Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

The Bible versus The Book of Mormon

All right. So there's an article on both mormonisim and christianity. It's been said they don't belong together in the same article. Let's see if that's true: LDVM

This is an hour-long streaming video, best seen in broadband --Mdoc7 04:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a dial-up connection version of streaming video is available via link there. --Mdoc7 04:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Other conversation

Oh, one note, Storm Rider. Please don't make these caricatures of mainstream Christianity ("mostly they take the stance... going to burn in hell"). That statement sounds like the Mormon equivalent of "anti-Mormon" rhetoric. There are some extremist fundamentalist Christian minorities that are obnoxious just as there are extremists like the FLDS. Most official church statements (both mainstream and Mormon) just simply say the equivalent of "We agree to disagree". --RelHistBuff 08:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Rel, I realize that I have been more coarse than you would prefer. However, I have always tried to be truthful. I have known, learned from, taught, and conversed with many ministers of many denominations within Christianity. The vast majority of them I hold in high esteem and generally, in a one-on-one conversation, they will unfailingly come to the conclusion that LDS are Christian and have the possibility of going to heaven. Additionally, I have always found men and women of God worthy of the appelation of "true disciple".

Conversely, I am also quite aware of the teachings of the majority of mainline or historic Christainity; Mormons are not Christian, do not know the Jesus of the New Testatment, and most ceratainly are going to hell. To attempt to soften that stance is diplomatic, but borders on being dishonest. I would be very interested in seeing any reference material from a mainstream denomination that says LDS have every bit the chance of going to heaven as their own members; but I believe that search would be fruitless. As long as a LDS stays a LDS they are outside of the power of the Atonement of the Savior.

I also think the hardest point made was against the LDS church. While they have made attempts to explain themselves and correct massive amounts of misinformation, it is hard fact that they do not participate in any ecumenical movement in the sense of reconciling with other Christian churches; to have one body of Christ. That is a foreign concept for the LDS church. They will promote understanding, but they see themselves as the restored church of Jesus Christ. They may seek common ground in identifying truth between groups, they will identify truths in other churches, but for LDS there is only one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In case you want it there is also some who say that the official attempts towards reconciliation with denominations from historical Christianity goes against the best interest of the LDS Church - see "No Man's Land": The Place of Latter-day Saints in the Culture War by BYU law professor Gedicks from Brigham Young University Studies, 33, no. 3 (1999), pp 145-62 [PDF version. --Trödel 15:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's true that most mainstream denominations will note the differences between the churches, but most would not explicitly say "you're going to hell". In general they would say that decision is God's alone. Of course, other statements they make concerning doctrine might implicitly imply the rather strong statement. This will, unfortunately, lead to a conclusion that appears offensive. But that is solely due to the doctrinal differences between the two movements. And I guess to remain civil about it, everyone leaves it quietly at that, i.e., they just say "We have differences and we list them here." Adding anymore details to that statement leads to accusations and condemnations which serves no useful purpose.

Getting back to COGDEN's point about ecumenism, I agree with you, Storm Rider, I believe there is no evidence of ecumenical moves on both sides (with the exception of the CoC). But I think his suggested (and now edited) statement is OK to put back into the lead section. Is it OK with you? RelHistBuff 11:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"We agree to disagree." RelHistBuf- I will not agree to that!  :-) --Mdoc7 06:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Independent ecumenical activities

In the absence of official-level ecumenical activities and in light of keeping NPOV, I have replaced the LDS section which really covered shared social work and public relations with a new section titled "Independent activities". It notes that there are no official activities of ecumenism, but adds some individuals on both sides who are working in the area. In the footnotes I noted two activities. RelHistBuff 10:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ceremonies

Concerning the changes, I had taken out the apologetic argument because the tone of this article was not to convince the other that one's position is right. The idea was to show the differences in how each tradition view their ceremonies. If there is an inbalance in the treatment of the current section, then let's work on it to make it neutral rather than bringing in apologetics. RelHistBuff 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning that Mormon's feel it was part of the church at Christ's time is appropriate - I tried to take out the apologetic type argument from the addition when I restored it - perhaps you might make a run at it that would better fit the tone. --Trödel 17:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Going in that direction, especially quoting stuff from FAIR, is opening a can of worms. Apologetics go both ways; one side tries to show from scripture or from history that their side is defensible, then the other side tries to do the same. And there are plenty of apologists on both sides that can act as references. Better is what is done in the next paragraph on vicarious ordinances ("in the spirit world...") which simply explains why Mormons perform these ordinances rather then "defending" vicarious ordinances. Could it be stated that way? RelHistBuff 21:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

RelHistBuff & Trödel, you seem to be going back and forth over the secret/sacred cermonies of temples in the LDS church veresus the supposedly completely open ceremonies of of mainstream Christian groups. First of all, none of the ceremonies in LDS temples have comparable ceremonies in other churches; they simply do not have a corollary. I think trying to make a comparison between the two is an apples and oranges comparaison. I think it is appropriate to state that the LDS temple ceremonies are held sacred and that LDS do not easily discuss them. In fact, they convenant to keep them sacred and not to discuss them. However, the internet is rife with websites that reveal the entire ceremonies; making the claim they are secret is misleading because they are so many sources for the information. If you feel it absolutely necessary to discuss ceremonies then one should also state that all comprable ceremonies in the LDS church are also open to the public at large. Does this recommendation make sense? Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Except for one: Marriage/sealing are comparable ceremonies. It could be argued that marriages performed outside of the temples (by a bishop, or other LDS clergy) are as public as others and this is the comparable ceremony. But the majority of LDS-to-LDS marriages do occur in the temple. (No I don't have a citation for this.) I agree with your sentiment though. And other than this one nitpick, with the way that you said it too. Val42 23:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

One more item for consideration - the temple ceremonies are not to be recorded or broadcast, shared, etc. outside of the temple. However, the Church Handbook gives the same counsel regarding patriarchal blessings: "is very sacred and personal" (remember President Faust's "dont' share your patriarchal blessing, its sacred" talk a few years back?) [1]. It also gives the exact same guidlines for sacrament meetings (no recording), baptisms, confirmations and every other church ordinance and church service (father's blessings excluded).

There has been a long-standing church policy that those who are present for ordinances are the only ones who should experience them. It is not that the ordinances or the words are secret, it is that spiritual experiences are to remain sacred and undiscussed unless appropriate to do so (again, remember Elder Oaks "the Lord doesn't reveal things to those who blab" talk in the 90s or Elder Packer's and President McKay's don't ask us if we've seen Christ as if we have, and president mckay stated he had, we shouldn't discuss it unless we are authorized to do so).

And there have been changes to how priesthood ordinances, such as confirmations, were worded over the past 175 years, so change is not the issue.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that "the church discourages the discussing or reporduction of all ordinances, as they are considered sacred. This includes ordinances at a chapel or church setting, at a temple and also patriarchal blessings. Multiple ordinances, including those in the temple and confirmations, have undgone change since the church's founding in 1830."

Thoughts? -Visorstuff 17:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Some history: the original text of this section only covered baptism for the dead. I then expanded it to include other ceremonies. The original version of that last bit about the secrecy of LDS ceremonies caused a problem. It was really POVish, the usual polemic attack on the LDS. I tried to make it neutral and less prone to fighting on both sides. If someone could come up with a better formulation that is less objectionable on both sides, that would be great. The info about the type that you two presented is good. It would need to be balanced by the something from the historic Christianity side about why they find secrecy controversial. I don't know why myself so this would need a bit of research. RelHistBuff 22:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph could focus on sacredness and how all Christians treat the sacred. Some examples, St. Benrnadette did not reveal all of her message from the virgin Mary; in fact, I don't think any of the Marian visionaries revealed everything Mary told them. We need to find a reference for how the sacred is treated by some of the more notable theologians (a little reserach is needed). Then introduce specifically how the sacred is treated by Latter-day Saints, which is then expanded into the temple ceremonies. I think it would be very appropriate to state that those who don't participate in LDS temple ceremonies are perplexed by the strict covenant/code of silence (secretiveness) they perceive of these ceremonies. This is a difficult subject because I honestly do not think they are secret (for the reasons stated above), but we as LDS do not talk about the temple except in general terms. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Propose article split

As it is, it's too much of a mish-mash of different opinions. This article needs to be broken up into pieces, vaugely along these lines:

• "Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity" - an article that covers the relationship between other denomionations and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
• "Restorationism and Mainstream Christianity" - an article that covers the relationship between Restorationists and mainstream Christians.
• "The RLDS and Mainstream Christianity" - an article covering the Community of Christ, the Restoration Branches, the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and any other groups that descend from the 1860s RLDS movement's relationship with mainstream christianity.

The specific wording in those article titles might not work, but the way it is now puts way too many churches in the same category. --BenMcLean 19:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect there are pros and cons for keeping the topics under one article and breaking the article into three separate articles. I think it would certainly be easier to have an article where just the LDS church and other Christian churches are discussed. It would simplify all the "yes, but" type of statements. However, I also think that those unfamiliar with Latter Day Saint movment's history might be thrown off by not finding one article. It would not surprise me to find Mormon individuals upset about their group not being mentioned in the LDS article. If there is a vote, I would agree with breaking the article into separate articles.

Isn't the Restorationist branch a sect of the RLDS/CofC church? This is a relatively small group of people. If we are going to give them a separate article then I guess it would also be appropriate to provide a separate article for the FLDS group(s).

I continue to struggle with the title, but do not yet have an alternative to propose. The current titles are POV because the language suggests that there Mormonism is not a Christian relgion. I think the intent is to draw an appropriate distinction between historical/mainstream/orthodox Christianity and the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"I think it would certainly be easier to have an article where just the LDS church and other Christian churches are discussed. It would simplify all the "yes, but" type of statements." - Yes definately! That is pretty much the heart of what I am saying.

"It would not surprise me to find Mormon individuals upset about their group not being mentioned in the LDS article." I think it was my mistake to not mention them. I expect that the FLDS relationship with mainstream Christianity is probably different from the LDS relationship.

"The current titles are POV because the language suggests that there Mormonism is not a Christian relgion." Under NPOV, Wikipedia should presumably remain neutral on the question of whether or not Mormonism is a Christian religion. I also think it should recognize the fact that the RLDS and some other groups are Latter Day Saints but do not believe in the essential doctrines of Mormonism, and that the RLDS has had a different relationship with mainstream Christianity than the LDS has. --BenMcLean 20:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the total information here on the RLDS is quite small. If they get separated off, the bulk of the original article will be fine, but the RLDS article would be small. I am not belittling the RLDS and there may be an argument for a separate article for the RLDS. But for the moment, I think the RLDS is perfectly fine here. They have a shared history and origins with the LDS, they share at least two extra-biblical scriptures, and they both believe in continuous revelation. Again, I suspect the problem is with the title, not with the content. To truly match the content with the title, I guess the best (albeit unwieldy) title would be "Latter Day Saint movement and mainstream Christianity". I would be for a title change but against the splitting of the article. RelHistBuff 08:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was founded in 1830. Joseph Smith Jr. was shot in 1844. The schism between the RLDS and the LDS occured shortly afterwards. The RLDS and the LDS may have 14 years of shared origins but also have about 160 years of seperate history.

