Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move. Húsönd 01:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a move from Mormonism and Christianity to Latter Day Saints and mainstream Christianity. Mormonism is a deprecated term that is often considered offensive. The Manual of Style recommends Latter Day Saints. The comparison is not with Christianity as a whole, but mainstream (or common) Christianity. Current title uses a deprecated and offensive title for the LDS, and inherently implies "Mormonism" is a separate faith from Christianity (which is the POV of some Christians, not a universal or scholarly consensus). Vassyana 11:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"mainstream Christianity" is a made-up term. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What about "orthodox Christianity" rather than "mainstream"? Actually, although I think that's the proper term to use, it may be confused with "Orthodox Christianity" as specific to the Eastern church. I think it's a good idea to change the "Mormonism" to "Latter Day Saints", but you might have difficulty coming up with the right modifier for "Christianity". I don't think "mainstream" is it. SlackerMom 17:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. These are the most common terms, and its about the religion rather than those who practice it (the topic is not, "Latter Day Saints and Christians"). The current title is silent on whether Mormonism is Christianity. It's titled "Mormonism and Christianity," not "Mormonism vs. Christianity." Keep all of these articles where they are. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 17:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Mainstream is POV, neither this article nor the linked Christianity article have any sources specifying what defines Mainstream outside of Google hits (See Christianity# note-93). The Google hits I looked at all seem to compare Mormonism vs all other forms of Christianity. Also the article Christian denomination#Christianity outside of the mainstream concedes that defining mainstream Christianity is difficult. As far as Mormonism vs. variants on Latter Day Saints (LDS), I'm indifferent and will defer to the LDS manual of style. - Optigan13 01:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the manual would not by offended by "Latter Day Saint movement," but "Latter Day Saints" is wrong in either case (per my comment above, and compare Freemasonry and the Latter Day Saint movement). In any case, I still favor the current, popular, understandable, and succinct title "Mormonism and Christianity." Cool Hand Luke 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Regardless of article move outcome, archives should moved in line. I would also suggest using an archive bot to maintain the talk page. - Optigan13 01:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment does Latter Day Saints cover the entirety of Mormonism? (ie churches other than LDS, such as the in-the-news FLDS and others) 132.205.99.122 20:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, note the lack of a hyphen (which is LDS-exclusive). This would be more clear with "Latter Day Saint movement." However, this is an article primarily about theology, and "Mormonism" is much more common term for that than the ugly neologism "Latter Day Saintism." Moreover, most of this theology concentrates on the LDS strain of the the Latter Day Saint movement. Groups that reject the label "Mormonism" like the Community of Christ are not given more than passing treatment here. Cool Hand Luke 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We would not call an article about African-Americans and middle class society "Negroes and society". I believe that is exactly the kind of error the current title makes. For example, the Society of Friends believes in continuing revelation, similarly at odds with mainstream Christianity. There are many more examples of churches generally well-accepted as Christian (and even ecumenical) that have doctrines at odds with traditional Christianity. That leads to the next point, which is that the article explicitly and openly contrasts the Latter Day Saints with traditional/mainstream Christianity. To assert that such a category doesn't exist is either dishonest or foolish, and additionally runs completely contrary to the article. An attempt to contrast the Latter Day Saints with Christianity as a whole would be POV on its face. "Latter Day Saint movement" would be perfectly acceptable, as it is pointed out that is the preferred term in the MoS. Vassyana 21:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: the contrast with "mainstream" Christianity is incidental - a foil. Mormonism means something distinctive by "Christianity" - to see what it is that is distinctive, it is helpful to contrast it with what is ordinarily meant. Unless I'm misinformed, Mormonism also claims to correct a corruption of Temple worship that followed the age of David and Solomon. It also claims to correct numerous other sources of truth, including ancient mysteries which are found in their corrupted form in Masonry. The appropriate title under which Mormonism gathers these restored or perfected streams of truth would not be "Mormonism versus ...", but "Mormonism and ..." - because Mormonism claims to restore these familiar things in an unfamiliar form.
  The only reason that "mainstream Christianity" comes into this article at all, is because Mormonism in some respects is both like and different from what "Christianity" brings to mind. It is therefore sensible, instead of simply writing a tract that represents Mormonism as the restoration of Christianity, to compare it to what it deems a corrupt or apostasized Christianity superceded by the restored gospel. This article doesn't have much to say about "mainstream Christianity" - except as a helpful comparison to the LDS (and to a lesser extent, as the critic of Mormonism). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bot archival of this talk page

Would anyone be opposed to this page being auto-archived by a bot? Since this page is undergoing move discussion I would wait until after that is finalized before proceeding, but that also makes for a good time to discuss this. I would think 14 days would be a good date to set for the age, and possibly a shorter period. All other criteria aside from the counter I would leave to their defaults. See User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo for the bot I am referring to. I have also just brought up this same topic on a similar page, so no you aren't seeing double. - Optigan13 05:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian Opinion of Mormonism and Vice Versa

From the title of this article I was expecting a simple and straight description of how the two groups view each other. There is a little bit of how Mormons view Christian as churches who lost their way, but nothing the other way around. This is besides all the theological details. (Mike Morgan 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

Trinitarian Christianity is not founded upon the rejection of Mormonism, and has no "doctrine" concerning Mormonism. In defense of their own doctrine, mainstream Christians might criticize Mormonism (and they do: this is called "apologetics"). There are whole Wikipedia articles dedicated to a description of these criticisms of Mormonism; but, this isn't necessarily one of those. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the title may or it may not indicate that there are "two groups". Since Wikipedia is both gullible and agnostic, it may be that to be anti-Mormon is to be anti-Christian; or, it may be that Mormonism is anti-Christian; or there may be some grounds for mutual acceptance - Wikipedia doesn't know. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Mike is looking at this article more the way I would like to see it. How has Mormonism interacted or reacted to other Christian churches and vice versa. How do they cooperate on social issues. There is a lot missing from this article when you only focus on doctrine. For example, the Boston Temple had a lot of resistance from the local non-Mormons, but the Catholic church (among others) supported the LDS Church's position on freedom to erect the building. There is also no history of other denominiations in Utah and how they were greeted. The LDS Church recently gave donations to the Catholic Church for the restoration of the Cathedrial of the Madaline in SLC. Why is this not mentioned in the article? Perhaps we are being too narrow on our scope. That is why I prefer the historical approach as opposed to the point-by-point doctrinal approach. It certainly makes things easier to reference. Bytebear 19:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything preventing this development - and as far as I'm concerned, I think that would be a good thing. However, it is a mistake if the article is too narrow in being limited to theological issues, to try to correct this by limiting it to an historical approach. Even if you were to approach the issues in terms of historical developments, you would be forced to compare the distinctions of doctrine - because these are above all what typified or aggravated those developments. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think we can weave in both together. Rather than say "Traditional Christians reject doctrine X", instead, say "In a letter written by so-and-so, Church Q has said in regards to doctrine X, bla bla bla". This way, you have to reference everything, and you get a more balance. The article should not be about who is right, but about how one side has reacted to the actions of the other. Bytebear 21:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good. I would caution, however, that the back-and-forth style of debate-point-counter-point-rebuttal, even (or perhaps especially) in the style of a history, makes a weak and unreadable article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency with practice

I find some passages like this in the article: "leaders of the LDS Church from the time of its founder Joseph Smith have counseled members to be sensitive, to exercise caution, and to avoid contentions in their preaching". Shouldn't we contrast this with the way several early LDS leaders did preach, which was in fact insensitive and contentious? 199.71.183.2 19:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have references to this "insensitive and contentious" behavior? Can you give examples? Bytebear 19:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the early LDS leaders who referred to the other churches as 'corrupt' and 'apostate' and some less polite terms. 199.71.183.2 20:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the farthest that you can go is to explain how the LDS now interprets these judgments of "corrupt" and "apostate" - "what does the LDS mean by this?" - and in what sense then do they see themselves as being consistent with this, and with the admonition not to be insensitive, brash and contentious. I don't think that Wikipedia can report "inconsistency" as such. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we contrast the 'counseling' of the LDS leaders with what was actually said? Things were said that were definitely insensitive and contentious (on both sides), and it seems to be glossing over the facts to report that they "counseled members to be sensitive" without reporting what was actually said. However you interpret 'corrupt' and 'apostate', calling another church that was certainly not sensitive. 199.71.183.2 20:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to tread carefully on that point. It is a standard anti-Mormon argument that the church pushes intolerance of others based on the idea that all other churches are "corrupt and apostate". However, that particular phrase acutally only appears in the 1838 version of the First Vision. In practice and doctrine, the church has always taught tolerance. See the Articles of Faith (Latter Day Saints) #11: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." I think you need to present specific examples or references so I can understand your point. Please provide the facts that are being "glossed over". Bytebear 21:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly candid, the LDS has only multiplied and magnified its accusations. But, that does not take away from the fact that they admonish their members to be inoffensive and reasonable. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we remove the statement about "counseling sensitivity", or denying that they "admonish their members to be inoffensive and reasonable"; but we also need to record what was actually said, especially if it doesn't agree with what was supposed to be said. I'm also aware that mainstream Christians weren't models of tolerance in the same period.

Incidentally, here are a number of references:

1. "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" (Orson Pratt,The Seer, p. 255).
2. "I was answered that I must join none of them (Christian Churches), for they were all wrong...that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight" (Joseph Smith History 1:19)
3. "The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church, is the great corrupt, ecclesiastical power, represented by great Babylon...." (Orson Pratt, Orson Pratt, Writings of an Apostle, "Divine Authenticity," no.6, p.84)
4. "After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christiandom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common orgin. They belong to Babylon." (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, p.324)

199.71.183.2 22:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

< But the article does have statements to this effect already — in fact, at least at the moment, it has such a statement in the opening sentence, and re-iterates the charge in the overview, and by inference accentuates and clarifies the accusations in the articulation of its claims for itself. The linked article on the Great Apostasy goes to great lengths to spread the blame around to non-Mormons who have held such a view, as well as to explain further what Mormons mean. But, this does not mean that they are inconsistent, to nevertheless strive to be personally inoffensive. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Scripture and Tradition in the intro

There has been some back and forth on the second paragraph of the intro and the explanations confirm a misunderstanding of motive. The sentence in question now reads as follows:

For their part, Trinitarians by definition teach that the gospel concerns who Christ is; and by direct inference, the Tradition alleges that any, ostensibly including the Mormons, who depart from the biblical understanding preserved in the catholic churches are prevented by their doubt of the scripture's own teaching from believing and proclaiming the Gospel of reconciliation through Christ.

First of all, I still believe that the revert by Csnerica leads readers to a conclusion that is POV. The current sentence does not make it clear that it is catholic interpretation of scripture, but it takes a stronger position by stating first those "who depart from the biblical understanding". IMHO, the sentence would be both more neutral and accurate by stating:

For their part, Trinitarians by definition teach that the gospel concerns who Christ is. More importantly, Tradition proclaims that all who depart from the catholic churches' biblical understanding are prevented from believing and proclaiming the Gospel of reconciliation through Christ.

This more accurately reflects the references provided, no? Also, it is not so much biblical interpretation, but it is Tradition that really provides the meat for this doctrine. It may be even better to drop the "biblical understanding" completely. This doctrine in a historical perspective really got its legs with first Irenaeus and then Athanaisius among others. Irenaeus, though adamant about beliefs, was just as strongly adamant about authority and where there was no apostolic authority there was no church. It was a much more definitive position than that of the Catholic church today. For him, there was only one church and there was no room for anything remotely similar to ecumenism; all non-Catholics would be damned in his world. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Who are we to say what is "more important". More important to whom? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And what does "neutral" mean, in your comment? It's the Mormon view, not the mainstream view, that the Trinity is "not so much biblical interpretation". It is true that, the boldest clue that the Bible is being messed with, is when someone takes the Bible and pulls out of it something incompatible with what the churches have believed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What is "the gospel" anyway?: MC:"different Jesus"; LDS:"different view"

There has been a lot of discussion where the label "the gospel" has been thrown back and forth. Here are a few of the ways 'gospel' has been used in these discussions.

1. restored gospel
2. The Gospels
3. the full gospel
4. the fullness of the gospel
5. the true gospel
6. gospel as "power of God unto salvation"
7. principle(s) of the gospel
8. ordinance(s) of the gospel
9. Jesus Christ's gospel
10. gospel of Jesus Christ
11. the Father's gospel
12. the gospel of God
13. gospel plan
14. Gospel of reconciliation
15. Gospel of reconciliation through Christ
16. gospel of reconciliation to the Father, through the Son of God
17. another gospel
18. gospel concerns who Christ is

LDS are accused by MC (Mainstream Christians) of believing in a 'different' Christ, a 'different' gospel. According to the LDS Bible dictionary:

The word gospel means good news. The good news is that Jesus Christ has made a perfect atonement for mankind that will redeem all mankind from the grave and reward each individual according to his/her works. This atonement was begun by his appointment in the premortal world but was worked out by Jesus during his mortal sojourn. Therefore, the records of his mortal life and the events pertaining to his ministry are called the Gospels; the four that are contained in our Bible are presented under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The four Gospels are not so much biographies as they are testimonies. They do not reveal a day-by-day story of the life of Jesus; rather, they tell who Jesus was, what he said, what he did, and why it was important...

I know that many MC would disagree with some or much of the above definition, but I think we can all agree that when the word 'gospel' appears in the New Testament it means 'good news'. I think we also can agree that the essence of the 'good news' is summarized in John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

LDS editors have tried to explain this, both here and in the article. Mark has repeatedly responded more or less like this:

You may use words that belong to us, but you do NOT belong to us.

'Gospel' is one of those words, both MC and LDS use it. It is often used today by both groups as a label for the doctrines of Christ's true church, or in other words, "the gospel" is the correct interpretation of "the gospels". I think we agree that the word 'gospel' can mean that, but we disagree on the 'correct' interpretation.

If I have understood Mark correctly (I've been seriously wrong before<g>), he has suggested that the MC belief is that the Trinity is the most important interpretation of "the gospels", and is the heart and soul of Christ's true church. Mark previously quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

• 234 "The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life ...".
• 249 "From the beginning, the revealed truth of the Holy Trinity has been at the very root of the Church's living faith, principally by means of Baptism ..."

As we all know, LDS have a different view of God and Jesus Christ, and I also think that LDS have a different view about how important a perfect understanding of the nature of God is to one's eternal salvation. As a result, the MC seem to insist that LDS don't belong to them, but according to the LDS editors here, LDS believe that although misguided, MC do in fact belong to them. Or, in other words, MC believe that the gospel taught by LDS is fatally flawed and will lead those who follow it away from salvation, but LDS believe that the gospel taught by MC, while flawed, is mostly correct and will lead sincere MCs toward salvation.

Ok, so now the point.

• a) Have I understood the MC position correctly, re: "you are not part of us"?
• b) Is this a difference that belongs in the article?
• c) Does this difference have potential to become the core of the article?

If I have understood correctly then I think this is important, I think this might become the launching point of the article, with further exploration of why MC and LDS feel the way they do about each other, and the past and present day results of these attitudes. Also, clearly the LDS attitude towards MC has changed, the 'whore of babylon' statements made by LDS leaders in the past about MC would never be repeated today. The MC attitude toward LDS has also mellowed somewhat, at least they're calling for picket lines instead of lynchings.

The thing I like most about this approach is that it would be easier to present the two POVs in a NPOV manner, without turning into a back and forth debate. 74s181 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

74, whatever we say in this article, that is what the Gospel is about according to two very different but comparable perspectives. I don't understand why you're talking about a "launching point", though - as though we have only just begun to speak about this, or only now approached it. As far as I'm concerned, I've never at any time spoken of anything else. I have never understood any of you to be speaking about anything else, either. I think that you can find this being discussed in just about any one of the previous 15 archives. You use words that belong to us, because they came from us. You do not belong to us, because you mean something different by our words than what we meant when we gave them to you, and you do this in order to remain separate from us.

As for the relations with "mainstream" Christians, the LDS no longer has someone who sounds like a raving egocentric lunatic raising an army within the borders of the US and US territories. It no longer endorses polygyny. It no longer bars some races from the priesthood. These and other things have helped. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"You use words that belong to us, because they came from us." Frankly, I'm getting just a little bit tired (again) of your attitude on this. The words came from the same place (God), we both got them the same way (someone wrote them down). From the LDS perspective, MC forgot the original meaning of the words and added the words of man, which ultimately became more important than the original words of God. I am sure that MC believe the exact same thing to be true of LDS. We disagree. Duh. Why continually repeat the obvious? 74s181 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"...you do this in order to remain separate from us." Mark, one of the biggest complaints you've had is the LDS attempt to find common ground, one of the biggest complaints that MC have about LDS in general is their efforts to reach out to MC. Who is trying to remain separate from whom? 74s181 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"...raising an army..." Even if this is an accurate description of something said by a LDS leader, let us not forget who it was that not only called for an army, but succeeded in raising one and using it to drive the LDS from state to state and eventually out of the USA, killing the top leaders of the LDS along with thousands of innocent women and children along the way. 74s181 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"...no longer bars some races from the priesthood." Kind of hard to be ordained to the priesthood of a church when you can't even become a member. Unlike the MC, the LDS have always accepted members of all races. 74s181 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"...why you're talking about a "launching point"..." Yes, Mark, you started this with Comparison is not debate, but I thought that discussion had gotten way off track and I wanted to get back to the original question. I think I'm in agreement with you, the idea that MCs say that acceptance of the Trinity doctrine is essential, fundamental. LDS don't agree with the Trinitarian view of God, and I'm not sure that LDS even agree that the definition of God is as fundamental and critical as MC do. Don't misunderstand, LDS believe it is very important, but I think that LDS believe that there are things more essential for salvation than a perfect understanding of the nature of God. 74s181 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, did you really mean it when you said that MC believe the Trinity doctrine is "...the central mystery of Christian faith and life"? LDS don't believe in the Trinitarian definition of God, and don't believe that any definition of God is "...the central mystery of Christian faith and life". Did you really mean that "...not belonging to us - this must be what the article is about"? LDS believe that many MC are, in fact Christians, in spite of their misunderstanding of the words from God that we have in common, and their insistence that he loves His children less today than in times past, and could not have something additional to say to his children today. 74s181 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So, Mark, here are two major differences, at least I think this is what you meant. Do you agree? 74s181 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There are few things so arrogant about Christians than their seeming endless ability to claim God as their own. Instead of God owning them; it is turned around and God is owned by them. He and His words are theirs and anyone they do not identify as "us" is incapable from touching the Spirit of God, because he is their sole property. For LDS nothing could be further from the truth; it is strictly a teaching of man and has no part in God. God owns us, we use His words, but we do not own those words. We are His instruments to be directed at His desire. The Spirit is not hindered, controled, or directed by the silly concepts of man. The Spirit is the author of all truth; where ever there is truth to be found upon this earth, there you will find the Spirit. Truth is not controled by a specific religion and it never has been and it never will. All religions and peoples on the earth have degrees of truth. This arrogant belief is a defining difference between orthodoxy and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say it is a little troubling hearing Mark condemn the actions of Mormonism, while at the same time somehow ignoring or denying the volumes of heinous crimes of Christianity throughout history. Bytebear 05:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

74s181 and Storm Rider, the temptation is strong to try to refute, or to console, or something ... But this rush of feeling and flurry of accusations, piling up words, that so often greets me in this discussion, is better ignored. The only explanation I have is, your argument is not with me. No one except you have said that what is being compared is a "perfect" understanding of God; but at least it should be the faith given to the churches, and even if an angel from heaven or another apostle were to preach a "God" different from that, a "salvation" different from that, it is not arrogance, and it is not cruel, if we say that it is different. That's just telling the honest truth - and that much is not meant to belong only to "us" and not to "you". Telling the honest truth about that difference is something that we ought to share.

