Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Monarchotheism

John Foxe deleted this sentence "According to Pottenger, many evangelical Christians criticize Mormonism for rejecting the "classical monotheism and orthodoxTrinitarianism of Christianity for a version of 'monarchotheism'". In Mormon theology, God the Father is most superior of a multiplicity of gods." I kind of liked the term "monarchotheism" as drawing a distinction between "monotheism" and "polytheism". IMO, calling Mormons polytheists yields an inaccurate understanding of their theology. Foxe's edit summary was that this sentence was "unnecessary commentary". Could you please elaborate on why you think this sentence is unnecessary? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

All the Pottenger reference says is that Evangelicals claim that Mormons are "monarchotheists", though Pottenger himself is not endorsing that term. Pottenger is clearly correct on the point of what some Evangelicals believe Mormons believe, because Beckwith et al. made exactly that claim in their evangelical tract New Mormon Challenge. However, we can't use a source that says what Evangelicals think Mormons believe to support what Mormons actually believe. The "monarchotheism" terminology is pretty idiosyncratic, and not how Mormon theology is typically described in academia. As far as I know, Beckwith and his colleagues coined the word.

Most commonly, Mormon theology is described as henotheism--the belief in multiple gods, only one of which is worshiped. In fact, as many sources have suggested, none of these terms is exactly right. Henotheism is not quite right, because Mormons worship not just a one god, but three. Monarchotheism isn't right either. Monarchotheism is what the ancient Hebrews believed before they came to conclude that their patron deity YHWH/El was not just the Most High God above the gods of other nations, but the Only God. Mormons, unlike the early Hebrews, don't believe their highest god is the king of a pantheon. The highest Mormon god has his own God and King--or, if you go back to Joseph Smith's version of Mormonism, all the gods are considered to be co-equal, and thus none of them is the king over the others. COGDEN 05:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

OK... I understand. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Evolving use of the Book of Mormon

I don't have time to develop this point in the article this morning so I will just park a link to this source here. (The book of Mormon: selections annotated & explained By Jana Riess, Phyllis Tickle)

In one sense, this material properly belongs in History of the Latter Day Saint movement but it also deserves to be mentioned here as well as this is part of the transformation of Mormonism during the latter half of the 20th century that is mentioned in this article.

I would appreciate it if other editors would look at the section titled "Evolving LDS use of the Book of Mormon" and comment. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Indistinguishable from Christianity

In the "Downplaying of differences" section, there is a quote from McConkie asserting that "Mormonism is indistinguishable from Christianity". I have commented it out because I don't think it supports the thesis of the section. I am concerned whether McConkie was intending to downplay the difference between Mormonism and Christianity. My recollection is that McConkie said something on the order of "Mormonism is Christianity and Christianity is Mormonism". (or was that someone else who said that?) Thus, if my understanding is correct, to assert that McConkie was downplaying the difference is to take the quote out of context. I believe he was saying, in effect, "mainstream Christianity is not Christianity; Mormonism is Christianity". Can anyone verify the full context of the quote and confirm or refute my conjecture? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. McConkie was a hardliner and would never have tried to minimize the distinction between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. COGDEN 07:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. McConkie, in his early years, was beyond being a hardliner; he was the hardliner. In his later years he softened considerably. Regardless, in McConkie's quote the context was that Mormonism is true Christianity; a complete focus on Jesus Christ as well as a proper understanding of the Savior's purpose, mission, and atonement. McConkie never considered other Christian churches anything but the product of the Apostasy and the creations of man. -^StormRider 10:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Earliest Mormon doctrine

The earliest Mormon doctrine, presented in the Book of Mormon (1830), was intended, in part, to settle doctrinal disputes among contemporary Christian denominations and to create a single shared theology.

This sentence seems odd. I suppose the weird thing is saying that "earliest Mormon doctrine...was intended, in part, to settle doctrinal disputes". That doesn't really make sense; every religion of their time had doctrine that they believed to be "correct". There were disputes because their doctrines differed, as did Mormon doctrine. Just because Mormon doctrine attempted to answer questions in dispute doesn't mean that its intention was simply to settle the dispute. It simply means that, like any other religion, Mormons took a doctrinal stance that they believed to be correct. Any religion taking a stance might say that their doctrine settles the dispute; but ironically, differing stances cause dispute in the first place. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess as a non-Mormon, the sentence makes more sense to me. For instance, during the 19th century there was a lot of ink spilled over the mode of baptism. The BoM answers that definitively: the correct mode is immersion. Just to make sure you get the message, 3 Nephi 11: 28 adds, "And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been."--John Foxe (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This could probably be stated better, but the point is that the Book of Mormon (which defines and reflects the original Mormon doctrine) was intended in large part to settle doctrinal disputes that were circulating within Christianity, and particularly Protestantism, at the time of its publication (i.e., the last days). Mormons and non-Mormons should agree on this point. The Hullinger and Ford references discuss this from non-Mormon and Mormon perspectives, respectively. COGDEN 19:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I don't see how Mormonism is different than any other religion of its time in this regard. Doctrine is intended to resolve doctrinal disputes. Do you see how this is a strangely circular/meaningless thing to say? There should be a better way to phrase the point that you are both explaining. (For example, perhaps, replace "doctrine" with "teachings", or use "focus on" rather than "intended") ...comments? ~BFizz 22:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the difference is that Mormonism promulgated a new scripture that could decide contemporary controversies authoritatively in a way Methodists, Presbyterians, and the Stone-Campbell movement couldn't. (But then a difficulty arose when Mormonism later came up with alternate solutions to some of the same problems.) --John Foxe (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the new wording, which makes the Book of Mormon the subject of the sentence (thus removing the odd circularity). ...comments? ~BFizz 23:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Restart?

I'm new to this discussion, but as I read the main article, I thought it left much to be desired (full disclosure: I am a Latter-day Saint).

For example:

• A few of the quotes are given as though they are established fact, when, in fact, the sources are deeply biased. (I'm actually OK with using biased quotes, as long as they are qualified: "Some scholars believe...")

• While the general tone of the article could be called "scholarly," the premise of the articles is that "Christianity" (by which is meant "traditional" or "conservative Christianity") is obviously true, while "Mormonism" is clearly false. (Besides being a false dichotomy of a subject that deserves better coverage than this over-simplified polemic, I think it is inappropriately biased for this forum.)

Honestly, I have room for someone to think my religion is false, but the article should read so that NEITHER Latter-day Saints NOR "Christians" would cry foul (if that's possible).

On the plus side, there are lots of good, juicy thoughts, details, ideas, good research, etc. that are worthy of keeping, if only they could be framed to show that one group believes one way, and another group another. Is that so hard?

I propose to start over. I've already begun an attempt on my own, and would like to post it here sometime. I do not consider myself expert enough to integrate all of the good stuff in the existing article, but I'll give it a valiant effort, then others can help clean up and fix what I've left out or misunderstood, if you think it's worthwhile.

In general, since this is a comparison of the doctrines of traditional Christianity to Mormonism, let's use some standard beliefs of traditional Christianity to frame the differences. If you type in "traditional Christianity" into Wikipedia's search field, you are redirected to "Conservative Christianity." That entry lists three creeds (Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian) and a statement from the 1920s of five characteristics of Conservative Christianity distinguishing it from other more liberal forms of Christianity. Those look to me like a pretty good outline for this comparison.

From the Creeds:

• Trinity
• Christology (Including the Divinity of Jesus from below)

From the Auburn Affirmation:

• Inerrancy of the Bible
• Virgin Birth & the Deity of Jesus (the Deity of Jesus would be covered under "Christology," above)
• Bodily Resurrection of Jesus
• Authenticity of Jesus' Miracles
• Belief in a Literal Heaven and a Literal Hell (I think beliefs about 'Heaven' and 'Hell' could be appropriately divided into separate subjects.)

So, what do you think?

(ComancheTodd (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

Calling it a "restart" is scary, because it suggests that we would throw out all of the effort put into the article thusfar. From your comments, it appears that such would not actually be the case; that you would preserve lots of the "juicy ideas" but radically restructure the article. Incremental editing is the typical way to go on Wikipedia, and I'd suggest you give that option serious consideration.

