Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 23

Christianity is Mormonism

Although the quotation is provocative, it seems to me that McConkie's much-discussed quote would provide a clear pointer for the content and direction of the article.

"Mormonism is Christianity; Christianity is Mormonism; they are one and the same." (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 513)

I would support using this quotation as the lead of the article, or near the leading sentence. Is there an objection? It seems to me that this could put to rest the confusion that is seasonally expressed in these talk pages, that it is unclear what the article is about. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support I can't verify this particular statement right now (I'm at work, my MD is at home), but McConkie is an excellent reference. Here are a couple of newer references that might also be useful. 74s181 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Strangest of all, otherwise intelligent people claim we are not Christian. This shows that they know little or nothing about us. " Boyd K. Packer, “A Defense and a Refuge,” Ensign, Nov 2006, 85–88

...there is one thing we would not like anyone to wonder about—that is whether or not we are “Christians.”

By and large any controversy in this matter has swirled around two doctrinal issues—our view of the Godhead and our belief in the principle of continuing revelation leading to an open scriptural canon. In addressing this we do not need to be apologists for our faith, but we would like not to be misunderstood. Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent,” Ensign, Nov 2007, 40–42

I prefer Mark's proposal; it is a cleaner statement and carries no other baggage as does Packer's and Holland's does not offer the clarity of McConkie. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll revise the opening paragraphs, and look forward to your comments. Does it correctly represent the LDS? Does it correctly describe Trinitarianism and its implications? Does it provide an appropriate summation of the purpose of the article and faithfully predict its contents? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In the "Mormonism" article, McConkie also quotes from President John Taylor: "It is the religion that Adam, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus and the apostles had..." In the "Mormons" article on the same page, McConkie makes some other statements clarifying this position. "Mormons are true Christians; their worship is the pure, unadulterated Christianity authored by Christ and accepted by Peter, James, and John and all the ancient saints." 74s181 (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the quote chosen is more clear than these others. Do you agree?

In fact, I think that it strengthens the first paragraph sufficiently that, the second paragraph can be moved out of the intro or deleted. What do you think? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would suggest that the second paragraph be moved to the end, and then another paragraph added to indicate MC reaction to LDS claims (e.g., different Jesus, different baptism). The goal being to first describe what each group believes, followed by their opinions of the other group. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 17:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would think that adding these details to the introduction, especially about reactions, would take us even farther from the goal helping the intro to stand on its own. Is it unclear, as it stands, what the two groups think of the other? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If the second paragraph were removed, would the intro be less clear? Would it be less capable of standing on its own as a summary of the topic? Perhaps so - and in that case it should stay. But I see no benefit to the summary function of the introduction, of moving that paragraph to the end. This puts the paragraph into the position of interfering with the perspective being explained in the previous paragraph, rather than clarifying. This muddies the picture of what is going on in the article, IMHO. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert explained

The revision by 198.60.4.6 changed the introductory sentence to say that Mormonism and Christianity are two different things. This change essentially declares that the POV of Mormonism is false. Against this lead, the following paragraph asserts the opposite - as though Mormonism is in an argument with Wikipedia. Furthermore, the revision asserted that there is "common ground" between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity - which in light of the following sentence is confusing, or misleading. I reverted these changes for those and a few other lesser reasons. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Mark provided this reference that discusses the history of God's revealed word, and explains why there can be no revelation after Jesus Christ. I wanted to comment on some of the statements. Note that I can only comment on the actual words of the catechism, based on my understanding of LDS doctrine. I am not familiar with whatever other ideas or meaning there may be behind some of these word. 74s181 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

51 "It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom...that men should have access to the Father...become sharers in the divine nature." Yes, "For this is my work and my glory..." see Moses 1:39 74s181 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

52 "...adopt them as his sons...knowing him and of loving him..." Yes, see Mosiah 5:7 74s181 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

53 "...God communicates himself to man gradually..." Yes, line upon line, precept upon precept. 2 Nephi 28:30 74s181 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

