Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 14

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Necessity of atonement

The article says concerning the sufferings of Christ that "mankind would be lost without it".

Why is this more accurate, than to say that "each one will suffer these torments themselves, if they do not take advantage of Christ's suffering for them"? This was how the Mormon atonement was explained to me years ago, and for years it seemed to be confirmed by my conversations (I'm in my fifties). But these days, that is not how it is explained, and I keep running into Mormon statements now that lead me to think this was never really LDS doctrine.

In fact, I get the impression now that it is considered unorthodox to think that the atonement is anything but absolutely necessary. In contrast, the other view struck me as saying that it is necessary, unless you want to go through the same thing yourself (leaving me to reason, who knows if anyone can do that, since it was a terrible thing even for the Lord to go through).

In other words, the other view was that the atonement is exceedingly generous and gracious (and this "graciousness" was how grace was explained to me, just as the Law used to be explained to me as being a gift of exceeding helpfulness and generosity - a gift, without which we'd have to figure things out on our own). It might occur to you how this struck me as being an even more sharply different expression of the atonement, and the Law. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

my 2 cents- Since the savior was chosen before the foundation of the world, even before the fall of Adam, it seems clear to me that he was always necessary, and no man can save himself. I don't know of any scriptural referrence to paying for sins yourself. Blood Atonement comes close, I suppose, but that is not generally considered doctrinal either. Bytebear 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was told that this was clearly spelled out in the D&C - but I wouldn't be able to tell you where. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well, Mark. Nobody is forced to accept Jesus as the Christ, although they will eventually have to recognize him as the Son of God. Those who have refused to accept the atonement will have to suffer for their own sins. The atonement is necessary for the rest of us. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the answer to your question, Mark, is that both statements are true. D+C D+C 19 makes it clear that if a person does not accept the offering Jesus Christ made in the atonement, he must suffer as Jesus Did, but it's not clear that that means paying the price and then you get a "get out of jail" card. We believe in three degrees of Glory, the lowest of which is the Telestial and we know that even some pretty bad folks may eventually enter there (provided they are not "Sons of Perdition" ~ a discussion for another day. See D+C 76 for a full explanation of the three kingdoms and who goes where :-) . But even in that state, I think (this is my opinion) there will be that ache of not being able to progress for eternity like one can in the Celestial kingdom, and they will never enjoy the presence of the Father or Son (though they will be ministered to by the Holy Ghost). So it's also true to say mankind would be lost without the Atonement. We do believe in the grace and graciousness of God, but people need to avail themselves of that grace through faith, repentance and obedience to God and God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance D+C 1:31. The Atonement is absolutely necessary to the salvation of Mankind and it is the central act for Mormons upon which every other aspect of our faith depends. This concept has been taught in some shape or form in every manual, magazine, General Conference, etc, that I've seen during my 12+ years as a member. It is not a teaching that has fallen out of favor at all in the Church. Everything else in the Church (sacrament meeting, Temple attendance, baptism, priesthood, etc, etc) would be absolutely meaningless and impotent without the Atonement. Joseph Smith said: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1938], p. 121). A number of other General Authorities have likewise made that point during talks I've heard them give. This Article is one example. Mpschmitt1 02:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Mark's statement was juxtaposing two dissimilar concepts of the Atonement he has had explained by Mormons; is that correct, Mark? The first way explained to him was if man did not accept the Atonement of Jesus Christ, then he could suffer the same thing and still be saved (I am extrapolating the end thought you presented Mark). If this is correct, it has never been a teaching of the LDS church, but a misunderstanding. As Schmitt cited above, D&C 19 states we must suffer even as He did if we do not repent. This is understood to mean the wages of sin is death or eternal damnation. To move to the second concept discussed, the Atonement is that Complete Sacrifice that ransoms humanity. LDS most assuredly believe in grace. It is summarized best by 2 Ne. 25: 23, "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." Faith is believed to be an active force; if we believe we follow Christ. However, regardless of our actions it is only His Atoning sacrifice that saves us.

One of the problems that many have with LDS teaching is that there is not a focus on Grace, but rather a focus on works. We seem to focus on obedience to laws, commandments, and ordinances for salvation and gloss too quickly over Grace. However, I find that the scriptures are clear of its final and total importance to each of us individually. In my study of Roman Catholicism I have found very little, if any, difference in our understanding of faith and works. In reality, I think there is little difference in most Christian teachings on this matter; to me it shows up more as an issue of focus rather than disagreement (I am not talking now of the view of sacraments/ordinances, but of "living a good life"). --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll maintain my opinion that the difference here is real, but not obvious. However, Storm Rider is on the right track for putting his finger on it, as I understand it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Prep for re-organization

I hope that it's become evident, that as we've gone through these general comparisons, some of the particular doctrinal differences begin to appear as belonging as sub-heads, or superfluous. What I envision is the possibility that, the separate section that exists now, where specific doctrines are compared, will dissolve into this more appropriate framework. This should already be possible with "recognition of rites", for example.

It may be that this plan won't work for all of the specific doctrines, but right now I can't see why not. It's a matter of finding the right general introductory comparison, under which the specific comparison belongs - and we don't quite have all of those, yet. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

To put what I'm saying in the terms that the article uses now, what the two groups believe to be true follows from what they believe to be important, which their group satisfies and the other does not. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been away for a day or so and yes, it is obvious that discussion of doctrine (what is true) is seriously starting to migrate into emphasis (what is important). I knew from the begining that this was a potential problem, but I thought Mark wanted to keep these separate, in fact, I thought he wanted to eliminate doctrinal comparisons entirely.

I agreed that discussion of differences in attitude might be interesting, but now it sounds like Mark is advocating comparison of doctrine within the context of attitude, as if the doctrine (what is true) is a result of what people think is important. I disagree with this direction. From the LDS perspective what is important is a result of what is true, not vice versa as Mark has suggested. When I added the 'Attitudes and Emphasis' section I only put it ahead of 'Doctrines and core beliefs' because it was new and I wanted everyone who was actively participating in this article to be able to see the distinction of the two sections. Well, that worked for about five minutes, and then the winds blew, and the floods came... <g> 74s181 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need a clear consensus on the direction for this article, I'm going to nail my thesis to door. 74s181 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I believe individual topics need to reference other articles, not reproduce or supercede them as has happened in some cases. 74s181 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

2. I believe discussion of differences in attitude is useful but shouldn't turn into a discussion of beliefs or doctrine. If a particular attitude is a direct result of a certain doctrine, then mention the doctrine, but don't teach it. 74s181 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

3. I believe discussion of differences in doctrine is useful, as long as such discussion focuses on summarizing differences, referring the reader to other articles for more details. 74s181 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

4. I believe that this article needs to be split into three separate subarticles; differences in belief, differences in attitude, present day conflicts and cooperation. 74s181 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

5. I believe that if / when we reach a consensus, it should be clearly stated and become a permanent fixture at the top of the talk page, surviving future archiving so that we don't re-invent the wheel every few months. 74s181 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

6. I don't believe that the consensus can or should be etched in stone, but I believe that any discussion of a change to the consensus should begin with the consensus. Thus, I believe that we need a separate archive for past and future discussion of what the consensus is, separate from discussions about whether this, that, or the other thing meets the consensus. 74s181 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think the stuff at the end of the article needs to be divided up, trimmed, etc. but that is a task, doesn't need to be part of a 'permanent' consensus. 74s181 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I would rather help the final structure evolve, instead of setting it up and then stuffing things into it. Do you see for example, that your plan is to concentrate on "differences"? But I think this is the wrong approach in general. What we should focus on is "comparison" - that's not the same thing. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you keep saying that there is a difference between 'differences' and 'comparison', but thick as I am, I just don't understand it. When you 'compare', what is it you are comparing? Things that are 'different'. And if you don't talk about the 'differences', then what do you talk about, other than the similarities? "One of these things is not like the others, three of these things are kind of the same..." In this case, Mark, you are the one who said there is a difference, please define it, and please try to do so in a 'plain and simple' way for us non-theologians. 74s181 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparison is "this thing is like that thing in these ways, but it has these differences". Difference is "red is not green", "smooth is not wrinkled", "heavy is not light". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how you think Mormonism works, Wikipedia is not the same thing. Of course what is important is derived from what is true, for you, for me, for everyone. But do you see that, the article cannot work that way? It must approach things in the opposite direction; because what happens at the level of "what is true" is only an argument about who is right, and who is wrong. If you set that up "what is true?" as the premise issue of the comparison, you will produce only arguments. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, grand master of Wikipedia, I bow before you. <g> Seriously, I am still trying to understand just what Wikipedia is, and how it is supposed to work. Right now my opinion is that it doesn't, at least not for any sufficiently controversial topic. Clearly I am a neophyte, probably even a 'troll'. But I think I understand that the goal is not to 'prove' "...who is right, and who is wrong", the only thing to be proven is that group A believes X, and group B believes Y. 74s181 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly not a troll, and you are certainly not stupid. Your problem is one of trust, not of intelligence, or of good will. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"What is true" would have been a bad phrase, since 'true' implies a conclusion. However, I didn't say "What is true", I said "...what the two groups believe to be true". Silly me, I thought that this was the purpose of Wikipedia, reporting, not concluding. 74s181 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot eliminate doctrinal comparisons entirely. That is not at all desirable, or possible. What we need to eliminate is a wrong approach. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mark that the comparisons that have been evolving seems to be a good approach. What I find particularly satisfying is that it looks like we can discuss the differences without getting into a debate. I don't think this approach will water down doctrinal descriptions, but rather frame the comparison in a way that makes it easier to understand why Mormons and other Christians view things differently.