Furthermore, the LDS's "two extra-biblical scriptures" are not shared with the RLDS. They both use different versions of the Book of Mormon, (I've had trouble finding LDS references in my RLDS book) and the LDS and RLDS Doctrine and Covenants are not only different versions but actually totally different books written and edited by totally different people.

Also, the two churches are fundamentally different on many basic fundamental questions of theology. Many people have remarked that the Community of Christ and Restoration Branches factions have more in common with the Baptists theologically than they do with the LDS Mormons.

"and they both believe in continuous revelation." Lots of churches believe that, whether they're Latter Day Saint, Catholic, Protestant or some other unheard-of category. Continuous revelation is the only logical conclusion of Biblical Christianity. You might be a Christian and not believe in continous revelation but you wouldn't be a Biblical Christian. (i.e. a Christian who believes in the Bible literally)

One interesting thing about the relationship between the RLDS and mainstream Christianity is the automatic assumption people make that if you believe in the Book of Mormon, you must be a Mormon. This is not so. People often get the two churches confused and say that the RLDS believes a number of things that the LDS believes but the RLDS doesn't. --BenMcLean 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Respect

"the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has maintained a strict policy throughout it's history as an organization of respecting the beliefs of others". How can this statement possibly be justified from an organization that frequently and systematically attempts to convert mainstream Christians from their beliefs to Mormonism? DJ Clayworth 20:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

DJ, you seem to assume that if one follows the Great Commission then one must disrespect those whom you teach. Men do not convert others, but rather the Holy Spirit converts/convicts one to the truth. LDS are doing nothing more than following the dictates of Jesus Christ.

Some of the reasons the statement is correct is the following:

1. From the very beginning of the church Mormons respected others. After having been persecuted and been cast out of their homes in Missouri, Mormons built the city of Nauvoo. The city ordinance Mormons upheld and published in this city was: "As to the city ordinances we have passed all such as we deemed necessary for the peace, welfare and happiness of the inhabitants, whether Jew or Greek, Mohammedan, Roman Catholic, Latter-day Saint or any other, that they all worship God according to their own conscience, and enjoy the rights of American freemen." All religions were welcomed and were safe to worship as they chose. A very different environment from every other place where Mormons previously attempted to worship.
2. Joseph Smith taught the saints the Great Commission in the following manner: “Go in all meekness, in sobriety, and preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified; not to contend with others on account of their faith, or systems of religion, but pursue a steady course." This was the counsel given before missionaries were sent forth from Kirtland, Ohio, 30 March 1836. Can you think of a better message to preach?
3. Latter-day Saints do not distinguish between peoples of the world. Mormons believe they have the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and seek out all those who are willing to listen. Being practical, those who have a "home" are not interested in talking with missionaries while those without a spiritual home are willing to listen and at times convert to the Church. You feel that LDS are wrong to seek out and teach those that feel homeless. I think if you will reflect on the New Testament you will see that the early apostles spent considerable effort to committ and recommitt Christians.

I suspect the real issue that you have DJ is that you are convinced LDS are not Christian and therefore are converting others to something else. I believe the LDS people are doing what they feel is proper and directed by God in the New Testament. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The point I was making is that the article, when I wrote the above, described the same approach in two entirely different ways. LDS were described as 'respectful of other faiths', in that they treated all other faiths alike and tried to convert them to Mormonism. However when it started talking about Christians the fact the Christians would also try to proselytise Mormons was presented as a criticism. In fact the two approaches are identical, and the mount of repect for each other's faith appears to be identical. So really we need to neutralise the language used here. DJ Clayworth 15:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC) It seems that all the sources you cite are all LDS sources. Obviously LDs sources are going to call LDS practices 'respectful'. Some more bala

Marian tradition and Heavenly Mother

There has been a section that includes a paragraph on LDS views of Heavenly Mother. As tenuous as LDS doctrine is on the issue---she is acknowledged, but there is no teaching, no clarification, etc.---it seemed necessary to include it. However, what has been missing is a corresponding and far more clarified position of Marian adoration. I barely touched on the subject and I request that those with a deeper understanding and more eloquent "pen" enlarge on the teaching. I find some similarities between the two teachings and it would help readers to better distinguish between these teachings. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

RelHistBuff, you removed all of my edits without any explanation as to why. First, Heavenly Mother plays no role in LDS concept of the nature of God and yet it has been placed in the section. From the outside, non-Christian world, the orthodox veneration of Mary seems very close to worshpping Mary and is easily confused with the perception of her being the "Queen of Heaven". How is someone a Queen of Heaven and not be part of the nature of God. Hopefully you see my point, that both positions are without merit, but should be explained int he article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There are huge differences between the position of Mary and the Heavely Mother. In the first place it is explicitly stated that Mary is a created woman; that she is not divine and not worshipped. If you are writing an encyclopedia you can't say "it looks to me like she is". You need to go and check facts an understand the actual situation. Likewise, if you can't answer the question "How is someone a Queen of Heaven and not be part of the nature of God" then you need to go and read up on the subject. For your information, the short answer is that Mary is given the title (or role) of Queen of Heaven. You don't have to be a God to be a Queen. DJ Clayworth 15:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Value judgements

Today I made several edits and deleted a few value judgements. The purpose of this article is not to write a religious tract; a very difficult proposition for all invovled. I believe we more closely adhere to NPOV policy by simply stating facts and letting readers decide about differences, etc. Our purpose to not make value judgements, but simply to write and let readers decide if there is a difference. Thoughts? Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional Books

The reason it is important to differentiate between those that believe in the Apocrapha and those who don't is the presence of this statement:

these additional scriptures, and their derived doctrines is what defines the Latter Day Saint movement to be uniquely different from historic Christianity.

Uniquely different is a value judgement. Within historical Christianity there is not a set canon; one group believes there are more inspired books of scripture and the other says there is not. This is a significant issue and should not just be glossed over particularly when discussing canon. Mormons believe there are even more books of scripture. "Unique" is not quite the word to adequately describe the differences. What is unique is the Mormons believe that the canon is not closed. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather than reverting the text (as well as other changes), I would suggest reverting only what is contested. As a suggested improvement, perhaps we can add text about the open canon of Mormonism and also the word "uniquely" can be dropped. But the statement (without "uniquely"), "these additional scriptures, and their derived doctrines is what defines the Latter Day Saint movement to be different from historic Christianity" is not just a value judgment. What else would differentiate the two other than the different scriptures and derived doctrines?

Using the Apocrypha as a similiar situation only confuses the issue. The Apocrypha did not cause the signature differentiation between Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism. The causes of the separations are many. One could mention many controversies like filioque, sola fides, Sacred Tradition, etc., but the Apocrypha is not a major cause. RelHistBuff 22:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We have no disagreement about the divers differences within historic Christianity. However, the focus of the section is additional scripture and the Apocrypha plays a role in that discussion. It would be one-sided to focus only on additional LDS books of scripture without identifying the diversity of scripture within all of Christiandom. To do so begins to appear POV and polemic.

Although I think this is an important issue, the main difference is that historic Chrisitianity believes the heavens are closed, canon is closed, and there will be no further books of scripture. LDS believe the heavens remain open, the canon remains open, and God continues to speak through prophets. Having said this I think we both would acknowledge that within orthodoxy there is a finer distinction, i.e. sola scriptura is not fully endorsed.

I take your request and will comply. I would also request that when I have edited something and explained my edits on the discussion page that you respect those edits and discuss your reasons and come to an agreement prior to reverting and/or changing them. To simply reverse them again wihtout any discussion appears like only your position is worthy for the article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I edited your text. I know that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church accepts the Didache (and I believe the Shepherd of Hermas). I thought at first that the other branches of Orthodoxy also accepted them, but that doesn't seem to be clear. What is your source that the Orthodox and Protestants have different canons other than the apocrypha? RelHistBuff 09:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree regarding the EO, but I do not think that acceptance is found throughout orthodoxy. There is a broad array of canon within Christiandom. There are groups that only recognize the four gospels. It may be helfpul to briefly describe that the definition of canon is somewhat fluid within Christianity, but I am not aware of any other group that admits an open canon existing as Mormons teach. Would you like to take the first swing at introducing this concept? Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In the development of the canon, there was a certain fluidity and yes, even now there are groups that have different canons (descendants of Marcionism or Gnostics). But these groups are tiny and they don’t accept the Nicene Creed in any case. In regards to the three main branches of historic Christianity discussed in this article (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant), the canon is now stable. Rather than reinventing the wheel, what I have done is to refer to other wiki articles that discuss the differences of the canon as well as the history of the development of the canon. In regards to the New Testament, there is basically agreement (except for the Ethiopian Orthodox). I modified the final sentence of the section adding a parenthetical element noting the open canon of Mormonism and dropping the word “uniquely”. RelHistBuff 09:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would again agree with you regarding the main groups. The fluidity of which I was speaking was across broader Christianity; we find a broad range of accepted canon. I am not sure that all would meet the standard of being nonTrinitarian.

Rel, would you mind giving a once-over to the Book of Mormon article and make comments? That article needs some NPOV attention and I would appreciate your assistance. Thanks. Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the objection to calling Mormons or Latter Day Saints "unique" ... they are unique. They might not be the only ones who believe in "additional books" but they are the only ones who believe in a specific set of "additional books" --BenMcLean 20:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben, I don't disagree with you and your statement above; however, the context of the paragraph is that Latter Day Saints are unique because they have a different canon. That would be an erroneous statement. Within broader Christianity there is a range of accepted canon. There is no such thing as mainstream Christianity with one specific canon, if there were it would be much easier to claim Mormons are different because of canon. Mormons are different or unique because of vaious beliefs. One point that could be made is that all of the existing canon in Christianity comes from the old world (in and around ancient Israel), Mormons are the only Christian group that purports having a new set of scriptures from the ancient inhabitants of the new world. Regarding "unique", does my explanation make sense? Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah OK now I understand. I thought you were saying "Latter Day Saints are unique" by itself wasn't a fair statement --BenMcLean 23:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We are falling here into the trap of ignoring degrees. There is a certain amount of disagreement about canon within mainstream Christianity, but frankly it is tiny. It basically boils down to the status of the apocrypha. The Mormon case is completely different, adding an entirely different set of books, not recognised by anyone else, and which they claim is the correct way of 'interpreting' the other books. There certainly is such a thing as mainstream Christianity, and it does indeed accept a specific canon, with some slight variations. DJ Clayworth 15:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

But basically it is the same argument. Mormons believe that any prophet inspierd of God can write a book that is scripture. Looked at logically, why should mesopotamia, egypt, greece and so forth be so much more important than the americas that the don't even get thier own scriptures. And, if I am correct, that is the same belief that seperates those who do and don't believe in the apocrypha.

Fundamentally, the issue is that LDS believe in prophets; they are as important today as they were in the time of Moses, Isaiah, and Peter's day. There is one source of truth and that is God. LDS further believe that there will be other books of scripture to be revealed. These will come, we assume, from other civilizations and peoples of the earth.

On a personal level, it is always suprising that we assume that God only inspired Jews and did not speak to any other people.

