should be presented for continuity, but I would also like some feedback on this. Thanks. HBCALI (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

On an article and talk page like this one, it's easy to drift away from creating a better encyclopedia article and toward a expounding one idea or another. It would be fine to contrast the Mormon interpretation of John 10:16 with that of traditional Christian denominations as long as RSs are used and the difference is stated objectively and succinctly. Those are my thoughts. Clearly it is a pivotal passage for Mormons. We would do well to stay away from OR that draws and comments from the primary sources and injects our own analysis as editors. Those are my thoughts. Thanks for asking. Scoopczar (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested in the LDS view on this topic, you should probably check out 3 Nephi 15 (Book of Mormon on LDS.org). Particularly, verses 22-24 say this about the 12 apostles in Jerusalem:

“ And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching. And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost. But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me. ”

The Christian view that the John 10:16 passage refers to the Gentiles is, to my knowledge, quite common. Finding sources for it shouldn't be hard if required; even apologetic Mormon sources would probably confirm that the Mormon view differs from the common Christian view in this case. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Bfizz, and Scoopczar are right, you can probably get a good reference from just about any scholarly commentary on the Gospel of John, David Lipscomb stated that, “Among the Gentiles were many who, when they heard the truth, would accept and follow Jesus. These he calls his sheep of another fold.” (“A Commentary on The Gospel of John”, Gospel Advocate Company, Nashville, TN, 1939, pg 156) A brief description should serve the purpose of making this a “better encyclopedia article.” The TC interpretation isn’t really a foundation as much as it is a common understanding of direction. Since it is a common TC belief, I think it’s fair to focus on the LDS perspective of what that means and why, and a short note of how TC interprets that same scripture. Do you want to use the reference that I’ve found to support the article or I can write an edit and put it up for review?--Alan355 (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Do what you feel is best. Perhaps use that reference for now, and later we can replace it if a more suitable one surfaces. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with B Fizz. Scoopczar (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My only reservation is that I don't see where in this article, as HBCALI seems to have implied, John 10:16 is used or described as foundational teaching. Maybe I'm wrong and going blind, in which ignore what follows. If it's already a part of a section, then sure let's add in a reference for the TC perspective. However, I don't see a need for a new section in and of itself just for this point because it is a minor, narrow teaching imo (really a subset of BoM and scripture or House of Israel), and I think there are more significant and broader points not yet included. Is there a reason why this point of comparison is significant? Does this point come up regularly in discussion about Mormonism and Christianity? We could probably go through the entire Bible and grab hundreds of verses where the TC and Mormon interpretation differ - what rubric do we use which ones to include and which ones not to? I just don't think that this point is significant enough on it's own (could maybe fit in a discussion on beliefs about House of Israel) nor within the context of a comparison of Mormonism and the larger superset of Christianity. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Either my ctrl-F skills are waning, or your're right. I can't find any existing mention of this in the article. Sorry for commenting without checking the article. ;) HBCALI, why did you bring it up? We could squeeze in a sentence or two somewhere about it, if it fits, though not 100% necessary. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm guilty of the same thing, I was just providing support with the assumption that this topic was being discussed on the page. I think I agree with Fyzix, that there are a large amount of scriptural interpretations that vary, technically both perspectives can be right, if you assume that the message was to be delivered across the oceans eventually one way or the other. HBCALI given the more significant points of differences, why this one in a short encyclopedia article? Thanks for checking behind us Fyzix.--Alan355 (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

After this discussion of John 10:16, it seems striking to me that the article has no distinct section on the Mormon belief concerning an Israelite heritage of native Americans and a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to them. This belief is a highly notable distinctive from TC. Mention of John 10:16 would seem to be a smaller component of this major belief that sets Mormonism apart. It could be included in an expansion of the BoM section, but perhaps that section is long enough already. Scoopczar (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Faith and works contradiction