I also agree with 74s181 that we don't want to suggest that certain doctrines are less important. Perhaps we should change the section title to something like "Key differences" so that we don't give the impression that anything not covered in this section isn't important. After all, the most important thing for both of us is, and always will be, Jesus Christ. The advantage of this section is to discuss the differences without getting into an argument about which is right.

For example, Mormons put more emphasis on work and many Christian religions don't. By identifying this difference, and why each group believes what they do, we allow the reader to understand the difference. That (IMHO) is (or at least should be) the purpose of the article. Not to convince anyone that one position is correct, but rather allow them to understand the differences and come to their own conclusion. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Bill. I recommend allowing the "core differences" section should remain, and develop consistently in its own direction; and allow the "emphases" section to grow in a manner consistent with that approach. But in the end, I suspect that the logic of these two approaches will work its way out, and you'll find that they discuss the same issues exactly, but from different directions. If that happens, it won't be hard to tell which approach sounds more like an encyclopedia, and which sounds more like apologetics. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you also see that what is developing under "what is important?" coalesces around a fewer number of issues than there are main headings? If I understand what you've written and allowed to be written, what begins to appear to me, as I expected, is that the LDS looks at faith through the lens of authority. The crisis of authority is the explanation for what went wrong in the mainline church: their doctrines are decided without the kind of authority necessary, the structures of direct guidance by revelations from God that you expect to see have disappeared, and what took its place is a system of stewardship, as though the liveliness of God's interactions with man are a dead thing and the church is just fussing over the corpse.

In contrast, mainstream Christians look at this "fussing over the corpse" in a very different and, eminently more living way than you do. And in contrast, they see everything (including authority) through the lens of faith. The divisions among the mainline churches are seen as crises of faith above all, and of authority only secondarily. They reject things that are "new" because they simply do not belong to what has been entrusted to them, but what has been entrusted is not dead - the things that do not belong are what is dead. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "fussing over the corpse" is a good metaphor, that is exactly what it looks like to me. LDS believe they are receiving instruction from the Master and those who actually know him, while the MC are still in the corner debating about what scholar A and B said about what scholar C and D said when they were debating about what scholar E and F said about what scholar G and H said when they were debating about what scholar I and J said about what scholar K and L said... who were debating about about a single remark made by a student of the Master 2000 years ago, a student who didn't understand or even write down most of what the Master was trying to teach until years after the Master was gone, the heavens were closed, shades drawn, lights turned out, dusty 'back in (blank) minutes' sign hung in the window, phone set to voice mail, email out of office reply turned on, at least according to MC belief. 74s181 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

But arguing about what actually happened 2000 years ago, and what is actually happening now won't get us anywhere. MC see the world one way, LDS see it a different way. These differences includes both attitudes and doctrines. One side stating that the other has a pariticular attitude ("the LDS looks at faith through the lens of authority") is no different than one side stating that the other has a particular doctrine (MC talk about a 'deposit of authority' but can't seem to agree on what was deposited or where). Or, in other words, MC will continue to insist that "Mormons have horns, but you can't see them because they wear their hair so they don't show". LDS will continue to insist things about MC that appear equally ridiculous to MC. 74s181 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"What is important" is part of the difference in belief. LDS shouldn't try to describe what MC think is important, and vice versa. This seems self evident to me, but maybe we can't even agree that some differences fit better under attitude, and some differences fit better under doctrine. 74s181 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the reason I changed the section title and intro to not include "Important" anywhere. What I like about the way this section is developing is the ability to present two different opinions in a non-confrontational way. IMHO, each section should have the LDS view and MC view side by side but not directly interacting.

For example, I have tried to remove any cases of "MC believes X about LDS, but that is wrong because ...". What I have done instead is if Mark raises a point that isn't addressed in the LDS section, is to address the issue back in the LDS description. I believe that if there is too much back-and-forth between the two views that an uninformed reader will just get a headache trying to keep the threads straight. My model is a forum where there are two speakers: an LDS says something and then a MC responds. I think it is better to go back and clarify what we said originally rather than append a rebuttal to the response. (Something that we can't do during an actual debate. ;^)

I'm not a newbie at Wikipedia, but not an expert, either. I think this comparison section is the closest thing to a perfect environment for a controversial subject. Of course, the only reason this is true is because each of us trust each other (more or less) to not push their own POV. If a hard-core anti-mormon joined the conversation, I'm guessing the whole thing will go to pot. :-(

I would encourage Mark to create some sections based on what MC believe are important differences, but LDS doesn't "get". For example, Mark's comment about the Quran being offensive surprised me, but that might be that I have a long interest in writings from different religions. However, I would be surprised if any LDS was offended with the Quran. I would imagine that to a MC, the LDS doctrine of continual revelation sounds a lot like the gnostics, which the early Church fathers were *very* upset about. Is that common reaction about MCs? Should it be added somewhere in the section? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What puzzles me is that 74s181 has told me that he wants a "forest before the trees" introduction to areas of difference, but frustrates the efforts to provide one. Thinking in terms of "what is important?" addresses this problem, and provides a way to stand above the fray, to see how differently the two sides are approaching these differences. Without that perspective, there is no insight into why they differ, and there is only a debate back and forth: "We think this, they think that", which are arguments without context - talking past one another. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the way things are going, but I'm a bit concerned over the term "important". As I mentioned before, faith in Jesus Christ is important for both LDS and MC, so that doesn't seem to be a good candidate for the compare and contrast section. It would be great for the "Common Beliefs" section, though if/when anyone creates one. ;^)

I think the key to this section is to identify a small number of issues that can be used to help the reader why LDS and MC believe different things. There are plenty of other articles that talk about the details, but I see this article as a good chance to explain why two groups of intelligent, thoughtful, and sincere people think drastically different things. The key, of course, is found in the basis of those beliefs, and that is what I see coming through in this section. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 22:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If faith in Christ is important for both LDS and MC, then it is the perfect candidate for comparison (which points to both similarity and contrast). "Common beliefs" as a separate section would seem to conclude that their beliefs at some level do not have differences - which is not true. "Differences in core beliefs" as a separate section would seem to conclude that the contrast can be understood apart from similarities - which is not true. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Parable of the wheel-barrows

74s181, you think that I've given you a good metaphor in "fussing over a corpse", but you don't realize that what I've given you is insight into why our belief is not important to you, at the same time that I've directed you toward what we believe is true in our belief. I've done this by pointing you to what is important to us, which is the same thing that is repugnant to you.

But since you seem to enjoy my metaphors more than you understand them, let me give you another one. This is a parable about wheel-barrows. The first wheel barrow stands for the explanation of "what is important?", the second stands for the section of the article that debates "what is true?"

A land-owner was looking for a man to hire for a task. "I need this hole filled up before the end of the day", he said to the first man he found, "I'll see if you are qualified for the job. You can use the dirt that we've taken from digging for the foundation of my mansion over there". The boss provided the man with a wheel-barrow and a shovel, and the man went to work.

Progress was slow at first, but the contractor found a second man. "I need this hole filled up before the end of the day", he said, "pitch in to help that man over there, and I'll consider you for a better job if you're qualified". The boss provided him with a wheel-barrow, and the man set off to work.