Also, the difference between those who believe in the Apocrypha and those who don't is not insignificant; that divide is just as large as the divide in accepting any other books of scripture. Added scripture is added scripture; it is hard to make anything else. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarity needed

I found these two sentences next to each other: "God the Father ... is the only God worshipped by Mormons; Christ, as the mediator between mortals and the Father, is worshipped as Lord and Savior." However I also find that Christ is God. So is he a God, but not worshipped as one? If so then the first sentence needs to be changed to reflect this subtle difference. DJ Clayworth 15:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Trinity/Not Trinity

In the current version of the 'Nature of God' section it majors heavily on the Mormon view of Godhead vs Trinitarian. Yet I would find it hard to slide a piece of paper between the current description of the Mormon view of the Godhead and the Trinitarian view. Could someone more knowledgeable about the Mormon view please write something that explains where Mormonism differs from Trinitarianism? DJ Clayworth 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is another issue that would be resolved by splitting the article. The RLDS and other churches don't agree with the LDS view of the Godhead. --BenMcLean 23:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, lets start by restricting the discussion to the LDS. It still remains that from the description of the Gdhead given here, it's pretty much impossible to find an actual difference in belief between LDS and regular Trinitarian Christianity. Surely someone who reads this article understands enough to explain how they are different? Of course if they were not life would beome a lot easier. If LDS would acknowledge that the Trinitarian view of God is in fact correct then that would go a good way towards reconciliations between the churches. DJ Clayworth 18:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason why it's so hard to make a clear line between the two views is that it's not a cut and dry thing and there are a lot of touching points where the two theologies mesh very well. The trouble is, it's rarely presented that way by prominent anti-Mormon polemics organizations. They only seem interested in presenting the most sensational material available at the expense of objectivity and historicity. It is a pattern I see repeatedly, and one that I feel is totally inconsistent with the mandate of a true follower of Christ. We must be honest and fair at the very least. I see very little of honesty or fairness in many of the attacks I've read about the LDS Church. I've found that every time an issue is brought up (DNA, the origins of the Book of Abraham), it is immediately presented as a "death blow" to Mormonism only to be refuted some time later by additional discoveries of Science or scholarship (the Spaulding Manuscript issue is one example ~ and there are still anti-mormon writers who bring it up, despite the evidence against it having anything to do with the Book of Mormon!). Scholars can be wrong, they can make mistakes. Science is constantly evolving and changing it's mind. I'm not going to put my faith or eternal future in those hands ('Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh the flesh his arm' Jeremiah 17:5 , 2 Nephi 28:31). It is only by revelation, spirit to spirit communication, that a man can know God. The experience of God will put the most erudite of philosophers to shame. (okay that's the end of my rant :-) If any of you have wondered about the legitamacy of the most common attacks on Mormonism (including the DNA and Book of Abraham issues) some good places to debunk most of them are www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ,http://www.fairlds.org/ fairlds.org],shields-research.org,and BYU's FARMS organization). On the Godhead issue, I've tried to make this distinction more clear by correcting the description of the Godhead from an LDS perspective. I've tried not to be too wordy and to respect your wish to focus on the differences, but we're talking about the Nature of God here :-) In order to get an accurate understanding of the complexities of the LDS view on the Godhead (or for that matter the Trinitarian view) one must provide a lot of detail. And even then, it's still inadequate, because were using finite words to try to encompass three Eternal beings whose hearts are entwined in a way we mortals can only begin to understand. Mpschmitt1 02:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Apostasy vs God's rejection of his church

(copied from [[User talk:DJ Clayworth)

DJ, you recently edited the Mormonism and Christianity page; one of the edits read that mainstream Christians reject the concept that God had rejected his church. Although this may be semantics, I believe it is a statement unrepresentative of Mormon beliefs. LDS believe that an apostasy took place where the people/churches left God, they began to teach the doctrines of men, and that they lost the priesthood or authority to act in God's name. LDS firmly believe that God does not leave any of his children, but rather we leave him. Though this may appear an insignificant point, LDS would view it as a major misrepresentation of our belief in Heavenly Father. Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me that, for whatever reason, according to LDS belief, God withdrew the authority to act in his name. The church had it, then it was taken away. If not a rejection it certainly amounts to a withdrawl of favour. However feel free to try something more appropriate. DJ Clayworth 15:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that it is your position that you want to say that Mormons believe God took away his authority. However, that is not what Mormons believe. Mormons believe that after the time of Jesus and his early apostles, mankind began to teach the doctrines of men and not of God. They entered a state of apostasy and eventually the authority to act in his name was lost.

Your new edits continue to assert positions that are not true. LDS do not believe other churches are invalid. They do not possess authority, but they teach some truth. I guess it is may just be semantics also, but we do not think in terms of "this is valid and this is not". It is different terminolgy and thus a different way of thinking. LDS would say that is true, but this has more truth. LDS do not state and do not believe that other Christian churches are untrue, rather they believe that their church has the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I like the fact that you are attempting to write in a blunt manner, but you need to make sure when you are stating LDS/Mormon doctrine that you do it accurately. Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

According to other places in the same article Smith describes other churches as 'corrupt'. Is it possible to be both 'corrupt' and valid? Or have the LDS changed their minds about the corruption of the other churches?. DJ Clayworth 17:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The term corrupt is used by many outside of the church to describe what Mormons or LDS believe. It is often found in anti-Mormon literature used to inflamme others. I suspect it comes from the account of the First Vision where Jesus Christ is speaking to Joseph Smith and says,

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

The other places in the article where corrupt is used might also be used inappropriately; repeating the mistake does not make it correct. What was revealed in the First Vision was that there were professors of religion who were corrupt, not that chuches were corrupt. This is a significant distinction.

LDS have not "changed their mind" about other churches. They feel and believe the same way they always have. We do not think in a context of valid or corrupt in regard to churches. We believe that there is one God and He is the fount of all truth. It is true that LDS believe that no other church has the priesthood, but never has it been said they do not teach truth. We do believe in valid ordinances; only those ordinances performed by indivdiduals having authority are valid. This harkens back to the concept of sealing: that which is sealed on earth is sealed in heaven.

This issue of proclaiming one true church and the corruption of other churches seems to be a subject of interest to you. As you continue to research this subject you will also find a review of Roman Catholicism in order. Virtually all of these phrases that cause you concern have been stated by Catholics throughout its history.

I hope I have answered your questions. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The word 'corrupt' is used several times in this article in quotes from Joseph Smith. Admittedly that was a long time ago, but as you say yourself, the LDS have not changed their attitude. Saying "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight" is also a pretty strong condemnation of other churches (virtually no church has changed its creeds in the last two hundred years). Incidentally it is the mainstream Christian position that no ordinances are necessary to salvation, "for there is no mediator between God and man, but only Christ Jesus". DJ Clayworth 18:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The ordinance of baptism is a requirement of the majority of Christians; please talk to a Catholic about its importance. Since they are over 50% of all Christians your statement is incorrect. If you want to argue about what Christ said about creeds, please talk to him. I would recommend when doing so to be on your knees; it is a vastly more comfortable position to tell the Lord he is wrong. Again, just because something incorrect is said multiple times does not make it magically correct. You can shout all you want, but I still think the issue is more semantics. You seem to seek a more divisive article than I do. It will be for other editors to determine the best course. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you examine the situation closely you will find that even the Roman Catholic church does not consider baptism to be essential to salvation (the desire for baptism works just as well), and for other denominations it is certainly not. I do not wish to argue about what Christ said about Creeds, but I'm interested in what Joseph Smith said that Christ said about Creeds. Are you arguing that he didn't say it? If he did say it then it is surely relevant to this article. DJ Clayworth 18:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Again you take things out of context; the actual position of the Catholic church is that baptism is necessary for salvation.[[2]] You take their position out of context; their statement is twofold:

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257).

The Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Large Catechism 4:6).

Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through "baptism of blood," martyrdom for Christ, or through "baptism of desire", that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism.

"Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: 'Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized'"

Are there exceptions to the need for baptism? Yes, but only in certain circumstances. LDS feel the similar; however, they elaborate that all will receive the ordinance of baptism through temple work either in this life or during the millenium. Your statement regarding baptism is not correct and in error. Please stick to facts and not your POV. Storm Rider ^(talk) 12:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

LDS attitude to other churches

User:Storm Rider it is not a good idea to retain the statement that 'LDS churches consider other Christians to have much truth' while removing the equally true statement that they consider other churches to be 'corrupt and in a state of apostacy'. The latter has a much more significant impact on the relationships between the churches than the former. I've restored both statements. DJ Clayworth 18:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you have made what was once a better article more divisive and full of invitations for conflict. Please go back and reference your claims; without them they will be deleted. It will be best for others to edit this article now; you are not interested in any discussion or compromise. Maybe it is just a bad day for you; however, this is below your usual excellent standard of objectivity. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

All I have done is to report LDS and other viewpoints. If those viewpoints make for conflict I fail to see how I can do anything about it. If you would like to indicate anything I have added which is not true then please feel free to point it out. DJ Clayworth 18:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please check out the wikipedia article "Words to Avoid" WP.WTA. I have several times changed the word "claimed" which you insist on using. It is the very first word listed as one to avoid. Editors often use this word to denote the dubiousness of what is being stated; this seems the exact reason you are using it. Also, you should reference many of the statements you have made. In doing so, you will limit your edits to facts and make it more difficult to make POV statements. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What word would you suggest I use when someone says something and a huge number of people dispute it? I'm open to suggestions. However 'proclaimed', which is what you changed one instance to, is certainly not a synonym, since it carries the sense of making known a truth. Many of the statements I added are in fact already referenced in the article, or supported by references already in the article. Please would you indicate exactly which of the statements you consider to be untrue, or in need of support and I will happily reference them. As for POV statements, you may wish to consider the POV as it was before I edited it. To say that LDS view other churches as 'having much good', but omitting to make the equally true statement that they view other churches as 'corrupt and an abomination' could be construed as POV also. Remember that our purpose is not to present LDS doctrine as truth. DJ Clayworth 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I use the word 'corrupt' to describe the LDS view of other churches because that is the word they use themselves, especially in their early writings. I think it's the right word to use here. DJ Clayworth 21:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the better word to use is "apostate." Mormons see other churches as apostate. The term Great Apostasy is much more universally used in the church since smith's days.

Nearly all referenes in early church writings don't condemn other churches as "corrupt" (but condemns their creeds - in one case as an "abomination") The term "corrupt" typically refers to individuals who lead others astray, including false teachers of religion - see for example:

• JS-H 1:19: I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they [the professors or teachers of religions] draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

• D&C 10:21: "And their hearts are corrupt, and full of wickedness and abominations; and they clove darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil; therefore they will not ask of me."

• D&C 121: 13: "Also because their hearts are corrupted, and the things which they are willing to bring upon others, and love to have others suffer, may come upon themselves to the very uttermost;"

• "D&C 38: 11: For all flesh is corrupted before me [side note: including mormons]; and the powers of darkness prevail upon the earth, among the children of men, in the presence of all the hosts of heaven—"

There is a theological differences in the terminology that we see as the issue here. The world and Mormon's view of the terms including "apostate," "corrupt," and "true" is at the heart of this.