54 "...he manifested himself to our first parents from the very beginning...He invited them to intimate communion with himself..." Yes, "...the Lord God, took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden, to dress it, and to keep it...commanded the man..." Moses 3:15-17 74s181 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

55 "...After the fall, [God] buoyed them up with the hope of salvation..." Yes, "And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord...And he gave unto them commandments..." see Moses 5 74s181 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

56-58 "...the principle of the divine economy toward the "nations" LDS consider Noah to be a prophet. I'm not sure what 'divine economy' means. 74s181 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

59 "...God calls Abram...and makes him Abraham, that is, "the father of a multitude of nations...In you all the nations of the earth shall be blessed." LDS consider Abraham to be a prophet. 74s181 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

60 "...people descended from Abraham would be the trustee of the promise made to the patriarchs, the chosen people..." Yes, LDS agree with all of this and further believe that Abraham held the higher priesthood, had a celestial marriage, was promised exaltation. See LDS Bible dictionary, Covenant of Abraham. 74s181 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

61 "...honored as saints..." LDS use the word 'Saints' to refer to members of Christ's true church. 74s181 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

62 "...covenant of Mount Sinai and, through Moses, gave them his law..." LDS believe that God originally gave the Celestial law to Moses, but the children of Israel were not ready to live it, so he gave them a preparatory law, which we call the law of Moses. See LDS Bible dictionary, Law of Moses. 74s181 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

63 "...Israel is the priestly people of God..." Yes again, see LDS Bible dictionary Covenant of Abraham 74s181 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

64 "...Through the prophets, God forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant..." This is really interesting. The footnote references Isaiah 2:2-4, LDS view this as a direct prophecy of the restoration. I don't think the words "new and everlasting Covenant" appear anywhere in the Bible, but they are included in several LDS scriptures, especially interesting is a revelation given in response to those who had previously been baptised in other churches, and wanted to join the Church of Jesus Christ without rebaptism: D&C 22:1 "Behold, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning." 74s181 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

65 "In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say." Someone has added a lot to Hebrews 1:1-2 that isn't in the original text, at least not in the KJV. I didn't know who St. John of the Cross was, I thought maybe this was apocrypha, but I learned that he lived 1542-1591. Why are his writings being quoted as if they were scripture? I find it especially ironic that this expansion / interpretation of scripture, written 1500 years after Christ, is used as evidence to prove that God had given the final word when he sent Jesus Christ. 74s181 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

66 "...the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected..." LDS believe that the fundamental gospel truths (Faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost), don't change.

67a "...there have been so-called "private" revelations... It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium..." It sounds like MC believe that people change, necessitating further interpretation of scripture, and so MC depend upon learned men to do this. LDS agree that eternal truths must be interpreted and applied to new situations, but LDS believe that this must be done by one who is called of God, by prophecy. 74s181 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

67b "Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment..." LDS also believe this. 74s181 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

58-73 summary, review. 74s181 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

74, I am not sure what objective you are trying to get to by identifying these possible similarities. Can you elaborate.

When Jesus was upon the earth he said repent, be baptized, and follow me. That was enough for discipleship. For LDS this forms the basis of Christianity. Jesus was so significant that to follow Him united his followers. When LDS think of Christianity, Jesus Christ is the centerpiece; He is everything.

Centuries latter residual Christianity evolved until a special knowledge was required to be part of Christianity. This demand for orthodoxy of belief was a committment to perceived truth as identified by many holy men, among others, in several significant councils. There were schisms from the very beginning of these councils and these schisims have yet to stop.

There are significant differences between LDS doctrine and the churches that descended from 4th century Christianity. LDS accept these differences; in most situations LDS point to them as evidence of scriptural conflict and the doctrines of men.

I think that what you are doing is presenting a case for why LDS are Christian, but is there another objective? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

74s181, what's written by St John of the Cross is not being quoted "as Scripture", and it's not being used as "proof". The proof that new revelation will not be given is that Christ has come, and in the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church. The idea of a prophet like Moses leading the church is excluded. The quotation expresses this, and its implication, succinctly and clearly. Circumstances change, and doctrine grows to more fully confirm the church in the revelation which it has already received; new revelation contradicts this confidence.