When he arrived where the first fellow was busy filling up the hole, he was cheerfully greeted. "Thank goodness you're here", the first man said, "take this shovel. I'll fill and you empty".

"Are you crazy?", said the second man. "There's only one shovel; take it with you to fill the second wheel-barrow."

The first man was amazed, and angry. "I have an idea", said the first man, and he began shoveling dirt from one wheel barrow to the other.

"What are you doing? Stop that!", said the second man, "Don't fill the second wheel-barrow with the contents of the first. Empty the dirt into the hole."

"I asked you to empty it, and you didn't want to do it. So, I'm filling your wheel-barrow with the contents of mine. Then I'll go get some more dirt in my wheel-barrow and you can empty the dirt from yours, if that's the way you want it."

"This is the same problem as before.", he said, "I don't have a shovel. I only have a wheel-barrow".

"I offered you a shovel", said the first man, "and you refused to do any work."

"You are an idiot", the second man fumed.

At that time, the owner came by to ask the first man how things are going. "This fellow is lazy", he told the boss, "he wants me to do all the work. I asked him to do the emptying, and I would do the filling, but he insisted that I do it all."

"This boy is stupid", said the second man, "he didn't even realize that to fill the wheel-barrow, he would need to take the shovel with him, leaving me with no way to empty the one that is full."

"If I had given you only one wheel-barrow you would have listened to your brother", the contractor said to the second man, "You would have emptied the wheel-barrow and taken it to your brother so that he can fill it. You accuse your brother of being an idiot, but you are the fool" Then he turned to the first man, "If you had shown your intention by doing the work, the second man would have understood you when you spoke. You accused your brother of being slack, but you are the one who refused to work. If neither of you is capable of filling a hole together, neither are you qualified to work on the foundations of my mansion."

I can only help you to see what I mean by doing the work to develop the article in the way that I've tried in vain to explain. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read thru this six times and I can't even come up with a wrong interpretation. You said I had a problem with trust. A while back you also said that the good will of the LDS towards MC is not reciprocated, and that your goal is to destroy the LDS church. But I have assumed good faith in regards to this article and tried to understand what you were trying to say. I thought I was finally begining to understood where you were going, and I tried to go along, but now I am not so sure. It feels to me like we're building on sand. I thought it made sense to try to establish some kind of consensus on what we're trying to do here, but it seems like building on sand is what you want. So I'm going to opt out of the discussion and focus on editing for a while. Maybe that is what you meant, maybe I am the lazy man. Ok, I'll shut up and dig. 74s181 02:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Focus on what's important to this present task, write a neutral encyclopedia article (that is different than "balanced"), eliminate the debate approach, and this will provide you with plenty of opportunity to explain what Mormons believe to be true (that's not the full interpretation of the parable; but it's close enough). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Faith and Works (again, sigh...)

Wrp103, Why do you want to remove the sections on LDS belief concerning grace (Faith and Works) section that make it clear that Mormons believe in salvation by grace, while at the same time allowing comments that border on accusing Mormons of believing in salvation by works? I think it's really important to this section to make it clear that Latter-Day Saints believe in salvation by grace and only by grace, but walking in the grace of God requires obedience to God's commandments and obedience to God's commandments often requires good works. The point needs to be made that in LDS belief, without obedience, grace cannot claim the person for he has rebelled against God, but that without grace, the person couldn't be saved either. I've put that stuff back again, for now. Please, please, please discuss it here before removing it again. I'm willing to trim it down, but removing it outright makes the discussion very lopsided in that section and gives and incorrect impression of LDS belief. I'd like to know why it's not allowed because it seems very germane to the topic. Written text has a way of sounding like it has an attitude when it doesn't, so please don't take this as me being snippety. I'm just trying to make sure that section remains balanced...Mpschmitt1 01:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that the LDS explanation for the prominence of good works could be made more compact, without making it less clear? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me suggest what it looks like from outside, which may help you to see a way to express the idea more familiarly than I'm able to. Mormonism views Christ's atonement as the pivotal event in salvation history. By suffering the eternal punishments due to sin - that is, by undergoing the tribulation of the punishments of God due to sin - he has obtained for those who have been properly prepared to receive it, a path toward eternal life that is free of the obstacle posed by a punishment that they cannot bear. This makes it possible for them to undergo the probation of Terrestrial life in joy. Good works are a prominent part of this probation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That is nearly spot on, Mark. In fact, I would only add to your last sentence the works in and of themselves would be meaningless without grace, and also it is important to not only to good things, but also the right things. We can only know the right things to do by living close to God and following the guidance of the Holy Ghost, so really it's just God working through us as we are "anxiously engaged in a good cause". God makes more of our lives if we do this than we could ever make of our own. Which is why he and His Son Jesus get all the glory, laud and honor Mpschmitt1 02:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be grateful if one of you would use something like this to make that section more focused and concise, then. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I also need to add one more caveat (so glad I finally learned how to spell that word :-). The Lord counsels in D+C 58:26-27 that he will not command us in all things but we are to be anxiously engaged in good works of our own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness. D+C 58 This leads me to conclude that we are not considered automatons that are told by the Holy Spirit what to do every waking moment of our lives. God repsects our free will and desires and expects us to get moving and do some good, not to wait around for Him to kick us in the pants everytime something good and right needs to be done. There are many moments where we're supposed to go out and seek to do good of our own free will; To so form and shape our lives so we are always doing good, and when the Spirit prompts us to some particular action, we are sufficiently in tune spiritually that we recognize it. Mpschmitt1 02:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I have another question for you Mark (or another mainstream Christian brother or sister...)I've never understood why the LDS are criticized so harshly for believing that works have a role in our eternal destiny. Isn't that what the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 is intended to communicate? It's not that the works in and of themselves save us, but the works are an emblem of a true disciple. One who truly knows the Lord will bring forth fruit in their lives. Some of that fruit will be the way they treat other people. I've always understood the bible to teach:

Followers of Jesus Christ are called disciples and should emulate His example and Jesus example was that he went about doing good (Acts 10:38)
Disciples are Servants (Matt 23:11)
Servants serve one another (Galatians 5:13-26)
Serving one another means we do good to all (both in and out of the Church)(Galatians 10:10)

Now the converse:

If we do no good we are not serving one another
If we are not serving one another, we are not servants
If we are not servants, we are not disciples
If we are not disciples, we are not followers of Christ
If we are not followers of Christ, we have no hope of Salvation. The fruit is not manifest in our lives, and despite the fact that we may say "Lord, Lord, didn't we do all these wonderful things in your name..." because they were not the things that our true relationship with him led us to, they are meaningless, and we can expect him to say "Depart from me, I never knew you." (Matthew 7).

So my understanding is that works are not what save us. Grace is what saves us, but if we are truly in grace, our lives will manifest that and we will "go about doing good". This is my understanding of the LDS perspective, so I can't understand why we catch so much flack over this belief. Can somebody explain it? Mpschmitt1 12:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a mainstream Christian, but I can offer some thoughts. ;^)

The concept of faith versus works is a long-running argument within Christianity. The Bible presents two different views which seem to contradict each other:

We are saved by faith, not works, lest man should boast
Faith without works is dead

Many Protestants associate works with such things as penance and indulgences from the Catholic tradition. Sometimes the argument isn't about the works per se, but rather the perceived reason / motivation / justification for the works. The complaints you hear are typically from those Christians that believe that we are saved by faith alone. You most likely won't hear those complaints from Quakers, for example. The term "Mainstream Christian" is sometimes used in LDS related articles to represent the consensus of non-LDS Protestants, but there are many points in which they will differ among themselves. (My guess is that "Mainstream Christian" and "Typical LDS" both translate into "what I believe" and "what I think they believe.")

Having said that, you must also realize that there are many LDS beliefs that other Christians find offensive. (If it bothers you that MCs think LDS is a corrupted form of Christianity, don't you think a MC will likewise be bothered that LDS think the same of them?) Many will list additional conflicts to strengthen their view that the Mormons are wrong. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Bill; but I think that the more clearly even a non-Protestant understands what you mean by works being part of our salvation, the more evident it will be to him what is objectionable in the LDS view. But, I'm finding it hard to express "what is objectionable" in a way that won't cause confusion. However insufficient, it will have to suffice to say that, the Mormon idea of grace is not trinitarian; and therefore neither is your idea of works. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A week ago I added a new article, now titled 'Perfection (Latter Day Saints)' which explores LDS beliefs in the relationship between Faith, Works, Grace, and how they work together to lead to Perfection. It is intended as a more detailed explanation of LDS belief on this topic, hopefully the controversy will remain within the M&C article. I had a little trouble with it at first, Mark had some concerns, but he has given me a lot of help in making it a satisfactory article. However, there is still room for improvement.