Bytebear, I didn't condemn anything that I recall. I simply said that it's easier getting along with the LDS, because of certain changes. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

But, religious belief was not a factor at all in the Mormon War. Polygamy was only a part of the issue of the Utah War. It was much more about politics than religion, and although the term "theocracy" is thrown around, it wasn't that Smith's religious teachings caused much of the friction. It had more to do with land deals, immigration, and voting blocs. Sure, the disidents and the Nauvoo Expositor gave an excuse to get Smith, but that wasn't why Smith was arrested or killed. He wasn't killed by jealous husbands. So your assessment of his character is really not founded in truth. But putting that asside, Cnristians have an easy out on issues within their own "group". the Christian group isn't actually conheisive like Mormons, so you can condemn evil Popes as not being part of your Christianity, even before the protestantant break, and the inquisition and holy wars are either justified or condemened as "those people" not "my people". And the evils of evangelical ministers are pushed asside as an individual's act, and not the act of the body of Christ, even though such actions are done in the name of Christ. So you have an easy out, whereas Mormons are condemned by every statement by every leader in their history. If I were to quote some bizarre statement by a pope, or even brought up issues like the excommunication of scientists for defying the prevailing belief that the Earth is the center of the universe, I would be reverted immediately for bias POV. So why the double standard? I say, because you have an easy way out, and 1000 plus years of the past to distance yourself from such issues. Those excommunicating popes were just ignorant of the times, but Smith and Young should have knowm better. I suspect in 400 plus years, Mormonism will smooth over the rough spots as well, but the anti-Mormon's will try to keep those wrinkles in place as best they can. Bytebear 06:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bytebear, if this is what you mean by an "historical approach", I hope it's evident to you that this doesn't make any sense for a Wikipedia article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you quoted the Catholic catechism and interpreted it to say that the Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life, the heart and soul of Christianity. You have said repeatedly that rejection of the Trinity doctrine is what makes LDS not 'Christians'. This is what I meant by "perfect" understanding of God, it was the only way I could think of to express the difference between MC and LDS that I thought you were driving at. 74s181 06:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not what the words '"perfect" understanding' mean. The heart and soul of Christianity, is to be reconciled to the Father, to be sanctified in the knowledge of him in Christ, by the Holy Spirit. Yes, indeed, the Holy Trinity is what Christianity is about. But, we don't claim to understand God.

You accuse me of saying "repeatedly" that the LDS are not "Christians". I may hold this view; or I may not; or I may go back and forth on the issue - you cannot know, if I do not say; and I have firmly resolved not to say. One way or another, you have earnestly fought to get me to make some final pronouncement on the issue. If you managed to trick me into it, when was it?

Obviously, if you say that you believe in Christ, I do not want you to now doubt Christ; rather I hope that you will grow in faith. If you say that you know God, I don't want you to reject what you indeed know; rather, I hope that you grow in knowledge. But if there is to be an article on "Mormonism and Christianity", it is merely a point of information that Mormonism is both like and different from what is ordinarily meant by Christianity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, didn't you say "...you are not part of us?" 74s181 16:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I now see that trying to find the "heart and soul" of mainstream Christianity is, in fact "the question", I apologize again. But, what then do we compare? 74s181 16:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

74s181, our "common ground" is in things that are the same, between us. The Bible is the same (at least, the KJV is the same) so that for example, our different beliefs are put in the same words, the time-line of the life of Jesus (things said, to whom, when) is very nearly the same, and our understanding of the second table of the Law is very closely comparable. Besides this, of course, we are alike human, and regardless of what we think we have the actual reality in common. But, the LDS message says in countless ways, that "mainstream" Christianity and Mormonism are two different things. There is common ground between the two, but it is not in what we believe. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

74s181, yes, although this is not the only difference, it is obviously important. I appreciate your efforts to find an issue of difference that we can compare, that you want to allow the LDS and MC to explain their own views on their own terms, and to compare and explain. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you said "That is not what the words '"perfect" understanding' mean." What I meant by "perfect understanding of the nature of God" was that the 'mystery' aspect is part of the perfect understanding. That is, the MC have this formal definition of God and Jesus Christ, part of that definition is the mystery, and any attempt to explain or explore the mystery is a violation of the 'perfect' understanding, i.e., would be NOT the Trinity, therefore, heresy, therefore, something other than Christianity or IOW, not part of Christ's true church. Does that sound right? 74s181 02:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about it a bit more and I don't think that exploring this difference is "the question", so I'm going to try again. Mark, just so we're clear I'm not asking what you believe. I'm asking you what you think many or most MC churches teach or believe. We would need a WP:RS to put this in the article, but I'm trying (again) to find out if there is something here worth researching and talking about. 74s181 02:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Do many or most MC churches teach or believe that belief in the Trinitarian doctrine is the heart and soul of Christianity? I know it is important to MC, but I think you were saying it is most important, the defining attribute of MC. Did I understand that correctly? 74s181 02:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would think that this question would be answered by the fact that "mainstream" Christianity is defined. How does Roman Catholicism most prominently define itself? What is the "Orthodoxy" by which Eastern Orthodoxy represents itself? What distinguishes "traditional Protestantism" from offshoots like the Jehovah's Witnesses? What are the "Ecumenical Creeds" - what do they concern? What is issue of concern in the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedon Creed? All of these have the same answer - that beginning with baptism, there is thrust before the attention of Christians, the name into which we are baptized, the name of our salvation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The creeds work, ut using the words for baptism does not; LDS baptize as follows, "Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". This is a similar problem with TCC comments above; as soon as scripture is used the position begins to fail because LDS use the same scripture(s). The position is more clearly defined when creeds are used. Of course, the LDS position is that the creeds were created by the councils of men and are the doctrines of men; the time of their creation or observance is meaningless. If time equated with "truth" then we would all still observe the Law of Moses.

It is without doubt that there are differences between LDS doctrine and the doctrines of other Christian churches; however, to define Christian by forth century standards results only in a contrived definition to meet specific goals. I think that most LDS would accept the definition if at least Christians were honest about the fact that it has nothing to do with being a follower of Christ or a definition that Jesus, Peter, Paul or any other of the early apostles would recognize. This is always perplexes LDS; for us it is easy to say what would Jesus say or do and try to do that. Mark and TCC, do you really think that Jesus would recognize this position that MC churches take about defining a Christian or a follower of Jesus? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But that would be dishonest, Storm Rider. Because, quite apart from any arguments with Mormons or anyone else, we seek to know and to live in the salvation into which we have been baptized. So, on the assumption that you're asking for information and not just setting up another argument: we received our doctrine from Christ; and that is why we follow it. We have clung to him who defended us; and that is why we have kept our defense. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"...LDS baptize as follows..." Yes, Storm Rider, we're using the same words, but as Mark repeatedly has said we mean something different. I've seen baptisms performed where the officiator left out 'and of' or just 'of', that is, he said "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" and had to repeat the baptism, because without all three of the the 'of' it isn't correct. In fact, it sounds like the Trinitarian formulation. Yes, I agree with you that from the LDS perspective we mean to do the same thing for the same reason even with all three of the 'of', in the sense that the baptism is about Jesus Christ. But Mark, representing the MC in this discussion, insists that LDS mean something different than what MC mean when they do the same thing with almost exactly the same words. And in fact, we do mean something different, and while that difference isn't the most important thing to LDS, it is the most important thing from the MC perspective. 74s181 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to participate in the debate, I'm not trying to come up with an objective definition based on the Bible (that would be "the question"), but I am trying to understand the debate so I can better describe it. LDS have a view of what makes someone a Christian or not, so do MC. There is a major disconnect between the two groups. I'm trying to understand it, but it is a forest / trees thing, it is so fundamental to both sides that it is hard to step back and 'see' it and talk about it. But I think I'm finally getting it, maybe I'm just dense and the other LDS editors have gotten 'it' for a long time, but I don't think so. 74s181 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you do not want to debate. The discussion will move along only if debate is avoided. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So, Mark, assuming my explanation above is close, at least as close as it is possible for a non-MC to get in understanding the MC position, I now want to take a chance and restate what the MC position looks like from the perspective of LDS. I apologize in advance, I know that even if I have understood what you have been trying to say it will be very difficult for me to explain it from an LDS perspective without sounding like a slap in the face. I will try hard to not be offensive, but knowing how your statements appear to me and the other LDS editors, I have to assume that no matter how careful I am, my statements will probably be just as offensive to you. Please try to understand that I am trying to understand as best as I can, and that offering a statement like this is the only way I can test my understanding. 74s181 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

MC have a formal definition of God, a statement about the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This formal definition is so fundamental, so essential to being a Christian, that from the MC perspective, anyone who believes something different about God or Jesus Christ is worshiping a 'different' God or Jesus Christ, and therefore, is not a Christian. MC consider the proper understanding of God to be so important that they believe that any person or church that teaches a different understanding of God is doing more harm than good, regardless of whatever other truths or virtues they may teach. 74s181 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You misrepresent the view, when you continue to think that it's a "formal definition" that we believe in. The "formal definition" is only a symbol of what we believe in. We believe in the Father - not an exalted being like ourselves, but in him who from everlasting to everlasting is God. We believe in Jesus Christ the eternal word of the eternal God, the uncreated wisdom of the uncreated God, the revelation of the nature of God, the pure expression of his very being and the manifestation of his purposes, who is incarnate for us and for our salvation by the Holy Spirit. We believe that the Spirit of God is not a breath from without to give God life, goodness, holiness, and power - but is the very goodness of God from God, who given to us creates within us a likeness of God's pure Word, the Son, and conforms our hearts and minds to his image. This is the holy faith of the church, which the enemy continually seeks to overwhelm by the flood that proceeds from his mouth. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

LDS teach many things about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that are similar to what MC teach, but they also teach things that are incompatible with the formal MC definition. But LDS don't think that a perfect understanding of what the prophets (past and present) have taught about the nature of God is what makes someone a Christian. Rather, LDS emphasize the 'Good news' and the importance of living a Christ-like life, and of trying to follow the example and commandments of the Savior. If someone who is not LDS claims to be trying to follow the Savior, LDS will happily accept them as brother Christians and try to teach them more about Jesus Christ and His gospel as LDS understand it. 74s181 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What I find "similar" in what they teach, rests on the fact that man is made in the image of God: being believed to be a man, the Father as you understand him is like the God in whom we believe. But in that you speak of a man, you do not speak of the God in whom we believe, but of a likeness to him. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

LDS teach certain doctrines about the nature of God, some of these doctrines are considered to be more important than others, such as the doctrine that God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son are physically separate beings with bodies of flesh and bone. However, LDS believe that an understanding of the 'mysteries' of God is something very personal and sacred that grows in each individual over a period of time. While certain specific doctrines taught by ancient and modern prophets are taught in LDS classrooms, public discussion about 'mysteries', or, in other words, speculation about things that are not doctrine is discouraged. 74s181 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think? Is what I've said more or less correct? Because if it is, I think we have some major work to do on the article. The lead is pretty close to focusing on this idea, but the body of the article does not. 74s181 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What matters is the revelation of God in Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures, as taught in the churches from the beginning, by the Holy Spirit. The creeds churches defend this revelation, by their creeds. It makes the LDS sound either ignorant or argumentative, to have them saying "LDS don't think that a perfect understanding ... is what makes someone a Christian."

But, it's hard for me to believe that it means so little to you to know who God is, when the Scriptures make quite a big deal out of that. I think you're over-stating the issue for rhetorical purposes when you say it's a "personal" and "sacred" matter, as though we were talking about your underwear. If your idea of who God is were so insignificant as that, you would drop it and embrace what the churches have taught from the beginning. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would say the opposite is true. Mormons try not to offend, so they say, "it doesn't matter what your belief in God is to be a Christian", and that may be true, but what they mean to say but will not for fear of being offensive, is "We know what God is like, and you don't, but we will accept you as Christians because you are blinded by a faith in a man made creed that defines God incorrectly." Mormons claim to know God from the First Vision and subsiquent revelations trhough Joseph Smith. They claim those revelations are not incompatable with the Bible. MC has their creeds which they claim are not only compatable with the Bible but ARE what the bible teaches. Both sides "know" what God is like, and both sides are incompatable, so it becomes either a compromise in saying "we accept you anyway" (the LDS position, and some MC), or "we reject you and you are not welcome" (the majority of MC thought). So, Mark, do not misunderstand, you are right to say "it's hard for me to believe that it means so little to you to know who God is" because it is crucial to salvation, but Mormons are not prepared to condemn all of mankind to hell just yet. So they are giving you a pass, as it were. Final judgement will come from God. Bytebear 18:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mormons place great importance in having a personal relationship with God. Unlike many MC, we not only pray to God, but we expect an answer. Sometimes the answer is expressed as a feeling, sometimes by actual words, sometimes by another person. Each person is expected to recognize these promptings of the Spirit.

So, in answer to your above question, it isn't that Mormons don't think that knowing who God is unimportant - quite the opposite. However, we think it is more important that people develop that relationship than they understand the actual nature of God.

I think a good analogy would be that each of us have formed relationships with other Wikipedia editors. Some we feel we know fairly well, or at least we understand what they think and feel about certain topics. However, few of us know what color hair they have, how tall they are, or any of the other characteristics that most people think of when asked what somebody is like. Mormons believe they know God because of the interaction they have had with God. They are less concerned about what most creeds address, and they are generally unconcerned about what 74 refers to as "the mysteries." -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 18:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Bytebear, that is the honest answer. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

wrp103 (Bill Pringle), Aaron made a golden calf, and he said to Israel, "This is your elohim O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt!" Because this is condemned, we would understand this to mean that, what God reveals concerning himself is a matter alongside and equal to what he has done. "I bow down toward your holy temple and give thanks to your name for your steadfast love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word."

The prayer of our Lord is "I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me." - therefore, we conclude that concern for the one-ness of God is necessary to both, our wholeness and our witness.

It is concerning this, that Paul wrote, "Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith ...". Our whole obedience is bound up in declaring the mystery of God. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I think you may have misunderstood the LDS position; what we believe is of ultimate value is to have faith that Jesus Christ is the Savior, the Messiah. It is not that we do not value truth or the knowledge of God. As I have said above as Light comes into one's life, more Light is added to that person. The context of this discussion was what is the most fundaemental truth or concept. For LDS it is the knowledgeof the Son of God, that He lived, sacrificed His life, and rose again. For LDS that is the elemental step in being a Christian; with those beliefs it is impossible to deny Christian brotherhood. When you bypass that step and require that one must also believe in the Trinity as a prerequisite for Christianity to exist you have moved beyond Christ.

Bart D. Ehrman and L. Michael White, among many other historian, have done an excellent job of proving that during the first several hundred years of Christianity there was not "one" church or "one" Christianity. At most one can say there was a proto-orthodoxy, but even it can not be equated to the orthodoxy that developed in the 4th century. This is historical fact that conflicts with personal beliefs, but the facts still remain. This requirement of belief in the Trinity was and is a requirement that has nothing to do with Jesus Christ or being His disciple and everything to do with the church of the 4th century. To believe in the Trinity is to be in an acceptable communion with that church, but that church is not the sum total of Christianity. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that 74s181 misrepresented the LDS view, by making it seem as though it doesn't matter what you mean by "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" - as though there were not a specific LDS view on the matter. I think I've now been told that I am correct. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"What matters is the revelation of God in Jesus Christ..." Mark, rather than answer my question it sounds like you're quoting something, but I think you're agreeing in concept, even if you disagree with my wording. I'm not trying to threaten or criticize, I'm trying to understand. I warned you that my words about MC belief might seem offensive. In case you didn't know, your words about LDS belief are almost always offensive to LDS, but now I understand that it is not your intent but rather the fundamental difference in our perspective that makes it seem offensive. 74s181 19:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Agree" with what concept? Anyway, you're the guys who are always talking about being offended. I didn't say it was "offensive" - I said that you make the LDS sound ignorant of what the MC teach, or as though they're obstinately refusing to understand. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mystery - just to clarify what I meant by 'mystery' from the LDS perspective. There have been times on this talk page where I have shared ideas about 'mysteries' and have been gently chastised by Storm Rider or other LDS editors. These things are not considered important. Belief that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate beings with physical bodies is important, but I don't think it is important enough to keep someone from being baptised. If you believe in God the Father, in his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost, and if you accept Jesus Christ as savior and redeemer of all mankind, I think that is all you need to know about the nature of God to get baptised, for that matter it is enough knowledge about the nature of God to get a temple recommend. 74s181 19:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that the LDS does not have a doctrine of God ... that the faith that you are instructed in may or may not be Trinitarianism, it doesn't really matter? I do not believe that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"...it's hard for me to believe that it means so little to you to know who God is..." As others have said, it matters very much to LDS 'who' God is. On the other hand, what matters less but what MC always seem to focus on when talking about LDS belief is 'what' God is. Does that make sense? 74s181 19:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What makes sense is that you do not believe that the catholic doctrine of God is true. You are unpersuaded of its age or widespreadedness, you don't believe that it can be defended from history, from tradition, or from Scripture alone. And this unbelief in that doctrine is your doctrine. That's all you've been saying, but you take a long time to say it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"...historian(s) have done an excellent job of proving..." Let's put the debate aside for a bit. Mark and other MC believe that the Trinity doctrine is a only a clear statement of what has been taught since the begining. On the other hand, LDS believe that Jesus Christ and the writers of the New Testament taught something different than the Trinity doctrine, and that LDS today teach what Jesus Christ and the early apostles taught. MC believe LDS are wrong, LDS believe MC are wrong. Let's agree on that for now and move on to trying to understand the prominence of the Trinity doctrine in MC faith, and let's try to find the doctrine of similar prominence in the LDS faith. 74s181 19:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, 74s181. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"...74s181 misrepresented the LDS view..." If so, it was unintentional. It matters what we mean when we say "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that is why the 'of' is important. However, we don't define a person's Christianity, LDS or not, by their definition of the relationship between the Father and the Son, or by their belief in 'one-ness' or 'three-ness'. 74s181 03:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If so, then drop your definition of the Father as an exalted man. Drop your definition of the Son as another god. Drop your definition of the Spirit as the means by which the Father is omnipresent. If these are obstacles to your unity with other Christians, and they are not important to you, then let them go. Otherwise, stop saying that "definitions" are important to us and not to you, and try to encourage other LDS to stop mocking the catholic faith. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't drop these doctrines because I know that they are true. However, I realize that these doctrines are not the most important or first doctrines that one needs to learn on the journey towards salvation. But it seems that MC think that the Trinitarian doctrine is one of the first and most important doctrines to learn, don't some MC churches teach young children to memorize the Trinitarian formula? LDS teach their children to memorize the Articles of Faith (Latter Day Saints), the first one says "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." That's all, no mystery, no 'three-in-one'. 74s181 05:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No. We baptize them in the name. We train them in what it means. Most of us baptize children - so you're certainly not talking about us, when you speak of "perfect understanding". If you can't drop these doctrines, then it is not true that "that's all". It matters to you what is meant - and what it means concerns things that you do not explain because you can't explain them. The idea that we should not believe in God because "three-in-one" is too much, sounds awfully strange coming from the LDS. What are you trying to compare, when you take this approach? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 09:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"...you make the LDS sound ignorant of what the MC teach, or as though they're obstinately refusing to understand." I'm still not sure I understand what you're saying. At one point it seems like you're saying that acceptance of the Trinitarian statement on the nature of God is the definition of Christian. This makes sense, I've heard other MC say things that support this. Then you say "The "formal definition" is only a symbol of what we believe in." I read the words you wrote after this, if you left out the explicit rejection of the 'exalted man' doctrine most LDS would have no problem with it. Some might question your use of 'uncreated', but really, the LDS doctrine you seem to be focusing on is NOT the core of LDS belief, I don't think it is even taught as part of the curriculum. It is true, but it isn't 'core' or 'defining', except to those who seek reasons to criticize LDS. In fact, I have known faithful members of the church who were uncomfortable with some of the doctrines taught in the King Follett discourse. Interestingly, your description said nothing about 'one-ness' or 'three-ness'. 74s181 03:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is that interesting? I am talking about meaning, and you are focusing on mere empty words apart from their meaning - even going so far as to say that you "would have no problem" with what I'm saying, unless I use certain words.