Since these sentences are written to purposely exclude the sort of thing that the LDS teaches, you can't really say that you "believe this" unless you've either misunderstood it, or you've rejected LDS teaching. You'll need to look more closely at the Roman Catholic idea of "the deposit of faith", and the Eastern Orthodox idea of "Holy Tradition", to see why this makes a Joseph Smith impossible, in principle, in the Church. You're pointing out that there is a superficial similarity of words, even when presenting conflicting concepts; but agreement is more than that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"The Question" is secondary. Clearly, revelation is a core issue, but I've wondered about the basis of MC belief on this. Mark has been saying things that sounded like official doctrinal statements, but I never understood where they were coming from. He gave this reference, I took a look at it and saw some of the things that I had been hearing. Things like "deposit of faith". Also, St. John of the Cross sounded like someone that might be a very early source, it got my attention. I read thru it, checked the scriptural references. As you said, much is similar until we get to the subject of revelation. There is a carefully constructed fence around the idea of revelation, unfortunately, there is nothing here that tells us who constructed the fence or when. MC assume it has existed from the beginning. Well, at least now I understand what is meant by "deposit of faith". 74s181 (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"The proof that new revelation will not be given..." Where does the Bible say that there will be no revelation after Christ? Why do MC believe this, if not because men like St. John of the Cross have said it is so? 74s181 (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand. It's not because John of the Cross said this, that it's believed: it's the other way around. He said it because this is what we are given to believe; we believe it because of who Christ is. It makes no sense to return to a Moses or an Elijah, now that the one they anticipated has come: "This is my beloved Son, hear him." — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"...you can't really say that you "believe this" Mark, I believe everything I've said here. I'm not in agreement with everything in the catechism. I agree that Jesus Christ taught many things to his apostles, but most of what he taught wasn't written, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written". I suspect that we don't even have all the things his apostles wrote. 74s181 (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"They have the Scriptures, let them hear them." — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I have a better understanding of what is meant by the "deposit of faith", can you tell me when MC believe this deposit was complete? Was it at Jesus Christ's crucifixion, or the resurrection, or the ascension, or at some other time? I'll be straight with you, what I really want to know is was it before or after Stephen saw "...the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God", or the revelation to Peter on taking the gospel to the Gentiles, or the ending of circumcision and other ritual observances of the law of Moses? I guess I"m engaging in the dabate a bit, but I would like to know when MC believe the deposit was completed and the heavens closed. 74s181 (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The time of the apostles was unique. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I know that the discussion has moved on, but, I'm still curious, what does "The time of the apostles was unique" mean? What I mean is, #65 said that Jesus Christ was the final word, there should be no changes in the church after Christ's ascension. And yet, there they are. Let's fast forward a few hundred years, to the time of Martin Luther and the practice of selling indulgences. The granting of indulgences had been part of the tradition, based on Matthew 16:19, and really going back to the blood sacrifice of the law of Moses. It was the selling of indulgences that triggered the reformation, but Martin Luther objected to the idea that any man had the authority to commute sin, completely repudiating the doctrine, saying that the tradition was wrong. So, how does this occur? Could something similar occur today? Isn't this what happened every time a new Christian church broke off from a previous church? Didn't the parent churches always label those who broke with 'tradition' as heretics? And yet, they all still claim to be part of that 'deposit of faith'. 74s181 (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So, the real question, the question that makes the above questions relevant, why was the LDS movement different? Why did all the other Christian churches close ranks against the LDS? There is something here that isn't clear, this may be the nuclear issue I have been looking for. 74s181 (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Protestants aren't called heretics on account of their objections to indulgences. Eastern Orthodoxy has never had a doctrine of purgatory or indulgences, and they aren't called heretics on that account. There are all kinds of things that separate Protestants, Orthodox and Catholic; but what separates the LDS is of a very different character. There are many anti-trinitarian heresies; is it your perception that Mormons are treated differently than these others? I think that they have been treated differently in the past, but not on account of their "heresy" heresy being different. Anyway, I follow the argument you're trying to set up, but I don't see any real questions here. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