If you don't want to incrementally restructure this article, then I do suggest that you first build your draft in your own userspace. Someone has made a video tutorial on starting a sandbox article on Wikipedia that you might find helpful. As you progress, check in with us here on the talk page. I suggest you check in often and try to keep people here satisfied, or else your draft article could go to waste if no one supports using it. Also, as long as it is still a draft in your userspace, make sure to clearly indicate that such is the case or else it might be nominated for deletion as a fake article. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"A prominent scholarly view is that Mormonism is a form of Christianity, but is distinct enough from traditional Christianity so as to form a new religious tradition, much as Christianity is more than just a sect of Judaism.[3]" I cannot find the supposed "prominence" of this point of view. All I can find is that view expressed by Jan Shipps, one or two colleagues, and nothing else. That Jan Shipps supports the view does not make it the "prominent" scholarly view. 76.112.254.142 (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Salvation Subheading

At the end of the paragraph, it talks about ultimate Godhood regardless of later sin. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, and I know that that statement is either wrong, or incorrectly worded. The church does not have a "ritual" that allows people to escape the consequences of sinning without repentance, and does not have a "ritual" that guarantees that a person can receive exaltation even when they have sinned without repenting. This information may refer to a smaller branch of Mormonism that the main LDS church, in which case that should be noted to avoid confusing readers. This may also be an extreme misunderstanding of some existing LDS ordinance. In either case, it must be deleted, reworded, more fully/properly described, or otherwise fixed. ~Keito~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.99.236 (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so if you know reliable sources that have a different point of view than those cited in the article, by all means jump into the editing process.--John Foxe (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Keito, you are correct. There has never been any ritual or temple ordinance of exaltation. The second anointing and/or second endowment neither one provide a sure calling of election. Both are still dependent upon the actions of the individual. Both promise that a calling of election CAN be sure, but it is dependent upon the continued obedience of the individual. There are few, if any, texts that will discuss this in any detail because LDS and General Authorities choose not to speak about it. Most LDS have never even heard of a Second Endowment. The only people that really do talk about it are those who do not know all the facts. Anti-Mormons and ignorant LDS that have written about only demonstrate the degree of their ignorance by attempting to discuss it in detail. -^StormRider 13:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Which of the sources states that the second anointing "guaranteed ultimate godhood regardless of later sin"? Regardless, the second anointing is a very obscure topic; have any Mormons besides Smith taught or practiced it? Is it undue to mention it at all in this article? ...comments? ~BFizz 21:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the comparison/contrast of Mormonism with Christianity, and in that regard, the second anointing is more pertinent than the Endowment. While the Endowment was derived from Freemasonry, the idea of the second anointing was derived from Calvinism. The Second Anointing was one way that Smith incorporated the Calvinistic idea of assured salvation into later Mormonism.

It doesn't matter that the ritual has almost disappeared within the modern LDS Church, because this article is about Mormonism in general, including historical Mormonism and fundamentalist Mormonism, rather than just LDS Church Mormonism. Also, the LDS Church still does practice the ritual, at least apparently among the upper Mormon hierarchy. That the ritual is a closely-guarded secret doesn't necessarily diminish its importance to LDS Church theology. Plus, its historical significance is well documented. This ritual, called the "fulness of the priesthood", was one of the reasons that Mormon scripture says the Nauvoo temple was built. Plus, the ritual was also a component of Smith's theocratic teachings, given that participants in the ordinance were ordained as kings and queens. Finally, the ritual relates to the New Testament idea of "sealing", which is one of the few links between Mormonism and Calvinism. There are plenty of references on this subject, so it's not an issue of this being an unusual area of academic discourse. COGDEN 22:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

@B Fizz, if you are looking for references on the relation of the Second Anointing to Calvinism, see Bushman pp. 497-98, Brooke pp. 256-60, Ostler pp. 77-78, and Buerger 1983, pp. 13-14, 36-37. There are also other sources, such as Gregory Prince, Power from on High, that note that the Second Anointing guaranteed exaltation, but do not explicitly note that this relates to Calvinism. COGDEN 00:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is an issue of balance; the tail does not wag the dog. It is not a big issue and for all intents and purposes Mormonism IS the LDS Church. No academic would say that Mormonism is found within the Fundamentalist groups and they would certainly not say it is in the early days of the Church. Do not confuse "calling of election made sure" with the second endowment. The Second Endowment is the conditional promise of one's Calling of Election. At no time was it a guarantee.

COgden, you speak awfully certain of where doctrines came from; it is as if there is no such thing as revelation. Do you have any evidence or does any historian have any evidence other than assumptions that Smith's doctrine came from Calivinism. Is it similarites or is it actually copying?

"Closely guarded secret" is hardley the case; the mere fact that we are discussing is evidence that is not a secret...or it is one of the worst kept secrets of all time. This is the same allegation that Anti-Mormons make against the temple ceremonies. Of course, the problem with the allegation is the same thing, you can read the entire temple ceremony on numerous websites; how in the heck is that "secret"? When an individual does not discuss the ordinance it means they hold it sacred, not secret. It is interesting that you imitate anti-Mormons so closely in your writing.

If this is a small topic within Mormonism, then obviously very little should be said about it because simply is of so little value. That is called balance. -^StormRider 12:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the entire article should be about the relationship between the Second Anointing and Calvinism. But this article is about intersections between Mormonism and traditional Christianity, and this particular intersection is notable, because it has been discussed by several prominent secondary sources. It therefore deserves mention.

Storm, if you have an authoritative source stating that the LDS Church in general, or LDS Mormons as a culture, have adopted the Second Anointing interpretation you suggest, that would be a fantastic addition to the modern Mormon soteriology sections. (I doubt such a source exists, considering that the LDS Church does not talk about this ordinance anymore.) But even if LDS Church soteriology in this regard has changed, that does not change the conclusion of the above sources that historically, Smith introduced the Second Anointing in an attempt to relate Calvinistic ideas of assured salvation to 1840s Mormonism. COGDEN 03:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nature of God and humanity

I made some very necessary changes to this section, but it still needs a lot of work. At one point in the distant past, this was a far more accurate section. When we are talking about what Mormons believe, it makes sense to cite things they actually believe which succinctly and correctly state doctrine and teaching of the church rather than searching for unsubstantiated quotes from rabidly anti-Mormon and grossly inadequate (and inaccurate) sources. This section still does not accurately reflect the LDS view of the Godhead however, and I would like to collaborate with some traditional Christian contributors to see if we can come up with a more balanced examination for comparison of the two theological systems. I think a safe guiding principle throughout this article would be to let the Latter-day saint sources be cited in support of what Mormons believe and the traditional Christian sources be cited to support what they believe. Also, this section needs to be clearer about the pre-Nicene views of the Godhead and clearly examine how those views eventually transformed into a more unified view of the Trinity. This will make clearer where Mormon theology overlaps with, and diverges from historical Christian views. Mpschmitt (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia privileges scholarly secondary sources over primary sources. (The policy does make sense even though it seems odd to anyone who's written for publication.) Therefore, LDS primary sources (or anti-LDS primary sources, for that matter) can't be cited as evidence here except insofar as they agree with scholarly secondary sources. In other words, if scholars say Mormons believe something, for purposes of Wikipedia, they do.--John Foxe (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This make no sense to me in this context. We are discussing what a particular organization actually believes. If that can be substantiated with an authoritative statement from the Church on that subject I think that bears far more weight than the unfounded second hand speculation of an ill informed "scholar" (I use the term loosely in this case) . In this parritcular instance we have a completely innacurate statement about Mormon belief being supported with quotation s from someone who clearly has either not done their homework or is being disingenuous. I'm not trying to start a flame war here so please don't take this as provocative, but if we are not allowed to make clear statements about belief and support that with authoritative writing, what is the point of having this article at all? The focus of the article is comparing two theologies. In order to do that you must be permitted to accurately represent those two theologies with sources that the respective parties would feel accurately represent their position. If Wikipedia disallows such reasonalble action, then I'm afraid I must abandon WIkipedia for more rational waters. If my changes are not allowed to stand, then I think that paragraph needs to go as it does not add much to the content and is hopelessly inaccurate.Mpschmitt (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field." LDS primary sources appear appropriate when explaining the beliefs of that church. I did not see any requirement that the primary sources need to agree with secondary sources. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There's not a blanket rule that official LDS Church sources cannot be used in Wikipedia articles. It depends on the source and what it is used for.