"Mormons do not believe they can "earn" their place in heaven through good works, but rather provide services because they believe that is what Jesus wants them to do and they feel an inner motivation of charity toward all mankind, as explained in Matthew 25:40.[94] Latter Day Saints do believe, however, that the degree to which an individual exercises faith and works diligently to serve Christ throughout their life, will have a direct impact on the glory and reward that individual receives in heaven." Based on the second sentence it does appear that the goal of the good works would at least have something to do with earning a higher level, level may not be right term. So in essence a mormon would be earning either a high place or a lower place. Wouldn't that be more accurately stated with something like they do good works to earn higher reward and also because it's what Jesus would want them to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan355 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The whole section is rather iffy, and cites no sources besides scripture. I've tagged the section as original research. We should try to find scholarly sources and/or official church publications that make these explanations. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read the statement about this off the official LDS website, "Heaven and Eternal Reward", here is a little of what it says about this issue: "Those who are worthy to return to the presence of our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ become “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ”... Those who choose not to follow our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ will receive a reward according to what they have done in this life, but they will not enjoy the glory of living in the presence of God... After you are judged, you will live in a state of glory. Because everyone’s works and righteous desires vary, heaven includes different kingdoms, or degrees of glory." This tells me that the LDS perspective is that good works are more for reward than any other purpose, do better earn a better reward in heaven. This is very different from TC, which teaches all are unworthy and require grace for the same reward. Could we include some of this in the LDS section to clarify the position?--Alan355 (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I edited the section a little bit and added a citation link to article "The Restoration of Truth" at the official LDS website explaning the doctrine. I think this is a very brief neutral explanation of the doctrine. alan355 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.196.226 (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted because you're engaging in some original synthesis of the sources (saying "This tells me that..."), which synthesis also contradicts more explicit statements on this topic within LDS theology. Just because people are judged according to their works in the finally judgement (as described in Revelation 20:12) does not mean that the works earn them the rewards. Earning implies an exchange of goods of equal (or comparable) value. Quite the contrary in LDS theology, an earlier page on the same site you mention states (emphasis mine): "Eternal life is a gift of God given only to those who obey His gospel. It is the highest state what we can achieve, and it comes to those who are freed from sin and suffering through the Atonement of Christ." This is similar to statements from the entry Eternal Life in the LDS website Gospel Topics section. There it states that the obedience and the ordinances are a requirement of and a preparation for Eternal Life, but in the end it is a gift (therefore not earned) made possible through the Atonement, ie Grace (see also 1 Nephi 10:6, Moroni 10:32; "Have you been saved?", Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, May 1998; "What think ye of Christ?", Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, Nov 1998). As Oaks points out in those references, the works, obedience, and ordinances are necessary but not sufficient for salvation/exaltation therefore they cannot be truly causative - the grace of Christ is both necessary and sufficient (Moroni 10:32), and (in LDS theology) conditional on (but again, not earned through) faith and obedience. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point that grace is important, but it is not all that is important, the official website clearly states, "After you are judged, you will live in a state of glory. Because everyone’s works and righteous desires vary, heaven includes different kingdoms, or degrees of glory." I am not making any conclusions other than it is clearly stated that people will receive different degrees of glory based on works. I sounds like grace gets you in the door and works decides what floor you go to, so my edits are accurate. The edit is not discrediting or minimizing Mormon belief in grace, it is just mentioning another important factor in exaltation. Further the original version had no citations. --Alan355 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This article compares and contrasts Mormonism and the rest of Christianity, and so it is important to note how Mormons place more emphasis on the importance of doing good works in this life in order to be exalted. Some of the grace doctrine can be explained here for correctness, but detailed discussion of such is better suited for articles dedicated to Mormon teachings. The "Eternal life is a gift" quote would be a good one to include in the article, perhaps as a box quote. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the section works fine without that opening paragraph that I took out, which bordered too much on the OR. If we can better cite some of the information, we could fold it into the existing section. I also much prefer using the lds.org site for statements of LDS belief rather than "Mormon Doctrine" or other non-official sources. I agree with you, B Fizz - it is important to note the LDS emphasis on works, but not at the expense of misrepresenting LDS beliefs such as saying that the works result in the reward. Oaks, probably because he was a lawyer and judge, has a number of talks on the subject. With regards to the kingdom of glories and works, Oaks has this to say in "Apostasy and Restoration" (Ensign, May 1995) (emphasis mine): "In their final judgment, the children of God will be assigned to a kingdom of glory for which their obedience has qualified them...The righteous—regardless of current religious denomination or belief—will ultimately go to a kingdom of glory more wonderful than any of us can comprehend. Even the wicked, or almost all of them, will ultimately go to a marvelous—though lesser—kingdom of glory. All of that will occur because of God’s love for his children and because of the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ, “who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands” (D&C 76:43)." Again, in this quote the causative agent that allows people to receive whatever final judgement blessing is the atonement and Christ, not the works themselves. I