self-edit 20:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Protestants and Eastern Orthodox aren't treated as heretics today, but when they initially criticized tradition they were treated as heretics. Martin Luther was excommunicated for his criticism of traditional doctrines. 74s181 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The only argument I'm trying to set up is this. There is something unique about Mormonism that unites all MC religious institutions against them. What is it? If we say it is the rejection of Tradition, then what about other restorationist churches such as Churches of Christ? Are they regarded in the same way as LDS? Another possibility is 'sheep stealing'. Both LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses actively seek converts, even among those affiliated with another Christian church, I know that this practice is offensive to MC, most MC churches teach non-aggression within the MC club, but consider LDS, JW, and perhaps other outsiders to be fair game. Then there is the issue of paid ministry, or rather, lack of it. One could argue that this is a threat to the ministerial hierarchy of other churches, and combined with the proselyting activities of LDS perhaps it is enough to unite the MC leadership against them. 74s181 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So, I'm not trying to 'set up' any particular argument, I'm trying to understand what the argument is, what sets LDS apart from the diversity that is MC. Here is a specific question, are other restoration groups like Churches of Christ considered part of MC? I know that they reject the creeds and tradition, but I don't know how they interpret the Bible regarding the nature of God. If they reject creedal trinitarianism but teach essentially the same doctrine then I would think that they would be accepted. Are they accepted? 74s181 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't see what's profitable about this, and I don't see any mystery here. Are you of the opinion that the LDS doesn't want to be "set apart"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think LDS want to be "set apart" from other Christians. I'll drop this for now, 'Mormonism is Christianity' is an interesting path, let's see where it goes. 74s181 (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, what you mean is that, you want other Christians to be Mormons? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you meant by this question, I've been thinking about it. The easy answer is yes. McConkie says they already are so I guess we just have to get them to accept baptism. LDS believe that eventually most will. Is that what you are asking? Is this about the sheep stealing comment? 74s181 03:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Eternal progression of God

In an earlier discussion, I replied to Storm Rider:

At any rate, I have learned something if it's true that the concept of eternal progression does not apply to God - although, I do not see why it doesn't.

I want to return to this, because by all accounts there may at some points be a very significant gap between what some Mormons have believed, and what editors here have said is doctrine.

• "He [God] . . . was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being . . . It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God was once been a finite being." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7: 333)
• "If there were a point where a man in his progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflecting mind. God himself is increasing in knowledge, power and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end. It is just so with us." (Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses 6: 120)
• "We shall go back to our Father and God, who is connected with one who is still farther back; and this Father is connected with one still farther back, and so on." (Heber C Kimbal, Journal of Discourses 5: 19)
• "Our God is a natural man . . . where did he get his knowledge from? From his father, just as we get our knowledge from our earthly parents." (Heber C Kimbal, Journal of Discourses 8: 211)
• "As man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may be." (Lorenzo Snow)
• "The Gods who dwell in heaven . . . were once in a fallen state . . . they were exalted also, from fallen men to celestial Gods." (Orson Pratt, The Seer 23)
• "Our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another." (Orson Pratt, The Seer 132)
• "We believe in a God who is Himself progressive . . . whose perfection consists in eternal advancement . . . a Being who has attained His exalted state." (James Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith 430)
• "God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. He became a God." (Milton R Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages 104)
• "There was a time when the Deity was much less powerful than He is today . . . He grew in experience and continued to grow until He attained the status of Godhood. In other words, He became a God by absolute obedience." (Milton R Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages 114-115)
• "As the Prophet [Joseph Smith] also taught, ' there is a God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ'." (Bruce R McConkie, Mormon Doctrine 322)
• "God himself, the Father of us all, is a glorious, exalted, immortal, resurrected man." (Bruce R McConkie, Mormon Doctrine 642-643)
• "God is an exalted man . . . our Father in Heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man . . . The Prophet [Joseph Smith] taught that our Father had a Father and so on . . . promises are made to us that we may become like him." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1: 10-12)