For example, it is problematic to use contemporary official statements by the LDS Church as a source for conclusions about Mormon history. By Wikipedia standards, official LDS Church sources are not considered to be reliable sources about Mormon history and 19th century Mormon doctrine. This is not because LDS leaders are untrustworthy, but rather because they are not peer reviewed.

Second, if an official LDS Church source is used to describe current LDS Church doctrine, that's not the end of the matter, even though the source may be "reliable" under the Wikipedia guideline. In addition to WP:RS, WP:DUE also applies. That means that if there are prominent sources that disagree with the LDS church's description of its own doctrine, then those sources must be cited and given prominence in proportion to the acceptance of those views within academia.

Third, if an otherwise reliable official LDS Church source states an official LDS Church position in a way that may be misunderstood by the average reader, WP:N requires that the statement be explained by secondary sources.

Finally, the use of scriptural references in Wikipedia articles is problematic. If everyone interpreted scripture the same way, there would be no Christian denominations. It is especially problematic to use the Book of Mormon as a primary source to describe contemporary LDS Church doctrine or policy. COGDEN 05:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Scriptures are very difficult to use unless they are such that they cannot be interpreted differently by another reader. Almost impossible to find, "Jesus wept" being one of the few. A more preferred reference would be a statement by a recognized LDS Church authority or theologian that explains the meaning of such verses. Some of the LDS Church concordances would serve.

When comparing doctrines between Mormonism and Christianity it is evident we are presented with a very difficult position of defining which church's doctrine do we use? Is the article a comparison of churches at a given point in time or are we dicussing the differences that exist today? I favor making it a comparison about today, but others feel differently. We should decide whether we are going to focus on the beliefs of Christ's church after his resurrection or of 325 or of 1000, 1500, 1750, or of today. This same position needs to be defined for the LDS Church; is it the church of today or of 1830, 1850, 1900, 1950, 1980, or of today. For the sake of an appropriately sized article, I suggest we focus on today. -^StormRider 06:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, it only makes sense to compare a particular era of Mormonism to the Christianity existing at that time. Not much has been written comparing Mormonism to 300s Christianity, given that Mormonism didn't exist then and has no historical or developmental ties to that era. But 1820s Mormonism has often been compared and contrasted with 1820s American Protestantism. Trends like Calvinism, Arminianism, primitivism, the Radical Reformation, Universalism, etc., are all relevant to the founding of Mormonism.

Wherever there is a notable intersection between Mormonism and Christianity that has received significant discussion in the reliable sources, we should note it in this article regardless of the time period being discussed. This article is not simply a point-by-point comparison between Mormons and traditional Christians. It is also a discussion of why they are similar, why they are different, and how they have informed and communicated with each other over their shared history. COGDEN 09:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This article has always been a morass of personal agendas for me, which is why I left it in the first place. I guess it seems like what I need to do is track down some Bushman or other reliable peer reviewed citations that support what I'm saying here instead of the LDS scriptures I cited. Will that work? Seems silly to me, but I'll do it if that's what it takes to get some accurate information in there I'll do that.. I probably won't get around to that for a while, so the grossly inaccurate paragraph must remain (since it keeps getting restored anyway). If anyone can help me with some secondary quotes about God's omnipotence, and eternal nature, I'd be obliged Mpschmitt (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be an excellent thing to do; more importantly, you will find that your edits are not so easily disregarded. Scriptures are just too easy to conflict with interpretations of readers and there are what appear to be contradictions on some topics all all Christian scripture. Don't forget to use concordances of various academics; they are all peer reviewed and will be acceptable here when interpreting scripture. -^StormRider 11:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you both. (It's especially pleasant to agree with ^StormRider now and again.)--John Foxe (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Alas, Laddie, it brings a tear to me eyes and a laugh to the evenin. Best of all things to ye. -^StormRider 13:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Baptism for the dead issue

The article says:

The church has agreed not to baptize Holocaust victims by proxy

Why not?? If the Mormon doctrine of baptism for the dead is seriously believed in, wouldn't the exclusion of the souls of holocaust victims from the alleged benefits of this practice be heinous?? Wouldn't holocaust victims need it more, not less??? --134.193.112.62 (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement about baptizing holocaust victims belongs more in the Mormonism and Judaism article, than here. I don't think it has anything to do with the subject matter of this article. COGDEN 03:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed "PR prophet" text

Web search finds only very personal statements on this topic:

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/letters_to_the_editor/2001/2001march.htm

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?threaded=1&v=KnV1ZHYeajA

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Introduction: Difference From Trinitarianism

The article rightly leaps straight for discussing the Trinity, to show how Mormonism differs from traditional Christianity. However, the sentence it delivers to explain that difference is unfortunately vague:

Nevertheless, most Mormons agree with the typical non-Mormon view that the Mormon conception of God is significantly different from the Trinitarian view of orthodox Nicene Christianity, derived from the eponymous Nicene and Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creeds of 325 and 381.

To provide useful clarity, without cluttering the introduction, I made a concise change as follows:

Nevertheless, most Mormons agree with the typical non-Mormon view that the Mormon rejection of monotheism is a significant departure from the Trinitarian view of orthodox Nicene Christianity, derived from the eponymous Nicene and Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creeds of 325 and 381.

Without that clarification, it is unclear what the nature of the "significant difference" is. For example, the reader might wrongly assume that Mormons are like Nestorians.

Nevertheless, my edit received objections. One editor (72Dino) said this edit "might give the wrong impression" (!!!). Another editor (FyzixFighter) also objected, and reverted, saying "I think this is problematic/debatable as most LDS would say they are monotheist but that they reject trinitarianism".

My response to these objections is that (1) the revert justification of "what most Mormons would say" violates WP:RS and (2) Mormon authorities have clearly endorsed non-monotheist doctrine. Joseph Smith himself said:

"I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! We have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it!"

The above quote can be confirmed in two sources, both available from Amazon (or Deseret, for that matter):

• History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-474.
• Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370

Ironically, even this self-same article's subsection entitled "Salvation" states that "Mormons may become perfectly sanctified and thereby literally become gods." Such a "literal" multiple-god belief system is, by definition, not monotheistic.

I conclude it is not a "wrong impression," by merely reiterating proper sources, to say Mormons differ from Christian Trinitarianism by virtue of rejecting monotheism. Mystagogue (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking from my own experience, the lines can be somewhat blurry between Monotheism (only one god), Monolatrism (many gods but only one is worshiped), Trinitarianism (three gods in oneone god in three persons, which many monotheists reject), Nontrinitarianism, and Social trinitarianism (as some scholars have defined Mormonism). Yes, Mormons believe there are many gods, but they are not polytheistic, but possibly monolatristic. Saying they "reject monotheism" without further explanation would be misleading, which is probably why it is best not to say it in the Lead section of the article, which is supposed to be a brief overview.