Anyway, I updated the title in the 'main' tag of the M&C 'Faith and Works' section, moved the examples of LDS works from there to the 'Perfection (Latter Day Saints)' article, I also trimmed the remaining material, removing some redundancy. Anyway, just wanted to let everyone know what happened to the material. 74s181 02:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nature of God

Regarding this recently edited sentence:

Modern LDS leaders and apologists have urged that this is a false conclusion and point out that quotations from earlier LDS leaders refer only to the fact that God was the biological Son of God, and do not imply any untoward behavior between Heavenly Father and Mary.

Shouldn't that read "... that Jesus was the biological Son of God the Father..." just to keep everything straight? Wesley 16:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confident that's what they meant to say, Wesley. But the idea as they've expressed it might be the idea they want to get across. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I didn't mean to say it that way. Sorry about that. I've changed it again to make it a little more accurate. The important thing is that we believe that Jesus' conception was a natural process, meaning he received DNA from the Father and from Mary, but that does not imply a sexual relationship needed to happen. The official Church position is that we don't know how that process happened only, that the conception was a higher manifestation of a natural law (according to Talmage). We know the Holy Ghost fell upon Mary and she conceived (which conception was the right number of chromosomes from the Father and mother) and brought forth a Son. Beyond that God has not seen fit to reveal the mechanics of it. For references to that, see the Harold B. Lee letter referenced at the end of that paragraph.Mpschmitt1 02:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence to more closely express the idea as I've understood it. It would be nice, if this is correct, if a reference could be found that puts the idea in exactly that way. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the book with me, but I'm wondering if the quote from McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" is from the first or second edition. As you may know, he got a lot of static for publishing a book by that title that had a lot of his opinion. (We often refer to the book as "McConkie's Doctrine" ;^) It reads like it came from the first edition. If we refer to that book, it should be the corrected ... I mean, second edition. ;^)

FWIW, I interpret Young's statement saying that no "miracle" took place, as in a law of nature broken (see my comments about miracles in the article.) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This points out something that we find bewildering, as I'm sure you realize. How is it that the statements of a general authority and apostle can be disregarded, or treated as private opinion; when these offices are also represented as having (what we would suppose to be) incontrovertible authority? If you can explain this in a way that makes sense to us, it would provide us with a neutral way for organizing research materials that are supposed to show how Mormon doctrine has "changed". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Whenever this question comes up, I usually share this quote from Joseph F. Smith which is instructive: "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. if Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, pp.203-04). I don't have Mormon Doctrine handy, but I'd be willing to bet there's a disclaimer in the first few pages stating it's the opinions of Elder Mckonkie and not official doctrine. Many books written by general authorities that are not (unlike "Jesus the Christ" by Talmage and a few select others) considered to be official Church doctrine have something similar on the title pages. And please don't miss my response on the Natural birth of Jesus a little up in this section as well...Mpschmitt1 02:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is very helpful, Mpschmitt1. Thank you. Naturally, it raises questions about in what sense you are guided by a prophet, then; but it at least points us in a direction for focusing the explanation, instead of arguing that doctrine has "changed", or that Mormons have been duplicitous in representing their doctrine. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm a bit uncomfortable with the way that the virgin birth is explained. Basically, we don't know, but have a lot of speculation on the matter. I would much rather we quote Brigham Young's statement and maybe Talmage's comment (I hadn't remembered that, thanks! I will look it up.)

As much as I admired McConkie, I had problems reading his books because he would state his own opinion in the exact same way as he would state doctrine. He seemed to have no room for anybody else's opinion, and wasn't always very tactful describing those who didn't agree with him. I only got a few pages into the first book in his Messiah series and couldn't continue. As a convert, I am always sensitive to how a non-member would perceive something, and I'm sure most would find much of his writings offensive.

If you read the article on Bruce R. McConkie you will see a comment he made when blacks got the priesthood. He had written a number of articles claiming that they would not get the priesthood in this life. He said something very similar to the quote above, but from a slightly different angle.

As to how we are lead by church authorities, the answer is: personal revelation. Each of us is expected (and/or required) to pray about each issue and see how it applies to them. We can also use that same principle to resolve any situation when a general authority states something contrary to what we believe. Brigham Young once said he was concerned that members would get to the point where they blindly believed whatever their leaders told them.

There are a number of issues where I differ from the interpretation of "standard doctrine". I have prayerfully decided that, for me, the truth lies in a different direction. IMHO, sometimes truth is relative. The church might make a statement that will be beneficial to the vast majority of the members, and they will pray about it and get a confirmation that that statement is for them; others will pray and get a different answer. Joseph Smith was once asked how he could lead such a large group, and his response was that he taught them correct principles and they governed themselves.

Being LDS is not for the faint of heart. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 12:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill, me thinks thou hast gone too far. Truth is never relative; truth is eternal. If it is not eternal it is not a truth, but something else. I think what you are trying to get at is infallibility or when is a prophet or apostle speaking as such and when is he speaking as a man. This is an area of within the church that has not been discussed or clarified. We are asked to pray about the things we hear at General Conference (where the prophet and apostles speak to the body of the church) to gain a testimony of their truthfulness. However, that does not equate to those of us who do not receive a confirmation of the Spirit being able to state it is not true. We would only be able to say we do not have a testimony of that concept discussed.

Our personal beliefs may "differ" from church theology or doctrine, but we can not say that they are not true. For example, for me the concept so often quoted by President Snow, "As man now is God once was and as God not is man may become" seems only partially "true". It is difficult for me to believe in a concept of a God before the Father. It is a conundrum; there would have to have been a first, so for me it is God the Father. There is no God before Him. The church actually seems more often than not to sidestep clarifying this specific issue. However, what is taught is the concept of eternal progression; that our Father designed a way for us to become like Him and through Christ we may inherit all that He has; to be in perfect union with Him. I find that to be a remarkable and wonderous belief. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Joseph F. Smith quote is helpful. Though I could probably guess, I'll ask anyway: what are the 'four standard works' he's referring to in that quote? As Mark said, it's hard for us on the outside to make sense of some of the seemingly contradictory statements of LDS belief. Wesley 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That also is a helpful comment, Storm Rider. You are right that, it is possible to be offended or to fail to understand what is given, and yet to trust the one who gave it. You cannot say "this is true", if you understand it to be impossible, or if you understand it to be morally wrong. But this is not the same thing as saying, "this is false", or "this is evil". It may be, for example, that an explanation is out of your reach, or that your understanding of good and evil has been confused by what you do not know. Therefore, your mind is bound not to accept as true what you cannot understand, at the same time that your conscience is bound not to reject it as false.

It may be that, although it is time for you to trust, it is not the time for you to understand. This is what Anselm of Canterbury meant, when he spoke of "Faith seeking understanding". It is unsafe to rest faith on understanding. Isn't this what Jesus meant, when he said "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, it is to abandon self-control, to make faith the object of your belief ("I believe in order that I may believe"). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think my comment about "truth is relative" might have been misunderstood. From God's perspective, truth is absolute, but from our perspective things vary. For example, how does one interpret the World of Wisdom? Each person has their own rules governing what is correct. I recall one time when President Kimball refused the sacrament. (For those who are non-lds, if someone feels ill or unworthy in any way they should refuse the sacrament.) In a later conversation, he said that for a brief moment during the sacrament prayer, his thoughts was on something other than the Savior, and as such, he didn't feel worthy to take the sacrament at that time. Now, if the rest of us used that same standard for feeling worthy to take the sacrament, a lot less bread would be used. ;^)

I have always interpreted 1 Cor 8:4-10 that we should modify our behavior if it might try the faith of others. Jewish law stated that they were not to eat food that was offered to idols. However, Paul points out that an idol is nothing, so we shouldn't care whether or not it was offered to an idol. But then he states that if you are with someone with less faith that might be shaken if they thought they ate food offered to idols, then you should not do it. In this situation, it is not wrong for Paul to eat such food, but it would be wrong for weaker person to eat it. That is what I meant when I said truth was sometimes relative. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, you should by every means seek the salvation, not the ruin, of your neighbor. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll also offer the opinion that you are wiser than President Kimball, if he's saying that only those who are well need the physician. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you got that impression about President Kimball, but it is waaaay off. He used to set an extremely high standard for himself, but was very inclusive and gave people the benefit of a doubt all the time. He had been known to enter places that no church authority would want to be caught in when trying to help people with problems. He is my favorite prophet, and was president when I joined. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I put this thread on the edge of being off-topic, with my comment - that's my fault. What is relevant here, is a comparison of the attitude in which one approaches the sacrament. One will not partake unless he thinks himself whole enough to deserve it, the other should not partake unless he thinks himself in need of Christ. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, if you will not eat unless you are well, and you will not drink unless you are sufficiently righteous, then why do you eat and drink? We eat and drink because we are thirsty and hungry. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, you wrote:

"There is no God before Him ... [h]owever, what is taught is ... that our Father designed a way for us to become like Him and through Christ we may inherit all that He has; to be in perfect union with Him. I find that to be a remarkable and wonderous belief."