Therefore, we must supply more words in order to make clear that we do not mean the same thing - which you already knew. We worship a single spirit in three persons, and three persons which are one spirit: God. If we speak of the Father, we mean the Father in whom is the Son and from whom is the Spirit: distinct and yet without seam. We mean the Son in whom is the Father, who sends the Spirit of Christ from the Father and not separate from him, for our salvation. We mean the Spirit, who is the Temple of God, the Father's house, infinite, eternal and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. We address no person of God without addressing the fullness of God, the Father, the Son and the Spirit. We address no threeness of God, that does not contain each in Himself Father, Son and Spirit. We know no Father who once had no Son or to whom the Spirit is an external power: except our own fathers, men who are made in the likeness of God and are made in need of Him. We do not have three Lords, but one Lord; not three Gods, but one God. This is the greatest commmandment, so that our hearts will be simple and undivided and undoubting: "The Lord Your God is ONE" God, our God, is ONE Lord. "And you shall love the Lord your God with ALL of your heart, with ALL of your soul, with ALL of your mind, with ALL of your strength"; and the second commandment is an image of the first. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"...love your neighbor as yourself," you left that part off, I think it is kind of important.

If you know what I mean, without me saying, it's the same as if I had said it; just as, if you change what I mean, regardless of what I say, it's the same as if I had said nothing. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If I wanted to engage in the debate I would ask, "where is the resurrected Jesus Christ in this explanation?". But I'm trying to understand the debate, not engage in it, so I'll say, yes, I understood that you meant the Trinitarian formula. I think your original and follow up statements are interesting for two reasons. First, the contrast between your initial presentation of the catechism enthroning the Trinity doctrine and your later statements refering to the Trinity formula as "...mere empty words...", and second, because your commentary on the Trinitarian formula is so 'heavy', it reads like a textbook commentary on a Bible verse rather than a personal interpretation of an important doctrine. 74s181 05:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If I tell you what we say - you read into it meaning that isn't there, as though the words were empty of meaning. If I tell you what we mean, you complain that what I've said is too full of meaning. That's not helpful — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussing implications

It may be possible to describe comparable beliefs, give the LDS view, give the MC view, and then discuss the implications for the relationship given these similarities and difference under a separate sub-heading. I would like to see some example of that model actually working, before splattering graffiti all over the article - but as Storm Rider says, and as 74 has always insisted, what really matters to the LDS, and always has been in these discussions, is the effect created between the two communities. Keeping in mind, however, that "impact" is a subjective matter - and this is not a symmetrical comparison - it seems to me that this has the potential of creating a lot more confusion, and I doubt its likelihood of success. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Storm Rider. I let this get deep under my skin, and I got angry. I apologize. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mark that trying to include reactions to doctrine when discussing doctrine probably won't work. At the same time, the "why don't MC consider LDS Christian" is a significant POV that (IMHO) should be covered somewhere in the article. Perhaps in the "Reactions" section, we can include something addressing this issue. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 08:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that it must address this issue. The difficulty in doing so is obvious from the fact that we have Archives full of attempts to do this, and it has not happened. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Less active.

There is only so much time in the day, and there are priorities in my life that need more time and attention right now. So, while I don't expect to be completely absent from Wikipedia, don't be surprised if days go by without any contributions from me. 74s181 14:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And, there is even less time in the day to waste trying to communicate with someone who only wants to appear to communicate. 74s181 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Many" - weasle?

I think that "Many" sounds weasley; but over the life of that sentence in the second paragraph, it continues to show up. I'd like to have an explanation for why it belongs:

Many Trinitarian Christians allege that any who persistently believe in a misunderstanding of Christ, ostensibly including the Mormons, are prevented from believing and proclaiming the Gospel of reconciliation through Christ.

One would think that it is a matter of definition, that Trinitarian Christians would perceive Mormonism to be a misunderstanding of Christ. Also, as a matter of definition, it would seem that a Trinitarian would think that it is a matter of consequence if someone believes that the Gospel concerns two ascended human beings and one pre-embodied spirit entity. To a Trinitarian, the Gospel concerns simply one God - the Father, in whom the Son and Spirit consist necessarily and eternally, without addition, partition or separation. It would seem that if by definition, the Gospel concerns who God is and what he has done in Christ, that it would by definition imply that if one believes that such a God is "absurd", and that Jesus Christ certainly does not reveal this God, then that person is prevented by persistence in unbelief from either believing or proclaiming the gospel of reconciliation to the Father, through the Son of God in whom the fullness of God dwells (as Trinitarianism teaches). If a Trinitarian is not persuaded of this, then is that a Trinitarian? If not, then why would we say "Many" Trinitarians ... But if that is a Trinitarian, what is a Trinitarian; or, what is the person who thinks that word is necessary thinking is meant by the sentence? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a problem when stating what Trinitarian Christians believe. This is not a monolithic group with a unified belief among each Christian. What would be better is to state that Trinitarain churches believe; that can be supported by references while the other cannot.

This is a really interesting position to take because it superceds the power of Jesus Christ as Savior and redeemer. This wrinkle requires the not only the work of believing in Jesus Christ, but one must also believe in him in a specific manner in order for Christ to save you. It is one of the fascinating concepts that developed after Christ's resurrection. It was a way to overcome the problem of the divinity of Christ. If Christ was the Son of God and thus divine and there is only one God, then how can Jesus be the son of himself? Early theology decided upon the concept of the Trinity where though they are distinct, they are one. However, to take that belief beyond any thing that Jesus Christ taught and to limit His ability to save is a remarkable position. Where Trinitarian churches require a specific belief in order for Jesus' power to engage, LDS require certain ordinances be done by proper authority; albiet LDS believe that all will have these ordinances done. Is there any acception to preventing Christ from saving someone if they do not believe in the Trinity? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This, of course, is the Mormon POV. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But to be clear, the article doesn't at this point have Trinitarians saying that Christ is "prevented from saving someone if they do not believe in the Trinity". What it does say is that if you do not believe in the Trinity, you are prevented from knowing what the Gospel of reconciliation is, and consequently you are prevented from proclaiming it in faith, because the Gospel concerns "Christ in you, the hope of glory". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if I misunderstood you; however, I understood you to say that "Trinitarian Christians allege that any who persistently believe in a misunderstanding of Christ, ostensibly including the Mormons, are prevented from believing and proclaiming the Gospel of reconciliation through Christ." When I read this understand you to say that if an individual persists a misunderstanding of Christ (i.e. the Trinity), then it is impossible for that individual to be reonconciled to God, and therefore cannot have faith. What this means is if I do not possess a specific knowledge or understanding of Christ, than the Grace of Christ is beyond me; thus I cannot be reconciled, forgiven, and will necessaril be damned. Please tell me how I misunderstood your statement. Secondarily, please explain "Christ in you, the hope of glory". How does Christ become "in you"? Is this created by a special knowledge or is it an interaction of the Spirit? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to have faith in that which you deny. If one does not believe that Jesus is the Word of the Father, that has no beginning in time, that has no beginning except in God just as the very Spirit within God, then how can one believe that in having the Spirit of God, Christ dwells within us and that the Father dwells in Christ - so that it is entirely apart from our work, but wholly through Christ's that we have access to the Father? If one denies that humanity is entirely different from God who is from everlasting to everlasting, and correlatively denies that Christ is human just as we are, and also is the fullness of God in one person, then how can one believe that by the sacrament, partaking of Christ's body and blood, we receive what does not belong to human nature but is rather a gift that is not obtainable by any human work, but is found in Christ alone - the gift of God Himself? But you want to know is how much of what God reveals in Christ for our salvation can be denied, and still be saved through faith by the grace given to the church. I'm not sure. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]Last first: the context of "Christ in you, the hope of glory" is fairly clear. See Col 1:24-29. The "you" Paul is addressing there is the church -- specifically that at Colossae, but also generally. Christ is in you to the extent you are a member of his body, the church, and this indwelling of Christ -- the cause of hope for our future glory, our "perfection in Christ" -- is the mystery of the fullness of the Gospel. When we receive the word of God, we also receive the Word of God, and if we respond to him we enter the Church and Christ enters us. It follows that if the word is faulty, the Word is not given. Put another way, if "another Jesus" is preached, "another spirit" is received. (2 Cor 11:4). So yes, a correct understanding of who Jesus is, is a very important matter. Therefore, following Paul's direction in Gal 1, the church has always excluded those who preached "any other gospel" according to its understanding.

Your earlier deduction doesn't follow in general, although some churches do teach that. If one cannot preach the true Gospel, that does not necessarily exclude one from reconciliation with God. We know where the Spirit is; we do not know where he is not, nor do we place bounds on what God is able to accomplish. We know he desires that all should be saved. (1 Tim 2:4). The historical tendency has therefore been not to judge those outside the Church as condemned, but to leave them to God's mercy. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is the Roman Catholic expression, and carries with it a number of positive attributes by which someone formally outside the Church may yet be saved. The Eastern tendency is to turn that around and says that anyone who is saved -- and we do not judge as to whom -- must in some sense belong to the Church. Willfully acquiring the Grace of God if you believe in another Gospel is impossible, whereas it's a freely available gift inside the Church, already given and there for the taking. But God does whatever he pleases. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In the scriptures that I provided above, what differences do you see when addressing this concept of being alive in Christ? This concept is so easily wrapped up with other concepts such as "another gospel" and though I understand the motivation or logic of combining (or even seeing it as one subject); the gospels do not make those distinctions. Mark speaks of the apostles who forbade one unknown to them from casting out devils in the name of Jesus. Jesus said forbid him not for he that is not against us is on our part. There was no clarification of requiring an understanding of specific doctrine, which was the motivation of the apostles to forbade the individual I suspect, "Hey, you are not part of us, so you must be doing something wrong; stop it".

The main issue is that this position that can be so divisive, even with TCC's further clarification and softening, it is something that never came from Jesus' mouth. I would hope that the article can make a clear distinction from what is Tradition and what is scriptural. I understand that the first is built upon the second; but they are not the same. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

First, we are not free to ignore scripture we find distasteful. The church has included the letters of St. Paul in the Biblical canon, and I have not heard that LDS has chucked them out. There is in this case no question of mistranslation: Paul wrote to the Gentile churches in their own language, Greek, and in Orthodoxy we have always read them in the original. (The KJV does a reasonably good job of translating the NT absent a few particulars that won't enter in here, so that's the specific version I'll cite.) So whether you think Jesus expressed this sentiment or not, we can't disregard what Paul says.

This isn't really being about being "for" or "against" anyone. Casting out devils isn't life in Christ in and of itself. There were professional exorcists at the time who did that kind of thing by various means: what we have here is a record of an exorcist who noted that Jesus had power over devils and so added his name to the repertoire of those he invoked -- or, since it always worked, began invoking it exclusively. It worked because for whatever reason (unstated in the Gospel) the name of Jesus was effective even coming out of that exorcist's mouth. This is precisely the kind of thing that makes us hesitate to draw hard lines about where the Spirit is and is not. (We know that not everyone actually could cast out devils using Jesus' name from Acts 19:13-17, so there must have been some sort of grace given to that exorcist from Mark in particular.)

But it's not correct that Jesus said nothing like what Paul did, although when he did he expressed it the other way around. In John 1, Jesus is said twice to bring "grace and truth". We cannot worship God except "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23-24). It is the truth that sets us free (John 8:32). Jesus is "the Way, the Truth and the Life. (John 14:6) The Paraclete, the "Spirit of truth" will guide us "into all truth" (John 16:13). Jesus has told us over and over again: The truth is important, and is essential to a full life in Christ. On this point Christ and Paul are in full agreement. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I should add a further clarification: Tradition is not built on Scripture. Scripture is part of Tradition. The most important part, but Tradition nonetheless. The truth cannot contradict itself, so nothing else in Tradition may contradict Scripture -- but what is it that tells us what is Scripture and what is not? It's not the Bible publishing houses, it's Tradition. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To "believe in Jesus" and dogma

(indent anew) CTT, everything you said in the last paragraph is doctrine of the LDS church. Where we seem to differ, even though I sense your understanding of scripture and mine to be very similar in many areas, is that orthodoxy seems to move from Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life to Christians must understand/accept/believe in the Trinity for Grace to truly be viable. This is a step that LDS and many Protestants simply would never condone or accept as a teaching of the Bible.

Though it is true that I have a preference for the Gospels (I and all LDS accept the entire Bible to be the world of God), nothing in the Bible goes so far as to say what Tradition states. Again, if it was to be the defining doctrine of Christianity is it not appropriate to think that Jesus would have taught it explicitly? Please note the only point I am trying to make is there is a difference between the explicit teachings of the Bible and the teachings of Tradtion. Tradition is of significant value to you, but to those outside of your system, it may be appreciated, but it is not the source of truth that guides such an important question.

As an aside, we have many LDS who would have a relective belief system as some of things stated above...that there is one true church and all others are damned. That is reflctive of a seriously deficient understanding of scripture. I tend to think in terms of one Kingdom of God and all those who are lead by the Spirit, who have become a new creature, are members. All who wish to be saved through Jesus Christ will be; the Spirit works wherever there is truth, it is never prevented from functioning because of the individual's beliefs; rather it guides us to all truth.

Are we talking by one another? I sense that regardless of what the scriptures say or my personal belief in Jesus Christ that your chruch would teach I am incapable of feeling the Spirit while still being a LDS. Further, if LDS did feel the spirit it could not possibly be the Holy Spirit i.e. LDS are lead by demons. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 10:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For LDS there is only one single ultimate judge of truth and that is the Spirit. Just as it was with Peter when he came to know who was Jesus, so it is with us. For Peter it was not scripture, the words of learned men, or spiritually gifted men, it was the the Spirit. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 10:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Where we differ is what it means to believe in Jesus. If you believe in an imaginary person labeled "Jesus", then what do you believe in? An imaginary person cannot save, but that's what you get when you believe in some Jesus other than the real one. I say he is God made flesh, both fully human and fully divine; the Son who is begotten of God the Father from all eternity and consubstantial with him as God himself; the eternal Logos by whom all things were made. You believe otherwise. Both cannot be true; one must be fictional, "another Jesus". If the Jesus you know is the fictional one, then you do not know Jesus. He himself said explicitly that knowing him is a characteristic of his followers. "And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.... I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." (John 10:4-5, 14-15)

Paul -- who, again, we are not free to disregard anyway -- merely restated it when he said, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed (????eµa)." (Gal 1:8-9) He is not contradicting Jesus here or teaching something Jesus never taught; he's restating that which he received (pa??d?s??, that which is received, translated "tradition") originally given by Jesus.

Of course the Spirit is the touchstone of truth; I never said otherwise; and if you think I ever implied the Spirit is incapable of working with anyone at all, you haven't been reading very carefully. I said the exact opposite. That does not mean there is more than one true Church. Scripture is clear on that subject. "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10:16).

I believe I have made it sufficiently clear that I wouldn't automatically say that any spirit you felt was demonic. The question I'd ask would be, is that spirit leading you into truth or into falsehood? Or are you just kidding yourself? We call that plani or prelest in Orthodoxy, and it's a very common spiritual pitfall, especially if you're not watching out for it.

I have a hard time understanding why you think either Mark or I said that the "defining belief" for Christianity is to require orthodoxy on the person of Christ. (I think that's what you meant, anyway. The pronoun's antecedent is ambiguous.) It's one of several indispensable requirements for Church membership, full stop, and it is in Scripture, as I explained above. You disagree with it. Are you seriously trying to tell me that LDS membership is not denied to anyone, even if (for example) they refuse to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet or that anything he said was true? Or that someone who professes what I professed in the first paragraph of this post and refuses to change his mind would be accepted, if for some reason he wanted to join? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe if you read below, Mark made it clear that the doctrine of the Trinity is the lode stone of orthodoxy and Christianity. What I disagree with is the inability to distinguish what the scriptures say and what is expanded doctrine. Jesus said all who believe in Him shall be saved; there was no clarification of belief, no requirement that to believe in Jesus Christ you must believe in a specific doctrine of the nature of God. He said if you believe in me, I will save you! What a LDS would say is that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus; albeit that each of us is at a different area of progress in following Christ; of being his disciples. Some possess more truth than others, but Jesus is the key. It appears that the doctrine taught by orthodoxy is different; that there is no brotherhood in Christ until a specific set of beliefs is professed.

Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ; LDS do not deny his words, please never say otherwise. There is only one gospel of Jesus Christ; anyone that teaches differently than Jesus was born of virgin, lived a sinless life, bled from every pore in the Garden, was crucified and died, yet rose again on the third day, and will one day return to earth just as He ascended does not possess His Gospel. Jesus lives; He is the Savior of mankind, through His Grace man is forgiven completely and wholly and He is our salvation. There is no other name given than Jesus Christ whereby humans can be saved. There is only One capable of responding to the prayer of faith to God the Father in the name of His Holy Son because none is greater than He. To be a member of His Kingdom is to follow Him; He guides all His children that seek Him. This is LDS doctrine and it is the teaching of the Bible. The distinction between LDS Church teaching and orthodoxy would appear to be that there is more required. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not hard to understand that, our doctrine is only "expanded" to distinguish it and to defend it from what is incompatible with it.

Anyway, as I've said before, I don't want to take away from the belief in the Christian gospel as you have it right now. You say that you trust in Christ - I say, you are right to do so; and I have reason to hope for you. You say that you know God - I say, that is eternal life; and I have reason to be interested in what you say. But, if it is from the heart that we believe, then we must seek the spirit of these words.

If one speaks, it is because one seeks to be understood. That much is not different with God. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would not say that more is required than belief in Jesus. The question is, who do we believe in when we say that? The real Jesus, in the fullness of who and what he is? Or a phantom of our own devising?

However, I think C.S. Lewis had it right in The Last Battle with regard to the young Calormene. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(newindent) Csernica, again you and I agree; that is a favorite scripture of LDS. To love the Lord is to follow His commandments. Simply knowing the name of the Son of God does not save a person. As I also indicated above, we must follow Him; we must be disciples that seek to emulate Him, share His Spirit with others. LDS do not send out their young men and women into the world to garner the acolades of man, but we go because we love the Savior and He has commanded us to preach the gospel unto all the world. It is the will of the Father that the Great Commission be fulfilled. It is not something to be done by others, but by all those who seek to follow Christ. The scripture you used would be very hard indeed to condemn the LDS people. That is not to say our members are perfect, far from it. They fail, some of us miserably, but we seek the mercy of our God and have faith that through the atonement of Jesus virtually all can be forgiven and we can try anew to follow Him. No Christian church emphasizes more than the LDS church to seek the will of the Fahter, that the heavens remain open, and one of the great gifts of God is that of the Spirit to answer our prayers, to lead, and to guide us.

I have long enjoyed Lewis, but in this instance he has only echoed the word of the Gosepl of Matthew. In the same chapter we find another way of identifying followers of Christ; Jesus said, by their fruits ye shall know them. His disciples will be recognized by the works they do; those works are the work of Jesus in us.

Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." Paul says, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Csernica says "The question is, who do we believe in when we say that? The real Jesus, in the fullness of who and what he is? Or a phantom of our own devising?". Now we are told that the LDS agree with Csernica. Is that true? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is funny to me. What we have here are two groups using the identical scriptures; both claim to be correct and both claiming the other is incorrect in their understanding of scripture and nature of divinity. I don't know why one should be surprised given one believes in Apostolic authority and the other believes that through the Apostasy the authority was lost. LDS firmly believe members of orthodox churches worship Jesus Christ, not some phatom. We believe the Father hears and answers your prayers. The same apparently is not something orthodoxy can say of LDS.

We also believe that your understanding of the Godhead is faulty; that it is a fabrication of man and is not supported by scripture. However, that incorrect understanding does not prevent the Father and Son from hearing your prayers or guiding and directing you. For me personally, the mere concept is anathema; it inverses the relationship we have with God. In fact, we believe the mere desire to communicate with God is enough to allow Him to come into one's heart. He will force no man to heaven, but he will always respond to the broken heart regardless of knowledge. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone says that idolatry is an obstacle to knowing God, this is "anathema"? I doubt that this is really the teaching of the LDS.