am not adverse to using the word "qualify" or "prepare" to describe the relationship between works and the final judgement, but words like "result" or "earn" that imply causation are not part of actual LDS theology. I also find Oaks' "Have you been saved?" (Ensign, May 1998) a good clarifier on the subject where he states (emphasis mine) "As Latter-day Saints use the words saved and salvation, there are at least six different meanings. According to some of these, our salvation is assured—we are already saved. In others, salvation must be spoken of as a future event (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:5) or as conditioned upon a future event (e.g., Mark 13:13). But in all of these meanings, or kinds of salvation, salvation is in and through Jesus Christ." --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes there was a lot of OR in the paragraph that’s why I tried to add sources that were more than a Bible verse. Again fyzix nowhere is anyone discrediting the importance of grace to LDS theology, however it is clearly taught that the degree of glory or heaven or reward are in correlation to the good works performed in life. One definition of earn is: deserve something: to acquire something as a result of personal actions or behavior. This definition accurately portrays the that a higher degree of heaven is acquired as a result of personal actions or behavior, in this case good works. "The Gospel of Jesus Christ is called the plan of salvation. It is a system of rules by complying with which salvation may be gained"—Elder E. F. Parry, in The Scrap Book, Vol. 11, page 321, lines 26-28. "Redemption from personal sins can only be obtained through obedience to the requirements of the Gospel, and a life of good works"—A Compendium, by Apostle F.D. Richards and Elder J. A. Little, page 9, lines 28-3 1. "Salvation comes to the individual only through obedience"—The Articles of Faith, by Apostle James E. Talmage, 1899 edition, page 93, paragraph 26. "The Sectarian Dogma of justification by Faith alone has exercised an influence for evil since the early days of Christianity"—The Articles of Faith, by Apostle James E. Talmage, 1899 edition, page 120, lines 29-30. These are quotes from authorized leaders of the church. Two of those quotes don’t mention grace or faith at all, and Talmage clearly believed that grace wasn’t even a factor, only works. The section you deleted didn’t emphasize works over grace, it merely stated that grace and works were both important factors in exaltation. Phrasing it any other way would not be neutral. Traditional Christianity teaches that no one is worthy and all are saved by grace alone, all gaining the same reward in Heaven. How do you recommend we phrase this difference?--Alan355 (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are reading an interpretation into those quotes that differs from how LDS. Yes, there is correlation and obedience and ordinances are required, but correlation is not causation and in no way in LDS theology do the works make someone worthy or deserving of the blessing. None of those quotes makes a definitive statement that the works cause the blessing - you have to read in that meaning. However, the statements from Oaks and from lds.org clearly point out, no one is deserving of salvation and the works qualify us but do not make us deserving. What makes us deserving is the action of the atonement in our lives, cleansing us from our sins. The LDS would fully agree with the TC statement that no one is worthy of salvation. The works in LDS theology are not to make us worthy or deserving, but to prepare us to receive the gift. That's why I said I'm not adverse to using "qualify" or "prepare" or "required" (as those are phrases directly from the sources) but I'm against using words like "result" or "earn" or "deserve" which imply causation. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That is fair that I may be interpreting that different, but I don’t think I’m reading extra into anything, one of the quotes states “Redemption…can only be obtained through obedience… and a life of good works”. I personally think that statement is going further than either of us thinks is the correct phrasing of the concept. I think the point you are trying to make is that according to the LDS, salvation and heaven are a gift, and the level of gift is decided by the level of works, but that focus should be put on the gift and not works. I guess I don’t understand what you mean by “prepare us to receive the gift”. What determines which level of heaven is obtained if not works? It seems like the word earn is upsetting because of it’s perceived connotation? --Alan355 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Alan, can you please differentiate between your concept of Grace and Works with the Catholic doctrine of faith and works? --^StormRider 22:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am no expert on the Catholic doctrine of Faith and works, I do know that the protestant perspective encourages works but all Christians will receive the same reward in Heaven through grace, up front my personal concept isn’t really relevant. My goal is only to clarify this concept in a way that it makes sense to every one Mormons and Non-Mormons alike. That may require phrasing it in a way that is not necessarily a Mormon description. I think the problem is in understanding the different levels of heaven and the theological impact of that. Can we add some paragraphs one that discusses grace and how it is similar to TC, and another discussing works and the levels of heaven and that relation, since there is no TC equivalent that I’m aware of.--Alan355 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason I asked is that your, as in your church's teachings, on Grace and Works is probably in conflict with Catholic teachings. Let us be careful when we use traditional Christianity and really mean Evangelical or Protestant, etc. The Protestant branch of Christianity, a minority position, is not unified at all on this topic. The Catholic position, the majority position, on Grace and works is quite similar to the LDS position. There is no monolithic "we" or "TC" within Christianity as you propose. That plural "we" can be used for very, very few topics and then it breaks down quickly into a divergent set of beliefs. --^StormRider 22:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Storm, I really do understand the point you are trying to make here. Side note, the church I attend has no "official position" except for what the Bible does or doesn't say. The Book of James explains it as, works are an indication of existing faith. Good works are also how we reflect Christ to the world. Yes there are minor differences in understanding between denominations, however the belief in multiple layers of heaven which admittance has a direct correlation to works is a distinct difference. Fyzix and I have had some discussion on the difference and it is worth explaining. There is no disagreement in TC on the existance of one heaven. --Alan355 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Baptism section