So, while it's hard to concisely "peg" Mormonism with a single "ism", it is completely accurate and non-controversial to say that they reject Nicene Trinitarianism, which is probably why that particular detail is in the Lead. I hope this helps. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I will not address your personal experience of blurriness of religious taxonomies. If Mormons believe in many gods, as you acknowledge, then they are not monotheistic. To suggest there is something misleading about that takes us in a circle of "personal experience of blurriness" of religious taxonomies which again, should not be addressed or "actioned" in this article. Postscript: the Trinity is not defined as "three gods in one," as you stated, but rather as "one God in three persons." Mystagogue (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What I meant by stating that using the term "rejects monotheism" might give the wrong impression is that it could give the impression that LDS worship many gods, which is not the case. Also, a reference from a reliable source stating that Mormons reject monotheism (using those terms) has not been provided. I believe that the original wording is best in the lede with further explanation of the differences in the body of the article. 72Dino (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Mormons do hold the idea of Gods being in existence, rather than a God, and while I expect most Mormons don't worship Gods, they claim God has a lineage and speculatively that God might have brothers or sisters, uncles, aunts, father(s), mother(s), etc. It is a sequential primacy (presently mono)theism, if one can coin a phrase, since each God decides the rules of life for his/her 'subjects'. -- Avanu (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@Avanu - While I have heard and read some LDS speculation on a lineage of God the Father (official LDS theology says almost nothing about his life/existence prior to the LDS interpretation of the War in Heaven so it's difficult to say anything about the lineage of God without getting into non-canon speculation), I don't think I've ever seen any speculation on each exalted being deciding the rules of life for his/her "subjects". Can I ask where you've seen this? I ask because my own readings of the scant commentary from LDS leaders on the subject, particularly Brigham Young and Orson Pratt, seems to indicate the rather the opposite (for example, "Journal of Discourses", 2:304). --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It is an inference from the other things Mormon theology says. "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become." Additionally, Mormons see God as sitting up there trying to determine a framework for how to rule over things and turning to Jesus and Satan for ideas. In the narrative, most Mormons see it as a free will versus forced action debate. Well, if the god of the present age needed a plan for things, it would be reasonable to assume based on the Snow couplet, that his predecessor had a similar decision to make upon his ascension to godhood, and perhaps he decreed that in his world, people would worship the taste of bacon. The reason I say this, rather than assuming it was just like our present age, is because god could have just said, "Hey, let's do things like my own Heavenly Father did them, and be a bacon-focused world?" It presents the debate as an entirely new one, rather than dwelling on what might have occured before. -- Avanu (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Mormons see God as sitting up there trying to determine a framework for how to rule over things and turning to Jesus and Satan for ideas." While I don't want to turn this page into a discussion forum, I am genuinely curious where you got this idea. Did you read this somewhere, or is it an extrapolation you've made based on other things you know? ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the logic. If god was once a man, then his god had a plan for this future god's exaltation. If the plan of his god was the same as this current plan, why does Mormonism present this as if it is something novel and conceived by the god now? If it is a different plan, which is pretty likely since this current plan depends HEAVILY on the mormon god's first son, Jesus, then each god makes up his own rules for how exaltation will work for his spirit children. And the mormon scriptures talk about how Lucifer/Satan supposedly proposed an alternative plan. Why would he even propose an alternative plan if there was only one plan or path to exaltation? He's either super dumb, or he's under the impression that we're 'brainstorming' ideas for how to fix the problem of people just hanging out forever in Heaven without at least experiencing mortality. -- Avanu (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

For sake of argument, let me see if I can use the same starting assumption (god was once a man) to reach a different conclusion. Suppose that the plan is the actually the same and doesn't change between generations. The plan(s) require that people learn to think and choose for themselves, choosing right over wrong. And both plans call for a redeemer figure. So God asks for volunteers, and Jesus and Satan raise their hands. Jesus says "Yup I'll do it your way", and Satan says "I have a better idea. I'll take away people's agency and force them to choose the right." God says "Sorry that's not going to fly" so Satan rebells, and decides to do everything he can to destroy the plan, tempting people to do wrong, becoming the source of evil, etc. but at the same time providing people with the opposition they need to learn to choose right over wrong. So in this scenario the rules don't change, the plan doesn't change, and God doesn't change. Instead of sitting up there trying to figure out new rules, God knows precisely what the rules are, and works within the rules to give people a chance to learn the rules and become like him.

This, of course, opens up theoretical questions like, so in the previous generations were there other Jesus and Satan figures? The logical answer is yes. That said, Mormons tend to think infrequently about these kinds of questions. By the way, most of this can be sourced to the "Cosmology" chapter in Bushman's Mormonism: a very short introduction book that I had mentioned previously. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

@Mystagogue: I didn't mean to imply that I was editing Wikipedia based on my personal experience. I was conveying what I had learned while editing Wikipedia. The main point is that it's not as simple as saying they reject monotheism. Also, you're right, I got the Trinity backwards. One God in three Persons is correct, although I've heard it the other way around before. The Quran, for instance, states it backwards, before saying there is only One Allah. I only bring this up to illustrate the problem of the blurry lines. A Muslim could easily say that Catholicism "rejected monotheism".

I concur with Dino that we should follow what the sources say on the matter. I did a quick search of the Google Book Mormonism: a very short introduction. The words monotheism and polytheism returned zero results. Trinity gave two results and trinitarian gave one. The only quote that seemed relevant was "Critics charge Mormons with believing in multiple gods, but the Mormon God is as unified as the trinity of Christian theology. These Gods do not contend with one another like the gods in the pagan pantheon. They have agreed on the same principles and work for the same end. They are one as Christ and the Father are one." (p. 74) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A summary of what I'm seeing so far:

1. We're withholding undisputed and undisputable educational facts, for the sake of dubious subjective concerns.
2. We're not allowed to use vocabulary terms which are absent from reliable sources.

Both of the above arguments are unfounded in wikipedia policy at best, and violate wikipedia "original point of view" at worse. Taken together, it sounds more like censorship than scholarship. Indeed, so far the only concrete, verifiable, or objective(ish) source cited to explain why we cannot say "Mormonism rejects monotheism," is that the Koran stated the Trinity doctrine incorrectly (!!!!). I don't want to sound mean spirited, but I do want to be firm. To comply with wikipedia policies, I think the immediate options now are either to (1) forward a reliable source that trumps the Joseph Smith source quote I provided or (2) let me proceed with the revision. Forgive my impatience. Please I ask, do not repeat subjective ideas of how people could misinterpret undisputed facts. Mystagogue (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Quaran was to illustrate a point, and is not a source. Richard Bushman (the author of the book I quoted above) trumps Joseph Smith because Bushman is a scholarly secondary source, while Smith is a primary source. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If I can throw my two cents in, extrapolating from Joseph Smith's statements (an example of primary sources) to "Mormons reject monotheism" is, IMO, original synthesis. Especially when you consider the numerous statements in uniquely LDS scripture that describes a belief in "one God" (eg 2 Nephi 31:21, Mosiah 15:1-5, Alma 11:26-37, Mormon 7:7, D&C 20:28, Moses 1:20). I don't see the theological arguments that the LDS go through to reconcile their scriptures with their concept of the members of the Godhead/Trinity also being separate beings any more invalid than those used in the creeds of the early Christian church. Additionally, there a few modern quotes that show that the LDS self-identify as monotheists. For example, Bruce R. McConkie in "Mormon Doctrine":

"Monotheism is the doctrine or belief that there is but one God. If this is properly interpreted to mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — each of whom is a separate and distinct godly personage — are one God, meaning one Godhead, then true saints are monotheists."

Also, Robert Millet, as the LDS co-author in "Claiming Christ":

"We believe that each of the members of the Godhead posses all of the attributes and qualities of godliness in perfection. We believe that the love and unity that exist among the three persons in the Godhead constitute a divine community that is occasionally referred to simply as “God” (see 2 Nephi 31:21; Alma 11:44; Mormon 7:7). In other words, we have no problem speaking of a Mormon monotheism in the sense that we believe in one God, one Godhead, one Trinity, one collection of divine persons who oversee and bless and save the human family."

Certainly Mormons are not strict monotheists (which also excludes mainstream Christianity) nor traditional Christian (Trinitarian) monotheists, but they are "explicitly and clearly monotheistic in the aim of their worship" (Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion, Volume 2, pg 687). I agree with 72Dino that the original wording is best and would argue that it is more favorable because it is accurate regardless of the strictness of the one's definition of monotheism. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

rv notes

• Baptism for the dead, a practice forbidden by the Catholic Church, is not practiced in modern mainstream Christianity, whether Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant.