Using the term "corrupt" lends the reader to believe that Mormons believe all churches are evil, something that no church leader has taught. Rather Smith and Young and others taught that other churches they do much good, and have some truth and light, but are not simply not "true," but have error. You see, in Mormon theology, the opposite of truth is error, not falsehood. In other words according to LDS theology, the LDS church is true, while others have error, they have much truth, and their members are invited to "come and add to what truth you already have." Somthing Smith said, and has been quoted by every church president since. -Visorstuff 22:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but now I'm afraid that the burden of proof is on you. If you think that by 'corrupt' in these statements the early Mormon leaders meant something different from what the rest of us understand, then it's up to you to provide references to back that up. Would you almost mind explaining what they meant by referring to the churches as the "Whore of Bablyon" while you are at it.

The distinction between the churches being corrupt and what they believe being corrupt doesn't really wash (esoecially in the light of the 'whore of bablyon' statements). Would LDS be happy if I described their beliefs as corrupt?

Incidentally I've now added several more references to back up what the early Mormon church said about the other churches. I hope that's enough for you. I can't for the moment find a reference to show that the Mormon church has never changed these views. It's very difficult to find references to back up a negative. However I would suggest that if you really believe that the LDS no longer hold these views, you should easily be able to supply references to back that up. Failing that, if you state on your honour here that these statements by the early LDS leaders have been repudiated I will accept your word and add a statement to that effect. DJ Clayworth 02:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I added references and you removed them and re-added a 'citation needed' flag! Please do not do that again. DJ Clayworth 02:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So we have a measure of dishonesty here, evidenced from an unbalanced judgement. --Mdoc7 06:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please - no personal attacks - editorial suggestions/contributions/deletions should be taken with good faith --Trödel 14:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No personal attack intended, and let the facts speak for themselves. --Mdoc7 15:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether intended or not, by not "let[ting] the facts speak for themselves" and claiming that an action has a "measure of dishonesty" - the result is a personal attack. Please take this as a reminder to discuss the edits and not impute negative motives on others. --Trödel 16:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. --Mdoc7 19:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

RV POV edits

DJ Clayworth has made some wonderful edits; unfortunately they are edits that have no support in LDS doctrine. I have reverted his edits as POV. Instead of further edit warring I suggest that his disputed edits be taken to this page for dicussion.

It would appear he has been reading some rather poor anti-Mormon sites. First, doctrine is found only in canon and in what the prophet speaks as revelation. Taking the statements of members, even apostles, is not taking the position of the church however much you and others might want to make it. It is similar to quoting a member or even a Bishop of the Catholic church (or any other church) and stating that is the position of the Catholic church; it does not make a lot of sense. The statement would only have to do with an individual's POV not a church's POV. This is pretty elementary, but it completely escapes anit-Mormon writers. You have to remember this ilk of writer is not concerned about truth, but rather sensationalizing and distorting truth to scare their flock and taint the LDS church and its members.

Additionally, you have been corrected by more than one individual and you insist on stating what LDS believe. You are not LDS nor do you have a clue about LDS believe. You are being stubborn, if not beligerent, in continuing to ignore facts so that your personal POV is upheld. Stop it! Discuss your edits here first, come to a compromise, and then edit. You know the drill and I am surprised that you are acting this way. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, let me make this very clear. I added references for all the things that you queried above and you reverted my edits to remove those references again. If you do that again I will assume that you are simply not interested in creating an encyclopedia article.

You are objecting that some of my references are not to 'official canon' sources. However the point I am making is that these are things that were said by LDS leaders - foundational ones at that. Even if they don't reflect 'offical' LDS doctrine they certainly represent LDS thinking and should be cited in an article about the relationship between Christians and Mormons. Are you really trying to tell me that official LDS doctrine was that other Christians were 'good people with much truth', while the LDS leaders were going round calling them "corrupt whores of babylon whose creeds are an abomination in the sight of God"?

As for your asking for me to discuss edits, let me remind you that it was you who reverted my edits! The first time, you didn't even bother to put anything on the talk page. Finally I have not been corrected by "more than one individual"; I have been 'corrected' by you, and only you. And you have failed to provide references, while I have provided many. DJ Clayworth 02:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion you are not interesting in any discussion, answering any questions, or responding to logic. Does it make any sense to quote someone that is not the prophet? NO, not just no, but loudly, unapologetically NO. Who speaks for the Catholic church? Who speaks for the Southern Baptist church? Who speaks for any church? A memeber? a simple leader? Don't be stupid or coy. You know perfectly well the references you have provided are not adquate to support a position of the LDS church. You do not even have the integrity to clarify, "a leader from over 170 years ago said". You have the audacity to accuse another they are not interested in writing an encyclpedic article?!? Please save the BS for your children.

There was one foundational leader of Mormonism, Joseph Smith. He was followed by Brigham Young and every other prophet sense that time. Someone with an iota of understanding of Mormonism would already know this. How on earth to you equate "official" doctrine with thoughts? Your colors are showing and it certainly is not one of intelligence.

Visor corrected your statements and I have corrected your statements. Does that equal two or not. Oh, I forgot, only when you say it equals two will it equal two. And they shall call black, white, and evil, good; your master is known by your actions. I am done. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Included in the people I quoted were Orson Pratt, an original member of The Quorum of Twelve Apostles. Some of the other quotes are from Joseph Smith himself. Are you saying that these quotes are irrelevant to Mormon thinking? Please also note that I am not only interested in 'official doctrine' but in the relationship between Christianity and Mormonism. If the early Mormon leaders went round calling Christians "apostate Whores of Babylon" then that is relevant to the relationship, whether it was official doctrine or not. DJ Clayworth 03:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To be accurate you quoted Orson Pratt three times, George Q Cannon once, and Joseph Smith. The Smith quote does not support your statement and has been used erroneously. You have already been told that it is erroneous to the statement being made and you have insisted on using it. When the truth does not work, then continue to lie seems to be the policy. You make it impossible to assume good faith by your actions.

Oh, you are "interested" in the relationship of Christians and Mormons. An individual Mormon or an individual Christian's POV is meaningless within the context of this article. Do you think Christians have not said some pretty stupid things about Mormons? Don't be naieve. Are we going to start quoting individuals and their thoughts about each other or are we going to make this a worthy article? Storm Rider ^(talk) 11:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your summary of who I quoted. Pratt seems to me a significant source, since he was one of the original LDS leaders. The Smith quote is well-known, and seems to support the article's statement entirely. In it Smith describes a 'personage' (presumed to be a messanger from God) who says that the other churches are "corrupt, and their creeds an abomination". I'm assuming Smth believed the messanger. If Smith disagreed with the messenger and thought that the other churches were not corrupt then just let me know, and provide a reference.

I have already asked you to explain which parts of what I wrote are untrue, but you haven't come up with anything except saying the Smith quote is 'erroneous', which as I said I disagree with. I would be obliged if you would refrain from calling me a liar without cause. To answer your other rather obvious question, yes I am going to start quoting the sayings of individuals when those individuals are prominent leaders of the LDS churches.

I am fully aware of many of the things that Christians have said about Mormons. Several of them are quoted in the article, and I have no problem with that being the case. Our job here is to tell the truth, not whitewash over inconvenient facts. It's always painful learning unpleasant things about an organisation you respect, but sometimes it has to be done. DJ Clayworth 13:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with including the Orson Pratt quotes, imo, is that they do not represent Latter Day Saint doctrine. Brigham Young himself said that while Pratt's The Seer had many truths, it also contained "many items of erroneous doctrines". The way the sentences are included now, it is not clear whether these represent official doctrine or not. If we're going to include, we need to state that it is an example of opinions of early LDS leaders, but not representative of LDS theology. The rhetoric of Pratt and others also isn't that much different from that used by 19th century Protestants in reference to the Catholic Church. Beyond that, the belief that the rest of Christendom is in apostasy (ie corrupt) is not unique to the LDS since that is the defining belief of Restorationism. If we're leaving in the more canon Smith "corrupt" quotes, then it needs to be qualified by what JS and later prophets meant by corrupt. Otherwise it's irresponsible sensationalism presenting phrases out of context. The quotes you present are a very narrow sampling of early LDS views chosen specifically to present one POV of LDS belief. To be truly honest, we should look at all quotes on the topic and accurately describe the wide spectrum of belief that they present. We need to acknowledge the complex view Mormonism has (including the wide spectrum that leaders and members have expressed) of other religions, and not try to sum it up with these broad strokes. In all honesty this is beginning to look like a lot of original research as each side attempts to present and give a particular analysis of quotes; we should avoid referencing the primary sources, and rather reference a few secondary sources that coherently analyze several primaries if possible. --FyzixFighter 19:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to include more quotes if we can find them. The ones I presented are just a sampling. If we can find sources that say that Joseph Smith believed that other churches were not corrupt then I'm fine with including them. However I think the Pratt quotes are worth keeping, since they certainly illustate the thinking of the early LDS leaders, and therefore explains a lot about Mormon-Christian relations in that period. Since Pratt was a prominent leader we would need to find a cite saying that this part of what he wrote was wrong, not just that some of the things he wrote were wrong. If we can find a cite explaining what Smith meant by 'corrupt' then I'm fine with including that too. But it needs to be a cite, not just an editors opinion. DJ Clayworth 19:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

While I'm here, another quote that might be illuminating: "he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p.312). DJ Clayworth 19:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Secondary sources: Here is one to start with. Richard C Evans 1920 book, reproduced here. Aparrently the author was a Mormon for 40 years. DJ Clayworth 20:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's another: [3] Look down at question 5. DJ Clayworth 21:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And another [4] DJ Clayworth 21:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

An another Orson Pratt quote: "The gates of hell have prevailed and will continue to prevail over the Catholic Mother of Harlots, and over all her Protestant Daughters;...the apostate Catholic church, with all her popes and bishops, together with all her harlot daughters shall be hurled down to hell.. ." (Pamphlets by Orson Pratt, p.112). DJ Clayworth 21:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not what I meant by secondary sources. None of those three sources are reliable in their analysis of the quotes; they all have a very slanted POV against Mormonism. Nor do any of them do any scholarly, as-close-to-neutral-as-possible analysis of the context and meaning of those phrases. A good secondary source would be a historian like Shipps, Remini or Bushman who come from academia (for good contextual analysis), or examples throughout the last 175 of how Mormon prophets have interpreted those statements (for how such statements fit into the broader Mormon theology). However, those sources, particularly the last one, appear to be good sources for how other Christian groups react to such quotes and LDS claims to being the one true church, but again they are not good sources for the contextual meaning of those quotes within LDS theology, which is what it appears you are trying to use the quotes to do.

Also, you seem intent on keeping the word "corrupt" in. What is it, in your view, that "corrupt" denotes and conveys that phrases like "in error" or "fell into apostasy" do not? "Corrupt" can have many meanings (evil, unpure, in error, morally bankrupt), especially across many centuries, and we need to put the quotes in context to ensure the readers understand the right meaning. Again, reliable secondary sources would be helpful in this. The burden of proof is on all of us (you included, and not just those challenging you) to show with such sources what "corrupt" means in these quotes.