It seems to me that what Csernica was saying is that it really does matter who is Christ, and who Christ is. He sounds as though he might go on to say, be careful of those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine taught; and not to be naive; because, the unity to which he has been called matters, and the doctrine which confirms him in it is important. But to be clear, he also went on to indicate that, God knows who belongs to Him; and so, he is not condemning anyone, which would lead him to appreciate and to commend doing good wherever it is found, including in the LDS. That's what I understood him to say; and it doesn't at all look like what you said. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed my point again. To me personally it is anathema for man to dictate who God will save and who He will not by a fabrication. If the Trinitarian doctrine were the most important belief for Christianity, one must assume that Christ would have dictated it. Orthodoxy has condemned others throughout history for a doctrine that was not taught or required by Christ to become His disciple or follower. LDS do not deny Christian-ness to others based upon beliefs outside of those that I quoted above; however, that Christian brotherhood is not shared by orthodoxy.

I have attempted to use humor to get both you and TCC to see the silliness of this dicussion. It is so easy to see that the pot is calling the kettle black. We both use the same scriptures to condemn the other. You ignore history when it offends and hold to history when it aggrandizes orthodoxy. The reason there is not an even wider range of Christianity today is because throughout history those heretical groups were killed, burned at the stake, and/or exterminated. Please do not attempt to enrobe that history as if it was a pure, undefiled oneness of doctrine. Mark, given your knowledge I cannot believe you are not fully aware of that history. Orthodoxy is known as such today solely because they were the victors, not because of some benevelent outpouring of the Spirit and unity of the faith. That supremecy of that doctrine was ransomed by the blood of saints. My intent is not to offend, it is not to debate, but it is to put an end to representing a history of Christainity that only exits in beliefs, but is not in historical fact. Devout scholars know this to be true and understand that it does not demean the faith. Both of our groups are known for using what we call "faith promoting stories"; it is appropriate when teaching the faith, but it is not acceptable to assume that they are the sum total of history for either group.

We are getting too far afield and we are losing the focus of the discussion. The objective is to improve the article; exhanging beliefs is appropriate to gain understanding, but attempting to prove the truthfulness of one's own religion is completely inappropriate and ineffective in this context. I do not understand anything in your second paragraph above. I stated above that I thought we had to be talking past one another, I still think we are. It seems like the more I edit, the more I repeat myself, and the more my word seem to convey no meaning. I cannot imagine how I can be more clear in defining what it means to be Christian and I refuse to repeat it fully again. In brief, LDS believe if one follows Christ one is a Christian. It appears that to be Christian for orthodox Christians one must believe in a specific creed that describes the their perception of the nature of God. I will go back to the article and make sure that is how it is presented. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say that I miss the point, when you simply say what I've said: You did not express LDS doctrine, it was your own feeling. You change what you've said - but the point doesn't move much: we haven't fabricated what we believe in concerning God, but if one did do so, it would present an obstacle to knowing God.

Jesus did "dictate" our belief. He said "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life". He said, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent". He said, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man." He said, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me". And he said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." He says, "I will not leave you as orphans, I will come to you". He says, "I am with you always, even to the end of the age." It is said concerning him, "in the beginning ... the Word was God". The whole Scripture is his word, and the Scriptures teach us to believe this. The Spirit of Christ preserved us in this faith. Now, if you were really asking me where Jesus gives us our doctrine concerning himself, this sort of thing would answer you: since you did not ask me to prove this, but simply to explain ourselves. But it just isn't profitable to answer if that's not what you are asking for. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 09:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Mark, I didn't mean to leave you hanging. I find I'm having to limit my Wikipedia time lately so as keep stress to a manageable level. (This is only one of many, many sources.)

Mark fairly summarized what I was saying above, so I really don't see what Storm Rider's problem is here. Neither Mark nor I has been condemning anybody, and I cannot see good faith in the continued assertions that we are. History? Who's been talking about history? What do you have in mind that you're dragging in here so you can tar us with it? (But much of what you did say is wrong. I'm not going to deny atrocities committed. The church has never been a monolithic organization, not even those parts in communion with each other, so everyone has some "deniability" about one or the other, but no one's hand's are entirely clean. However, let that be due to those actually committed and not those invented for no other reason than to bash the church. The version of history you present is a gross distortion of the facts. I will say this: those who suffered the severest persecution from my own church disagree with LDS doctrine every bit as strongly as we do. But we're not about that here, or shouldn't be.)

Storm Rider, I have no idea what you've previously encountered among Christians, but please answer to what's here and not to what is not. It's very frustrating to explain yourself at length and get a reaction as if you've said nothing at all. I see you're complaining about the same thing. Since I have taken great pains to answer, specifically, every point you've raised in your assertions about what you think traditional Christianity teaches, I can't think it's me. When I give you specific scripture showing that what you say is not in the Bible, in fact is in the Bible, and you go blithely on as if I hadn't said anything -- who's not paying attention? If LDS read these verses differently, then explain that. Don't pretend I said nothing. When I explain at length that we don't judge anyone outside the Church but leave them to God's mercy, and don't attempt to set bounds on where the Spirit might go -- but you say I'm condemning you -- how am I supposed to understand this? If you don't believe me, say so and say why.

Nor do I see you answering any of the questions I asked. If you don't want to answer, fine. Say so. But to ignore them just makes it look as if you're not paying attention.

I haven't seen any humor here, frankly, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Look, the point of all this was that you, SR, made some contrafactual statements about what traditional Christianity believes and expressed a lack of understanding about some crucial differences. That's really what both Mark and I are trying to address here. You're the one giving us an argument about it as if we were trying to prove anything except our own statements about the content of traditional Christian belief. If you'd quit trying to show your own confessional superiority and tone down the triumphalism, we might be able to have some meeting of the minds here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I see two questions that I did not answer specifically:

1. "is that spirit leading you into truth or into falsehood?" I have been a student of truth since late childhood. I have never felt the Spirit lead me into falsehood. I believe that the Spirit will lead all people in truth and not into falsehood. I thought this was rhetorical because it seemed like a rather obvious answer. If I asked it of you I would assume you to answer in a similar manner.
2. "Are you seriously trying to tell me that LDS membership is not denied to anyone" No current member of the LDS church would be excommunciated for beliefs outside of the LDS orthodoxy. However, if such individual chose to begin preaching contrary/false doctrine and would not cease after being told to do so, there is a high probability that individual would eventually be excommunicated. The point is not believing in false doctrine,the point would be not responding to repeated requests from priesthood authority.

If there is another question I missed please ask it again and I will gladly answer.

I would also appreciate you answering all my questions so that we both know that we are being heard --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have refactored the original response since, as signified by my two separate signatures, the material in the new subsection was intended as a separate post, which I would like to use as a way of refocusing the discussion.

There was, to be fair, only one real question there. It was largely my frustration and fatigue talking, and I ought to have examined my misgivings before saving a bit more closely. The first question was rhetorical. Obviously you think whatever spirit you think you're feeling is leading you into truth, so were you to answer I'd know what to expect. These were intended to be questions any Eastern Christian (at any rate) would ask himself as part of discernment.

Some of your questions were directed to Mark, and I never intended to answer any others than those you either asked me directly or those which I chose to answer because I felt like it. My first post to this thread was of that nature. But as far as I can tell, all the questions you asked have been answered, to the extent they're valid questions and not based on faulty assumptions. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Basis for proceeding

Let's get a few things out of the way so that we're all on the same page. Mark, please forgive me if this is not to the point, but I confess that after all this I'm still unclear on what the article is supposed to be about. I agree that it shouldn't be a "vs" kind of thing, but a correct representation of traditional Christian belief is going to be important regardless, I think.

Storm Rider, you're trying to get us to say that the Trinity is the most important "doctrine" in traditional Christianity. First, it's a dogma. Doctrine means "teaching" and is a very broad term; a dogma is specific kind of doctrine. There is doctrine about which you can differ and not be considered in serious error. Dogma you may not differ with and still be a Church member in good standing. This is not because it's particularly important, but because it's a statement which the Church has accepted as the truth and at least implicit in Scripture, both formally in Ecumenical Council and organically as the people of God, and where it considers that significant spiritual harm can be result if something contrary is taught. The number of dogma is more or less based on confession, but in no case do I think you'll find anyone elevating one over the other in terms of importance. There is broad agreement across all confessions, excluding the Nestorians and Oriental Orthodox but including Protestantism, on the dogmas of the first 6 councils. (On the 3rd, even those who do not say "Theotokos" affirm the theology behind it.) Is it absolutely crucial that everyone understand and believe all of them to be Church members in good standing? No. Some of them are rather abstruse. But to the extent they affect our more practical understanding of salvation and the relation between God and man -- and they all do -- they're important regardless.

We obviously agree that LDS does not subscribe to them, and that its reading of Scripture does not support them, in distinction to traditional Christianity. You need not rehash that once more. My point, again, is for there to be no misstatements about traditional Christian belief.

"Christian" vs. "the Church": "Christian" is a very broad term. In a pluralistic society, and in the main, most traditional Christians are willing to accord the name "Christian" to each other without affirming anything other than that they seek to follow Christ. Also, in the main, most traditional Christians are not willing to extend that name to the LDS. The general feeling is that the LDS idea of Jesus is somehow "outside the pale" of what is acceptable belief to still be following the same person. This, SR, is why it's important you believe me when I described this difference.

It's not the Trinity or any other one dogma per se, as one may well call Christian any number of groups that reject nearly all of them, some nontrinitarian groups included, but the cumulative effect of LDS belief.

Now, this is my own formulation, so Mark may not agree and we'd need references besides. The cumulative effect of the LDS doctrines that 1) God the Father has a body; 2) The Son before his incarnation also had a body; 3) Jesus is merely the eldest of the Father's children; and 4) The Father begot Jesus with Mary in a literal, physical way, presents a Jesus and a Godhead so alien to anything any group called "Christian" has ever believed, excluded groups like Arians and other nontrinitarians not excepted, that the name cannot properly apply.

We cannot ignore distinctions that appear superficial but really are not. LDS and traditional Christians use words like "divine", "God", "salvation", "exaltation", "the fall", "heaven" and so on to mean entirely different things. If SR's assertions are correct, LDS tends to gloss over this, at least in conversation with traditional Christians. But we should not or we're going to get hopelessly confused, if we are not already. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify a few of your misconceptions. This is one of the those situations where someone who is not LDS telling a LDS what they believe. After being thrashed by Mark becasue any LDS would dare to summarize the beliefs of MCs, I am surprised.

1. Jesus did not have a physical body prior to his birth; this has no basis in LDS doctrine. We believe the Son, Jesus Christ, has a physical body today.
2. Jesus is more than just the "eldest of Father's children"; this is a misrepresentation of LDS doctrine. There is no comparison between the Savior and every other creature of God the Father.
3. Jesus was born of virgin birth; that is the doctrine of the LDS church. You are referring to a statement made by Brigham Young, who we believe to be the second prophet of the restoration. It is not LDS doctrine and has never been LDS doctrine; if it were you would find it in scripture.

That list of accusations is a wonderful example of third rate anti-Mormon literature; you would do well to disabuse yourself of such misrepresentations of LDS doctrine or teachings. I suspect it is not the first time you have been told this TCC, it is time to let it go. I suggest from this point forward in your life that you reference and quote your statements from doctrinal sources of the LDS church. Also, please let's not get into that wonderful conversation about when does a man speak as a prophet and when does he speak as a man. I think Catholicism has done an adequate job of providing a similar answer. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well then I have no idea what you're doing here. I got all this from Mormon-related articles here on Wikipedia. They plainly some attention from informed editors as they are apparently "third rate anti-Mormon literature". Or it may be a case where the same words are used differently, or I misread because it was late and I was tired. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Get the story right, if this is something you really want to discuss, Storm Rider. What I "thrashed" them for, was for proceeding as though I had said nothing at all, and calling this collaboration. What I would like to "thrash" you for is always answering with a defense and with counters to what you perceive to be accusations, instead of with an explanation that would enable us to move on. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I believe I still have an accurate measure of this conversation and its paucity of fruit. As I have said previously, there appears to be no merit to this conversation. Edit the article, use references, and move on.

TCC, this is a public encyclopedia. I do not vouch that it provides an accurate portrayal of the doctrines of any religion, but it generally is a good place to start. My statements are accurate and correct regarding LDS doctrine. There is a difference between doctrine, theology, and speculation. If you did not understand my statements or if you have specific questions, I am more than happy to answer them. If not, let's move on and stop wasting our time.

I have stated my objectives for the article; would that we all could be more like Lawrence on this day and find a more amicable way of communicating, but we have all failed spectacularly. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

First let me add that the last thing I wanted to do was make "accusations". It was intended to be a straightforward list of key differences in doctrine. If I am mistaken, correct it, but there's no need to fly off the handle.

On re-looking over the articles I consulted, the statement that Jesus had a body before the incarnation was definitely a misreading on my part, and I apologize. The rest are all accurate summaries of what Wikipedia says on the subjects.

In "merely the eldest of the Father's children" the only thing I can see you might be objecting to might be "merely", but the point of that word is that you do not believe Jesus to be only-begotten, but first-begotten, at least with regard to the Father's "spirit children". This is what Mormon cosmology says, and it looks to me like a fair summary of the references, which are from official LDS publications. I understand that you do believe Jesus to be "only-begotten" but not in the same sense as traditional Christianity; see below. Please don't gloss over the point in order to find fault.

The statement in Mormon cosmology about the Father begetting the flesh of Jesus on Mary is referenced not from BY, but from an article by President Ezra Taft Benson: "God was the Father of His fleshly tabernacle and Mary, a mortal woman, was His mother. He is therefore the only person born who rightfully deserves the title the Only Begotten Son of God." Was he wrong? Traditional Christianity uses "only-begotten" in an entirely different sense. You can add it to my list of examples of such words above. Mind you, the Wikipedia article actually says "liternal", which could be a typo for either "literal" or "eternal"; it looked closer to the former to me but does not appear wrong either way. You might argue that I'm misunderstanding President Benson here, but it seems perfectly accurate as I originally put it. I said nothing about sexual intercourse, whether it's Mormon doctrine that it happened in this case or not, but that the Father begat the Son physically, in some way we can understand as "begetting". If this is not the case, then I can't see how President Benson's reasoning on "only-begotten" makes any sense.

I notice we can also add to my list of major differences that in LDS thought the Father is not the creator the same sense as in traditional Christianity. (So we can add "creator" to that list of differently-understood words as well.) We believe that all things except God had a beginning in time and that God created them, and time itself, ex nihilo; whereas you believe that all matter and spirit is eternal. That's also from Mormon cosmology, which appears to cite valid LDS sources, both official and unofficial but heavily pro, in support. If that's to be understood differently, it needs to be clarified. If it's correct, then this is another major difference in our understanding of Jesus, who in traditional Christianity is the incarnate Logos by whom all things were made -- "made" understood in the sense of bringing into existence, not organization alone.

What "wonderful conversation about when does a man speak as a prophet and when does he speak as a man?" I have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop dragging things in from elsewhere. I have neither the time nor the patience to follow the rest of what's been said on this page, and I wish you would cooperate in trying to refocus instead of going off in all directions again.

It would be helpful if you could show for your part that you acknowledge and understand the distinctions Mark and I have been making about LDS vs. traditional Christian thought. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider: "Mark, I believe I still have an accurate measure of this conversation and its paucity of fruit". I also am complaining of paucity of fruit. In my opinion, this fruitlessness is partly due to you and your tireless defensiveness and accusations, and your side-obsession with changing me somehow into something less offensive to you. It also comes from my inability to persuade LDS contributors to avoid reacting to our doctrine, and instead discussing it. Maybe Csernica will have better success. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I will explain this one more time; I have already stated my objectives for the article; further conversation on this page appears fruitless unless it is tied specifically to editing the article. Mark, you are incapable of seeing yourself and only seem capable of finding fault in others. I accept that fact and will simply ignore your continued offensive comments. Like you, I will not participate in a lie nor will I allow the lies of others to affect this article.

LDS react to lies, ignorance, and deceitfulness; I think all people are similar and there is nothing unique about them. I am perfectly comfortable referencing facts about religious groups from reputable sources and I know that you and CTT will do the same. Until there is something substantive to discuss in the article this current discussion has run its course. Let's move on. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You will do well to ignore what you consider offensive - advice that I recently ignored, when I felt ignored. But if we all do this, we may fulfill your objectives together. As far as your judgment of me, if you read more closely what I've actually written, your corrections of me might even help me, which you seem to want to do.

So, let's do move on. Please answer Csernica's question, by clarifying for him what is wrong with his statement of LDS doctrines, and acknowledge if it's appropriate, the accuracy or significance of these particular points of difference in LDS vs. traditional Christian thought. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The doctrine of the LDS church resides in the four standard works, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. As is often the case with critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they seldom criticize the core beliefs of the Church, but seek out isolated statements made by church leaders that are not doctrinal and wave them about as if they are church doctrine. Again, doctrine is found in the four standard works – Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price – proclamations and the Articles of Faith. The presiding prophet may state new doctrine, but it will be added to these items to be doctrine. Leaders may speak and discuss their personal ideas as men, but they never speak for the Church unless their words are added to the official works of the Church. I will again address your questions. I have already cautioned you on the value and clarity of Wikipedia. Though I am a strong advocate of Wikipedia, it should only begin as a starting place and never used as the last word. This is particularly true for contentious subjects such as religion.

1. LDS firmly believe that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones; it is the first Article of Faith and through the First Vision we know it was revealed.
2. The doctrine of the LDS church is that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father. He is a member of the Godhead, He is the Messiah. There is no other being that can be described in similar terms. He is eternal, without beginning and without end. The D&C states in 93:21: “And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn.” As such LDS will call him our elder brother not only because he is known as the Firstborn, but also because he is our Savior. He came to this earth and suffered more than any of us have and overcame all things; His blood washes us clean from sin. It is absolutely inappropriate to every view Jesus Christ as anything less than a member of the Godhead, the one God; the term merely is wholly lacking. I can’t imagine any Eastern Orthodox adherent to use the terminology and it is equally abhorrent to a LDS.
3. Mary was a virgin. The standard works confirm this. No explanation has been given to what it means when the scriptures stated, “(Luke 1:35.) The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” That is the only doctrine of the Church. If some have interpreted anything more than that or attempted to explain what it means for the Holy Ghost to come upon Mary so that her child would be called the Son of God, it is supposition. What we know for a fact is that the Holy Ghost came upon her.

1. To step outside of doctrine and that means, IMO, that it does not matter what one believes. It is simply knowledge that serves no salvific purpose. I do believe that truth is always both enlightening and edifying, but I will also state in regards to the following topics we do not have a foundation outlined as doctrinal. LDS do not believe in an ex nihilo creative process. LDS believe that all things are created first spiritually and then physically. There is no clear guidance on how things were created spiritually and your guess would be as good as mine. I have read the speculative thoughts of some leaders of the church, LDS theologians, and other scholars, but nothing that is doctrine.