^ quote from Baptism for the dead article

• Paul C. Gutjahr (March 25, 2012). The Book of Mormon: A Biography (Lives of Great Religious Books). Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-14480-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

^ from Book of Mormon article, cites differences and historical relation of Joseph Smith's Mormonism and Christianity

• IVP Academic is just a simple wikilink

99.181.143.14 (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Why should any of this be included, even if accurate, and if that book is a reliable source. (I'm not saying it is, just that, even if it is accurate and sourced in a reliable source, it's not relevant.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly relevant, this article is a comparison and contrast between Mormonism and Christianity. 108.73.115.187 (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Superficial search item http://catholicism.about.com/b/2008/05/06/baptism-of-the-dead-its-not-for-catholics-anymore.htm 99.181.146.141 (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You may have a point—if you can provide a reliable source for the fact and its relevance. There are many differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity (I'm trying to say this without taking a position on the question of whether Mormons are Christians. Please bear with me.) However, things in this article must both be sourced, and their relevance must be sourced, by reliable sources. You have been re-adding the material to the article without attempting to add sources for the material or for its relevance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Why were reference removed without explanation?

• Robinson, Stephen (1998), Are Mormons Christians?, Bookcraft, ISBN 1-57008-409-2
• Barrick, Audrey (June 14, 2012), Devout Mormon Declares: I'm Not a Christian, Christian Post

Why were these removed? 06:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The "references" were removed because the statement they were used to support was removed as irrelevant. (See section above). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A need to go into the "Is Mormonism Christian?" question

The part of the article that refers the attitude of Christianity towards Mormonism (from its own point of view) at this time does not go into the real issue this is about, so to speak. This is the "Is Mormonism Christian?" question. The article does refer that some call Mormonism non-Christian, but without even giving details about whether this is a mere libel or something with a substance. It does, then, refer many points of disagreement, but they are as such, most of the time, answer to the "Is Mormonism heretical?" question. Now this question is an easy one, and - sorry for frankness - that the Mormons are heretics is nothing specially interesting; we knew that already (the same way we Catholics know it about the Protestants). (I'm Catholic; anyway, it is the Christian point of view that needs to be referred here.) Arians were non-trinitarian; but they were Christians. Witnesses of Jehova baptize invalidly and the Salvation Army does not baptize at all, but (at least the latter, but I think also the former) they are Christians.
Now the really interesting thing here that makes the Mormon case a case quite different from the usual inner-Christian denomination problems is that, apparently, Mormonism totally escapes the concepts of Christianity. The article does have the classification as "henotheistic", which is a little word for a thing of, in this context, vast importance. Christianity is monotheistic and believes in the eternal, unchangeable God Who says "I Am What Who end of correction I Am". There certainly might be other points.
What I want to say is that the contents of such accusations as being "non-Christian" or being "henotheistic" should be expounded, and the difference between "non-Christian" and "heretical Christian" should be made clear.
What also, for some rather political reasons, might be useful is a short reminder that neither "non-Christian" (which we say about Muslims) nor "heretic" (which we Catholics say about Protestants) are, in any legitimate use (that is, in any legitimate scientific use; and in any legitimate Catholic use), objective characterizations of a person's belief and not negative characterizations of the respective adherents' personal other or subjective qualities.--77.4.45.122 (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the quote according to Exodus 3:14 (NLT) is "I Am Who I Am". "I Am What I Am", or a grammatically modified version thereof, can be traced back to a sailor named Popeye. Remrodg (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry! --93.134.242.251 (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the King James Version (the version of the Bible used in the LDS Church) is "I Am That I Am". 72Dino (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The article immediately establishes the point of view that Mormons are not Christians

"Mormonism and Christianity have a complex theological, historical, and sociological relationship."

"Footballs differ from most other balls in that they are not round". It is clear in this case that I accept that footballs are balls, since I say so.

"Footballs differ from balls in that they are not round." In this case it's clear that I believe that not only do they differ from other balls, but that they are not balls at all.

Some Christians think that Mormons are not Christians, and some think that they are. The first sentence in this article establishes the point of view that Wikipedia does not accept that Mormons are Christians. If the article is not intended to side with the point of view that Mormons are not Christians, it should not do this.

Brucemo (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BEGIN opens by saying, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is." I don't think that the current lead sentence does this, but I'm not enough of a wordsmith to suggest a single sentence which does this and does it well.

One suggestion which does come to mind is to cobble together a clear, concise, WP:NPOV initial introductory paragraph. A first-cut draft:

Mormonism and Christianity have a complex theological, historical, and sociological relationship. Some Christians, focusing on differences, consider Mormonism "non-Christian". Mormons, focusing on similarities, are offended at being so characterized.

• Ankerberg, John; Weldon, John; Burroughs, Dillon (2009). The Facts on the Mormon Church. Harvest House Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7369-3911-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Stark, Rodney (2005). The rise of Mormonism. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-13634-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I cobbled that together from the initial sentences of the first and second paragraphs of the current lead section. The current content of those paragraphs -- with some minor rewriting -- could then follow that new lead paragraph.

That suggestion can probably be improved upon. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

New Title: Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity

A more neutral title for this page would be Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity. There are many other non-trinitarian Christian sects besides Mormonism, and categorizing the whole of Christianity by the characteristics of Mainstream Christianity is misleading. Such a title would avoid biased claims that Mormonism is or isn't Christian while still providing an opportunity to discuss the facts. Pi-Guy (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: My suggestion is to move this content to Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity and have Mormonism and Christianity redirect to that page. Pi-Guy (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This is actually the only fair and objective solution that has been offered. Wikipedia needs to have the basic sophistication and common sense to recognize that not all Christian faiths are "orthodox" or believe in the creeds developed several centuries after the death of Jesus Christ. Anyone who believes in the Bible and the New Testament story of Jesus of Nazareth should be deemed a Christian. The better title for this article should be "Mormonism vs. Mainstream Christianity" or "Mormon Christianity vs. Christian Orthodoxy." As PIguy mention previously, this would allow for a discussion of the differences between Mormon Christians and orthodoxy Christians without passing conclusive judgment in the very title of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.225.193.114 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 2 July 2013‎

• Comment. I think the current name works fine. The article is not all about "Mormonism vs. mainstream Christianity" or even "Mormonism and mainstream Christianity". Some of the article is about how Mormons self-identify as Christians and seek to have their faith recognized as part of Christianity. In part, it's about Mormons and their conception of Christianity. Thus, the suggested change would narrow the scope of the article unnecessarily. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Salvation section

It says that people who suffer damnation will go to the lowest kingdom. I'm pretty sure that people in spirit prison will go to either the Terrestial, or Telestial kingdom based on their works. Not just to the lowest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbuttons (talk • contribs) 18:44, 10 July 2013‎

Separate from the the issue raised above, but still in the Salvation section, the link to plan of salvation needs to be switched to plan of salvation (Latter Day Saints), as that article was recently renamed. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Mormonism vs. LDS

While the Church of Jesus Christ the Latter Day Saints is by far the largest denomination within Mormonism, this article almost completely ignores the Community of Christ, which is the second largest. The CoC is recognized by pretty all mainstream christian churches as "compatible", including recognition of baptism. This should be reflected in the article. rgds --h-stt !? 16:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Although the Community of Christ is a church within the Latter Day Saint movement, it isn't usually identify as a part of "Mormonism". Mormonism is generally restricted to the LDS Church and churches that sprang from the LDS Church, like the Mormon fundamentalist churches. The Illinois and Missouri churches generally are not considered "Mormon", though they are "Latter Day Saint". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I find that definition somewhere? For example in Wikipedia? rgds --h-stt !? 17:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello H, I am not disagreeing with your position, but the reasoning can be a bit misleading. When we talk about the 2nd largest group within Mormonism it sounds as if it is a rather significant size, but there are some 250,000 (can't remember the exact figure) members within the CofC compared to 14 million LDS. Conversely, the 250,000 compares to the next group(s) in the tens of thousands at most. It does stand out, but still how much focus should be given? It could easily turn into the tail wagging the dog.