Stripped of what raises objection this is indeed, The wonder. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow your meaning...the wonder part. The concept fo theosis has always made sense to me. It gave meaning to creation, mortal life, and, more importantly, eternity. The idea that there was an omnipotent being that needed to create us so that we could stand in heavenly choirs for all eternity to praise his name just never made sense. To me God was God and He would be God no matter if I sang His praises or not. Further, He would not be so insecure as to need my constant acknowledgement.

I would also say that when you come right down to it, whether or not there were gods before our God is irrelevant and without meaning. It does not lessen our Father or His godliness.

Wesley, the Standard Works when used by a LDS refer to the scriptures: Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. I hope that helps. Btw, have you read Father Joe? I am just finishing it; an casual read, but I have found it worthwhile. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It was quite a disservice done to you, if nursery tales were substituted for the word of God; but I'm feeling guilty here for getting the discussion side-tracked from the article. Sorry. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, your position conflicts with the Catholic position and I think the LDS and Catholic positions have stronger similarities. The need for confession before taking the Holy Sacrament and the need for repentence by LDS before partaking of the Sacrament. Both of these positions address the condition of one's heart; is it penitent and open to the Spirit. Theyse are similar, differing from your position, which I understand you to say bypasses the need for one's condition of the heart if the Sacrament is offered, partake. I suspect this is not true and it is a problem of semantics; however, I look for you to clarify. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This brings up a point I've been thinking about pertaining to this article. We don't provide a Catholic perspective, which I think would be useful. I have been out of the Catholic loop since the '60s, so my information is very dated. Any Catholic editors monitoring this page? Anybody who can speak for their view? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I didn't say that we don't require repentance. I said that we come to the sacrament because of our need, not because of our deserving. And those who do not come as seeking their sufficiency in Christ (in repentance) do not come worthily to the sacrament. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I really meant the question that I asked - because I do not know. What do you think is accomplished by coming to the sacrament? What do you receive? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We frequently speak of renewing our baptismal covenants (Mosiah 18:8-11) as we partake of the sacrament, but I think the purpose is explained most clearly in the sacramental prayers themselves. LDS have very few 'rote' prayers, the Sacramental prayers can be found in both the Book of Mormon (Moroni 4,5) and the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 20:75-79). Essentially, the purpose is:

Rememberance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ which was given for us.

Bear witness that we are willing to take His name upon us, keep His commandments, and always remember Him.

In return, we are promised that we will always have His Spirit to be with us.

As to why we are instructed not to partake of the sacrament unworthily, I think it comes down to a willful violation of the covenant described in the sacramental prayers. If we have sinned, and not repented, and continue to be unrepentant about something then we are choosing to not keep his commandments, therefore, we shouldn't partake. There are also situations where members have committed serious sin and are instructed to attend sacrament meeting but not to partake of the sacrament as they go thru an official disciplinary process. 74s181 13:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Theosis/Exaltation

It would be more than a disservice if they were in fact fairy tales passed off as scripture. It would be rank blasphemy, pure and simple. Hence the reason (I'm sure) that mainstream Christians are so concerned about our eternal welfare. But I assure you that they are not fairy tales (though my assurance probably comes as cold comfort to you). On the topic of theosis (perhaps we should spawn a new section). I think it's a very biblically supportable belief that As Christ and our Heavenly Father are, we may become. For your consideration: Psalm 82:6 discusses people being gods and sons of God, which is quoted by Jesus in John 10:34. See also, (in this order) Psalms chapter 8 (man is made a little lower than the angels in this earthly estate), Romans chapters 8-9 (through Christ we are made heirs and joint heirs with Christ, being called children of God.), Hebrews Chapter 1-2 (Christ received by inheritance and what we can expect, being joint heirs, to receive as well. Christ is described as being above the angels in inheritance as also are "them who shall be heirs of salvation". Those who are saved have an ascendancy over the angels. In Chapter 2 Paul references Psalms 8), see also Revelation 3:22, and 21:7 (those who overcome through faith will sit down with Christ on his throne, which is emblematic of authority and not some big long bench in heaven where we'll all sit down together,and "inherit all things". ) See also Jeff Lindsay's article here. See also the paper by D. Charles Pyle on the beliefs of the Christian Fathers concerning the doctrine of deification. What word best fits a being who has received by inheritance all the power, authority, and dominion that Christ received by inheritance from his Father and who is made higher than the angels? I don't think the term god (lowercase g) is such a stretch. Sorry for further divergence, but I wanted to chime in (perhaps we can spawn off a theosis discussion thread).Mpschmitt1 12:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. The fairy tale I was talking about was in Storm Rider's comment, "The idea that there was an omnipotent being that needed to create us so that we could stand in heavenly choirs for all eternity to praise his name just never made sense." The idea that God would not be God, if we did not sing his praises. The notion that God "needs" constant acknowledgment, because He is so "insecure"

That's not "rank blasphemy, pure and simple". That's just a silly, childish view.

So, evidently misunderstanding me, you thought I was calling the Mormon doctrine of exaltation "a nursery tale" (which for clarity you should not call "theosis", which is a very different idea). You're right. "nursery tale" is far too light of a word.

Traditional Christianity says (just as I edited Storm Rider's comment to say):

"There is no God before Him ... [h]owever, what is taught is ... that our Father designed a way for us to become like Him and through Christ we may inherit all that He has; to be in perfect union with Him."

But "exaltation" adds:

... the concept of eternal progression ...", and "whether or not there were gods before our God is irrelevant and without meaning."