What I appreciate seeing in others is using the same standard for their own beleifs as they use for interpting the beliefs of others. You would do well to ask yourselves if you are prepared to apply the same standards of judgment to your own tradition, your own prominent leaders, or your own past. To attempt to paint the doctrine or nature of the LDS church by taking the nondoctrinal statements of individuals is like asking someone, "Would you like to better understand Roman Catholicism today? Then study carefully the atrocities of the Crusades or the horrors of the Inquisition." Or, "Would you like to truly know the hearts of Lutherans today? Then study first the anti-Semitic writings of Martin Luther." Or, "Would you like to better understand Southern Baptists? Then read the many sermons of Baptist preachers during the time of the Civil War who used biblical passages to justify the practice of slavery." When individuals emphasize statements that do not today represent the doctrine of the LDS church, it is well to remember that these statements are anomalies. They are unusual, atypical examples of Latter-day Saint teachings or practices. These anomolies are just as easy to find in other religious traditions as well. For this to be a truly enriching exchange, before making value judgements about what is and what is not Christianity, be perfectly certain that there is not a beam in your own eye. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If only you could have left out that last paragraph, I could have said that this was well-answered. Because it was, except for that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Intellect and revelation

Would the LDS please explain the importance of "intellect" or "intelligence" (that is, as a quality or attainment of mind, rather than a reasoning agent per se)? It seems to me that when you speak of "prophecy" it's something very much like what we would mean by "expertise" - you are given information, by someone infinitely more knowledgeable. This might disclose a fairly basic difference in attitudes toward "revelation". It may be a dead end if I've misunderstood: but does this strike a chord with you? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You may be asking about our state of existence before we became spirits.

Abraham 3:22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

The following statement from the WP Plan of Salvation article is correct:

Prior to the existence of spirits, some element of the human spirit, called intelligence, existed eternally in the same sense that God existed eternally, but in a less progressed form of energy or matter. This may explain the Church's teaching that man and God are co-eternal (carefully distinguishing "co-eternal" from "equal", which is not a part of LDS doctrine). Within Mormonism God is looked upon as both creator and Heavenly Father.

I think what you said about "prophecy" and "revelation" is correct. I would say that "revelation" is both the process by which knowledge is communicated from God to man, and the knowledge itself, after it has been communicated. "Prophecy" is the statement of this knowledge, either verbal or written. "Prophecy" generally means a prediction of future events, but within LDS it is used to describe any communication of knowledge from God to man including predictions, doctrine, or commandments. "Prophesy" is a verb meaning to receive and present "prophecy". Generally, LDS believe all can receive revelation for themselves, but only God's designated prophets can prophesy. Is this different from MC belief? If so, I would be very interested to learn how MC define these terms.

If this isn't the usage you were asking about, it might be easier to respond and I think the response would be more useful if you would give an example, in context, of the usage you are interested in. That is, "intelligence" or "prophecy" could be many different things, if I tried to answer each one my response would be too long. 74s181 13:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, 74s181, the second use is the idea that I'm thinking of. I'm pointing to a kind of qualitative difference - I'm not sure that I'm perceiving it correctly - and although I'm not sure that it's a difference that would make us say "that's wrong", it seems to be significant. I'll fumble around trying to describe it - please be patient as I do that.

I perceive that Mormonism has a kind of "scientific" approach to spiritual things: as though you are unlocking a secret by following instructions. This comes across strongly in your view of the priesthood and the LDS ordinances and rites that are associated with it. Would you describe these as part of the path to exaltation? Would you say that they are part of that path, because they constitute correct knowledge of the path? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'scientific' but I'll take a shot at it. Yes, there is a clearly defined path to Exaltation, LDS call it the Plan of Salvation (BTW, the WP article isn't very specific on steps), but I don't think there is any "unlocking a secret by following instructions." The first steps are given in the fourth Article of Faith:

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The Plan of Salvation involves both specific ordinances, performed by priesthood authority, and continued faith, repentance, and obedience to commandments. I would add that obedience to commandments is less a matter of earning points (MC sometimes accuse LDS of attempting to 'earn' salvation), and more the cause and effect of the real requirement which is a change of heart, IOW, developing the pure love of Christ. This is LDS doctrine, but it is often not explicitly taught and is not as well understood by members of the church who are less spiritually mature. -- 74s181 (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The attitude described here is very comparable to what we would say. I'm still unsure that I've expressed my question in a way that it is being answered; but I note that the idea of being "scientific" does not resonate with you, and at least with regard to the Articles of Faith I would agree with you that there is no obvious suggestion of what I'm trying to describe when I say "unlocking a secret by following instructions". I should try another angle.

When we were discussing the importance of knowing God, I got the idea that part of what you mean by knowing God is, knowing things that he knows; suggesting that you LDS might mean something like, following the path that he took. Does this sound at all right? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to guard against the inference, by the way, that I'm asking how God knows these things. Past conversation and citations have led me to think, whether God knows by trial and error learning gradually, or whether he knows by simply always being correct, has been described as speculative in past discussions. You might tell me, as a side issue to the question I'm asking above, tell me whether my summation of this other issue is correct: that any answer to "how does God know?" is speculative. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, if I understand your question, I think there still is some confusion in your comment about "scientific". There are a number of precise rules within the LDS Church, but they have little (if any) to do with revelation. They pertain to "official" actions, such as baptism, setting apart a new officer in the church, etc. In some cases, revelation is part of an ordinance, but there are no rules for that. For example, when confirming a new member, there is a general form of the ordinance, and a few key words that must be said. Following the formulaic portion of confirmation, the person can pronounce a blessing on the person "as led by the spirit."

Revelation is communication between God and mankind. We believe that each of us is entitled to receive revelation about our responsibilities. However, there are no "rules" about how to go about receiving revelation.

What LDS calls revelation probably has no equivalence in MC. We believe that this is the way that the prophets received / wrote "scripture", and received instruction from the Lord. I doubt that anything today would fit that description in MC. The closest would be an official papal declaration, which many Catholics believe comes directly from God. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Bill, that does make some things clearer - and it confirms that I was on the wrong track with my first approach to the question. I do understand the difference between doing things "right" and being led to do right things. What about my second approach to the question, though? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be referring to whether Jesus knew everything all at once, or if he gradually learned what he needed to know. Remember, we consider God and Jesus as two distinct individuals. LDS believe that we all existed before birth, but that when we were born, there was a veil that caused us to forget the pre-existence. There are some that speculate that the veil for Jesus was either very thin or non-existent. Others believe that he was able to receive continual revelation, so he always knew what Heavenly Father wanted him to do. I think most LDS believe that Heavenly Father knows everything, and that he achieved that level when he became Heavenly Father (or possibly before.) Have I confused you by now? ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 21:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your distinction of individuals, and I'm assuming that distinction in my question. When you speak of knowing the Father, in what sense or to what extent do you mean, knowing what the Father knows so that you may follow the path that he took to exaltation? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(new indent) To know God the Father is to recognize His love for us and to worship Him as God. As our knowledge of God grows our faith grows (hopefully) and through Christ we become better disciples of His Son.

When I read your question this evening it struck me as odd; it required a thought process I had never experienced. I am unfamiliar with a concept of trying to think like God. LDS do strive for purity, holiness, and righteousness, but I don't think there is a concept of "thinking" like God. Holiness is a process for mortals; but Exaltation is not. Exaltation is a gift given by God for those who partake fully in Christ. This principle is taught well in 2 Nephi 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." Our hope and faith demand personal action; if we love God we will keep His commandments; however, that obedience does not save but allows us to walk more closely with the Spirit. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how my question brought this answer - apparently my question provokes concern in a direction that I did not intend. But, otherwise I understand your answer. It would be absolutely exhausting to believe that you must regard the one who is your reward, as though he were opposed to you obtaining him. But thankfully, he speaks of empathy for our weakness, not contempt: "He knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust." Nevertheless, he says, "the heart is deceitful and beyond cure"; and, "there is no one righteous; no, not one."

I am curious about why it has never occured to you to "try to think like God". If we are as the Father once was; if Jesus although already God neverthless walked the same path that the Father walked for our sake to leave us the example; if he is as we shall be then, why has it never occured to you that you should imitate his actions and think his thoughts after him? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not closely familiar with Mormon resources. So, I searched for "exaltation by knowledge" and I found this line in the King-Follett discourse: "Knowledge saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge." [1]. I also found a blog discussing the importance of knowledge, also quoting Smith from a source I don't recognize ("Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith's Teachings"):

Joseph Smith said "A man is saved no faster than he gets KNOWLEDGE, for if he does not get KNOWLEDGE, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world, as evil spirits will have more KNOWLEDGE, and consequently more power than many men who are on this earth. Hence it needs REVELATION to assist us, and give us KNOWLEDGE of the things of God." (Dhal pp. 573-574) [2].

The same page quotes McConkie as saying "Souls are just as precious in the sight of God today as they ever were, and revelation is still poured out in abundance so that souls may be led to salvation." (McConkie, p. 648) And explains that the only "original sin" that Mormonism recognizes is forgetfulness of what we knew in our spiritual pre-existence. Do you regard these as anti-Mormon construals of LDS teaching about the importance of Revelation? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

""Knowledge saves a man..." The King Follett discourse is what it is, it has been quoted as doctrine, but isn't considered canon because of concerns about the accuracy of the transcription. JS,Jr. was killed before he could review, correct and publish it. However, I think the statement you've quoted is doctrinally sound, knowledge is a required component for salvation, but knowledge alone will not save a man. 74s181 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"A man is saved no faster than he gets KNOWLEDGE..." The link you gave for the JS reference doesn't work, so I can't check it out. The statement seems doctrinally sound but is a little troublesome, it could easily be misinterpreted. Evil spirits do have knowledge that we don't have in our present state, but their greatest power over us is that if we follow them in life, they will have power over us in the spirit world:

Alma 34:34-35]

34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.

"Souls are just as precious in the sight of God today..." This is a quote from McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, also not canon but accepted as useful for doctrine and study. Anyway, this statement is doctrinally sound. 74s181 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"...the only "original sin" that Mormonism recognizes..." I'm not sure where this comes from, is this supposed to be a McConkie statement? I don't think so. Doctrinally, the forgetfulness is both universal and required, the only choice we had in regards to it was the choice to accept Heavenly Father's plan. It is LDS doctrine that babies are born sinless, so the forgetfulness cannot be considered an 'original' sin. 74s181 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"...anti-Mormon construals of LDS teaching about the importance of Revelation?" I'll answer with two scriptures:

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Can one 'know' God and Jesus Christ simply by studying the scriptures? LDS say no.

Second Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

LDS believe that personal revelation is the only way we "...come to the knowledge of the truth." 74s181 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And, for the record, the closest I have ever come to doing anything like "try to think like God" was when I was asking myself "What Would Jesus Do"? 74s181 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Both links work for me. The second one is an essay that appears to be written by a Mormon, who is looking for sources in "ancient Christianity" which harmonize with Mormonism. It seems that he would have answered my question somewhat differently than you fellows have. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the second link (einarerickson.com) is working for me this morning. He also quotes from McConkie's Mormon Doctrine "Knowledge" article, which, interestingly enough, uses the same 2nd Timothy scripture as I used above. 74s181 (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The troublesome statement "...the only "original sin" that Mormonism recognizes..." is your interpretation of a statement identified by the author as from Nag Hammadi library. The author's original statement is "not-knowing, forgetfulness, oblivion of the Father is the real ‘original sin'".

The comparison of LDS doctrines and practices to those recorded in ancient documents is only useful to show that some early Christians had beliefs and practices that were in some ways similar to beliefs and practices that JS,Jr. taught. This is interesting because JS,Jr. could not have read about these things, he either received true revelation from the original source (Jesus Christ) or else he made them up, which would be an incredible coincidence. However, it is important to recognize that by the time the Nag Hammadi books were written, the Gnostics had also deviated from the true gospel even though they still retained a corrupted form of true beliefs and practices that other Christians had lost. Personally, I think the Gnostics were like some people today who focus too much on 'book' knowledge, ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth by personal revelation.<g> 74s181 (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"It seems that he would have answered my question somewhat differently than you fellows have. " The article focuses on the importance of knowledge of God and His sacred ordinances as practiced and taught by primitive Christians, and how those ancient beliefs and practices parallel LDS beliefs and practices today. Some LDS are very interested in this subject; some find this knowledge useful in debates with MC. Personally, I think it is more important to focus on understanding what the prophets are trying to teach us today, and teaching people that they need to gain a testimony by the spirit, but I don't have any doctrinal problems with what Dr. Erickson has written in this article when taken in context. 74s181 (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, it sounds like you are focusing on an emphasis of knowledge, and that you disagree that knowledge is important. But it also seems that you have presented the argument that the different MC and LDS knowledge of God is the primary barrier between LDS and MC. You have said that if LDS would just 'give up' certain 'false' knowledge then everything would be fine. So it sounds like having true knowledge is pretty important to you, as well. 74s181 (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to "focus" on it out of proportion - I've just noticed it in comments that my correspondents have made, and will continue to do so, because it's really there. So, I've asked about it.

And I'm not "disagreeing that knowledge is important", I've noticed that there is difference in emphasis; and such a difference is implied in the fact that you think that God is an exalted Man. Yes, true knowledge is pretty important. Something about the way that I'm asking the question is not getting to the difference I'm pointing to. So, I'll drop it. It's a dead end, I guess. It would seem to be a clue, in the fact that what Dr. Erickson calls "ancient Christians" is gnosticism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have skimmed Erickson's article. It is interesting, but I find it an abnormal or even unique perspective. Within LDS culture one hears the phrase "The Glory of God is intelligence"; however, the context of intelligence is light and truth. I would equate knowledge to light and truth; however, there is something there with LDS theology that discusses knowledge. We teach our youth be to eductated and to pursue education; that what we learn in this life will go with us into the next.

You tied LDS feelings about knowledge to our teaching that the Father is exalted man. I am one who believes that this concept of exalted man is overblown; it confuses and leaves far too many questions unanswered than it answers. Frankly, I never teach it. I can point people to the King Follet sermon, but I would contradict 74 and say that it is not doctrine because it has never been part of the standard works. If it was to have been a core teaching of the church it would have been added years ago. There is virtually no explanation about this concept in the standard works of the church; however, one that might allude to it is John 5:19 that 74 quoted above, "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." Is there any commentary on the meaning of this verse? When would Jesus have seen the Father "do" what Jesus does and under what circumstances? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Storm Rider. Your first paragraph touches on the emphasis that I was asking after.

It is significant for catholic attitudes toward the LDS, if the LDS does not teach that God is an exalted man, regardless of what many LDS believe. I would also wonder what it means to the LDS, when and what the Son has "seen" the Father "do". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking the trinitarians this question, I think we would answer that the verse is troubling, because it seems to imply that the Son is inferior to the Father, and is spoken as though there are two acts (the Father's, then the Son's), rather than one inseparable act, and that interpretation would be contrary to catholic doctrine. But struggling with it, we would assume that the meaning of the statement can be found in the context in which it is made.

He speaks to his accusers here, and at another time he teaches his disciples, when did he "see" the Father "do" these things? The point is that whoever sees Christ speak sees him speaking from the Father. He does not ("cannot") act from Himself alone, but He Himself acts only from the Father. Therefore he is saying to his accusers, that if they condemn him for what he speaks, they condemn the Father because he cannot say anything except from the Father. So, the answer would be that the act of Father, Son and Spirit is a unity, an "inseparable" singleness, but there is an economy of action which proceeds from the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, and never the other way around. This is my own answer - but I would not anticipate orthodox answers going very far afield from this. I'll try to hunt down either confirmation or refutation of this, if you think that would be helpful. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This scripture in John is troubling. LDS understand from it several things; first, the oneness of the Father and the Son while being two separate beings, and second, an inference that the Son follows the example of the Father. This scripture gives me pause and makes me think there is more to the time before this world than has been revealed to us. Brigham Young said that "Many have tried to penetrate to the First Cause of all things; but it would be as easy for an ant to number the grains of sand on the earth. It is not for man, with his limited intelligence, to grasp etenity in his comprehension." The conept of eternal progression applies to us, but I personally do not apply it to God. He already knows all things and in not in the process of learning anything. A concept of "growth" that may apply to Him is that His creation goes on forever. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

But he does not say this in order to leave you wondering about pre-existence, does he? Does it suggest to you that history is cyclical - is that what you mean? At any rate, I have learned something if it's true that the concept of eternal progression does not apply to God - although, I do not see why it doesn't. I would have thought that this was the whole idea of "exaltation" according to the LDS - to give you the hope that you would be exalted as he has been exalted. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

My answer appears to move closely in step with what is said in Tractate 18 from Augustine. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"...this concept of exalted man is overblown..." I would have said it is overemphasized by some, both within and outside of the LDS church. 74s181 (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"...leaves far too many questions unanswered than it answers." That is true. Brigham Young tried to explain, he was also misunderstood, so much so that he said he would say no more about it. 74s181 (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"...I would contradict 74 and say that it is not doctrine..." Well, several prophets have spoken on this subject. It is doctrine that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone. JS,Jr. said that "...God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did." That's not canon but it is pretty clear, assuming the transcription is accurate. What JS,Jr. doesn't say, or any other prophet for that matter, is who created that earth, or IOW, if 'our' Father in Heaven himself has a Father in Heaven. Jesus Christ was God before he had a physical body or created the earth we live on, it is certainly possible that God the Father created the first earth and placed Himself there so He could gain a physical body. If this were true, then there certainly would be no God before Him. 74s181 (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this is all speculation, it is more important for us to master other knowledge in this stage of our existence. JS,Jr. said we would need this knowledge at some point, I'm sure he was right, and we'll learn it when the time comes. There is much more important knowledge about the Father for us to master first:

For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

74s181 (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be hard to over-emphasize how significant this issue is to Christians looking in on Mormonism. Looking at any book I can think of on Mormonism by a Trinitarian, regardless of how cool-tempered the treatment is, it is of paramount importance in explaining the distinctions of Mormonism that it teaches that the Father has a body, and may have lived a human life. But when the attempt is made to explain to Mormons why this is so important, we discover that it is difficult to express the implications we see so that you would assent to them. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In other words, the very fact that you think that the issue is over-blown highlights the enormity of the difference. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Our doctrine" and "Your doctrine": separate discussions

"Final judgement will come from God." I agree with what Bytebear said. Ultimately, Christ will decide who is a true Christian and who is not. LDS believe that Christ taught "Judge not, lest ye be judged", if someone says they are trying to be a Christian we assume good faith. LDS do, however, believe that all must belong to Christ's true church, and here is another difference, LDS believe that the church that Jesus Christ established is a formal organization, not just an association of like-minded believers, and that all who will be saved must formally join the organization thru baptism performed by one who has authority from Jesus Christ to do so. LDS are committed to provide that opportunity to all, living and dead, and that is a core doctrine. From what I've heard here and elsewhere, MC believe that baptism is optional, and that it doesn't matter which church organization you affiliate with, as long as you believe... what? "...the revelation of God in Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures, as taught in the churches from the beginning, by the Holy Spirit"? Well, that's what LDS claim to believe. So I guess we're left with the Trinity or ? 74s181 03:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Let the "mainstream" Christians say what they teach for their own doctrine, without taking everything they say as though it were about Mormonism - because, obviously, it is not. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for LDS and MC. Let the LDS say what they teach for their own doctrine, and what is important to them, stop trying to thrash them with doctrines that, while true, are rarely taught. Mark, when you quoted the statements from the catechism I thought you were saying that the Trinity is the most important thing to MC, I thought you were saying that the LDS rejection of the Trinitarian formula was why MC say LDS are not Christians. I thought we might be able to identify and present a parallel LDS view. But clearly the Trinity is not it for MC. Or, maybe the Trinity is like the Trinity, it is, and it isn't, it's a mystery. Either way I guess this discussion was fruitless. Sorry for wasting your time. 74s181 06:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for letting the LDS say what they teach - I'm all for helping you to say it so that it can be understood by people who don't agree with you. That's what I want for both parties - and I think that at times in the past we've accomplished this. But this time around, what we believe is perceived as a comment about what you believe. And, underneath it all, cluttering things up, is your issue of whether LDS are Christians. That's what I perceive you asking after, over and over. And evidently that's what others perceive as well - because I am getting reactions as though that's the question I've answered. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 09:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Meltdown