My uncle and aunt are CofC members and have been for years. They still consider themselves part of Mormonism, but I am not sure the current church considers itself in the same light. Their changes in doctrine have taken a remarkable change in the last 50 years where it has little similarity with its roots. Does Catholicism recognize CC baptisms? Where groups do acknowledge them? --^StormRider 04:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

h-stt, the distinction is made quite a bit in Mormonism. See, e.g., the section on Mormonism's theological divisions. I think Stormrider is correct that the "Mormon or not?" question is not crystal clear, even among the Community of Christ membership, but I think the trend is definitely towards regarding it as Latter Day Saint but not Mormon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but I think that should be mentioned here too. Otherwise the article could leave more people confused than just me. rgds --h-stt !? 15:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible Change in Title?

I wonder if it might be beneficial to this article to change the title to "Mormonism and Protestantism", simply because much of this article seems to be dealing with Mormonism's relationship with Protestantism as opposed to its place in Christianity as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanjlatimer (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: While much of this article may focus on the comparison/contrast between Mormonism and Protestantism, the fact remains the the rest of the article covers its relationship to all other religions. I am unalterably opposed to such a change because it seems unnecessarily picky. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I can see the point of the suggestion, I think the broader name is preferable, mainly because one of the central issues in this relationship is always the issue of whether or not Mormonism qualifies as being part of Christianity. There is never a debate as to whether Mormonism is part of Protestantism—almost everyone agrees that it is not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Mormons self-identify as Christian

User:Jgstokes removed my edit claiming that the edit has been made without explanation on this article's talk page. So this my edit which i tried to add and i think it should be inside the article: Despite some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity, Mormons self-identify as Christian.--Jobas (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That wording seems familiar...parts of it seem to have been copied verbatim from the 3rd paragraph of Mormons (including the reference). But it definitely needs to be fixed up grammatically before it can be inserted into the article, and it also needs to go in a place where it doesn't disrupt the flow of the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Exactly the issues I had with it. It is poorly worded, grammatically incorrect, and has no reliable sources anywhere. If these things can be fixed to the satisfaction of the consensus, I have no objections to such a sentence being in the article. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is a reliable sources and it's used in different articles in Wikipedia. If the problems is with the grammatically incorrect and the place then i can to change it. "Despite some of the differences in belief with the main Christian churches, The vast majority of Mormons self-identify as Christians". the reference is: --Jobas (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not much better. I may be more familiar with grammar rules than you are, so let me point out a few problems: you cannot have two plural verbs in the same sentence. You can say "Despite some of the differences in belief" or "despite some of the beliefs differing" but not "Despite some of the beliefs differences" because that's grammatically incorrect. And I would still like to see a consensus (majority opinion) formed on whether this sentence is appropriate and/or necessary. I'm still not convinced that either is the case. But I would like to hear from other editors regarding their thoughts, and I promise I will reserve final judgement on this sentence until the consensus decides.

Oh yes maybe you are more familiar with grammar rules than me since i don't speak English as a mother language, But that does not mean I can not editing (Language is not a barrier, and it's possible to improve the paragraph "grammatical problems"). Most of neutral studies show that Mormons believe their church is part of the Christian family and Most of the neutral statistics considered Mormons as Christians. Add this part is important. In some Christian churches such as the evangelical churches they don't consider Mormonism as part of Christianity. This point was mentioned in the second paragraph of the introduction in the article: "A prominent scholarly view[who?] is that Mormonism is a form of Christianity, but is distinct enough from traditional Christianity so as to form a new religious tradition, much as Christianity is more than just a sect of Judaism". So it must be mentioned the view of Mormonism, which consider the Mormons and Mormonism as part of Christianity. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life which is a reliable source, show that: Mormons are nearly unanimous in describing Mormonism as a Christian religion, with 97% expressing this point of view. And therefore it has been stated in the article the view that the Mormonism is a religion itself, separate from Christianity and you see that the part of Polls and attitudes show different statistics what other Christians think about moromons while no mention one statistics what mormons self-identify. Also it must be mentioned the other point of view that Mormonism is Christian stream and part of the Christian religion.--Jobas (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you on the point that Mormons are Christians. As a practicing Mormon, I view myself as very much a Christian. But I think that if you are not familiar with how English works, you should raise your concerns, then leave it with those of us who are familiar with English, to take care of this edit. I still say I want to see what the consensus (that's a majority of opinions) says about whether or not to include this sentence at all. It may not be necessary. The title of this article is "Mormonism and Christianity." So we need to allow others the chance to comment before a decision is made one way or the other about including or excluding this sentence from the article. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly, I haven't followed this discussion, or the original edit that brought it about, closely at all, but I am not sure I understand the edit's intent. I would be in the same general area that Jgstokes has noted above - trying to understand why the edit would be necessary. It would seem self-evident from the general intent of the article and assumed that Mormons identify as Christians. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Many Issues in this page

This page contains beliefs attributed to Mormonism that have either been denounced or are not officially sanctioned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It also contains claims that may simply be the opinion of the writers involved in making tis article. I understand that this article applies to all churches within Mormonism, but perhaps it should be narrowed to be only the LDS church, because otherwise the LDS church is portrayed as accepting many of the beliefs mentioned, which may not be the case. Here are some of the troublesome issues that I found:

"The Heavenly Father and Mother then gave birth to the spirits of humanity through a sexual union."

• This is not an orthodox view of the LDS church. They only accept the following:
  • The belief that God the Father has a physical body.
  • The belief that there exists a Heavenly Mother who also possesses a physical body.
  • The belief that our Heavenly Father and Mother together are capable of creating “spirit children.”

(Following comment added later: Vsmith (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC))

What is the difference between the first statement and your three separate statements? "The heavenly Father and Mother then gave birth" and "Heavenly Father and Mother together are capable of creating "spirit children." are the same! Also Christianity never mentions a Female God! God formed the world and Man alone and with breath of Life.(Stephen Giers (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The difference is in the reference to a "sexual union". The LDS Church does not have any position on how spirits are created, just that a Divine Mother and Father are involved. The term "sexual union" is used to add salaciousness to something about which the LDS have no claim.

"In Mormonism, by contrast, every god and human is equally a necessary being."

• This seems to convey the idea that Latter-day Saints put their importance as equal to God. This is not an accepted doctrine.

"Mormons believe that God is scrutable"

• This is misleading, as it seems to convey the idea that Latter-day Saints believe that God's nature can be deciphered without direct revelation from him.

"In contrast to early Mormons, modern Mormons generally reject the idea of original sin. The Fall of Man is viewed not as a curse but as an opportunity."

• While it is true that the fall is view in a more positive light by the LDS church, the church does believe that Adam "transgressed" when he partook of the fruit.

"Mormonism takes an extreme view of Christian perfection."

• The idea that this view is "extreme" seems to reflect the mindset of whoever put this phrase in there.

"Thus, Mormons believe that non-Mormon clergy have no heavenly authority and that sacraments performed by clergy of other faiths are of no effect in the eyes of God."

• While the LDS church does declare that the literal authority of the priesthood needed to be restored, this does not necessarily mean that non-Mormon clergy have no "heavenly authority" or that other religious sacraments are "of no effect in the eyes of God".

"Despite the book's importance to early Mormonism, early Mormons rarely quoted from the Book of Mormon in their speeches and writings." and "The book was not regularly cited in Mormon conferences until the 1980s"

• These are strong claims with little source support. I am not saying they aren't necessarily true, but they need to be more supported.

"Moreover, LDS Church publications and a few Mormon scholars have increasingly used the language of Nicene Christianity to describe the nature of God"

• This is an interesting claim. A survey of all the publications in the whole history of the LDS church is required to objectively make this claim. Also, I did just one search of the Journal of Discourses, and found this quote by Joseph F Smith:

"Faith in God is to believe that he is, and “that he is the only supreme governor and independent being, in whom all fullness and perfection and every good gift and principle dwells independently,” and in whom the faith of all other rational beings must center for life and salvation; and further, that he is the great Creator of all things, that he is omnipotent, omniscient, and by his works and the power of his Spirit omnipresent."

And this one by John Taylor:

"By the omnipotent, omniscient hand of the Almighty according to certain eternal laws that he has provided for man and for every creature that exists upon the face of the earth."