Lastly, our first concern should be in comparing official Mormon theology and doctrine with that of mainstream Christianity. Addressing speculative, personal, and fringe beliefs, even by early church leaders, should be subordinate to that. Just like other churches' official stances on Mormons is given prominence over what influential preachers or pastors or priests have said, so should the official stance of the LDS come first. --FyzixFighter 02:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, those are not good secondary sources, which is why I put them on the talk page not in the article. However currently I don't have any better ones. I don't have access to anything by Shipps, Remini or Bushman but I would have no problem with using them as sources. Feel free to expand.

My reasoning behind the use of the word 'corrupt' is that it was the word used by many of the original statemnts by Mormon leaders. You're right in that it can have many meanings, but its meanings and connotations haven't changed a lot in a hundred and fifty years. I'm happy to look for references that give a clearer interpretation of the word (though coupled with phrases like "abomination", "whore of Babylon" etc. there isn't much room left for interpretation)

I also disagree with focussing solely on official doctrine. The article is not just 'compare and contrast the creeds' - it is also about how the two relate. The relationship between Christians and Mormons is set to a large extent by the pronouncements of the leaders. If someone is calling someone else "Whore of Babylon" then that affects the relationship, even if their official position is "these are nice people". DJ Clayworth 03:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

But why use "corrupt" and when early leaders used "apostasy" and other synonymous phrases equally as much, if not more? What is it that "corrupt" conveys that "apostasy" and "impure doctrine" don't? And I didn't say that we should just keep official doctrine, but that official doctrine should be the primary comparison followed by discussion of such pronouncements (which are correctly placed in context, eg stating when presiding and/or later leaders have clarified such pronouncements, and stating when such statements are not official Mormon doctrine). Again, it would be a whole lot better if we could find reliable secondary sources that use these quotes as an example of Mormon thought or other Christians reactios to such statements rather than analyzing such quotes ourselves. --FyzixFighter 17:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the statement "LDS believe other churches have much truth" because the quote that was backing it up said they "have a little truth". To be fair I compromised with "have some truth". DJ Clayworth 13:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the information above, please seem my comments here to give context. This information should be presented in appropriate timelines. Additionally, to present this information about how mormonism presented itself in the past- is much different than how it presents itself now - I believe that this article is about the current situation. Additionally, it misrepresents the overall doctrine, especially when considered in light of conference talks from the same people about how members of the Church have become corrupt when they fail to live teaching of the gospel X. In other words, the church teaches that anyone - including current members, much watch and govern themselves to stay on the straight path. The tone from both sides of the fence was much more polemic in the 19th century. If concensus is to take that direction, then the neutrality policy would dictate that they quotes from sources in the 19th century about mormonism also be included.

However, near as I can tell - the point of the article is to compare and contrast current teachings of Protestant and Catholic denominations with teachings of Mormonism, and document ecumenical efforts on both sides to bridge the divide and work together. some of these additions (I have not had time to review all the disputed edits) seem to be not following this concensus focus for the article.

BTW - as far as naming goes this article should be something more like Mormonism and Protestantism and Catholicism - perhaps broken into two articles. And the intro should be something like: "Mormonism and Protestantism have had an uneasy relationship with each other since Joseph Smith, Jr. began teaching that he had received a personal communication from God, had received new scripture, and was commanded to restore the Church of Christ." or something like that.

Sorry if this is all resolved and too late 23:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Godhead

This article says that God the Father is the only being worshipped as God, and that Christ is worshipped as "Lord and Saviour". However Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (in the Godhead section) says that the God of the Old Testament is the same being as Christ. Is this actually the case? Doesn't it imply that the Old Testament God is not actually worshipped as God? DJ Clayworth 14:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The way I understand it, Christ acts as the mediator, especially under the law of Moses, and so has the right to speak in the place of God--even when referring to himself (Christ) in the third person. So the words of God, as spoken in the OT, really are those of Heavenly Father, exactly what he would say, but they came out of the mouth of Christ. Does that help? --Masamage 06:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. If Christ is the same person as the God of the OT (who the Israelites are commanded to worship as God) then how come Mormons worship only "the Father" (not the same person) as God, and specifically say they don't worship Christ as God? DJ Clayworth 13:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Specifically it seems from what is written here that Mormons worship only God the Father, who is not the same being as the OT God who the Jews were commanded to worship as God. If that is true it certainly needs saying. If not it needs explaining. Any LDS members out there want to explain this.? DJ Clayworth 13:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we will need to get a reference for some precise wording and explanation on how Mormons view Jesus within the Godhead. To say that they don't worship Jesus "as God" is not entirely correct as Jesus is referred to as "God" in the Book of Mormon, D&C, and LDS hymns. If I understand it correctly, Mormon theology does teach that Jesus was fully God and fully human - and then there's the idea of divine investiture of authority (which might explain the OT dilemma). IMO the Mormon idea of Godhead is nearly identical to the idea of the traditional Trinity, except for the beliefs that the three are truly separate, distinct beings and that the Father and now the Son have physical, resurrected/exalted bodies while the Holy Spirit has no physical body, and so many of the ways that historic Christianity rationalizes the mystery of the Trinity could equally be applied to how the LDS rationalizes the mystery of the Godhead. We should do some digging and see what we can turn up... --FyzixFighter 06:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Different Wikipedia articles seem to disagree about this. I'm certainly not setting myself up as an expert here; hopefully someone can set us straight. DJ Clayworth 19:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the Mormonism - The Latter Day Saints chapter in The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin ISBN 0871233002 (1982) or the sequel, edited by Ravi Zacharias, ISBN 0764228218 (2003). I could say much more, but "darkened eyes" are evident here (and I'm not referring to cloak and dagger here). --Mdoc7 21:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, that paragon of objective research. Our objective on WIKI is not to determine who is right and who is wrong; our objective is to write academic quality articles acceptable for an encyclopedia. I am certain that you feel "The Bible Answer Man" is the end all of Bible questions; great! However, there are those who would disagree with Dr. Martin's protege, Hank H.

Also, a bit of caution. At the time of Christ it was the doctors of the law -- pharisees and saduccees -- that knew the law (scripture) but did not understand it. There is only one resource for confirmation of truth and that is the Holy Spirit. Better yet, seek the confirmation given to Peter in Matt 16:15-17. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not looking whether doctrines are true or false, but we do need to have a clear picture of what LDS believe! I'm going to write some individual points of doctrine; could someone knowledgeable about LDS doctrine confirm or deny:

1. LDS only worship 'God the Father' as God.
2. Jesus is worshipped as saviour but not as God
3. Jesus is God, in the sense that he is part of the Godhead
4. Jesus is the same being as 'The Lord' (Yahweh, Jehovah) as described in the Old Testament.
5. 'God the Father' is a separate being both from Jesus and from 'The Lord' (Yahweh, Jehovah).

Again I'm looking for descriptions of what LDS believe, not whether they are right. And it may be that LDS believe different things about these points, in which case file - we'll say that. DJ Clayworth 18:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

DJ, those are excellent questions. God and the Godhead on the surface appear to be easy concepts or beliefs for LDS; however, when one digs deeper it can be perceived as just as complicated as the Nicene creed to fully grasp.

Most, if not all, LDS would say they are monotheistic. When we pray, we pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. This is an absolute principle. The Father is our God.

Jesus is the only Begotten Son of God; He is our intermediary with the Father and the only gateway through which we can return to God. However, Jesus is also a member of the Godhead and as such, is considered god. I think I would agree with your statement thta we worship Jesus as Savior and member of the Godhead, but never as God the Father. This is best exemplified for us when Christ prayed, he prayed to the Father. We seek to emulate this example always.

LDS believe that Jesus is Jehovah of the Old Testament. We see this in John 10:33-36 where Jesus says, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" Ye are gods is a quote from Psalm 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most High.". Jesus says that he said it and it is said in the OT. We believe that the Father is separate from the Son, a distinct person.

It probably should be stated that the Son acted at the direction of the Father. His thoughts and actions are in perfect union with the Father; there is never a conflict between the desires of One versus those of the other.

I would wait for other comments from other Latter-day Saints to confirm my thoughts.

This topic leads to many questions; for example, Jesus is not a created being, but is eternal. We don't have concepts of essence. That is not vocabularly that we are familiar with and do not teach. Does a son have the same essence as his father? IMHO, the real difference between orthodoxy and LDS belief regarding the Godhead is that LDS belief both the Father and the Son have physical bodies; only the Holy Spirit/Ghost has a spiritual body. LDS feel the physical body is significant eternally; elsewise there would be no purpose for a physical resurrection. Further, there is a purpose for creation. These concepts, I think, are anathema to orthodox beliefs. Thank you DF for you kind questions; I hope I have helped some. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The two book sources (above) give a complete belief system; however you may find that core beliefs have changed. Mdoc7 19:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they do; unfortunately the author is not an objective source nor does he have a deep grasp of Mormonism. It is like going to the butcher to find out how a watch is made. The butcher only understands how to cut meat, but even attempting to explain how to make a watch is beyond him. The Bible Answer man is a polemic writer and should be read with that understanding. I wonder, does someone who is seeking to understand Catholicism go to a Southern Baptist preacher for enlighenment and clarification? My recommendation is to go to a Catholic priest, attend catechism, learn from the source! Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The first two (and maybe the third) are problematic since the LDS attribute a slightly different connotation to the word "God". To say that the LDS don't worship Jesus as "God" ignores several of their scriptures and hymns. A very quick search turned up a few references for LDS views of Jesus and the Godhead - "The Living Christ"[5] and "In These Three I Believe"[6] from the July 2006 Ensign, the 1916 1st Presidency Declaration "The Father and the Son". Of note in that second one, Hinckley says "I worship [Jesus] as I worship his Father." Another, more general reference that might also help in other parts of this article is "Building Bridges of Understanding" in the June 1998 Ensign. It might be easier to state the most distinct differences from the mainstream idea of the trinity - namely physical, perfected/exalted bodies for the Father and Christ, the Holy Ghost having only a spirit body, all three as separate distinct beings, and the Father as the literal Father of everyone's spirits. Any more deep discussion and we start getting into LDS apologetics on how the LDS paradigm of Deity is scripturally and self-consistent, which is more appropriate to the Godhead page. To the point of who is worshipped as God and who isn't, we should probably simply say that some Christian groups criticize/argue that the LDS Godhead is tritheistic and/or problematic (with sources) but that LDS consider themselves to be and argue that they are monotheistic (with sources), and not state who is or isn't God here. --FyzixFighter 19:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, I'd like us to be as accurate and comprehensive as possible about LDS Theology. If it's possible to make statements about who is worshipped as God then we should do so. If it's an area LDS members disagree on then we should leave it. DJ Clayworth 19:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

OK StormRider, I get that. However (and I'm not sure this is making for a better article, just my understanding) Jehovah (Yahweh, who is also Jesus) says "You will have no other gods before me". Isn't that a problem? DJ Clayworth 19:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, what authority would anyone have to "accurately and comprehensively" present LDS theology? No person (even among LDS members) agree on all aspects of it, and there is not even a consistent consensus among LDS to present even a summary of LDS beliefs. What Mormons Don't Say Mdoc7 18:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

An ExMormon would be better suited to an "authority", if it may be allowed, to give an "accurate and comprehensive" presentation of Mormon theology: if one believes in "Thy word is truth" (John 17:17), we may be more predisposed to believe the testimonies of an ExMormon, especially if he "saw the light," as the idiom goes. Life After Ministries Search on "godhead".