I will try again. Short and to the point, assume that the statements below represent my current understanding and I'm looking for correction. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the Trinity doctrine, the Trinitarian formula, and the various MC commentary about the Trinity were all written long before 1820 and are therefore not 'about' LDS. However, it seems that rejection of the Trinitarian formula is the most offensive thing about LDS belief to other Christians, or IOW, MC. It may be that the most offensive thing to LDS about MC is the MC refusal to accept LDS as Christians. Maybe that is useful. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Even though MC belong to many different organizations that teach slightly different doctrines, they are all more or less unified on the formal definition of the relationship between God and Jesus Christ known as the Trinity doctrine or Trinitarian formula, and accept all who teach this doctrine as Christians. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
2. MC believe that the Trinity doctrine is a formal statement of a doctrine that was taught by Jesus Christ and his original apostles. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
3. LDS believe that the Trinity doctrine is a doctrine of man, and that the Trinitarian formula is not a correct statement of the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ and his original apostles. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
4. MC believe that anyone who teaches a definition of God or Jesus Christ that is different from the Trinity is worshiping a different God, or a different Christ, and is therefore not a member of Christ's church and is not Christian. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
5. LDS teach that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two separate beings with physical bodies, and acknowledge that their understanding of God and Jesus Christ is different than the Trinity doctrine. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
6. MC believe that Jehovah's Witnesses and LDS are two groups that teach a misunderstanding of Christ. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Some MC organizations require study or memorization of the Trinitarian formula as part of the process of joining the organization. Some others require only acceptance or acknowledgement of the doctrine. All consider the doctrine to be fundamental, and teach it early in the process. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
8. LDS believe that at the begining of our journey it is enough to understand that "God so loved the world...", that we must pray to God in the name of the Son, and that we receive answers to our prayers and other light and truth through the Holy Ghost. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
9. LDS believe that at the end of our journey a correct understanding of the nature of God will be essential, but also believe that we will learn more about both 'who' and 'what' God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are as we travel along the path, both here in mortality and later in our post-mortal existence. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Most MC believe that being a Christian, belonging to Christ's church, and believing in the Trinity doctrine are more or less synonymous. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
11. LDS believe that one can be a Christian without belonging to Christ's church, and without accepting the LDS doctrines about God. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Some MC believe that baptism is essential to salvation, others believe that it is important or useful as a symbol or demonstration of faith but not essential. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
13. LDS believe that baptism is essential because it is the method by which one formally joins Christ's church. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Most MC accept baptisms performed by other MC. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
15. LDS only accept baptisms properly performed by LDS. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to put these in some kind of logical progression, but the main thing is, here are some statements of difference / comparison. Do you agree that the statements are correct? If not, which ones are wrong, and how could they be restated to be more correct. Or, am I so far off that what I've done here is a complete waste of time. 74s181 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would add 14.5 - Most (Some?) MC do not accept baptisms by LDS. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 14:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Leave our doctrine alone. You neither believe it nor understand it. Stick with your own. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason this approach wastes my time, 74s181, is because it's only driving at one thing. Your agenda is to write an article that discusses how the LDS are not regarded as Christians, and why. Read the list: are you really unable to see that? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's try it this way:

1. Most catholic churches baptize their children using children; all use the Trinitarian formula according to words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19.
2. Churches that do not practice child-baptism have some form of brief catechization for adult candidates for baptism, using for example, the Apostles Creed, which affirms faith in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the catholic church and the communion of saints; or some similar brief statement of faith in Jesus according to the Scriptures is used.
3. The creeds of the traditional churches use language that is not in Scripture, in order to distinguish the Biblical faith traditional faith of Scripture, from those who from the Bible traditional Scripture have derived a doctrine of God that differs from the catholic faith into which they are baptized. baptized, and other rejected teachings that have spread abroad in the churches.
4. The catechisms and/or liturgy of the orthodox churches instruct in the understanding of the profession of faith, and inculcate that understanding through preaching and the rites of the church (chiefly, communion, but typically also other sacraments) - unto the obedience of that faith into which they baptize.
5. Churches that practice the baptism of children typically also recognize baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. An exceptional example of this is the Episcopal church, which since the first encounters with Mormons in the Utah territory has accepted converts from Mormonism without requiring re-baptism, although it is recognized that Mormons intend to instruct in a different doctrine of God, by the name into which they baptize. Most traditional churches do not recognize Mormon baptism.

Can you make a comparable list? Can you, in your list, put the relationship to the "mainstream" Christians in perspective and balance? If your practice is explained by criticism of the churches, then put it where it belongs. If it is foundational, then put it there. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I am sorry you were offended by my list, but it doesn't matter, you provided what I was looking for. Some of your statements still have a flavor of trying to 'prove' something but I'm sure that the statements I wrote are just as guilty from your perspective. 74s181 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If by "offended" you mean, I think your list is useless, then let's just stop making useless lists mocking and distorting one anothers' beliefs.

I don't know what you're talking about, when you speak of having the "flavor" of trying to 'prove' something. You are simply, flatly, and unequivocally mistaken. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond in more detail, but I will say for now that although understanding why MC don't consider LDS to be Christians is important to me personally, my goal for the article has been to understand more about how MC view and use the Trinity doctrine since it seems to be very important to MC, and then to try to organize a more or less parallel set of statements about LDS doctrinal priorities, belief and practice.

One quick question, when you use the word 'catholic' with a small c, I assume you mean 'universal' and you don't mean specifically Roman Catholic (capital C), is that right? 74s181 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If understanding is your goal, then can we now pursue your goal? "catholic" in that case is not necessarily the Roman Catholic Church, except perhaps to Roman Catholics. Although this concept gets blurry in Protestantism because of divisions, "Christianity" is discussed as though it were a philosophy, but to Christians it is a people, the church. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

One more. Are any of the statements I made about MC belief correct? Specifically, my statements #2, 4, and 10, I really tried to construct these based on statements that you have made. I thought they were accurate and non-judgemental. Also, part of the article title is 'Christianity', the topic of 'Christianity' is going to come up in some form, I'm trying to do it in a way that will be positive and educational. 74s181 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Every statement you made is nothing except your own view of what we teach. Every statement you made is nothing but an argument, couched in your unbelief in what you are describing. And as far as my comments are concerned, you purposely falsified what I've said, by placing comments I've made in the context of a question that I have told you repeatedly I will not answer. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We're going to have to talk more about the phrase "...faith into which they are baptized." I feel like there is some meaning assigned to the phrase beyond what the words say. 74s181 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If the words "mean" something to you "beyond" what they "say", then you are simply misunderstanding the words. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the caliber of conversation that is wholly unprofitable. Mark, you seem to be fully capable of stating what LDS believe, but deny any LDS from doing the same thing about orthodoxy. I don't think you even realize how incredibly condescending you are. During the past I have tried to ignore what you say and simply add my comments; I have tried confronting you by using your own style of writing which is offensive; and I have even tried just not editing, but nothing works. Making logical deductions from stated beliefs is appropriate on this page and yet you sense anything that may put a negative light on orthodoxy is unacceptable, but you have no problems doing exactly that for LDS doctrines.

The LDS movement professes to be Christian and yet most of Christianity denies that claim. It is obviously a significant issue. It is also just as important to understand the premise for the claims of both sides. Though too much time has been spent on trying to understand personal views, what is needed are referenced statements from individual churches in the article.

What I seek for this article is to discuss what is both in common and what is different in the beliefs, doctrines, and cultures of LDS and other Christian groups. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in stating what the LDS believe: that's what I want you to do - so do it, and stop focusing on me. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested primarily in logical deductions, then state them for yourself. As for the mainstream view, our doctrine is the explanation of our belief concerning what Christianity is. Let us state it, in our own terms, for our own purposes. If under those terms you feel unfairly excluded then say, "Mormons feel that the mainstream Christian understanding is unjustifiably exclusive". But speak for yourself. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

But read any exchange above, and understand this: "why Mormons think they are Christians, and why non-Mormon Christians think they are not" is not a discussion of doctrine, but of the implications of doctrine. Because the implications offend, this kind of discussion cannot produce any profitable collaboration - this is a fact demonstrated by years of working on this topic. It is a fact acknowledged by both, LDS and other collaborators.

There is no doctrine concerning "what Mormonism is not". If this is what we discuss, then there will be no clarification of what the doctrine positively is, and we will be stuck unprofitably talking about hurt feelings, and boasting. But it may be possible, if we do discuss positively what the other view is, that we will be able to understand the implications and to express them informatively, instead of provocatively. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore, to do that in any meaningful way, we must acknowledge real sameness where it exists, comparability where it exists, and real difference regardless of superficial similarity, where that exists. Anything else would be collaboration in a lie. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I'm still trying to follow up on the discussion you started in [is not debate]. After quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church you said:

This is Christianity aside from any arguments with Mormons; it speaks as a Catholic statement for Catholics ("mainstream" for "mainstream"). But surely you can admit that this is not the central issue of Mormonism. You may use words that belong to us, but here's an opportunity to clarify why this similarity of words is superficial. The point is that you do NOT belong to us, and make no claim to belong to us. So, how do you account for not belonging to us - this must be what the article is about.

"But surely you can admit that this is not the central issue of Mormonism." You are correct in two ways:

a) Mormons don't accept the Trinitarian definition of the nature of God. 74s181 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

b) The equivalent Mormon doctrine about the nature of God is not central or at the root of LDS belief. 74s181 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

However, God, even the trinity (little t) IS at the root of LDS belief. See LDS Articles of Faith, probably the closest thing that LDS have to a catechism, first article:

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

Mark, you have often said that LDS use the same words but mean something different. This is literally true, but I think you are focusing on something that LDS don't focus on. 74s181 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously that is right, 74s181. Therefore, you must allow us to explain to you how and why this is important. In order to be assured that you are hearing what we are saying, it makes no sense to tell us your reaction to it. You must say what we say, the way we say it, when you represent our beliefs to us. If you do not, you cannot convince us that you have heard what we have said and you give the appearance of refusing to understand. Do not empty the contents of your wheel-barrow into ours: this does not fill up understanding of what we mean; instead, it is only substituting your meaning for ours. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For example, I attended a baptismal service of TCoJCoLdS last night. Because I had been participating in this discussion, I paid particular attention to how the speakers presented certain topics. Baptism, confirmation, God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost were all discussed. If you read a transcript with all references to the name of the church removed, I suspect you might have thought it to be the baptismal service of a Protestant church you were unfamiliar with. 74s181 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that this is true, 74s181. Speaking for myself and my own approach to this issue, I want to escape the trap of anti-Mormonism, and point out how from our own perspective the LDS has richly benefitted from the proclamation of the Gospel. If by teaching "you shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor" we were to discover that those who do not believe in God nevertheless are chastened, so that they hate covetousness, why do we complain about that? To do so seems covetous, does it not? So, if you say that you are like us, and you mean by this that this is a good thing, I cannot see any merit in complaining about this even if you do not believe that it is because of us that this likeness has appeared. The rub comes in saying that you are the same as us, one of us: this is no more true than the atheist who hates covetousness were to say that he is one of us - for this is covetousness. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Present at the baptism were children of various ages and younger adults, no teenagers. I was the oldest person present. When the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" were said, I feel fairly confident that I was the only person in the room that had any thoughts relating to the unique LDS doctrines of the Godhead that are so offensive to MC, and the only reason I was thinking about those doctrines was because I had been thinking about this conversation earlier in the day. Most of the adults in the room were endowed members, they would be familiar with these doctrines. The young children would know that God is our Heavenly Father, the older children would know that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are physically separate beings but they wouldn't understand the significance of that belief. In fact, I suspect that most of the people in attendance would be thinking many of the same thoughts that MC would think at one of their baptisms. I've never attended one so I can't say for sure. Maybe the specific Trinitarian doctrines on the nature of God would be emphasized? If so, that would be different. 74s181 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That God is as God has been revealed would be understood throughout, even if it is not "emphasized". This is the very core of believing in Jesus Christ, the Word of Father, the Son of Man. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is this. There is much that is similar, but from the perspective of this LDS it seems that when talking about LDS belief, MC express much more emotion (anger? it seems so) about the LDS doctrines concerning the nature of God than LDS do when talking about MC belief in the Trinity doctrine. On the other hand, the thing that seems to anger LDS about MC is their insistence that LDS are not Christians. That is why your statements about the importance of the Trinity doctrine caught my attention, that is why I have been pursuing this angle. I really think that the Trinity doctrine is key in understanding the feelings that MC have about LDS, and vice versa. 74s181 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are trying to understand, then why do you ignore what I say? When you say "belief in the the Trinity doctrine", this is ignoring what I say. You substitute your meaning for what you know that I have said: which is ignoring what I say. When you say "MC ... insistence that LDS are not Christians", this is ignoring what I say. You want to discuss "feelings", which would seem to be very difficult to talk about at all, if we do not understand one another - your persistence in this, despite its obvious unfruitfulness, is ignoring what I say. You repeat distortions, you give indication that you are ignoring me, and yet you reassure me that you are working with me. You are miring our discussion in what you yourself have called a "personal" obsession, with a question that cannot function as the basis of our work together. This makes me angry. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, maybe it really is symetrical, maybe what makes MC angry is LDS insistence that they are Christians, and what makes LDS angry is MC insistence that LDS are not Christians. 74s181 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, the cause of anger is the appearance of flattery and deceit. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that I am trying to deceive you, and I am certainly not trying to flatter you. I can only guess what you mean by "flattery and deceit". 74s181 16:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Maybe 'deceit' is when I or other LDS say that a particular doctrine isn't the most important or 'core' doctrine to us but you think that it really is? 74s181 16:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Maybe 'flattery' is when I or other LDS say that we accept MC as Christians but you think that we really don't? 74s181 16:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Maybe because you think we belong to the church of Satan then everything that comes out of our mouths or fingers is automatically "flattery and deceit"? This isn't a rhetorical question, I've met and tried to talk to people who feel this way, it is impossible to have any kind of religious discussion with them because, by definition, everything I say must be wrong, even if some of it sounds like something they already believe. Maybe that is the problem here? 74s181 16:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Or something else? What, specifically, do you think is "flatter and deceit" in my recent comments? 74s181 16:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I said, "the appearance of flattery and deceit". Unless you want to discuss accusations that I want to presume untrue, I don't think it's safe to pursue this very far. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is safe with you, Mark. I have once again learned that I really don't understand you, and now I believe that you don't want me to understand you. You insist that I must repeat back to you the words that you use to describe your belief, verbatim. Such a repetition proves nothing more than that I can use cut and paste. It doesn't tell me if I have understood anything. The fundamental requirement of understanding is that A explains to B, B explains back to A in his own words, and A either says, yes, that's right, or says, no, you've misunderstood in this particular way, then the process repeats. If you say that such a dialog is off-limits then you are saying that you don't want to be understood, or you don't care if you're understood, or that you don't understand the process of information sharing. Either way, I'm done. Goodbye. 74s181 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. You must repeat back to us, in our own meaning, what we have said: not your meaning read into what we've said, otherwise I am sure that you are not "hearing" you are only "arguing". You have done this in the past; and in doing so, you were much more productive than the average LDS collaborator. You are not doing this now. Goodbye. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, why on earth make the accusation if you are not going to explain yourself? If you don't want to talk about it, just don't say anything. This is puzzling bahavior. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth turn into an accusation what I haven't said? And why are we always talking about me, with you? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reformulated question: the doctrine of the Trinity

"...not your meaning read into what we've said..." Mark, I had decided that the problem was #3 above, but looking over some of the things I've written I see that there may be something to your complaint. So I'm going to try again, just two questions. Think of this as an experiment. 74s181 01:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Is my use of the words "Trinity doctrine" or "Trinitarian formulation" offensive? I can see that the way I have used these words could be seen as implying that the statements they refer to are something less than truth. As you know, I don't accept the statements as truth, but I need to be able to refer to these statements without causing offense. If the label I'm using is offensive, please give me a different label. 74s181 01:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

2. If I reformulate one of my earlier statements this way, is it less offensive?

Even though MC non-Mormon Christians belong to many different organizations that teach slightly different doctrines, they are all more or less unified on the formal definition in the their description of the relationship between God and Jesus Christ known as the Trinity doctrine or Trinitarian formula, and accept all who teach this doctrine as Christians.

74s181 01:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, 74s181. And thank you for being brief. I have trouble responding to very many points.

1. The doctrine of the Trinity symbolizes what we believe in: it's not, per se, an object of belief. So, if you were an "Evangelical" non-denominational sort, you might send all your kids to Awana (a Bible memorization club). There may be no mention of the Trinity in the curriculum (I would need to check, but I'm sure that's probably the case); however, God is the object of belief. When those who prepared the curriculum say "God" you would assume that they mean, the Father, His Son and His Spirit in an "orthodox trinitarian sense", and that this is what is being taught from beginning to end in the course. If it were not, you would not submit your children to that curriculum. Of course it's casually true that we "believe in the doctrine": but strictly speaking, we believe in Jesus, and (they might not put it this way) as an "Evangelical" you would entrust yourself to the Body of Christ, the church. That means that, if you did not believe that this course is prepared by people whose belief is orthodox, you would not entrust yourself to their teaching even if you can't immediately perceive anything wrong with it. The "formulation" represents the way in which you would believe in him, it is not (strictly speaking) that in which you believe.
2. In the context of Wikipedia, you can't say "non-Mormon Christians" - you can only say "orthodox", "mainstream", "trinitarian", and things of that sort. You are correct to point out that trinitarians are divided; and in fact, some do not acknowledge other branches as representing a continuing line of Christianity except in a "religious" sense; however, they may recognize one another as "orthodox" insofar as their doctrine of God is concerned.

Thank you for trying again. Does this help you to put this matter in proportion? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"...it's not, per se, an object of belief." But it is a statement of belief, and the belief it describes is "...the central mystery of Christian faith and life ...at the very root of the Church's living faith...", right? It's been a while, so I looked at the text again. I read the Apostles Creed, Old Roman Symbol, and English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use, and found very little that differs with LDS belief. Some versions say "only begotten Son of God", instead of "only Son of God, begotten...", this would be more acceptable to LDS. Also, the statement on 'substance' varies somewhat, LDS would be more comfortable with the "...one in Being with the Father..." than in some of the other formulations. This is a key issue as you know. 74s181 13:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't what the words of the creeds or the scriptures say, it's the interpretation of the words that creates the division. You are correct, when LDS say "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" they mean the same thing in one sense (God), but they have a different understanding of the relationship between these beings, LDS believe "one in purpose" while MC believe "one in substance". But we already knew that.

Here is the confusing part for LDS. We hear the words "mystery of the Most Holy Trinity", ask what the mystery is, and after the MC explain it, we say, "oh, I see, but maybe you didn't know, God has spoken to a prophet and clarified the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it isn't as much of a mystery anymore, let me explain it to you." MC then react, almost always with anger. 74s181 13:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

74s181, when you say you find "very little that differs with LDS belief", surely you realize how completely false that sounds to us. You might have said that you "found very little that differs with LDS statements", and we would know exactly what you mean - yes, the LDS speak very much as we do. Depending on the subject, you might go on for quite a while without us perceiving how differently you intend your words - but the difference in meaning is radical. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What I mean by "very little that differs" is that I could recite most of the words in the creed and feel comfortable. We use many of the same words, as you've observed. The difference arises when you start exploring the explanations behind each of the statements. Even then, there is much that is 100% identical, but there are a few things that are hugely different. Would it be useful for me to go thru one one of the Creeds point by point? 74s181 21:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That might be a helpful approach, if we go slowly. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a preference as to which version of the creed to talk about? 74s181 04:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be the most comfortable for you if we discussed the Apostles Creed; because I think that this comes nearest to saying things in a manner to which you would object the least. However, it might be the most illuminating to discuss the definition of the Council of Chalcedon. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I found Confession of Chalcedon. This seems very narrowly focused on the MC doctrine of the dual nature of Jesus Christ. The Apostles' Creed covers much more territory, in fact, I think it probably contains all of what LDS would call 'the Gospel', as in, the good news. I think this would result in an interesting comparison. 74s181 (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

74s181, you wrote: after the MC explain it, we say, "oh, I see, but maybe you didn't know, God has spoken to a prophet and clarified the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it isn't as much of a mystery anymore, let me explain it to you."