"Mormon engagement with broader Christianity" section

• This entire section has only three sources. This section may simply be the opinion of whoever edited it.

I have read a lot of LDS pages , but this one is one of the most biased that I think I have ever read. It has very little variety in its sources, most of them being from Hullinger and Alexander. There is tons of commentary in the sources, which is also biased. I will wait for a response to this section, but if I receive none, I will proceed to edit out many of the aforementioned issues with this page. By User:Jordanjlatimer. — Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I would agree that this article has some problematic issues and some POV statements that are not justified. However, I have a concern with cited material being removed. For instance, the statement "In Mormonism, by contrast, every god and human is equally a necessary being." is cited to a reliable source and it conforms to my understanding of Mormon teachings. (Essentially, it is derived from Joseph Smith's teachings that intelligences are co-eternal with God.) "[The Book of Mormon] was not regularly cited in Mormon conferences until the 1980s" is also a cited to a reliable source. I haven't checked all of the issues identified above--just these two--but the fact that they are both cited statements doesn't give me much confidence in believing that the items identified as problematic are as problematic as claimed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think that some of the sources claimed to be reliable may be "questionable sources". They seem to fit this description: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Of course, not all of the sources cited would fit this category. Your right though. I said that I would "edit out" the statements, but I incorrectly stated this. I would instead revise the statements and add sources to help strengthen the revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanjlatimer (talk • contribs) 08:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The quote about necessary beings is cited to Sterling McMullin's The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion, which is a reliable source and is not a questionable source. I am not familiar with the Reiss and Tickle source for the other quote I mentioned. Which particular sources that are used do you think are questionable? (The more I look at your criticisms, the more it looks to me like the statements you are criticizing are well cited and that you personally just disagree with the writers' characterizations. Our job here is not necessarily to present an "orthodox" view of Mormon doctrine (or a view that particular editors feel is orthodox), but rather to report what is written in the reliable sources on this topic.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Your right Good Olfactory. After looking into it more, I agree that Sterling McMullin is a reliable source. I think that I just had a problem with the way it was worded. I should focus more on adding reliable sources than getting rid of sources already there. Sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanjlatimer (talk • contribs) 21:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

In regard to the two sources, would there be a benefit to attributing them to their authors in-line? For example, "[Insert name and/or credentials here] identifies that in Mormonism 'every god and human is equally a necessary being.'" In my opinion this would remove the interpretation that the article is supporting a POV, and pass that support back to the referenced author. Dromidaon (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. It could get tedious if overdone, but I think for controversial characterizations is can be done. Or, the author doesn't even have to be named if it's in the footnote: e.g., "Mormonism has been characterized as ...". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"Mormons believe" is inherently misleading

The article has many statements of the form "Mormons believe this" or "Mormons believe that." Different Mormons—members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—believe different precepts about their church. An article on Mormonism and Christianity should compare and contrast the precepts of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the various other religions claiming to be Christian. It should not imply that all Mormons believe certain ways. For example, the article says, "Mormons consider their weekly Eucharist (the Sacrament) as a means of renewing their baptism and being repeatedly cleansed from sin." I am a Mormon, and I do not believe that. I believe that partaking of the Sacrament ordinance, when preceded by sincere repentance, cleanses me from sin through the power of the Atonement; it does not renew my baptism, but rather reminds me to obey my baptismal covenants—to obey Jesus's commandments. Frankly, I have seen no credible cites for any blanket "Mormons believe ..." statement. Better would be statements about modern LDS doctrine with cites to modern LDS authorities. DavidForthoffer (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Rather than statements of "Mormons believe...", I think it's generally better to simply state what particular churches teach. "The LDS Church teaches..." would probably be much better. I think the particular example you cite is very close to hair splitting, but as you say it's probably easier to avoid such issues just by finding sources that report on what the LDS Church teaches. There's also the added complexity that fundamentalist Mormons believe and teach quite a few things that mainstream Mormons would not agree with. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"Mormonism and Christianity" seems to be a lie saying Mormons aren't Christians.

As stated above, some Christians think that Mormons are not Christians, and some think that they are. The first sentence in this article establishes the point of view that Wikipedia does not accept that Mormons are Christians. If the article is not intended to side with the point of view that Mormons are not Christians, it should not do this. That section should be removed, otherwise Wikipedia's being biased instead of informative. KellyLeighC (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the overall point is that Mormonism is a form of religion that is unlike most other Christian groups. Whether it is or is not part of Christianity depends solely on how one defines "Christianity". I don't see how an article can be written about this topic, though, without just crudely labeling one set of beliefs as "Mormonism" and other sets as "Christianity". If we fail to do this, then the purpose of the article and the overall topic becomes rather meaningless. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If a religion wishes to be considered in a group the basic beliefs need to be adhered to and accepted, not abridged! The LDS church is not Christian! Never has been and Joseph Smith called all Religions False and not a representation of Jesus Christ! Now they wish to be a Part of Christianity to be more Acceptable and they don't accept the Trinity, Or Jesus's saving grace alone, they qualifies it with Works and in the introduction to The Book of Mormon it says "All who come to him, Jesus Christ, AND obey the laws and ordinances of his gospel may be saved". This is not Christian! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Giers (talk • contribs) 11:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Added -

This article as well as the comment above take a very narrow definition of Christianity, apparently an Evangelical Protestant one, and ignores the various practices and beliefs in other branches of Traditional Christianity. Example:

In the opening paragraph the article states "Mormons practice baptism and celebrate the Eucharist, but they also participate in religious rituals not practiced by traditional Christianity." The article then later says "Mormonism takes an extended view of Christian perfection,[85] asserting that through the grace of Jesus, Mormons may become perfectly sanctified and thereby literally become gods or achieve a state known as exaltation.[86] To achieve exaltation, Mormons must remain obedient to the teachings of Jesus, receive all the ordinances or Sacraments, which includes baptism, confirmation, receiving the Melchizedek priesthood (for males), the temple endowment, and being sealed to one's spouse.[39] To "make sure" the election of believers, Smith introduced a second anointing ritual,[87] whose participants, upon continued obedience, we're sealed to exaltation."

Issue 1 - The article makes it sound like the second anointing is a required saving ordinance. This is not the case. Very little is known for certain about the actual practice of it and it isn't generally practiced in the LDS Church today.

Issue 2 - This article appears to imply that baptism and the Eucharist are the only rituals practiced in traditional Christianity and that other Mormon rituals have no link to rituals from other branches of Christianity. This is patently false and cannot be used to differentiate Mormonism from Christianity as a whole, only from specific branches of Christianity such as Evangelical Protestantism. All of the Mormon saving Ordinances/Sacraments are directly linked to the Sacraments of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, along with the Copts, Armenians, Syriac, and others. Baptism and Confirmation are obvious ones. Mormon Initiatory Rites are generally the same as Chrismation combined with elements of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Baptismal rites that aren't included in Mormon Baptism and Confirmation. Receiving the Priesthood and the Temple Endowment combine to constitute what Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would recognize as entry into the Holy Orders and Monastic Vows/Initiations. The basic ritual of the endowment follows the same general pattern as a number of Eastern Orthodox Monastic Order's initiation rites. Monastic initiations vary widely throughout Christianity, so differences in the Mormon equivalent cannot be considered disqualifying for Christian status. Sealing to the spouse (aka eternal marriage) is also practiced in the Eastern Orthodox Church, where marriage is considered a sacrament whose implications are eternal. The rituals and rites within Christianity as a whole are many and varied, both in purpose and practice, but the article seems to completely ignore or simply be unaware of this diversity and of Mormon sacramental correlations with other branches of Christianity.

Issue 3 - The article seems to suggest that Mormons are distinct from Christianity for believing that their ordinances/sacraments are necessary for salvation. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches also view at least some of the sacraments as being required for salvation

Issue 4 - "Obedience to Jesus" is a fairly normal Christian belief, and the idea that it is required for salvation is not a distinct or different belief. That's why Catholics, Mormons, and Eastern Orthodox have repentance and confession. They failed to obey Jesus, and so practitioners of these faiths believe they need to correct it with the help of the proper ecclesiastical authority.