These quotes, cited frequently in anti-Mormon literature, indicate that Mormons in the highest levels of leadership, even prophets and apostles, have for most of the history of the LDS believed something that is not doctrine, and have misunderstood the teaching of Joseph Smith. These men believed that eternal progression applies to God; but President Hinckley and some contributors here have said that they know of no such doctrine. Regardless of whether doctrines have actually changed - let's assume that they have not, because Mormons say that they have not - nevertheless, beliefs about doctrine have changed significantly. Do you disagree? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mark- its been a while - I hope you are doing well. Of course LDS doctrine changes - we believe that God will reveal many things in future years and generations that we don't currently understand in its fullness. Let me offer some perspective from something i've been researching lately. I hope that this will help all of the editors in this discussion better understand what is doctrine versus an authoritative statement. Sorry for the length - it is worth the read.

“Let me illustrate with an experience I had recently. A Baptist minister and I were chatting in my office about a number of things, including doctrine. He said, "Bob, you people believe in such strange things!" "Like what?" I asked. "Oh, for example," he said, "you believe in blood atonement. And that affects Utah's insistence on retaining death by a firing squad." I responded, "No, we don't." "Yes, you do," he came right back. "I know of several statements by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Jedediah Grant that teach such things." "I'm aware of those statements," I said. I then found myself saying something I had never voiced before: "Yes, they were taught, but they do not represent the doctrine of our Church. We believe in the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, and that alone." My friend didn't miss a beat: "What do you mean those statements don't represent the doctrine of your church? They were spoken by major Church leaders."

“I explained that such statements were made, for the most part, during the so-called Mormon Reformation and they were examples of a kind of revival rhetoric through which Church leaders were striving to "raise the bar" for members' obedience and faithfulness. I assured him that the Church, by its own canonized standards, does not have the right or the power to take a person's life because of disobedience or even apostasy (D&C 134:10).

“In determining whether something is a part of the doctrine of the Church, we might ask: Is it found within the four standard works? Within official declarations or proclamations? Is it taught or discussed in general conference or other official gatherings by general Church leaders today? Is it found in the general handbooks or approved curriculum of the Church today? If it meets at least one of these criteria, we can appropriately teach it.

“A significant proportion of anti-Mormon writing focuses on statements by Church leaders of the past that deal with peripheral issues or non-central issues. No one criticizes us for believing in God, the divinity of Jesus Christ or his atoning work, the literal bodily resurrection of the Savior and the eventual resurrection of mankind, baptism by immersion, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and so forth. But we are challenged regularly for statements in our literature on such matters as-

*God's life before He was God *How Jesus was conceived *The specific fate of sons of perdition *Teachings about Adam as God *Details of what it means to become like God hereafter *Whether plural marriage is essential to one's exaltation *Why blacks were denied the priesthood before 1978, and so forth - Robert Millet; (Religious Educator, Volume 4, Number 3, 2003)

The article goes on to quote an 1865 the First Presidency counseled the Latter-day Saints: "We do not wish incorrect and unsound doctrines to be handed down to posterity under the sanction of great names, to be received and valued by future generations as authentic and reliable, creating labor and difficulties for our successors to perform and contend with, which we ought not to transmit to them. The interests of posterity are, to a certain extent, in our hands. Errors in history and in doctrine, if left uncorrected by us who are conversant with the events, and who are in a position to judge of the truth or falsity of the doctrines, would go to our children as though we had sanctioned and endorsed them. . . . We know what sanctity there is always attached to the writings of men who have passed away, especially to the writings of Apostles, when none of their contemporaries are left, and we, therefore, feel the necessity of being watchful upon these points."