In case anyone is wondering why I reverted this section again: The text as written by Alan355 included general interprative titles of the references, so I standardized them to use the actual titles of the webpages cited. The Lutheran statement only supported The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, not the Lutheran denomination as a whole, so I removed it, although it could be put back if someone feels particularly attached to pointing out the views of the Missouri Synod. I also removed some other ambiguous words such as "larger denominations" and "do not accept Mormon baptism as authentic" and replaced the end of the paragraph with a quote to remove further ambiguity there. Hopefully this explains my actions. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for reverting, your edits are correct, I thought you had deleted to whole thing. Thanks for your help.--Alan355 (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a question about the sentence that begins, "Some denominations, such as Catholic and The United Methodist Church, do not accept Mormon baptism...." Are there any non-Mormon denominations that do accept Mormon baptism? If not, should the sentence not simply say "Non-Mormon denominations generally do not accept Mormon baptism...." and add the citations of Catholic and United Methodists beginning with "E.g.,..."? Scoopczar (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done the research so I don't know either way. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read many sources and opinions, not all wiki-reliable and haven’t come across a denomination that does accept mormon baptism though there is some evidence that there are individual churches that will. I don’t know what would constitute sufficient references to support that wording. I think your recommendation is accurate, but without further discussion or citation I think it may be best the way it is. --Alan355 (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem may be that we are dealing with a type of systemic bias, ie that only the denominations which do not accept Mormon baptism make public statements, making it difficult to identify those that do. Also, I think the current wording is probably the most accurate with the data we currently have. If we say "generally..." it implies that a survey of some kind has been done of the numerous Christian denominations on their stance - so either we ourselves do a survey (which begins to border on OR) or we rely on a reliable published source (the preferable option) that claims to have done the survey and puts forth the "generally..." statement. As it is right now we have statements from some well known denominations, but without knowing and without reliable sources for the position of the more numerable other denominations, I don't think a "generally..." phrasing is warranted. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think lack of acceptance implies bias, maybe lack of acceptance would be a better description, but you could be correct. There is a plethora of religious, scientific, etc. literature at best skeptical or questioning and at worst attacking and hateful towards Mormon beliefs. However there doesn’t seem to be much support material other than what is generated by the LDS church itself. This could just indicate apathy to state support or denial. This could also indicate lack of acceptance such as when Mormon views are not considered when discussing textual issues and doctrine in multidenominational settings or publications, which is common. Also many of the medium sized denomination have no central leadership and therefore finding enough authoritative sources to support such language is massive and various preachers, pastors, etc. making claims may not be indicative of the overall opinion. I agree with Fyzix, I think the wording as is, is sufficient and appropriate. --Alan355 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate and accept the caution about the word "generally." I believe, however, that the current wording is quite misleading unless there are non-Mormon denominations that do accept Mormon baptism as valid. We're talking about factual information here, not judgments. The LDS does not accept any non-Mormon baptisms; that is simply a fact. The article should be factually accurate on the other side of the equation as well. To say, "Some denominations, such as Catholic and The United Methodist Church, do not accept Mormon baptism...," if there is little or no evidence that any traditional denominations do accept it, is like saying "Some Europeans, such as Englishmen and Lithuanians, do not not live under the ocean." It is true but misleading. Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant denominations are Trinitarian and baptize on that basis. I don't see how any of them would accept a non-Trinitarian baptism as valid, whether Mormon or Unitarian or whatever. And I don't believe that any of them do, but it's hard to prove a negative. I'll search around for some RS basis before I write an edit and see what kind of response comes back from there. Thank you for your preliminary comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoopczar (talk • contribs) 03:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Oops! Forgot to sign, thanks SineBot. Scoopczar (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice find with the Washington Post reference. I tweaked the wording a bit and replaced the religioustolerance page which just has the quote with a page which reproduces the whole article. The last sentence with the two examples seems stilted to me, but I can't think of how to reword it to make it flow better. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements, VW. The last "stilted" sentence could be removed from the article and added as a footnote. If you like that idea, go for it. You are better at reference form than I am. I would still feel better about "Most" if someone could cite at least one example of a denomination that accepts Mormon baptism. But it's a big improvement over "Some," and it does track with the W.Post citation. So it works for me, pending any new finds. Scoopczar (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This looks fine to me, the source looks good and well researched and neutral, I think the statement in the article by the Episcopalian leader that stated it was on a case by case basis is evidence that warrants "most" though not all. I agree that you could delete the last sentence and leave the footnotes after the footnote for the Post article as further support. Fyzix what do you think about this? --Alan355 (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, the preferable way forward was to find a reliable source that said as much, and the WaPo article does just that. Although, guys, as I was looking to improve the formating of the references, I found that the nonrecognition of rites (ie baptism) already has it's own section, which mentions both the Catholic and Methodist views along with a couple others. It kind of seems redundant to say the same thing twice in the same article. What do you all think about removing the last paragraphs in both the LDS perspective and Traditional perspective sections under baptism and including any additional material from those paragraphs (like the WaPo reference, which I think is far superior to ref 135 which I think fails RS) into that later more comprehensive section. That way the baptism section can focus more on the purely doctrinal points and leave the ecumenical points (with their doctrinal reasoning) for that section. Thoughts? --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Good catch on the redundancy Fyzix. I had already deleted the last sentence about Catholics and Methodists. Now I have deleted the references to them as well in favor of the "Non-recognition" section. I like leaving the WaPo reference in the Baptism section, however, and I added an internal link from that sentence to the Non-rec section. Scoopczar (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What about moving the whole Baptism section to the Non-recognition section and make it a sub-section there and just combine all the information that way, and so that baptism will still show up in the content tree at the top? Since there appears to be lack of acceptance on both sides this might be appropriate. I think deleting paragraphs will still keep the information segmented.--Alan355 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the other way around? I think moving the Non-recognition section up to be a subsection of Baptism makes more sense since that's really the only rite addressed in that section. It doesn't really talk about any of the other rites which precede it in the current article flow. Then we can focus the two perspective sections under Baptism to be more doctrinal (removing the two paragraphs in the perspective sections) and just have another subsection on the mutual non-recognition that exists somewhat as a consequence of the doctrines. That way the can reduce redundancy and reduce the disconnect in the current section layout. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