Issue 5 - "Mormonism takes an extended view of Christian perfection,[85] asserting that through the grace of Jesus, Mormons may become perfectly sanctified and thereby literally become gods or achieve a state known as exaltation." Christian Divinization / Theosis / Human Deification, about which there is a lengthy Wikipedia article which includes Mormonism in its list of Christian believers, is not unique to Mormonism. It's part of the catechism of the Catholic Church, which quotes St. Athanasius and says "The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods" and "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." The Eastern Orthodox Churches hold it as a central tenet and teach it openly. The Westminster Dictionary of Christianity as quoted in the Wikipedia article on Divinization reads:

"Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is 'made in the image and likeness of God.' ... It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both OT and NT (e.g. Ps. 82 (81).6; II Peter 1.4), and it is essentially the teaching both of St Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption (cf. Rom. 8.9—17; Gal. 4.5—7), and the Fourth Gospel (cf. 17.21—23)."

The Mormon view of Christian perfection is not extended beyond the bounds of Traditional Christianity. It's simply foreign to the article's understanding of Christianity. To become like God, to become God by the grace of Christ is a fairly common Christian Teaching outside of Protestantism.

The article also states: "Though Mormons consider the Bible as scripture, they do not believe in biblical inerrancy. They have also adopted additional scriptures, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price." -The problem here is that biblical inerrancy is not a central tenet of Christianity. It is, in fact, a somewhat controversial position and is not held by the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Churches or even by all Protestant Churches. -The assertion that Mormons believe in additional scriptures outside of the "Biblical Cannon" and therefore they aren't Christians begs the question of whose Cannon is being used as the standard. Even the briefest perusal of the Wikipedia entry on the Biblical Cannon will indicate that "The New Testament canons of the Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Egyptian Coptic and Ethiopian Churches all have minor differences". The Eastern Orthodox Bible doesn't contain The Book of Revelation, and the Ethiopian cannon contains the Book of Enoch, which isn't accepted as Cannon in any other Christian Churches (except a different version which exists as a section of the Book of Moses in the Mormon's Pearl of Great Price). The Catholic Church accepts 1st and 2nd Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy, Song of the Three Children, Story of Susanna, The Idol Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses, and 1st and 2nd Maccabees. None of which are considered canonical by mainstream Protestantism or Mormonism. The Catholic cannon was being modified up into the 1600s. There are many different cannons in Christianity around the world, so the presence of additional unique texts in the Mormon cannon is not a distinction from the rest of Christianity. There is no standard Christian Cannon.

All of the information above is readily available and thoroughly cited in other Wikipedia Articles about Mormonism and about each of these individual topics. By asserting that Mormonism is distinct from Christianity, this article contradicts the rest of Wikipedia, which discusses and lists Mormonism as a branch of Christianity.

Most of the distinctions listed are largely differences between Mormonism and specific branches of Christianity, in particular Evangelical Protestantism. The article ignores the variety and diversity of thought, dogma, scripture, and practice within greater Christianity. This article would be better titled "Mormonism and Evangelical Protestantism", as that is a more valid representation of the scope of the Article.

Otherwise, as others have pointed out, it misrepresents, or just plain messes up descriptions of Mormon belief and practice. This article needs to be edited to reflect actual Mormon dogma and practice and retitled to reflect the narrow scope of the comparison (Mormonism and Evangelical Protestantism). The current title is unworkable because it implies that Mormonism isn't a branch of Christianity, which contradicts the other Wikipedia articles discussing both Mormonism specifically and Christianity as a whole. It also neglects to mention the fact that Mormonism is recognized as a branch of Christianity by a number of other Christian Churches. Catholic Theologian Stephen Webb has an entire book titled "Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn From the Latter-day Saints", which discusses Mormonism as a young and vital branch of Christianity and discusses the ancient roots of a lot of Mormon beliefs and practices and how they relate to Catholicism.

In short, this article needs some serious work, as it misrepresents both Mormonism and Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.81.103.36 (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, "some"

Let's be honest. Ask a represntative cross-section in the U.S. (or any country with a large number of Christians) of people who self-identify as Christian whether LDS is Chrisitan. The vast majority - not "some" - will answer "no". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.145.227 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

And your source verifying that claim would be...what now? There was a time when the CHristianity of Mormonism was questioned. But as the sources state, most agree that Mormons are Christians. For Pete's sake! Christ is even in the actual name of the "Mormon" Church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Unless you can cite a source that counters the information contained in this article, it is just your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to, however erroneous it might be. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's a source: The Barna Group Survey Shows That Only 4 Out Of 10 Christian Respondents Consider Mormons To Be Christian

"[1,871 self-described Christians] were asked whether they believed that Mormons are Christians. Mormons themselves claim to be Christian, but most evangelical leaders say that they are not. There was no clear-cut perspective among the self-described Christians: four out of ten felt Mormons were Christian (18% strongly agreed, 21% somewhat agreed), three out of ten disagreed (17% strongly, 12% somewhat), and three out of ten were not sure what to think."

Actually, this response startled me. My guess is a large number of mainstream or nominal Christians are included as it's survey base is "self-described" as opposed to, say, "active church-going Christians."

I surmise the reason for lack of citations, is the fact that reformed, fundamental, or evangelical Christians would even consider Mormonism to be Christian is laughable. The mere addition of the Book of Mormon violates Sola Scriptura which is a key tenant of Protestantism.

We could probably dig up a thousand sermons, lectures, blog postings, etc. from evangelic leaders speaking out against Mormonism. If you require sources to support the widely known, then let's look the SBC, the largest denomination in the US; what do they say on this subject. Cpflieger (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The official view of the Catholic Church on Mormonism is that it's not Christians. The official view of most mainstream Christian denominations is that Mormonism is not Christian. Thephilosopher6 (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

apostle's creed

Shouldn't the whole issue of "Christian" come down to if you believe the appostle's creed you're a christian if you don't your something else. 69.143.114.80 (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The Apostle's Creed is one but one creed defining orthodox Christianity. Among other things, it does not address Christ's divinity nor the Trinity, both of which are essential Christian doctrines, none of which are not shared by the Latter Day Saints. Cpflieger (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Because this is not a religious or sectarian wiki, in general it comes down to secular/scholarly reliable sources, the vast majority of which place Mormonism within Christianity. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved for some time. I highly doubt you have a new set of sources (excluding anything from the LDS) that changes the current wisdom. The term "vast majority" should not be used lightly. Cpflieger (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious what you think is the current guidance on WP relative to this question? What I've been working off of is summed up here, which is reflected in Christianity-related lists and categories across WP, but I'd be interested to know if there was another decision somewhere else. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. My real life job is in academia, and in my areas of study I read quite a bit about the Latter Day Saint movement and other new religious movements. I think that it is fair to say that the "vast majority" of neutral, academic sources place Mormonism and the greater Latter Day Saint movement within Christianity – specifically, within the larger Restoration Movement. No one – except some non-secular writers – uses the Apostle's Creed as the litmus test for what is in and what is out. The general practice within academia is that self-identification plays a much more important role in classification than any standard or test that is formulated by Christian adherents. In other words, if a group claims to be Christian, academics generally take that at face value and treat it as such, creating a new classification stream of Christianity, if necessary. But most groups easily fall within pre-existing streams, and Mormonism is no different. The Restoration Movement stream has been around now for over 200 years. (This is also one of the reasons that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is now widely regarded as a Protestant denomination – because the Seventh-day Adventist Church self-identifies as such. This is the case even though there are many Protestants who would like to exclude that church from this classification.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Does any of this discuss relate to actual article or is it simply a matter, "yes they are!", "no they aren't". My point is the article is what it is an does not require adjustment. The article should reflect and identify all points of view in a neutral way without slighting any one group. LDS says they're in, Academics say they're in, Evangelicals say they're out. Fine, there's plenty of sources for all of those POVs and that's the point of the article.

I don't think any more discussion is warranted, nor any change to article in question. Cpflieger (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not unuseful to have this discussion documented every once in awhile, since it tends to come up so often in relation to this page and a number of others, and in general categorization issues on Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)