The edited statement belongs to orthodoxy. The second statements do not belong. They are opposites, one orthodox, the other not. When you mingle them in a single orthodox plus offensive statement, you make an offensive statement. That's why I said "Stripped of what raises objection this is indeed, The wonder." — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Mormons fully appreciate how starkly their view of exaltation contrasts with the orthodox doctrine of theosis, and how completely and totally Trinitarian the orthodox idea is. The idea that God is a Trinity is not added in, it is explained by theosis. You don't realize how central the idea of a single God is, or how absolute the line is between the uncreated and the created, in that doctrine. You cannot embrace "theosis" and deny "Nicea" - they are the same doctrine. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My bad, Mark. I should be more careful about reading the entire thread before I go blasting off on a theological treatise. :-) But I am curious what your interpretation of the scriptures I've shared are. It seems to me that it's not such a far stretch to see support for the LDS view of deification (I'm just going of the literal meaning of the word theosis here "to make divine" admittedly I don't know all the nuances of what that means to Ncene christians. But another part of the problem is that we don't consider Trinitarianism orthodoxy any more than you consider Mormonism orthodoxy. That's a big part of the divide I think. I don't feel beholden to subject myself to what the scholars over the centuries have concluded (with much wrangling along the way I might add) regarding the nature of God. I don't believe the men in the Nicene council had the authority to decide what they decided about something so important as the nature of God (I also see that these same "authorities" were responsible for other views, practices and doctrines I think are clearly heretical like the cult of the relics that continued for centuries after that time as well). This is one of the key points of disagreement I think. For Mormons prophecy and revelation trump the opinions and philosophies of men (even well meaning, educated men with their hearts in the right place). For many mainstream Christians this process of hashing things out by testing everything against the Biblical record (not a terrible thing in and of itself) for accuracy seems to be the foundation of arriving at sound doctrine and theology. The trouble is, coming to that consensus can be a sticky and sometimes ugly process and has led to many a schism in historic Christianity. Orthodoxy always seems a tenuous term in that kind of environment because you're always saying "whose orthodoxy?" In the sixteenth century, was Erasmus right, was Luther right, was Calvin right (etc, etc), or was it the Pope at that time? Or were they all partially right? Or were they all wrong together? That's the greatest trouble I have with the idea of finding one "orthodox" line that all the parts of mainstream Christianity can agree upon. Mpschmitt1 00:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly a nuance. You don't regard trinitarianism "orthodoxy", and therefore deification as you profess it is a denial of theosis - because theosis is an emphatically trinitarian doctrine. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm realizing I'm pretty ignorant here and I've got to go learn for myself a bit more about theosis as it's understood in Mainstream Christianity before I try to go any further. I'm going to put this thread on pause until I get myself a bit better edumacated here. But if you feel like filling in some of the blanks, go ahead (and if you can point me to some good online reading material, I'd appreciate that). Also, I'm genuinely trying to understand what the interpretation of those scriptures would be from a MC perspective (I'm not trying to be confrontational there, I genuinely want to know what you make of them and how you understand the destiny of man from a Biblical perspective). I'm also curious what your take is on the schisms and divisions that exist within Mainstream Christianity and how that is reconciled with Paul's statement of "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" in Ephesians 4:5, since what I'm driving at is mainstream Christianity is not quite there yet in terms of a unified faith and so the question of the term "Orthodoxy" becomes a bit muddled for me. (If you want to take that up in a different thread, or just on my talk page, or not at all, that's fine, it's just a topic that's interested me for a while and I'd be interested in your perspective).Mpschmitt1 01:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is that we do not and cannot interpret those scriptures as denying that God is absolutely unique. The result of this starting point is called "theosis", or "adoption", "glorification", and various other terms by which we affirm that there is a reciprocal relationship between God partaking of human nature (without change in his being), and man partaking of divine nature (without change in being). The scriptures say that we are gods because we are made to be like him, and we are gods in being rivals to him through pride, and therefore although we are made in the image of the one God, we die like beasts because of sin. But in the Son of Man we are partakers of the divine nature - not as pretended rivals, but as sons, and if sons heirs, and τεκνοι - children of God. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding divisions, they are crises of our faith - which does not go to the account of the Lord in whom we believe. They obscure our identity as disciples, and humble us. We have different ideas of what has been neglected, or what's added that does not belong, but we take seriously the crisis that has taken place or we would not be divided. Frankly, I don't think anyone knows how he will confirm his word; but I know that it will be confirmed. Until then, in my opinion, those who deny that hope have a little season to do what they will, and claim what they will; but our task is to humbly follow him according to the condition in which he called us. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Rivals? Rivals to who? The very concept of attempting to pose oneself as a rival to God is to imitate Satan. That concept has not part in exaltation. The concept of theosis seems to go farther in Eastern Orthodoxy than in western orthodoxy. It seems to be discussed more readily. Athanasius' oft quoted statement that the Son of God become man, that we might become God is very close to "as God now is man may become". Neitehr proposes a positio of rivalry. What is interesting is that orthodoxy only goes so far; to become a coheir with Jesus Christ...but not really. LDS are more willing to take Jesus and the scriptures at His/its word; we may become co-inheritors with Him. That does not mean part way or not really. How do you explain the term except in its fullness. Why does this appear to frighten MC? We either may become co-inheritors or not.

We are gods because we can be proud? God is proud? This is a different interpretation, from the LDS perspective. This interpretation seems to go out of its way to deny the simple meaning of the scriptures.

You seem to think that when a LDS says we may be co-inheritors with Christ or become exalted that we somehow will become a replacement for God the Father. God will always be our God; to be exalted is to be in perfect union with God the Father and His Son for eternity. It does not stop; there is not end to that union nor can there be. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Rivals? Rivals to who?"

"Then the LORD God said,

"Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.

Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also ... " (Gen 3:24)

"The very concept of attempting to pose oneself as a rival to God is to imitate Satan"

"I said, 'You are "gods";

you are all sons of the Most High.'

But you will die like mere men;

you will fall like every other ruler." (Psalm 82:6)

They are "gods" and "sons" by the word of God. But by the same word, they are subject to death. The word of God makes them what they are, regardless of what they pretend to be. But nothing makes him what he is: He simply is He - simply, He that Is.

" That concept has not part in exaltation. "

I was asked how I interpret those passages, not how you interpret them.

" we may become co-inheritors with Him ... How do you explain the term except in its fullness. "

We interpret it in its fullness. "Equality with God" was not a thing for which he grasped - neither is it for us to strive for (Philippians 2:6). No servant is greater than his master. (John 13:16) (see in context).

Because God became man, man becomes God. That does sound a lot like Lorenzo Snow; you're right. But they explain two different ideas of "god" entirely, and therefore they are not remotely similar teachings. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There is real irony in your comment, "What is interesting is that orthodoxy only goes so far; to become a coheir with Jesus Christ...but not really." To us, it's you who are talking about being united with Christ, and in him with the Father ... but not really. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There must be plenty of irony to go around. Sometimes I feel as if you never hear what I am saying because you are so convinced that it is different. There is no desire to seek commonality. Instead of just saying it is different; it would help if you explained what is different staying away from platitudes. How is being in perfect union with the Father and the Son different from what your concept of Theosis? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on this page with the goal of learning how to explain what is different, but I find this hard to do because of the difficulty in providing insight into the importance of the Trinity - this is consistently the difficulty, throughout this topic. I have told you plainly many times and in many ways, at every level of abstraction and concreteness that I can think of, why it is different. Each time, I'm surprised that my latest attempt hasn't done the trick, and you continue to think that this is my fault. Well, maybe it is; but my fault is not a failure to try (I have no idea what you mean by "platitudes").

But I haven't given up. I hope you haven't either. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue. I'm hoping that none of us give up. ;^)

Two of my goals for working on this article, Mark is (1) to create a well-balanced NPOV article, and (2) for you to learn we aren't as misguided as you thought when you started working on this article. ;^)

I'm guessing part of the frustration you are encountering is because of a difference in emphasis. The things that you consider very important are considered by many LDS as interesting intellectual issues. If it isn't directly connected to some doctrinal issue that has received a lot of attention, there are often widely varying opinions on the issue by different LDS. It might be that, in some cases, there is no "Mormon" position on certain issues, and the best you can get is the personal opinions of those of us who are working on this article.

This is new territory for many of us. LDS are not used to talking to a MC who doesn't dismiss their views out of hand and actually wants to know what we think rather than gathering more information for an argument, and I'm guessing from earlier comments that we aren't much like the LDS friends that you have known. One of the problems that people on the second (or more) marriage is that they sometimes react to a comment / action / whatever based on a previous marriage instead of the current one. (e.g., the new spouse uses a phrase that a former spouse used, and the person reacts as if it were the previous spouse speaking, when in fact it was an innocent comment with a different motivation.) Something like that has happened a few times during these discussions - somebody reacting to what they thought the other person said, when in fact that wasn't the case, which distracts from the overall conversation. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It is frankly hard to wear the same uniform (editor), but doing so enables us to envision the same goal - regardless of how trivial that goal is, in the grand scheme of things. I hope it's not discouraging to you if everything said only refines original impressions, rather than overturning them. But your analogy to old marital spats is apt. We are divorced. And like an old divorced couple looking back on all the issues that culminated in the crisis, what makes it hard is if we rehearse those issues again as though we were still married. It is easier, even if we agree for different reasons that it should not have happened, to agree to talk about our lives now that we do not belong to one another, and learn to know one another in a new way. There are indications that this is happening, all around. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In reading some of the early church fathers regarding Theosis I did not pick up on the absolute need for the concept being built on the belief in the Trinity. What I did find in common with your concedpt is the discussion of being in perfect union with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, that did not require that all shared in the exact same concept of the nature of God. I doubt that many of the people taught the concept of Theosis understood the nature of God as now presently taught. Only the few learned men understood this complex nuance. I believe what they understood is that the concept or process of theosis would result in being in union with God or even man becoming God, as in part of the whole.