I can see that what is key here is "God has spoken to a prophet". But what may be impossible for us to communicate about effectively is this: God "cannot possibly" say to any prophet, what this prophet said. We "know" that God did not say this, because it is not what he has revealed in Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures, as we have been kept in that faith by the Holy Spirit. We "know" this in the same way that we know that Mohammad is a fraud. We know this about ourselves: Jesus Christ is in us. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you don't believe that God spoke to JS,Jr., and I think you understand that I believe that He did. What I still don't understand is why such an extreme reaction. 74s181 04:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This reaction is very confusing to LDS. It is almost as if MC prefer the mystery, or as if the mystery itself is an object of worship. All the time and effort I've spent here and elsewhere and I still don't understand the reaction. That is, I understand that MC don't agree with the LDS explanation, I understand that MC don't believe that Joseph Smith, Jr. was a prophet, what I don't understand is the shocked, angry response to any suggestion that it may be possible to better understand God. If we could figure that out and explain it I think we'd have something of real value for the article, a hook to hang everything else on. But we can't get anywhere if we can't get past the shock and anger. Maybe the question is so instinctively shocking and revolting to MC that they can't discuss it rationally. I really think so, but I hope you can convince me otherwise. 74s181 13:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You really want to talk about reactions. I guess we must, but it's never gone well in the past. When a person makes a big difference between "say" and "mean", that's called dissembling. If you know that you mean something different, and say "we believe the same thing", or "I think we're saying the same thing - it's just a difference in semantics", it makes you sound like a liar and a flatterer. You do not mean "God" when you say "God": your entire framework for referring to "God" is radically altered, so that there is no such thing as what we mean by "God" in your worldview. To our ears, you usually sound like a Christian; but when you explain what you mean, we hear everything you've said in a different way: as though you were a radical atheist, a believer in magical superpowers and aliens from outer space. (lost sig: replaced 00:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)) — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

Trust me, when I say "God" I mean "God", I do not mean "Satan" or whatever else it is that you think I mean. We both understand that "God" doesn't mean exactly the same thing to the other person, but I hope you understand that we probably do agree on some things about "God" and "Jesus Christ", and that some of the things that we agree on are important. 74s181 21:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly believe you. And we do agree on many things that are important. But what God is, is not one of them. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That is right, we don't agree on certain aspects of what God is. 74s181 04:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is the gap between your "certain aspects" and our "radical difference" that accounts for the disparity in reaction, of mainstream to the LDS doctrine, and vice versa. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are saying that some of what LDS see as small differences, MC see as radical differences. I think you are saying that what angers MC is the LDS insistence that these differences are small, when in your view, they are insurmountable. And, the Trinity is one such difference, right? So understanding why LDS see it as a small difference and MC see a large difference would be useful for the article, do you agree? 74s181 (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be useful; however, it would be easily misunderstood if naively stated. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I would depend upon you to keep it from being 'naive'. 74s181 (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We're not looking for "preferences" - to do so would be to follow our own appetites; but please explain what you mean. Why do you say "it is almost as if you prefer the mystery"? Do you mean, "it's almost as if you prefer it, because it is a mystery?" (I'll ignore the comment about worshiping the mystery, because I don't understand what you mean.) — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside of discussion of the Trinity, mystery means, something we don't know. We observe something, we say 'I see that X and Y are true, but I don't understand why, what I can see doesn't make sense." Normally when someone says something is a mystery it means that they don't understand it and would welcome more information to clear up the mystery. But when it comes to the Trinity, it seems as if MC prefer the mystery and are offended by the suggestion that an explanation is possible. We can't even get to the point of talking about whether or not the LDS explanation of the mystery is valid, the idea that an explanation is even possible is immediately rejected. 74s181 21:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

To us, "mystery" means one of two things: something that we cannot know unless it is told to us; or an explanation that we cannot fully understand, even if we follow its meaning. Who Jesus is, is a mystery in both of these senses. It doesn't mean that it "doesn't make sense" - on the contrary, this kind of mystery serves as the foundation of making sense: not only of our salvation, but of all things.

To you, you think that your explanation explains something. To us, it is an un-explanation. It not only does not explain for us, it reduces to meaninglessness. I have no doubt that you believe it sincerely, and that you think it is valid.

I've personally gone to very great lengths to explain "why" your explanation is irrational to us. This has been a topic of intense concentration, for a long time in our discussion together. You yourself told me at various points, that the discussion cleared some things up for you. I can only assume that you're still feeling the sting of my recent loss of temper, and that's why you've forgotten and speak as you do now. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What "...doesn't make sense..." is that there are words in the New Testament that describe the oneness of the Father and the Son, and there are other words that describe their separateness. So, are they one or are they separate? In my opinion, the Trinity doctrine answers this question by not answering it, by declaring it a 'mystery'. My words may anger you, but that is not my intent. You have been honest with me, you have asked me to be honest with you, in fact, you have accused me of being less than completely honest. I'm trying to do so. be clear, it is hard to be tactful at the same time. 74s181 13:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

    The things that you think anger me surprise me. This sort of opinion does not anger me in the slightest. It's put in the form of a question, for one thing - but more than that, why would I expect you to think differently, given what I know that you believe? My anger, when to my shame it arises, is due to my perception that you are only pretending to try to communicate. Enough about that, except to say again that I'm sorry for poisoning the conversation with my frustration.

    Anyway, to answer your question, the Father, Son and Spirit are "one" in the sense of not being separate. They are not individuated into three separate entities, nor three parts of one entity - like a head, a hand and a heart. They are not like a head, a hand and a heart: these which are three parts of the human body are, which are separate parts of the aggregate unity which is a body. With God, it is impossible for the Son to be separate from the Father, because the Father is in the Son. They are "mutually contained". This is a figure of speech which is designed to frustrate thinking of God as a collection of parts, or even from thinking of any attribute of God as being additive to other attributes. "Simplicity" means, that while there are distinctions in God - between his "love" and his "justice" for example - these two attributes are so mutually contained in one another that we must say that his love is his justice, and his justice is his love, while nevertheless the two are logically distinguishable from one another and in this sense have a relationship over against one another due to their distinction. Does this help? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The next time you think that I am "...only pretending to try to communicate", please ask yourself what possible motive I could have for investing so much time and energy into pretending. I have also been angry, not because I thought you were only pretending. But I keep coming back. <g> 74s181 (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand "...a head, a hand and a heart." When I attended a MC vacation Bible school it was explained as yolk, white, and shell. I had never heard such a thing and thought it a bit odd, but I didn't question it. This is an interesting illustration of the difference in emphasis, those operating the two week vacation Bible school thought it was important to teach "three-in-one" to nine year old children, but I had previously attended LDS Sunday school all my life, and I attended for at least a couple more years before I understood that we believed something different. 74s181 (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we've all heard many of these misleading analogies. Normally, it's simply taught by demonstration, through prayer, without regard to age.

O GOD the Father, of heaven : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.

O God the Father, of heaven have mercy upon us miserable sinners.

O God the Son, Redeemer of the world : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.

O God the Son, Redeemer of the world : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.

O God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.

O God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.

O holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three persons and one God have mercy upon us miserable sinners.

O holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three persons and one God : have mercy upon us miserable sinners.

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Just checking, but I assume that you followed what I was saying about "a head, a hand and a heart" as being an aggregate unity, as opposed to a simple unity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The 'simple' answer is, I think I understand what is being said, but I'm not sure I understand what is truly meant by this. The body can survive without the hand, but is impaired. The body could, in theory, survive without the head, but is no longer a 'person'. The body cannot survive without the heart. None of these parts can survive without the body. These three things are 'different' things. The hand is not the heart, the heart is not the head, etc., yet they are not separate, they are part of the body. They all work together to accomplish their purpose, the purpose of the head. The heart and the hand are unable to independently conceive of a different purpose, or think about each other or about the body, but the head can think about all. I may be taking the illustration too far, but are any of these ideas what you meant for me to understood about the oneness of the Trinity? 74s181 (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

They are parts or pieces of the body: that's why I'm saying that they are not analogous to the Trinity, God does not have pieces. The egg is an aggregate unity, it has three parts, and for that reason it is not analogous to the simple unity of the Trinity. I thought you were expressing the idea, when you said below that all of his attributes originate from and contain His perfect love, they are not pieces or parts of his love. Just so, the Father, Son and Spirit are not each one third of God. Do you see what I mean now? (Moreover, we say "God is love". Love is not something God "has" in addition to himself, or as part of him, if the love that he has is what he is.) — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Earlier this year, the Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley said "Personally I cannot understand it. To me the creed is confusing." Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Things of Which I Know,” Ensign, May 2007, 83–85 I think he meant the MC explanation of God behind the creed, and I have to agree. Is it correct to say that the MC view of the 'oneness' of God is a 'mystery'? Maybe the mystery? 74s181 (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We would not need the creed, if there were not literally countless ways to misunderstand the simple words of Scripture, a flood. Yes, the creed is hard to understand. The creed is formulated in such a way that views of God which cannot be harmonized with the prayers of the church and the teaching of Scripture may be excluded from being taught in the churches, as they should be. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"The creed is formulated in such a way..." I think I understand that. In other words, certain doctrines began to be taught, the majority of church leaders thought they were wrong, so they formulated and later adjusted the creed to filter out or exclude those doctrines while at the same time supporting the doctrines they believed to be true. The creed is sort of a litmus test. Is that right? 74s181 (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an atheistic way of putting it, but yes; errors were discovered, and the orthodox faith was upheld. The creed is a kind of monument, reminding future generations of what was at risk and of what was kept safe through these struggles. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"...these two attributes are so mutually contained..." I think I agree with what you're saying. I would say, God and Jesus are perfect, that means perfect love, perfect justice, perfect mercy, etc. If any attribute were considered individually it would make that attribute less than perfect. For me, simplicity means that all the perfect attributes of God are contained within and originate from His perfect Love. Is 'simplicity' a key word? 74s181 (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You are expressing correctly the concept of "simplicity" [ when you said simplicity means that all the perfect attributes of God are contained within and originate from His perfect Love - if by that you meant that every attribute is perfect, and thus every attribute is love, and that "love" therefore concerns what he is (not what he "has" in some measure). 20:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC) ]. It may be a key word in an explanation, if it's correctly expressed expressed, and used correctly. What it devolves to eventually, is that what God is "in himself" is "ineffable". The Eastern Orthodox often express this as a distinction between "being" and "energies" - a distinction that results in some interesting aphorisms; paradoxical statements that give in one respect, and take away in another: We can know that what God says concerning Himself is true, but we cannot know the degree to which we have not seen God. Because God who is Light, is hidden in Light, we know by knowing him that we cannot know him. We can only know what God is not.

In the West, we would agree with this, as long as it's taken not to deny that when God reveals himself, he is revealed indeed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked up "ineffable" to make sure I properly understood what you were saying. There are two relevant definitions, 1) incapable of being expressed in words, 2) not to be uttered, taboo, as in "the ineffable name of Jehovah". I have suspected #2, but it seems more likely that you mean #1, which is it? 74s181 (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The first is what is meant. For example, "space" is an expressable concept. "infinite" is not expressable: except as a negation of space and number. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What this means, in practical terms, is that we can't guess about what God is in himself. We can only know what God reveals. While the prophets are enabled by the Spirit to testify by the Word that came to them from the Father, Christ Himself is, in person, what God reveals concerning himself. The Catholic Catechism quotes John of the Cross as saying this in very practical terms:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like the reference for this statement, it sounds like a major reason some would reject the very idea of modern revelation. 74s181 (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned it before. It's quoted in the Catholic Catechism, Paragraphs 65-67, where it says "There will be no further Revelation". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

AHA! This looks very interesting. I'll have to study it some more, but at first glance it looks like it explains a lot of things that had been very puzzling to me about MC belief. One question, although this is the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" it seems very basic and foundational, would most MC accept the catechism as truth? 74s181 (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Only a Roman Catholic would feel conscience-bound to believe the Catechism. But these statements agree with historic, confessional/creedal Protestantism. There is no new revelation, because Christ who is in us is fully revealed although not fully seen in us. The church must be conformed by the Spirit to him who has been revealed, because there is no blemish or lack in this revelation. The 19th century brought numerous religious movements, especially in America, that continue to this day to challenge that idea. Some of the less radical of these movements arose within and continue in the orthodox churches, where they may survive under the premise that they do not pretend to correct or to add revelation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    You would be regarding this explanation thoughtfully, if you were to then ask, "if the attributes of God are simple, yet logically distinguishable - is it right then to say that the Son is the same as the Father?" The orthodox answer is "yes" with regard to "being", "glory", "knowledge", "power", "will", etc., but the answer is "no" with regard to "hypostases", "subsistence" or "person" - each is conscious of the other. As the Scripture says "... confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father". When we speak of "person" we are not speaking of one of God's perfections, an attribute, like "truth" over against "justice"; we are speaking of a relation which God distinguishes by revelation, of Father and the Son who goes out from him, nevertheless containing him (i.e., not separate from him). So, it is the Son, not the Father, who is incarnate and crucified - but it is the Father, in the Son, who reconciles the world to himself by the Holy Spirit, on the cross. in the body of Jesus Christ given on the cross. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"...if you were to then ask..." I don't quite follow your logical progression, but what's important is the discussion about oneness. LDS would agree that "...the Son is the same as the Father", as in, He is indistinguishable from the Father in every way but one, He always defers to the will of the Father.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Matthew 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

"but the answer is "no" with regard to "hypostases", "subsistence" or "person"...a relation which God distinguishes by revelation, of Father and the Son who goes out from him..." Whoa, now I'm really confused. I'm sure I've misunderstood, but it almost sounds like you are saying that 'Jesus Christ' and 'the Father' are attributes of 'God' in the same way that 'love' or 'justice' are attributes of God. Is that what you meant? 74s181 (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The concept of "simplicity" is the same. But otherwise, no. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I re-reviewed your statement and now I think I had it backwards, are you saying that the 'substance' or 'person' of the Father and the Son are NOT the same, even though the "being", "glory", "knowledge", "power", "will", etc. ARE the same? I have to say, this sounds very similar to the LDS "three beings, one in purpose" doctrine. This suggests a question. From the MC perspective which is the more 'foreign' or objectionable LDS doctrine, that the Father and the Son are separate beings, or that the Father has a physical body? 74s181 (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that you tripped over the word "subsistence", and confused it with "substance". They are contrasting terms here. "Substance", "being", etc. express sameness. "Subsistence", "hypostases", "person" express relationship. The same being subsists in three relationships; although "homoousia", and mutually indwelling one another so that they are not separate beings or parts but simple, the word "subsistence" or "person" distinguishes them as mutually aware of the other. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

When I say "substance", I suspect that you are likely to interpret this in a material sense, rather than a metaphysical - a logical definition is meant, not a comment about what God is made of. The Father and Son are the same "in substance": this philosophical language is specially adapted to its context. It is not, strictly speaking, what the Greek philosophers would mean by "substance". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, I misread it as 'substance'. So, refering back to the earlier "hands, head, heart" example, do MC teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are 'parts' of God, and perform different functions for the whole entity, 'God', in a metaphysical sense? 74s181 (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No. If you read back to the paragraph from which you got this idea, you'll see that this is the opposite of what I said. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer, "which is more 'foreign' or objectionable?". It is objectionable and foreign is to say that we are co-eternal with the Father, and thus that we are not in need of his Word and Spirit to sustain our very existence: when you suggest that we are anything at all in ourselves that is just like him and not owing to him, my brain explodes. I can't say that this is "more" foreign or objectionable, than the idea that the Father and Son are two different beings; since the One God is reduced then to what I would regard as a figure of speech, as though "God" is merely a class of existence, and not the name that sets Him apart from all else as existing from him, through him and to him; a concept which is taken to new heights of unfamiliarity, when you say that God is not present everywhere, but is confined to a body. Furthermore, you add to this strangeness, if you say that the Spirit is not confined, but is external to the Father and instrumental for him. These and many other things are all radical - they posit a different context for life and thought. I hope that you know what you're doing, Les, when you persist in probing with "what do you dislike about us the most?" kinds of questions. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If I knew what I was doing I would be telling, not asking.<g> You're answering a lot of questions that I didn't ask, I assume this is because you see these things as all tied together. Additionally, you've made some assumptions about what LDS believe that are just wrong. My purpose was this. It seemed like the different view of the Trinity was the main point of objection, I was trying to drill down to the next level, trying to understand which part of the difference was most objectionable. I'll leave it alone for now. 74s181 (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you point out what you think is "just wrong"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to look up the LDS references for each of these, you'll just have to trust me. 74s181 (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• "...we are co-eternal with the Father..." yes, LDS believe this. 74s181 (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• "...we are not in need of his Word and Spirit to sustain our very existence..." LDS believe that we could not get to where we are without God, and that we are in need of God to sustain our present state of existence, but there is an essence within us that is co-eternal with God. Did this essence exist, could it exist independently of God? I don't know, I don't think there is doctrine on this. 74s181 (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• "...the One God is reduced then to what I would regard as a figure of speech..." No, the 'oneness' of God is not a figure of speech to LDS. 74s181 (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• "..."God" is merely a class of existence..." LDS believe that there is a class of existence called "Exaltation" in which we may become 'like' God, but we can never equal or even approach God the Father in glory. God the Father is not 'merely' anything.
• "...sets Him apart from all else..." LDS believe God the Father is unique, never to be equaled or surpassed. 74s181 (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• "...God is not present everywhere, but is confined to a body." God is not 'confined' to anything, He is 'perfected' or completed by having a glorified body, but He is not subject to limitations of time and space. However, He is not everywhere and nowhere at the same time, that is a contradiction, an impossibility. 74s181 (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• "...the Spirit is not confined, but is external to the Father and instrumental for him." The Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit and has no physical body. He is a distinct individual, but one with the Father and the Son in purpose. That is, if you could have a conversation with the Holy Ghost He would be indistinguishable from the Father except for the fact that he has no physical body, and also by the fact that he defers to the Father, as does Jesus Christ.
• "instrumental" is true in that He is an essential part of the plan as is Jesus Christ, but saying anything about what the Holy Ghost or Jesus Christ 'can' do vs what the Father 'cannot' do is like asking "if God is omnipotent, can he make a rock so big that He himself cannot move it?" 74s181 (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

74s181, nothing here shows me that what I said is "just wrong". Of course, I don't expect you to agree with me about the implications or the "strangeness" of LDS doctrines. I'm still pretty sure that it will not go anywhere, to discuss reactions. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"...each is conscious of the other." Does this mean that Jesus Christ can think about the Father as another being? Or does it mean something else? I really want to understand what you mean by this. 74s181 (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not, as another being. As another person not another being, as a subject and object of love, is as as close as you're likely to get. By "person" we do not mean "people". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How is "person" different from "being"? If anything, "person" seems more physical, "being" seems more metaphysical, but maybe that's exactly what you meant? 74s181 (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

When we say "three persons" we do not mean "three people" as you do (when you say '"person" seems more physical'). And likewise, when we say that the Father, Son and Spirit are "one being" we do not mean three beings, as you do (when you say '"being" seems more metaphysical'). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"...the discussion cleared some things up..." There have been places along the way where I have thought that I was begining to understand, but I have been mostly wrong. However, I have learned some things, hopefully I will learn more. 74s181 04:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have learned many things from all of the LDS contributors here. I suppose it would be presumptuous to say that I've understood; but I have at least attained sufficient familiarity that if you didn't question me closely, I might be able to fool you into thinking I'm not completely confused. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very grateful if you would respond to what I said in answer to your #1. Does this help you to put this matter in proportion - as far as describing where and how often some Trinitarians might encounter the "formula of the Trinity"? I've given you a minimal example - the typical Evangelical's experience. But there's a difference between that, and what I've encountered among the Eastern Orthodox for example, at the other end of the spectrum of experience (where you are pretty sure to be reminded much, much more often and vividly, of what the Trinity has to do with salvation). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which #1 you're refering to. Briefly, I think you are saying that the use of the label "Trinity doctrine" isn't offensive, also you stated that MC venerate the God that the statement describes, not the statement itself. Regarding 'Bible school', I think you are saying that MC would never send their children to LDS Bible school. I'm not sure that the reverse is as true, I attended a Baptist vacation Bible school one summer when I was a child visiting my cousins, my parents knew about it and weren't worried. I know a woman who sent her daughter to a Catholic high school because she wanted her to get a better education in a more moral environment than she would get in public school. But most LDS wouldn't do this. 74s181 21:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Your #1, answered in my #1:

Yes, we are saying that it's not offensive to say to us that we consider this doctrine important - even to say that it is "supremely important" in the sense that, everything else we say doctrinally, instructionally, is related to this dogma. After all, God Himself is the creator of all that is not God, and all things exist for His sake: this dogma concerns who he is, and therefore, it concerns also all other things that we might say. As the Catholics would distinguish - this doctrine is "of the faith".