A word of caution here. Would you ask Judas for an accurate assessment of Jesus Christ? If you want to know something about someone, you don't ask the neighbor next door with an axe to grind. You ask the person themselves. I've found that former members of any organization who left because something about that organization embittered them are notoriously unreliable sources of information. As is the case with many who leave the LDS Church. Many of them never got to the depth of understanding they would need to be an authority on the subject before they became disaffected. You wouldn't ask an Ex-Catholic to give an accurate assessment of all all the workings of the Catholic chuch. You could ask them what they liked/disliked about it, but that would be it. You wouldn't have any clue about the accuracy or inaccuracy of what they were saying. What if they were only a member for 6 months, or 2 years? Is that enough time? What if they had a particularly bad parish with a priest who wasn't doing the right things? That would certainly color their assessment, but it might not accurately portray the fullness of the Catholic system. Some of the things I've heard from Ex-Mormons just don't wash with my experience actually participating in the church for nearly 12 years now. I've had a very different and blessed experience from what many of them share, and have not been taught many of the things they for some reason think we believe. mpschmitt1 08:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a better source than "Kingdom of the Cults" (the title alone should shed some light on the objectivity of the source :-) is to actually delve into LDS scripture and see what is being taught. The following are just a few examples, but the principles we can extract from them are important to understand the complexity of the Godhead in LDS theology.D+C 20:17-33, 2 Nephi 31:21, Mosiah 15:1-11,Omni 1:25-26,2 Nephi 25:16,29,2 Nephi 31:18. From these scriptures (and they are only a very few examples of a wider doctrinal trend throughout the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants), we can glean the following facts about LDS belief (Some are observed above as well by DJ Clayton as well):

1. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One God, not in the consubstantia sense of the Nicene creed but a different kind of unity. A unity of purpose, desire, and all other Godly attributes while maintaining unique identity in physical and spiritual space. They always act in unison, in all things, and are completely united in their desire to "bring to pass the imortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).
2. Each member of the Godhead serves a purpose but it is appropriate to refer to each as God. The Father is the father of us all spiritually (including Jesus), but it's clear from Mosiah 15 that Jesus is different from us as the Only Begotten of the Father. The Father is to be worshipped and serves in a presiding role. Jesus Christ is to be worshipped and is our Savior and Advocate with the Father. I have not found any scripture that says we should worship the Holy Ghost, but clearly as a member of the Godhead he is to be revered (this is my interpolation, but I think it's well founded). The Holy Ghost's role in the Godhead is to bear witness of the Father and the Son. Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are both found throughout scripture (LDS and non-LDS) giving glory to the Father.
3. The Holy One of Israel == God == Jesus (hopefully you non-programmers out there will understand this syntax. I'm saying the three terms are synonymous :-)
4. Jesus Christ never relinquished his title as the Word of God. Hence in a number of LDS scriptures, we see the Father declaring "This is my Beloved Son, Hear Him". It is important in this context to notice that the revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants are in the voice of Jesus Christ speaking directly to His people, D+C 49:5 is an interesting example because the last verse indicates it is given by Jesus Christ, but the 5th verse we see Jesus saying "Thus saith the Lord; for I am God, and have sent mine Only Begotten Son into the world for the redemption of the world, and have decreed that he that receiveth him shall be saved, and he that receiveth him not shall be ddamned—". So here we have an example of Jesus guiding the Church and teaching them His principles, but also quoting the Father's description of Jesus. Acting as the Word, a communicator of the will of the Father. Throughout the Doctrine and Covenants however, we also see Jesus declaring repeatedly "I am the Lord Your God" and other such phrases affirming his own divinity. D+C Section 6 and D+C section 19 are just two of many examples.

I think the unity of the Godhead in LDS theology is something that gets downplayed which is unfortunate. If we took all of the teachings in LDS scripture on this subject together and reasoned them out, we would find many points (the consubstantial issue aside) where the LDS understanding of the attributes of God and the Trinitarian understanding of the attributes of God (in terms of His Character, Love, and Desires for His children) overlap. This article by current president of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley is one of the most concise explanations of the LDS understanding of the Godhead: "In These Three I Believe" mpschmitt1 08:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the process of updating the Godhead section to make it more doctrinally correct and clearer as far as accurate LDS doctrine goes. If possible, please, give me a couple of days to get it right and then I'll welcome editorial feedback...mpschmitt1 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, this page has some great explorations of the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead and how it has great similarities to the first three centuries of Christianity as well...Jeff Lindsay on the LDS Godhead

Removed quote

FyzixFighter, you removed a Mormon quote about other churches saying it is "out of context". To me the quote seems entirely relevant, and it is hard to imagine a context in which it means anything other than what it looks like. Maybe you could explain what the context is, and why the meaning of it might be different from the one we would understand if we read it here? DJ Clayworth 13:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Then you need to read the full discourse (and the full quote for that matter) in which this quote was given; that way you won't have to rely on your imagination to determine what the context is. Smith is talking about principles that he sees in the Catholic church which are also found Mormon theology, and is chastising Protestants for dropping these principles just because they are associated with the Catholics. He is not teaching that both the Catholic and Protestant churches are corrupt, but rather stating the fallacy of the Protestant argument to be true when they argue Catholic church is corrupt. To say that Smith here is teaching that all other Christian churches are corrupt is false and misleading. At most it can be used to show that Smith indirectly taught that a return (if it was needed) to "true" Christianity could not happen without divine intervention, ie a Restoration (the basis of Restorationism). I'm moving the debated quote here for discussion by other editors.

Regarding Catholicism and Protestantism, Smith had these words:

"Here is a principle of logic...I will illustrate by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it?"

Again this whole debate is bordering on original research. Let the academic historians determine the context and importance of such statements, and quote them. --FyzixFighter 17:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the full quote in context? If so, please post it here because I don't have access to it.

There are plenty of other quotes that show Smith as viewing the Catholic church as corrupt, so presumably by his own argument he must also view the Protestant churches as corrupt. You say he is pointing out a principle of logic, but by his own principle he must consider Protestant churches corrupt. The quote stays. DJ Clayworth 19:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

here is an academic paper which gives several summaries of Mormon belief, including their belief that all other churches are corrupt "because of the advent and supremacy of religious corruption in place of Christian truth". DJ Clayworth 20:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

here is another which states:

From his own study of the Bible, Joseph Smith concluded before age fourteen or fifteen that "mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and living faith. There was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament." In 1820 or 1821, Smith received a heavenly vision which confirmed his early convictions. According to Smith's earliest autobiography, Jesus declared to him: "Behold the world lieth in sin at this time and none doeth good, no not one. They have turned asside from the gospel and keep not my commandments. They draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me."16 Smith's later 1838 history is even more clearly Seeker, stressing abominable "creeds" and corrupt clergy who teach the "form of godliness" but "deny the power thereof." DJ Clayworth 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

here is another secondary source: "[Joseph Smith] was restoring the only true church which had been lost for centuries due to the corruptions into which all supposedly Christian groups, whether Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox, had fallen." DJ Clayworth 20:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you don't have access to it then don't put it back in when another editor has challenged it, especially when you seem to claim in the edit summary that you have looked at the context. Here's a link to where the full text can be found [7] (near the bottom, listed on pages 374-375). While we could also look at other quotes from Joseph Smith and deduce meaning, that is a perfect example of original research. Thank you for those links of secondary sources - those are a bit better in terms of secondary sources, but again, some of those have some obvious POV. Other editors might argue against them on those grounds, much like other editors might argue against FARMS articles on early church history being referenced. Again, I'm removing the quote until we can decide how, if at all, to correctly incorporate it in context (and I know it's my 3rd revert so I'll be taking a bit a of a breather for awhile). --FyzixFighter 02:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, got to admit you are right there. The full text does put a different spin on the quote. I have to say that the secondary sources are beginning to turn up which back up the original statement, but that quote does seem to mean something different. I support your removal. DJ Clayworth 13:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Personages

I changed personages to beings in the description of the Godhead. We use beings in other articles, so I presume it is also correct. Personages is too close to Trinitarian persons, and will cause confusion. DJ Clayworth 19:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

'Personages' is an entirely appropriate term as well, though beings is also satisfactory. Joseph Smith chose to use 'Personages' when describing his [First Vision]. mpschmitt1 16 October, 2006

Possible Spelling Errors in Footnote #5

"Christiandom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common orgin."

In modern English spelling, "Christiandom" should be "Christendom" and "orgin" should be "origin". Since these are in a direct quote, I hesitate to change them without checking the original first; and I don't a copy of George Q. Cannon's "Gospel Truth". Could someone check up on these two possible spelling errors?

I suspect that "orgin" is just a typo, but "Christiandom" could be the original spelling. If that is the case, has the correct spelling changed since George Q. Cannon's time? If it was incorrectly spelled for his time, it should probably be written "Christiandom [sic]" to indicate that it was misspelled by George Q. Cannon.SharonSmith 00:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Attitude to other faiths

It is misleading to state that "while constantly affirming it's own position as "the restored Church of Jesus Christ", throughout it's history, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claims that it has a strict policy of tolerance and respect for the beliefs held by others." while failing to mention the repeated statements that the LDS considered all other churches 'corrupt and apostate' and their descriptions by early Momon leaders as "Whore of Babylon". I would advise everyone editing this article not to remove these statements. DJ Clayworth 14:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting you would want to quote the opinions of members of the LDS church without the firm statement that they are the opinions of members and they are well over 100 years old. Bruce R. McConkie in the 1960's felt the Catholic church was the Whore of Babylon, but that is a thought almost as old as the Catholic church. Savonarola, Calvin, and a host of others felt the same thing. So the thought is hardly unique; what is the objective you feel is necessary to point out? What I think is important is official church doctrine, not the opinions of members; would you agree? Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No I absolutely do not. These people (especially Joseph Smith) are foundational to Mormon thought. How can you say that, in the beginning, Joseph Smith stated that other churches were corrupt, but the official church position is that they should be treated with respect? If the official position is that other churches are to be treated with respect then why aren't the church leaders following this official position?

Second this article is at least partly about attitudes. Even if it were true that the official position is one of respect, the fact that so many leaders departed from this position is unquestionably worth describing in this article. DJ Clayworth 15:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

DJ, do you have any idea how many Catholic popes and theologians have called other churches corrupt? Hells bells, man, the early apostles called others corrupt. This is not unique and you are attempting to make it sound as if it is! Further, you still did not answer if timing was important. The fact that most of the references are well over 100 years old is significant. Are the attitudes and statements of today's leaders without importance?

Also, your addition that Mormons are treated with respect by other Christians is difficult for many LDS to understand. Remember, they are not even allowed to be called Christian by many of those Christian groups, but rather they are members of a cult. How about a reference that another Christian church acknowledges the LDS church's belief in Christ, their belief in the atonement, the belief that Grace is essential to salvation. You might be searching for a long time.