Where Mormons seem to "lose" other Christians is employing vocabulary such as becoming like our Father, or sons of god, or simply gods. I find fault with many Latter-day Saints when they use this language because it is so rote; it is like vain repetitions of our forefathers. They have no understanding of what it means because none of us understands what it means. No one understands what being in perfect union with the Father really means because the Father is not comprehensible. Too often LDS seem to attempt to make God the Father too understandable, too quotidian. Regardless, the concept, IMHO, is true and is far more similar with the Orthodox concept of Theosis than what is dissimilar.

The manner in which I used the term platitudes is in your repeating such statements as because there are two concepts of the nature of God there is no similarity, you don't believe in the Trinity therefore there can be no similarity. These are trite phrases that do not explain, but only condemn and prevent understanding. Let me be clear so that you also do not misunderstand my point on the early church fathers. Do I think their concept of theosis and that taught by the LDS church are identical? No, I actually believe there are differences; however, there are numerous statements that can be quoted that would give some LDS the idea that they are he same. Though there are differences when taking everything in context, I find there is far more in common than in what separates the two concepts.

I would like to see some discussion on defining the purpose of eternity. This is one area where MC does not often go and LDS only paint with broad brush strokes without going farther. Thoughts? Without this part of the discussion this current topic only goes halfway. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's evident that you think of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity differently, and that's why it sounds "trite" to say that the doctrine is of central importance. It does explain, but not in a way that's helpful to you - as I've already admitted. But knowing that it will be even less helpful to you, to recount the steps by which the church developed the linguistic and conceptual tools for distinguishing belief from unbelief, I am looking to you to provide me with the right tools that I need to make the distinctions clear to you (not just clear to me). In the meantime, I suppose it will simply sound to you like I'm just being stubborn - but I assure you, I am not. The difference is real, and significant; but my language fails.

I don't say your doctrine of exaltation sounds "trite" because it is what distinguishes you from us, and because you claim that it is one of those things "restored". I force myself to grant that I am "lost" trying to understand you. But, I suppose that you know that I do this for your sake. I'm trying not to permit myself to tell you what you believe; because when I've done that, it changes the way that you explain yourself, and this hurts our ability to agree on exactly the same point of difference. I advise you to adopt the same strategy.

God is eternity. God dwells in eternity. To have eternal life is to dwell in God, and to have God indwell you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a potentially fruitful way of putting things - even if it sounds a bit cryptic without better definitions (nothing new for me there - with my apologies):

God is eternity. God dwells in eternity. To have eternal life is to dwell in God, and to have God indwell you.
God is love. God dwells in love. To have eternal life is to dwell in love, and to have love indwell you.
God is truth. God dwells in truth. To have eternal life is to dwell in truth, and to have truth indwell you.
God is life. God dwells in life. To have eternal life is to dwell in life, and to have life indwell you.
The Word is God. God dwells in his Word. To have eternal life is to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ indwell you.
The Son is God. The Father dwells in his Son. To have eternal life is to dwell in his Son, and to have the Father indwell you.

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The "indwell you" part, is the grace of God, the gift of God that accomplishes salvation, the Holy Spirit who indwells the Father, and proceeds from the Father without being separate from him. The Spirit is our salvation. And that's what we mean when we say, "Christ in you, the hope of glory". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't made more time to participate in this very interesting discussion. Let me try to explain briefly why Mark is right when he says that the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity is an essential foundation to the Orthodox understanding of theosis. The LDS 'short form' description is something like 'as God is, man may become.' But the LDS and Mainstream understandings of the nature of God are radically different. Thus, when LDS and MC each say they are seeking to become 'more like God', they are not seeking the same goal, and they do not share the same process for reaching that goal. Only the language is the same. Suppose we said that we would both travel to Paris so we could meet and share a cup of coffee. We set out, and on the agreed upon date we each arrive in Paris, but are unable to find each other. Eventually it dawns on us that one of us has traveled to Paris, France, while the other went to Paris, Kentucky. The names are the same, but the nature of the cities is very different, to say the least. Insofar as the LDS deny the Trinity and allow that God may or may not have been created/fathered by some other god, they are not seeking union with the same God as that of Orthodox Christianity, any more than someone going to Paris, Kentucky is likely to arrive at the capital of France. Insisting that we're both going to Paris, even quoting scriptures about how wonderful Paris is, is less than helpful.

Separate topic, regarding eternity. Time is part of the created universe, something that can be measured just like height and weight. God is utterly separate from time, outside of time, independent of time, since it's part of what He made. Only God is fundamentally eternal, existing outside of and independent of time and space. We may join God, live eternally, by being united to God, solely by God's grace and through His love. Wesley 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've missed having your help, Wesley. I've felt like my role is to be the riddle, and yours is to be the clue. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wesley is one of my favorite editors; it is unfortunate that he does not have more time. However, back to the topic, just the manner in which you speak of God...He is Love, He is Truth, He is Eternal...these can sound like such trite phrases. This is not meant to offend, but you must admit they offer no clear understanding of God. As a LDS when I think of God, I certainly do not think of Him as a created being; He is eternal, but He is also my Father, He is the author of all creation. The union between God the Father and the Son is indivisible; however, they are two separate Beings. He created me, all of us, for a purpose; to return to Him. The concept of eternal progression gives meaning and purose to eternity. Without it, Eternity has no real purpose. LDS have an interesting statement given in 2 Nephi 2:25 "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." This may be a better way for speaking about eternity; we exist to have joy. That joy can not exist outside of the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.

LDS' talk regarding what we do in eternity only seems to cause concern. I believe many MC feel we are demeaning God, belittling Him by stating that we become like Him through Jesus Christ. In reality, we actually elevate mankind. The concept of the prexistence is not known among MC. I have heard several ministers of other denominations say that only the prophets existed before the world was in response to [1:5]. For LDS we all existed as spirit children of our Father prior to coming to this earth. One of the reasons this mortal existence was necessary was to gain a physical body. That gift was true for eternity through resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why do you think that Jesus resurrection was necessary? What was the importance of having us returned to a physical body? What is so important about flesh and bone? If God is only spirit and we are to dwell with Him, what is the need of the resurrection of the body? For LDS these answers are easy because they fit into the concept of joy and that we are given physical bodies again because obviously a physical body is significant. I digress from our initial concept, but it does not stand alone. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you think of them as "trite phrases", perhaps sentimental. They are not. You must appreciate the significance of the belief that God is the absolute origin, not merely the highest example, of virtue. Another "trite phrase" to you, I expect. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore you say that the aphorisms "offer no clear explanation of God", but they do. If I can offer an explanation of what's happening here, it has precisely to do with your statement: "In reality, we actually elevate mankind." Your interpretations of my statements are filtered through a human frame of reference as the absolute context of meaning. However, even this statement must be filtered through that same frame of reference - and for that reason, it cannot sound as though it offers a clear explanation. But it does. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You have asked an excellent question. Our bodies by their passions and limitedness are the cause of our frustration and futility, but they are not "evil". We are flesh, a creation of God "good" in the sense that we are made suitable to our Creator's purpose; but the life of our flesh is polluted by our sin. This is why we poured out the life of the flesh on the altar - because our flesh longs for new life, for another chance, for forgiveness: but the life of the flesh, poured out, is death. The marvel of Christ is that he makes flesh and blood the instrument of our redemption. He came in the likeness of our condemnation, and joined us in our suffering. His humiliation makes him our brother in humiliation. His death makes him our Lord and our glory. More "trite phrases". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing you said above will be contridicted by LDS doctrine. Sometimes trite phrases are all there is to explain the unexplainable, but that should not disallow us to acknowledge the limits of the phrase. What is the purpose of the resurrection of the body? Why is it necessary? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The limit of the phrases is found in the fact that they do not separate darkness from light. Once we find the "right phrase", that accomplishes this necessary separation, we will have found how to speak the word of God. In the meantime, even if we must wait until the end of the world, we must be content that tares and wheat grow together. It occurs to me that whereas before I sounded trite, now I sound like I'm talking about magic.

Christ's death achieves the salvation which is manifest to us by the incarnation. It accomplishes exactly what an innocent life sacrificed on the altar accomplishes: it accomplishes our death, while we yet live.

Christ's resurrection manifests the salvation that is achieved, by raising up him who has become our death, transforming him into our life and our justification. It is not that "flesh" is a "higher" form of existence. On the contrary, it is the lowest form, it is the attire of a slave, it is dust. And yet, God has raised this dust. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I should add that, the sacrifice of an acceptable animal accomplishes what we would call a "putative" death. Christ's death accomplishes something "cosmic" - if that's the right word - something basic to who we are, more fundamental than but also including how we think and live.