Yes, we do not worship the statement itself - we "venerate" it, in the sense that as the Eastern Orthodox would say, it is an "icon", a "symbol" of that in which we put our faith.

And yes, we would assume that although there are a lot of things about the LDS that are edifying and profitable in a naive and human sense of morality - in the sense of teaching decency, chastity, hard work, honesty in dealings, etc. - we would not send our children to an LDS Bible club. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think maybe I've learned something, you said "we do not worship the statement itself - we "venerate" it, in the sense that as the Eastern Orthodox would say, it is an "icon", a "symbol" of that in which we put our faith." So, "that in which we put our faith" is God, and the Trinitarian statement about God stands as a symbol of God. this sounds like something I thought earlier, the statement itself is significant to MC in a way similar to the Bible, that is, the physical book, not its content. 74s181 04:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We can say presumptively that we believe whatever the Bible teaches. But we would be in error, to say descriptively that we have believed what the Bible teaches if what we say is in fact contrary to what it teaches. To put it in terms that my own tradition supplies, the scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man. The doctrine of the trinity falls within those first things that scriptures principally teach, in order that we may be thoroughly equipped to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Imitation of Christ

A separate question concerns the sense in which the LDS think we should "imitate" Christ, and to what end. 74, when you say "what would Jesus do?", are you thinking narrowly of ethical behavior - or would you include the ordinances to which he submitted himself? For example, are you baptized because Jesus was baptized? If so, do you also circumcise (for Christ was circumcised)? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to step on 74's toes, but as a practical teaching we teach members when in times of trial, ask yourself what would Jesus do? In this context, we are thinking in the narrower sense of ethical behavior. However, when we teach nonmembers about baptism it is often said that we should follow Jesus' example; if he was baptized we likewise should be baptized. Of course, we also first focus on those scriptures that we feel focus more directly on the need for baptism and its significance. The Church does not take a position on circumcision; Paul answered that question for us. Christ's example was perfect; His Love, His service, His forgiveness, His everything stands as a perfect Light unto all of us to follow. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I follow what you mean when you say that Paul answered it. But, what does his answer mean to you? Why would Paul say that you should not do this particular thing that Christ himself did? What is the LDS understanding of Paul's line of reasoning? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I will answer, but this may not be a complete answer. In Romans 2:25-29 those to whom Paul is writing know that the law of Moses has been fulfilled, and that circumcision—as a witness of Abrahamic descent, and as a symbol of conformity to Mosaic standards—is no longer a required ordinance for the Lord's people. See Acts 15:1-35. The Apostle explains that there is no reason for circumcision unless the law of Moses is in force, which has been fulfilled by Christ. The righteousness of the Gentiles is as acceptable as though they had the law of Moses; that even under the law, the outward rite of circumcision had no value unless one's heart was right before God and the circumcised person did in fact live the law. Thus the true circumcision is that of the heart through Christ. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit uncomfortable with pursuing this line of discussion. I don't intend a general discussion, but I'm seeking clarification of certain issues by which Mormonism distinguishes itself. It's in pursuit of that, that I'm continuing the question: not just to put you on the spot. Do you mean that God was never looking for an outward circumcision, but only for a "heart that is right before God"? If the latter, then why was circumcision ordained, and why was Christ circumcised? Or, put another way, as 74s181 asked me 8 months ago, "What does the covenant of Jesus Christ have to do with the Jews, other than that Jesus was a Jew ...?" — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a very good summary of Circumcism in the LDS church Bible Dictionary [3]. In summary the entry says:

The significance of circumcision was that it was the manifest token of the covenant that the Lord had made with Abraham and his seed. It does not matter that other nations also practiced circumcision for to them it did not have the same meaning or purpose.

There was much controversy in the early church with regard to the obligation of circumcision (Acts 15: 1-31). The Church under direction of Peter and the Twelve, and acting under the guidance of the Spirit, declared that circumcision was not obligatory for gentile converts. However, it apparently did not settle the matter of whether or not Jewish members of the Church should have their children circumcised. As one reads the scriptures on the matter, it becomes evident that the real issue was not circumcision only, but also the larger question as to continued observance of the law of Moses by members of the Church.

This is a marked contrast to the Church among the Nephites, in which there seems to have been a cessation of the law immediately upon their awareness of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (3 Ne. 15: 1-4; Moro. 8: 8).

So, it seems the practice was done away with with other Mosaic law practices, but not until after the resurrection of Christ, so in essence, Jesus lived the Jewish law and then fulfilled the law, thus ending the practice. Hope this helps. Bytebear (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"...are you baptized because Jesus was baptized?" We are baptized for the same reason that Jesus was baptized:

John 3:13-15

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

For us, baptism is a cleansing of sin, a symbol of death and burial of our old lives, and rebirth in Jesus Christ's church. Christ, of course, was without sin, but he set the example by following the commandment of the Father that all should be baptized. 74s181 (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"What is the LDS understanding of Paul's line of reasoning?" I agree with what Storm Rider and Bytebear said. My personal opinion is that some of the earliest Jewish converts considered their new Christian faith to be a sect of Judaism, sort of a 'reformation'. They didn't understand that God's earlier church (the law of Moses) had become corrupt over time, and that Jesus Christ had come not only to teach and restore correct doctrine but more importantly to fulfill the heart of the law and be the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, offered as the final supreme blood sacrifice for the sins of all mankind. Peter received a revelation clarifying this. Of course, Peter, Paul, and the rest of the apostles spent the rest of their lives correcting false doctrine and practice, trying to get the people to understand what Jesus Christ taught and what was really important. There is no Biblical record that they succeeded. 74s181 (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Do you mean that God was never looking for an outward circumcision, but only for a "heart that is right before God"?" Circumcision was the law of God from the time that Abraham received the commandment from God until the crucifiction and resurrection of Jesus Christ. After that, a new covenant was introduced, the broken heart and contrite spirit, with baptism as the outward symbol of the covenant.

3rd Nephi 9:19-20

19 And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings.

20 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.

74s181 (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

LDS believe the Law of Moses was given as a preparatory gospel for the Jewish people; Jesus was its fulfillment. The Mosaic standards prepared the chosen of Israel to believe and obey; it was to focus the individuals and groups to look to the Lawgiver. Unfortunately, the Law became a burden to the people that blinded many to God and focused on the letter of the law.

Jesus’ circumcision was not the choice of Jesus, but of Joseph and Mary as they sought to fulfill the teachings of the Law they understood.

Abinadi, a prophet in the Book of Mormon taught, “I say unto you, that it is expedient that ye should keep the law of Moses as yet; but I say unto you, that the time shall come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses, and moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses" (Mosiah 13:27-28). McConkie applied this teaching to our day, "Suppose we have the scriptures, the gospel, the priesthood, the Church, the ordinances, the organization, even the keys of the kingdom—everything that now is down to the last jot and tittle—and yet there is no atonement of Christ. What then? Can we be saved? Will all our good works save us? Will we be rewarded for all our righteousness? Most assuredly we will not. We are not saved by works alone, no matter how good; we are saved because God sent his Son to shed his blood in Gethsemane and on Calvary that all through him might ransomed be. We are saved by the blood of Christ.”

I am not sure if I have answered your question; but I did my best. Your questions cover a lot of ground. The conversation may be best when then is an exchange of ideas and teachings. Your discomfort is understood, but when learning is a two way street trust grows stronger. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

From a Christian point of view, circumcision was always viewed as a symbol of the covenant that God made with the Hebrews. During early Christianity the Christian leaders were all Jewish, and there was much debate over whether a pagan who wanted to become a Christian had to first become a Jew. Early Christianity was considered a Jewish sect. This issue was debated, as recorded in Acts 15:

23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

and then:

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

I think it could be argued that circumcision is no longer required by many (most?) Christian groups at this point, and if performed, it is often for medical reasons rather than religious reasons. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 14:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There's something different here, but as under the previous question, I'm having a hard time putting my finger on what it is. Mostly, what's been said by you would be said outside of Mormonism; and I don't want to invent something out of comments that strike my ear as odd. My goal was to find clues in our conversation that might steer us to resources that we would use to write the article. Maybe I'm tired, but I can't find the hooks on which to hang the comparison. But, your comments are informative and clear; and maybe they will become fruitful eventually. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that wierd feeling you are having in the pit of your stomach is "agreement." Don't worry, it will soon pass. :) Bytebear (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The "weird feeling" is that I've lost focus on the article. I could follow each of the things that strike me as odd, as I have, but it doesn't look like it goes anywhere but to more things that strike me as odd. If I don't know from whence this nuance arises, I can't make connections between the different issues. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but forget the 'nuance', what is the most odd thing? 74s181 (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

But it is a nuance. It's not something I would expect to hear that, Jesus didn't choose circumcision, his mother and Joseph did as they understood the law. It's not what we would say that, the new covenant is a broken heart and contrite spirit. I wouldn't say that these are "wrong" from my point of view - they might just be a loose way of saying things, or they might indicate something more substantial. I suspect that it indicates the presence of something more interesting, but if flushing it out means beating around the bush as I have, I'm concerned that I'm misusing the talk page. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear issue

LDS believe that God the Father has a body. MC do not. Mark, I think you're saying that this is THE nuclear issue. If we leave "...may have lived a human life" out of the discussion, is it still nuclear? I ask this, because as Storm Rider said, there is no canonized LDS doctrinal statement on "...may have lived a human life", but it is absolutely doctrinal that the Father has a body. 74s181 (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer what is nuclear. It says something about the relationship between the Father and the Son that is contrary to what we have received. The Scriptures say that "no one has seen God at any time", and "you have never heard his voice nor seen his form". How does the LDS reconcile this with the "God has a body"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Simple, that verse is incomplete and contradictory to other Bible writings, including Moses speaking to God "face to face", and other various verses that say God has a body, particularly that Christ showed his hands and feet to his deciples to prove he was physical and had (has) a body. So, either the verse you cite is wrong, or it is misinterpreted. Either way, God can be spirit and body and clearly has been seen, (even if just as the manifestation of Jesus Christ). So, it's up to you how you decide to interpret that. We have chosen ours and it does not preclude God having a body of flesh and bone. Bytebear (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this LDS doctrine, that the explanation of these verses is that they are incomplete and contradictory?

We interpret it as meaning that "no one has seen God at any time". Not Moses, not anyone. And no one can hear his voice or see his form - including Joseph Smith. What they have seen, is what the Son showed them concerning the invisible God. God's presence is shown as a pillar of fire and cloud - this does not mean that you have seen God's form. God is shown in many ways; but the New Testament says that what is seen is a revelation, an explanation, by and through the Son. God is not seen or heard or known in any other way than by and through him. Therefore, the scripture says "Whoever denies the Son has not the Father either"; not simply because they are "one in purpose", but because you cannot know the Father apart from his eternal Light which makes him known. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." "To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." "By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible." Just so, the humanity of Jesus Christ is not the invisible nature of God, and in his divine nature which is invisible the Word is not human nature which is flesh: he is two natures united in one person without confusion of natures. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is LDS doctrine that these verses are incomplete. In Exodus 33:23, God clearly says that he will show his 'back parts' to Moses, just not his face. Additionally, JS,Jr. corrected the two verses in question:

• Exodus 33:20,22 JST translation, And he said unto Moses, Thou canst not see my face at this time, lest mine anger be kindled against thee also, and I destroy thee, and thy people; for there shall no man among them see me at this time, and live, for they are exceeding sinful. And no sinful man hath at any time, neither shall there be any sinful man at any time, that shall see my face and live.
• John 1:18 footnote, JST translation, "...except he hath borne record of the Son..."

Other LDS scriptures repeat this doctrine:

• D&C 67:11 For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God.
• Moses 1:9-11

9 And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that his glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth.

10 And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.

11 But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.

LDS doctrine says if one is specially prepared, 'quickened', 'transfigured', one may behold the Father and live. So, what do you think? Is this the nuclear difference? That is, God has a physical body, and under very limited circumstances can be / has been seen by man? 74s181 (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Well, there are a lot of significant issues meeting all together in one place there. The "nuclear" difference is that you follow a prophet who edits the word of God, adding and taking away. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you do make me laugh. You use a specific phrase used in Deut 4:2 and Revelations 22:19 in condemn. Stating "you follow a prophet who edits the word of God, adding and taking away" is not the way to appear as if you are speaking with an open mind. Your statements always come back to an agenda and that always gives me pause. It is very difficult to maintain good faith.

The Bible we have today has been proven to have been tampered and changed by man. You know this and yet knowing that the bible is not the undefiled word of God in its current form you would condemn a clarification. Would not a prophet be able to clarify God's word? Does not a true prophet speak for God? It would be helpful if you would drop the petty accusations and stick with plain, staight discussion about topic. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The agenda here is to answer the question I was asked about, what is the so-called "nuclear" difference. This is straight discussion, unlike your comment. The answer to your question is, I am unaware of any prophet who prophesies by editing what is written, unless Joseph Smith is a prophet. I know that it's difficult to maintain good faith, Storm Rider, but it is necessary. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, Mark, I'm going to be short and to the point. Please note, I'm not trying to prove that one side or the other is correct, I'm not trying to make you angry. I'm trying to describe the debate, If I've mistated the MC view please correct me. 74s181 (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

To put what Storm Rider said into perspective, here is how your statement might be phrased coming from LDS to MC:

The "nuclear" difference is that you follow councils of men who interpreted the word of God, adding and taking away important truths.

This statement seems literally true, at one point a council of men decided what was and what was not canon, the result of their debate is today known as the Holy Bible. Another council of men decided which interpretation of the Bible concerning the relationship between the Father and the Son was correct, the result of their debate is today known as the Nicene creed. 74s181 (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So, Mark, do you see what I mean by the nuclear difference? I think it is both core and explosive. I think the only thing still up in the air is, which is more nuclear, the definition of God, or the source of that definition. 74s181 (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, are these just two sides of the same highly explosive coin? LDS might say to MC, "you lost the keys of apostolic revelation, that is why your definition of God became incorrect", while MC might say to LDS "your definition of God is incorrect, that proves your claim of modern revelation is false". 74s181 (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would I expect you to say something different about the councils of the church? It is your settled view, is it not? Once you've believed that Joseph Smith is a prophet like Moses, how can you do otherwise than to follow him regardless of what is or is not in the Bible? Following him includes believing that the church "lost the keys of apostolic revelation" - and therefore it is no wonder if, by accepting his teachings, prophecies and new versions of the Scriptures, you believe something regardless of what the church remembers: you must say, "you have forgotten, you are incorrect, yours is partial but here is the fullness". You should not be bullied into not saying this.

However, the main thing is to understand one another correctly so that we can cooperate in improving the article. I am uncomfortable being continually asked to draw judgments and conclusions, as opposed to describing and explaining. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, I've been angry, and I've pointed to when it was and I've told you why it was; but I don't recall any time when I was angry because you explained yourself. I suppose I might do this, but it would not be right. We can avoid insisting over the other's objections that their beliefs are what we ignorantly think they are, which would be provocative and unhelpful, by asking. I will ask, and I want you to ask. So please stop worrying about offending me or anyone else, by explaining or by asking for explanation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I'm glad you're not offended. I know that constantly apologizing can also be offensive, I'll cut back on that. Regarding judgement, I'm only asking you to judge my understanding of the MC position, both what MC believe about an issue, and also, how important one issue is relative to another from the MC perspective.

So, having said that, what do yo think about the two sides of the coin, am I close on the MC position? Blunt, I know, but I wanted the statements to be easily comparable. 74s181 (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't help but think that there is more to it than just understanding what is believed - you want to know what we think of you, where we put you in the scheme of things, what pushes our buttons, what makes us fight. I think it's better to say about the MC in their own terms, what is important to them; and about the LDS what is important to them; and keep them in their opposite corners, describing, explaining, comparing, preventing them from entering the ring to swing at one another, until everyone looking for a fight gets bored and goes home. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a debate, right? There are buttons that get pushed on both sides, right? Misunderstanding on both sides is hard to avoid, as we've seen. I think the goal is to fully describe the debate, if this is done properly, everyone will be satisfied, people will say, "but what about.. oh, there it is." If the description is incomplete there will be constant drive-by editing as people add what they think is missing. 74s181 (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a debate, yes. But what we should be trying to do is describe the debate without engaging in it. But the questions you keep asking are in the line of, what sounds the most weird?, what are the reasons for thinking Mormons aren't Christians?, and these are the debate itself. It's hard not to engage in debate, but it's impossible to make progress in describing the same thing if we are engaged in opposing one another. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of fluff has been removed from the article, this is good. I think there is still more detail in some sections than needed, and some redundancy or repetition, for example, the LDS view of God is stated multiple times. I think that the main thing lacking is a unifying theme and structure, if we can decide what is most important, important, and least important, and build an outline around that then everything will more naturally fall into place. 74s181 (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

We can describe what's "more important, and least important", by describing what's important to the two sides in their own terms, regardless of one another. These issues don't suddenly become important only in conflict with one another. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Christianity already describes MC doctrines independent of Mormonism. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints already describes LDS doctrines independent of MC. What, then, is the purpose of this article? I believe it is to compare and contrast, that is why I think identifying the 'nuclear' issue for each group is important. There are many differences between MC and LDS belief. Earlier there was a discussion about how it would be difficult to compare LDS belief to MC belief when there are so many differences among the various MC churches. We could say that that most MC churches differ from LDS belief on X, except for MC church N. Rather than drilling down into all these various issues, and turning this into a comparison of beliefs among MC churches, let's stick to the doctrines that are common among most MC but radically different from LDS, and vice versa. 74s181 (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

But I agree, let's do it civilly, let's describe the debate rather than engaging in it. In my opinion we should first reach a consensus on what issues are important, develop an outline, then each 'side' presents their position, with appropriate references. To the extent that one side wants to respond to the other, they should do it as part of the description of their position, rather than bantering back and forth. 74s181 (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The Christianity article says, "Christianity may be broadly represented as being divided into three main groupings: ... Roman Catholicism, ... Eastern Orthodoxy, ... [and] Protestantism ...." In this contrast, do we also consider the restorationists whom, the Christianity article describes as, "Restorationism may be considered to be another Protestant branch should one consider them to be properly called Christians." — Val42 (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Christianity article is wrong to label restorationists as Protestants. It could be true that some restorationist churches refer to themselves as Protestants, but LDS certainly do not view themselves as Protestants. The implication of the Protestant label is reformation, not restoration. 74s181 (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

LDS aren't mentioned specifically in this paragraph, but the phrase "...should one consider them to be properly called Christians" is interesting. 74s181 (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting sentence. However, if we do compare Mormonism with the rest of christianity, some will wonder why we're comparing with some groups that aren't even considered christian. I think that we should also make comparisons with other restorationist churches. — Val42 (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow the reasoning here. You've quoted a sentence that implies that Restorationist groups are not always considered Christian, then yourself imply that comparing with groups "that aren't considered Christian" might not be understandable to all readers, and then say that we should do exactly that. I'm not saying that we mustn't do it, but I don't see you providing a reason to do it. I'm missing something. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is the same as what we've been discussing for years. But through these discussions I think that it has emerged, what works and what does not. A debate approach does not work. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)