How many denominations think baptism is a required Sacrament/ordinance? Given there are over 36,000 Christian denominations in the world, I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to find a reference to support a blanket statement about baptism. Many do not feel it is needed to be "saved"; however, the Catholic, which is the majority position by itself, not only believes baptism is required for salvation, but also the LDS baptism is unacceptable even though it is done essentially using the same words as the LDS baptism prayer, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". --^StormRider 21:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

@Alan and Fyzix - The Non-recognition section could be eliminated if all of the references and statements that are broader than baptism (mainly the opening paragraph of each subsection) were incorporated into the opening of the larger section: Religious authority or priesthood. That opening already discusses the broad differences in mutual perception of legitimacy and authority (or the lack thereof). Then all of the references and statements in Non-rec that are specific to baptism could be incorporated into the Baptism section. How does that approach sound?

@Storm - The answer to your question is "Virtually all of them." To the best of my knowledge the only Christian movement (not really a denomination) that does not consider baptism to be necessary at some level is Hyperdispensationalism, which holds that baptism was only intended for the immediate apostolic era. True, there is a variety of views in TC regarding the role of baptism with regard to the process of salvation but even the most adamant that it does not help to "save" the believer still recognize that Christ commanded it to be practiced as a sign or symbol of saving faith. So it is required for full obedience to Christ by virtually all traditional Christian churches, though not as a prerequisite for salvation, and in some cases not as a prerequisite for church membership. Scoopczar (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Correction/caveat: Quakers and the Salvation Army neither practice nor prohibit water baptism. Scoopczar (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Fyzix and Scoop, I think your suggestion is better. I don't think it has to be a blanket statement that covers every denomination and fringe movement to constitute an accurate statement concerning baptism. Storm, I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan355 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)