But with that - I think I need to take another few days' break. I think that my bearings on this conversation are off, again; and I need to re-orient myself to the simple task of helping with the article. So, thank you all for your patience - especially you, Storm Rider, thanks for your honest questions and your helpful clarifications. I'll check in after a while. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I think that this discussion is very helpful. It shows the place of works in our understanding. Argument is futile. Works save, not us, but those who oppose us. "In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." But admittedly, in saying that, I'm speaking from a narrower tradition than "Mainstream Christianity". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I disagree, works do not just save others, we all (including you, I suspect) perform works to save ourselves. Even the most evangelical Christian who takes a moment from his life and says "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Savior" is performing a work in obedience to the commandments of Jesus Christ as he understands them. So what is the big deal about works? Paul spoke against the dead works of the law of Moses, but not against works of charity or works of the law of Jesus Christ such as baptism, laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost, etc., he is on record as performing these works himself. Why is this so hard for MC to understand? Never mind, I already know the answer. 74s181 12:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

74, the subject of faith and works is not uniform within MC. I have found no difference between the Catholic concept of grace and that of the LDS. More importantly, I would say that Grace takes a predominant emphasis among Evangelicals and other Protestants. Further, there is considerable lack of understanding of the importance of Grace among LDS. Grace is the only thing that saves mankind; without it we could not be saved. That is LDS doctrine.

Works are the natural result of those with faith. As their faith is exercised works are exercised and our Father is glorified. One way to think of it is that works define degrees of glory (which mansion will be yours in Bible parlance), but it is solely Grace that opens the doors. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that comment. I cringe whenever I hear a missionary say something like "Christians believe in Faith without Works, but we believe in Works." Maybe that is one reason that others outside the LDS Church are confused about our belief in faith. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

74s181 - no, speaking from my own tradition, the works I perform are not to save myself in a religious sense. You would misunderstand what I believe, if you insist that I'm wrong about my own beliefs.

Insist? No, I said suspect. It is my experience that most MC are in denial about works. Those MC who truly have faith seem to work hard, and work even harder denying that their works have anything at all to do with their salvation. 74s181 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, the LDS concept of works, as I understand it, is best explained in Alma 32. One receives the word, and has a desire to believe. The "seed of faith" is planted, and an "experiment" is performed upon the word. Or, in other words, one's belief increases enough to motivate to action (the "experiment" upon the word). LDS call this faith. If one does not "cast it out by your unbelief" or "resist the Spirit of the Lord", then the seed will grow and one will recognize that the seed (or the word) is good. This is grace, the reward of faith. But this is not the end, one must continue to nourish the seed, and that means more works. "But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out. Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof." (Alma 32:38,39)

LDS understand that the Lord's response of grace will always far exceed one's investment of faith and works, therefore, LDS do not believe that they 'earn' salvation, it is a gift from God, "...yea, behold I say unto you, that as these things are true, and as the Lord God liveth, there is none other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus Christ, of which I have spoken, whereby man can be saved." "...for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." (2 Nephi 25:20,23) 74s181 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So, Mark, do you know anyone who truly has faith and doesn't do works? Are works the cause, or the effect? You've said that it seems like LDS do so many works because they are trying to 'earn' their way into heaven, maybe what's really going on is that LDS have so much faith they can't help doing these works. 74s181 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I perceive you to be asking me to channel someone else's arguments for you, so that you can debate it through me. The idea that faith does not produce works is not a doctrine taught in my tradition, or in any stream of conventional Christianity. But alongside any version of conventional Christianity, the difference in Mormonism's pursuit of perfection does strike me as having a very different motive and character. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider - fundamentalist opponents to Roman Catholicism, such as those found so abundantly on the internet, tend to write as though the only thing that matters is "saved by faith apart from works". You will find them agreeing with you, that there is no difference between the Roman Catholic and the Mormon views of grace and works.

Regardless, there is a considerable difference between your view of grace, and that of Roman Catholicism. But I'll grant that you are yet to be convinced of this, because you are yet to be convinced that the doctrine of the Trinity has central importance in the Roman Catholic view of grace. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I speak from long, at times tedious, but always appreciated conversations with some wonderful Roman Catholic priests throughout my life. However, it should be stated that Catholic apologists will state that Mormons believe in works and there is nothing in common with the two doctrines. I always found that their statements were more a function of their lack of understanding of LDS doctrine than an actual reflection of commonalities or differences.

I find so much of the shouted differences in Grace and Works disputes over focus than real disagreement. For those who believe solely in Grace, it is almost sacriledge to mention anything else. However, once they take a breath they also understand that faith demands works or it is not faith. Catholics (and those who closely echo their positions) and LDS seem to be more comfortable talking about Works; however, the mere fact that it is discussed ruffles the feathers of other Christians. One thing that has always puzzeled me is though they believe that the Judgement exists and will happen, they don't really have an understanding of what is being judged; the penitent heart plays no role. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds as though the apologists you mention are orthodox, and the priests you mention are not.

By addressing your comparison to "mainstream Christianity", you can avoid superficial comparisons between "grace without works" and the LDS. Dispensational fundamentalists are on their own in supposing that grace does not necessarily produce anything. There might be other types of antinomians that would think it's intelligible to call it a bad thing to desire to do good. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems we might not be arriving at a conclusion. Could you explain your perception of the Catholic doctrine of Grace and Works. After doing so, then proceed to explain what you perceive as the difference. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand the Catholic view of works and of merit, all virtue is founded upon the "theological virtues", of faith, hope and love. In fact, as the Enchiridion of Augustine shows, the entire catholic faith can be comprehended under these three virtues. These are not abstract concepts, but rather refer directly and concretely to the Triune God. They are not separable concepts. When you compare your concept of works and reward to the catholic concept, without reference to the fact that you deny the unchangeable Trinity, you are ignoring the basic catholic commitment of faith in God as the absolute origin of virtue; and thus, your concept of merit is not ultimately grounded in God, but in some cosmic principle of justice to which God himself conforms. You speak of "eternal" and "God", but these are words without the same meaning. The difference doesn't seem to matter to you; but it does matter in the catholic idea of man's calling in the Spirit sent from the Father to indwell us. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Theological virtues"? How about the Biblical virtues of faith, hope, and charity? "...though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." Yes, some Bibles have this translated as 'love', I guess 'charity' sounds too much like a 'work'. Fortunately, Moroni clarified this:

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

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen. (Moroni 7:47,48) 74s181 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But how do Faith, Hope, and Love / Charity refer directly Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? I mean, I understand that the Trinity is the key difference, but Mark, it sounds like you're saying there is some direct correlation between the three virtues and the Trinity. How does that work? 74s181 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Theological virtues" is what they are called, in Catholic theology - that's what I was asked about. Read the Enchiridion, that I pointed to - there's a link to the full text at CCEL on that page. Read the Catholic catechism on this subject, it will help you to understand what I'm referring to. Meet me half way, by trying to penetrate to the heart of these very real differences. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Old Roman Symbol

Wesley marked this with a 'fact' tag. I originally added this, so I tried to find a reference to cite, and could not find a direct reference. So I removed the statement on compatibility of Old Roman Symbol and LDS doctrine of the Godhead. 74s181 19:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Subsection headers

I added some subsection headers to segment LDS and MC perspectives. I didn't think they needed to be indexed, but I think it will help keep the structure of the presentation. If nobody objects, I can add them to the next section as well. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There must be something more clear than "common beliefs". Perhaps, "overlapping beliefs" would say the same thing, without implying that the beliefs would prove identical on these points, with close examination. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a pervasive feature of this controversy, that we have different ideas of what we have "in common", but there is no dispute that there is considerable overlap in the language that we use to say very different things. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've retitled these unindexed sub-heads as "comparable beliefs" - this seems to strike the right balance. What do you think? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Much better, thanks! wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fix footnotes

Something broke the footnotes, but I can't tell where it happened. Please fix. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Found and fixed the missing ref token. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

History loop - meta

A very interesting glitch has been introduced into the edit history on the article page. Although the article displays the latest edit, the history does not - a sign of database corruption. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And now, a minute later, it's back to normal. Hm. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It could have been your local browser cache. Bytebear 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)