Should we list all of the leaders of other Christian churches and their thoughts about Mormonism? To be balanced, it would seem appropriate. You would be surprised about the virtue of good Christian people toward the Mormon people throughtout its history. It was Christians who murdered Joseph Smith and his brother, Hyrum. It was Christians who raped Mormon women and children, burned them out of their homes, and tarred and feathered their husbands. When you begin to throw stones, you have to face the reality of what Christains have done to Mormons. It is not a pretty picture; it was a bloody, cruel, and evil. They may have spoke the name of Jesus, but they surely did not know him. Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that these things should be suppressed. However you seem very keen to have the actual actions of individual Christians (not necessarily leaders) documented here, while wanting to exclude statements by prominent LDS leaders. All I'm saying is that the publicly stated views of prominent LDS leaders are relevant to the relationship between Mormonism and Christianity, especially when that leader is Joseph Smith. And I've added a reference to McConkie, from the 1960s.

While we are on ths subject, I note that the statement "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a strict policy of tolerance and respect for the beliefs held by others" is not sourced. Without a source that statement has to come out. I'll wait a short while to give you a chance to find a reference for it. DJ Clayworth 16:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

DJ, I think you might be mischaracterizing my statement and actions. First, I have not been editing the article to reflect how other Christian ministers and their flock have persecuted Mormons. Though it is an accurate, true reflection of history, I don't see a need to focus on the actions of people in 1840's.

You are the one who has been editing the article and, IMO, is determined to taint the LDS church in a negative light. There is a tone that all of us can use in editing, I prefer to use in the article a tone that is nonconfrontational, but honest. Have there been Mormons who have felt that the Catholic church is the Whore of Babylon? Yes, along with Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, and almost every significant participant in the Protestant Reformation. Does the LDS church believe there was an apostasy? Of course, it is restorationist in belief. It believes that the fullness of the truth was lost and has been restored. This point seems to cause you the most consternation. However, stating it in the way I have is without the rancor that you like to use. Our disagreement is a matter of tone, not content.

References? Tell me, when was the last time you heard members of the LDS church picketing a Souther Baptist Convention meeting? Howabout picketing any Christian meeting of any kind? The article already has a multitude of refernces for the LDS churches demonstrated respect for the ministers of other faiths (i.e. a catholic priest being allowed to hold mass in the Nauvoo temple...this is astounding. Think of having a Mormon bishop preaching at St. Peters in Rome or the local First Baptist chruch), and the current prophet and president, Gordon B. Hinckley's statements. Actions speak so much more loudly than words. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to mention of individual acts of reconciliation and kindness made by Mormons (and I've included some from Christianity Today too). However the actual statements we currently have in the article are factual; they are true; they are significant; for those reasons alone they deserve to be in the article.

As regards editing tone, maybe you should consider what tone it is you want to bring to this article? Is it perhaps one that portrays the LDS in a universally favourable light?

Serously, I have no intention of 'tainting' the LDS church. However true agreement is not reached by sweeping past disagreements under the rug, it is reached by acknowledging them and moving forward. Maybe LDS should acknowledge that other churches are not corrupt and not apostate. DJ Clayworth 16:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Tone: No, my intention is not to whitewash anything. Christian churches hold the LDS church in distain. It is viewed as nothing more than a non-Christian cult with a brainwashed flock. These thoughts can be easily documented in much stronger language; however, I feel that when actual Christians read the stance of their church they tend to be dismayed, particularly those who have first hand knowledge of Mormons and their beliefs. Do I want to portray other Christian churches in such an unfavorable light? Certainly not; just as I do not want to portray the LDS church in a light that I know is not true. Bruce R. McConkie's book and his thoguhts were censored and no longer reads as it once did because it was wrong. Yet your edit does not enlighten the reader with such a fact.

DJ, on a personal level do I think of other churches as corrupt? No. Do I believe that they have the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? No, I do not. What does that mean? To me it means that though they have unimaginable riches to teach others about Jesus Christ, they do not have the authority to act in God's name. Authority is really the main issue for me. I am a student of religion. I appreciate almost every religion I have studied throughout my lifetime. In almost every one I have learned things that I may not have been able to within Mormonism. There is a holiness within the Orthodox churches that I love. Evangelicals can teach Mormons what it means to rejoice in Christ. Islam teaches a respect of God that I seldom find within Christianity. I could go on and on.

Don't begrudge LDS because they believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to the 14 year old boy, Joseph Smith, and told him to prepare himself; that he would be an instrument of great good. That through Joseph Smith, Jesus restored his church upon the earth. It is led by a prophet, apostles, evangelists, and teachers. Mormons don't believe this because they hate other churches, they believe it because that is what the Spirit has told them is true just as Peter was told of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Just throwing in my two cents - a "LDS attitudes" section seems like an excellent place to use the quotes that DJ loves to bring up, put the quotes in context, and discuss the complex perspective Mormonism has of mainstream Christianity. However, wouldn't such a discussion work better under the "Divergence" section (or "Differences in doctrine" section maybe)? As it is now, the section has only a passing relevance to the "Missionary work" section. At most, insert a quick comment about "tolerance and respect" while still seeking to convert into the opening paragraph - still kind of a complex idea, but that can be fleshed out in an earlier "LDS attitudes" section. Also, how many times do we need to put those quotes in a reference. I'm going to remove the redundant ones from the intro as the introduction should really give a general overview/summary of the subject. We're not quoting mainstream Christianity leaders in the intro because of the wide range of opinions so why do it with LDS leaders. Let's leave them for the "LDS attitudes" section where we can do the quotes justice. (Sorry about not being more active as of late - school's been keeping me busy) --FyzixFighter 03:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add a few more cents. I apologise that I haven't been following the development of this article very much as I have moved on to work on other projects. However, as I did put a lot of effort to improve the article in the past, I would like to make some comments. 160 years ago, the two movements definitely had their clashes. Before I worked on this article, it "played up" these past clashes and history. I basically removed everything except for the current "Divergences" section. Really, I think that is more than enough in covering past history. Now what is needed is a well-cited section on the current attitudes toward each other. On the one hand, the LDS Church now considers itself as part of mainstream Christianity, but one which has sole legitimacy (or authority). On the other hand, mainstream Christianity (and I am speaking of official denominations, not the nuts on the streets), while they speak kindly of the LDS Church, do not accept the LDS Church as a true Christian church. I believe section 3 covers that topic well-enough and not much more needs to be said. Section 4, if I could make a bold suggestion, could be completely removed. Something to think about... RelHistBuff 15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As a matter if interest, you will find in Christian churches pretty much the same attitide as you describe in the Mormon churches. It is in fact about correcting incorrect doctrine. In the eyes of Christian churches Mormons have falling into error. That is not to say they have no truth - not at all. Mormons have much truth; they believe in God the Father and Jesus, and follow him as well as they know how. God will have mercy on them, despite their errors. Christians in general do not hate individual Mormons, and it is certainly not 'official policy' to do so. DJ Clayworth 14:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and you hit the point...doctrine. My original goal was to make an article comparing the basic doctrinal differences between the two. I have gradually reduced the other sections, while increasing the doctrine section. On the official-level, the churches have not really battled each other for a hundred years. There has been a quiet, although sometime uncomfortable, coexistence. So for a non-Mormon/non-Christian there is certain amount of mystery of what are the differences. This article provides some of the answers (section 2). Section 3 is the current official positions toward each other. Sections 4 and 5 are interesting topics in themselves and perhaps they should become articles of their own. I think if the article is kept compact and well-cited (say the first three sections), there is a better chance that stability would be reached. RelHistBuff 15:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the editors here agree with that, the problem I think they have, and I have, is including inflammatory quotes, from Mormon leaders, when, quite frankly, the flame throwers were on both sides. Unfortunately the deaths resulting from the religious rhetoric were by a far margin mostly those that believed Joseph Smith is a prophet.

Personally, I don't really care what others believe as long as their actions are good. They can believe that trees are to be worshipped, but if they are loving and kind to others, they are great in my book. The problem is that when Mormons continue to suffer persecution (i.e. refusal to engage in business, name calling, lying, handing out tracts at church), and unlike your claim that it is not "official policy" if it is being done at Church with the endorsement of the Pastor then it is "official policy". If a Bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ, did such things he would be reprimanded and possibly removed from his calling. It offends my sensibilities, regardless of the person being persecuted. I was equally dismayed by the stickers handed out by the Catholic Diocese on my mission:

Témoins de Jéhovah sont pas admis ici Jehovah Witnesses are not welcome

as I am by the protesters at conference. I haven't reviewed all the edits; but the ones I have seen, seem to want to make a point by including specific statements made by Pratt and others; without including similar statements made in the newspapers by the practicioners of other religions that are just as inflammatory. Personally - I would take it all out - and find a way to neutrally summarize the history. --Trödel 15:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think trying to pretend that bad things never happened is really helpful to anyone. In an encyclopedia it amounts to suppressing the truth, which would be entirely contrary to our reason for existence. DJ Clayworth 15:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why wyou would think I propose pretending they never happend - I think it would be better to neutrally summarize; but if we are goign to included the rhetoric from Pratt from what, about 150 years ago - then we should include the rheteric of the protestant and catholic ministers of the time as well. --Trödel 15:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were arguing that statements by early Mormon leaders should be included or not. Currently the article 'neutrally summarizes' the statements by the early Mormon leaders, and then includes the actual statements as references. Incidentally, some of the early Mormon leaders clearly hadn't heard about this idea of "it's only about disagreement of doctrine", because they call the other churches "wicked". "Wicked" is not a description you use when you are having a polite theological disagreement. DJ Clayworth 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I know - it was a different time. The rhetoric was very much heated. Members of the church were called "devilish" that is why if quotes are included they need to come from both sides, so that the context is in the article. --Trödel 16:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never had a problem with adding quotes from both sides. DJ Clayworth 18:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"If one examines the history of Christianity as a whole however, one will notice that such characterizations of one another on the part of groups with conflicting thelogical stances are not uncommon." Isn't this getting a bit close to editorialising? Unless we have a valid secondary source for it... DJ Clayworth 18:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree - that is why I proposed earlier a "Mormonism and Catholicism" "Mormonism and Protestantism" type articles - that would allow better writing and less weasel words in describing "historic Christianity" and avoid that issue altogether. --Trödel 18:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that the difference in the two relationships is great enough to warrant separate articles. Plus you will find that there is more variation within Protestantism than there is between Portestantism and Catholicism. Moreover I don't think the above sentence would be acceptable in either article. DJ Clayworth 19:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the footnote I've added for my statement about critical language between branches of Christianity is long but necessary to make the point that Christian leaders everywhere throughout history have used such words as 'corrupt','idolatry','apostate', etc. to describe theologies that differed from their own and it is not a uniquely 'Mormon thing' (On the Greek and Roman church schism, Rome described Constantinople as the "Synagogue of Satan", hardly friendly words). If we must keep the Whore of Babylon statement in there, I think that is important to offset it so that it is clear what is going on. When you have a strong belief and you belief it to be true and right, you're going to step on toes when you assert that belief. My main point though (and I hope this came accross in the way I wrote/changed this section), is that while Mormons disagree doctrinally with other Christian faiths, we do try to look for the good in what others believe and encourage faith generally. This is not to minimize the importance we place on our doctrine, but to let people know we are looking to share, not to fight. I think it's notable that you will never see an article in the Ensign or any other official Church publication with a title like "Kingdom of the Catholics" or "The Baptist Menace". We focus on teaching our own doctrine, invite people to investigate and pray about it's truthfulness for themselves, and leave others the same priviledge, "let them worship how where or what they may". We don't waste time with bashing other faiths, and parts of this article were starting to feel like just that. That was the impetus for me in adding this section. I have many good friends from other Christian faiths and we stand together on the principles that we can (like the role of the Savior in our salvation) and we agree to disagree on those that we can't, always seeking to persuade and edify eachother in Christ, as brothers and sisters and children of God. (a little soapboxy there, sorry ;-) I like how what I added has been cleaned up though, and I do appreciate the editorial fixing that's been done. mpschmitt1 19:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't moind the soapbox, but disagreements do not justify conciliatory compromise. I won't fight anyone (I don't anyway), but I refuse to compromise, either. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I don't need to provide the ref, do I? --Mdoc7 03:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No I'm familiar with that one, no need for a ref :-) I'm not advocating compromise either, though I did unfortunately use the phrase "agree to disagree" above. I Think what I mean is that there are certainly places where Mormons and other Christians can strengthen and encourage eachother, or at least appreciate the faith and tenacity of eachother, while at the same time acknowledging the differences in doctrine and exploring them respectfully. There is even room for testimony and bearing sincere heartfelt witness to one another of the truths we feel we have learned by our study of God's word and our sincere yearning and seeking for God. I have been taught and strengthened considerably by a friend of mine who is an evangelical. I marvel at his faith and trust in God. He is an upstanding father and husband who teaches his children correct principles and is an exemplar of faith in God. The Spirit is incredibly evident in his life and I love him like a brother. Our experience of God, our personal relationship with him (theoligical differences aside), is very similar. We recognize that in eachother, and so we can see and encourage that nugget of truth in one another even if we might feel the other is a little off on some other points. We each know the other loves the Savior and we rejoice in that when we get a chance to have conversations about the Gospel. We both have a love for the Bible and we both find nourishment in it's pages so we can explore together there as well. So I say to you Mdoc, don't you compromise! Stand for what you feel is right. That's the way to do it. I'm not even concerned if some harder to understand things come to light about my Church in that process. But we just need to check ourselves that we're always factual, even-sided and fair (I know I can lean a bit to much the other way too, so I'm talking to myself here as well). Anyhow...God Bless...mpschmitt1 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed statements

I removed a statement that 'the issue was one of theological disagreement' a) because it is unsourced and b) because some of the leaders use phrases like 'wicked' and 'condemned to hell' which take it way beyond the realm of a difference in theology. DJ Clayworth 15:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Traditional LDS attitudes toward those of other faiths

Somebody should clean up the mess in this section. Several footnotes are way too long and are not really footnotes, just a big extension of the discussion at hand. Mdoc7 22:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

John Taylor in footnote 35 is mispelt as "John Taylot" (which I left as is), but which name is meant below?
John Taylor (1808-1887), Third President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
John Whittaker Taylor (1858-1916), Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
--Mdoc7 16:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Overlong references

There are three references in this article which consist of several paragraphs. Off-topic discussions are not the purpose of references, so I suggest they are removed. Any suggestions as to where they could go, in this article or another? DJ Clayworth 20:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections to anything resulting in removal. --Mdoc7 00:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If we remove them, we should put them on another page and link to them in the reference. I feel that some of the references we've put in the "Traditional LDS Attitudes Towards those of other faiths" Are all essential to fully understanding both sides of the coin. [[User: Mschmitt1|mschmitt] 14 October 2006

I agree in principle with putting them on another page, but what on earth would we call it? "Invective directed by Christians against other Christians" seems silly and long winded, and I can't think of anything else.

Actually what I propose is this:

1. 1. I added reference 33 originally as five separate references. I only added this many because another editor kept changing my "Mormon leaders said..." to "One Mormon leader said..." or "Two Mormon leaders said..." until I added enough references to persuade him that it was more than a few. I'd be happy with splitting this reference up and retaining only two of the references, provided we remember that they are representitives and not isolated examples.
   2. Concerning reference 34 a) keep the first paragraph b) Cut the section on Martin Luther entirely as it's irrelevant. The purpose of a reference is to support what is said in the article, and I, for one, am not going to deny that Martin Luther used strong language against the Catholics. (Though I would contend that such strong language is symptomatic of a total breakdown and schism). c) Put the section starting "Vitriolic and unsympathetic responses..." into the main body of the article.d) delete the section "A few decades later" as irrelevant. e) Delete the section "While much is made about the fervor..." as editorialising and original research. We're getting way off the track when a reference itself has to be referenced.
   3. Reference 35: Just like 33, keep 2 of these references on the understanding that they represent the general case, not specific examples.

Any dissenters? DJ Clayworth 22:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think what's been started as a change is fine, but there is a wide gap between the first and second paragraphs of the section now. I'll try to make it flow better, but it doesn't make any sense now as it is...There's no logical thread between the topic of the first paragraphs and the "More recent examples..."

And I'm disappointed the Martin Luther quotation was lost... I think in transitioning the foot notes to the body, we've made a bit of a mess in places... This section is supposed to be about the way the Latter-Day Saints view and treat other religions, but it seems a bit schizophrenic at the moment. The most important point to make is that while leaders may have had strong words at times for what they viewed as Apostate religion, the Church has always been respectful of and cordial to other faiths, especially so in recent years...

deletion in Traditional Christian denominations’ reaction to proselytization

I removed the following paragraph from the end of the section:

In response to several events stemming from this milestone conciliatory move by Zacharias, a "letter of concern" written to Greg Johnson (President of Standing Together Ministries, who organized the milestone event in Salt Lake City) described how the Ex-Mormon writer, as a Mormon with others, worked to infilterate Protestant churches and pepper certain teachings and hymns with subtle Mormon teaching concepts. The writer warned against compromising biblical standards.

What I find objectionable about this statement is:

1. It is written by a woman who states in her letter that she was invited to sing at other Christian churches while still a Mormon. When invited she chose LDS music to sing. Infilterate (sic) is hardly the situation. She, and those who sang with her, was asked to sing. It was not a premeditated act to clandestinely enter another congregation.
2. If she was not directed in her choice of music, how can she be held liable for her choices? She states she was previously a Relief Society president, surely those churches that extended the invitation (in Utah) knew that she was not a member of their congregation and of her church affiliation. This appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.
3. The writer is hardly objective and I question if the letter is from an individual can be identified as a reputable source. We do not know her expertise, only that she states that she was previously a member of the LDS church. I suggest we use reputable sources of identifiably creditable sources.
4. The section is supposed to be about how Christian denominations react to proselytization of LDS. This paragraph is about how some Christians react towards other Christians actions; another topic best kept for another page.

I submit the paragraph has no value to the current article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we are not talking about the Mormon Tabernacle Choir are we? An LDS organisation which is regularly invited to sing before audiences of all faiths. In any case, unless more information is forthcoming, I would concur with Storm Rider. DJ Clayworth 20:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the reference is a letter sent by a lady who now has found Jesus and after living in the false church, with false prophets, and dead doctrine. The letter is telling "Z" how inappropriate his loving approach is and that he needs to be more firm in declaring the truth of Jesus to lost Mormons during General Confernces twice a year, rather than simply praying for Mormons at conference and wishing them well.

This is a markedly different approach from those other Born Again Christians who throw Books of Mormon on the ground, stomp on them, take garments and wipe their backside, and shout at passerbys about their impending visit to Hell.

I do not live in Utah, but I have had occasion to attend General Conference. The distasteful display of those who state they are Christian has always been repugnant. If anything, it most certainly makes LDS more firm in their faith. It is such a forgiegn behavior for LDS and is viewed as an example of Christians that do not have the Holy Spirit as their guide.

I have also had one experience with a group of men who were standing and well wishing those who passed by on their way to General Conference. It has been a great regret that I did not have the time to thank these individuals. One could feel the spirit of Christ with them. I was very touched by their actions. They may have not agreed with my beliefs, but they respected my rights to worship as I choose. My personal opinion is that these people represented honest Christians whereas I have always felt the others were similar to those who draw nigh unto Christ with their lips, but never knew Him. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

When I read the reference, I found this: "Our goals as LDS singers were to establish ourselves in the Christian community to advance the Mormon gospel." But perhaps infiltrate is too strong. Remove the excerpt; I'm not tied down to it, any part of this article, or to anything LDS-related. --Mdoc7 00:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing is evident, The LDS church is a missionary church. The Great Commission is taught as a responsibility of each member who takes upon them the name of Christ at baptism. It would be accurate to state that LDS teaches the concept of "every member a missionary"; however, to further than that is to spin the activity in a negative light. This individual appears to have felt she could share the gospel with her musical talent. Every year our congregation invites a local Christian church to our nativiy celebration. They have superior choir to ours. I suspect that some of the choir members might think of the annual invite as an opportunity to witness to Mormons, but we just think of it as a wonderful opportunity to hear an excellent choir that shares of the Spirit of Christ during the Season.

A point that I have thought often when I see people join the LDS church or when I see LDS members join other churches; I see them moving to a degree of the light of Christ most appropriate to the individual. Parley P. Pratt's comments aside, which I happen to disagree with its interpretation and the way he said it, I view all those who stand with Jesus, fight against the darkness of sin are Christian and are in our Father's care. Churches tend not to like such doctrine; they tend to want to state who is right and who is wrong too much to be comfortable with it. It is my two cents. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I dunno who Pratt is (and don't care), but who is right and who is wrong is not the issue. The great commission does not include "another gospel" warned about in the scriptures. The issue is compromise of the truth by association through ecumenism. Fellowship is not more important than doctrine, but doctrine is not more important than doing the Word. There's only one church, one baptism, one Lord. Your Jesus is not my Jesus. You have a different god, a different gospel. And there are a lot of "Christian" churches. Do you understand that not everyone who says "Lord, Lord," will enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Have you seen the video link at top? Anyway, I think this shall be my last entry. --Mdoc7 15:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Don't have anything against you personally tho. --Mdoc7 02:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Mdoc, a final word before we part ways...While you may feel that your Jesus is not my Jesus, the fact is that there is a Jesus out there who, irrespective of our opinions of him, Lives, loves us and laid down His life for our sakes; to draw us to our Father in Heaven. That is the Jesus that I worship. Do I have a perfect knowledge of everything about him? No. But that doesn't stop him from loving me anyway and seeking with all his heart to rescue me. And it doesn't stop him from loving you the same way. My prayers are with you, brother. May you and I both come to a fuller understanding of who Jesus truly is and what our destiny is as children of God, heirs and joint heirs with our Savior. God Bless You (and I mean that sincerely). mpschmitt1 3:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15