This was in direct reference to a number of the above doctrines. However, just like the term "spirit prison" as commonly used by Mormons today, the "doctrines" continued to be promulgated. ' The article goes on to say that "Prophets are men called of God to serve as covenant spokesmen for his children on earth, and thus we should never take lightly what they say. The early Brethren of this dispensation were the living prophets for their contemporaries, and much of what we believe and practice today rests upon the doctrinal foundation they laid. But the work of the Restoration entails a gradual unfolding of divine truth in a line-upon-line fashion. Some years ago my friend and colleague Joseph McConkie remarked to a group of religious educators: "We have the scholarship of the early brethren to build upon; we have the advantage of additional history; we have inched our way up the mountain of our destiny and now stand in a position to see things with greater clarity than did they. . . . We live in finer houses than did our pioneer forefathers, but this does not argue that we are better or that our rewards will be greater. In like manner our understanding of gospel principles should be better housed, and we should constantly be seeking to make it so. There is no honor in our reading by oil lamps when we have been granted better light." Ultimately the Lord will hold us responsible for the extent to which we give heed to the teachings, direction, and focus provided by the living oracles of our own day. Their teaching, direction, and focus come to us by means of their commentary upon canonized scripture as well as the living scripture that is delivered through them by the power of the Holy Ghost (D&C 68:3-4)."

The LDS Church recently clarified this in their newsroom. Part of the document states:

SALT LAKE CITY 4 May 2007:

Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another. The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.
• Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

I recently presented my research on this very topic. Some of the confusion comes because many don't understand what consitutes doctrine. For something to be "official doctrine" it must be voted upon and sustained in a general body of Latter-day saints, according to the Doctrine and covenants. Therefore, most of the doctrine that is quoted above does not represent the church's teachings. There are five types of "Mormon" doctrine

1. Canonical doctrines – these are found in the LDS scriptures, including the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price
2. Official doctrines – President of the church approved AND typically sustained. Examples of this are "Orgin and Destiny of Man, Proclamation on the Family, etc.
3. Authoritative statements – these are statements by church leaders that try to explain doctrines to the best of our understanding (see this topic and other items referred to above)
4. Other True doctrines that fall out of the duty of the church to teach (ie, gravity, etc.)
5. Folk doctrines or popular doctrines – common beliefs which are simply not true or misguided, OR may be true but not scriptural that are perpetuated even if recanted. (ie what it means to become "a god" etc.

We all need a reminder, as the encyclopedia of Mormonism states: "The Prophet Joseph Smith received and shared his doctrinal understanding line upon line, from the time of his first vision in 1820 to his death in 1844. In many instances, his own understanding was progressively enhanced." So too has Mormon doctrine changed and expanded. Anyone who says that LDS church doctrine hasn't changed doesn't understand the idea of continuous revelation.

The most recent president of the church in discussing what the church teaches about Theosis says the following in a response to whether or not God the Father was once a man:

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it...I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it." -Time Magazine, 8/4/97, page 56

I hope Jeff Lindsay won't be upset with me quoting from his blog entry on the topic when he writes:

Which prominent Church leaders issued the following statements?

1. "Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, 'I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High.' ... For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality."

1. "Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how a man becomes a god."

1. "The Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods.... Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life."

1. "He [Christ] became man that we might be made divine."

1. "But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. 'For he has given them power to become the sons of God' [John 1:12] If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods."

I know, this is tough - there are so many crazed Church leaders to choose from. I'll make it simple with a multiple choice format. Which of the following men said one or more of the above statements? There may be more than one answer.

A. Joseph Smith

B. Brigham Young

C. Lorenzo Snow

D. Gordon B. Hinckley

E. Larry King

F. Mitt Romney

G. Saint Irenaeus

H. Saint Clement of Alexandria

I. Saint Athanasius

J. Saint Augustine

Hint - the last four.

The bottom line is that we believe we can become gods in the biblical sense. Anyone who expands what this means is outside of the canon of scripture - whether or not it is true if we can create our own worlds or not. Let's all stick to the church doctrine, not authoritative statements of that may have been considered unofficial doctrine by those in past ages before we all realized that not much has been revealed on the topic. -Visorstuff (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Different issue. The distinction between theosis and exaltation is significant; but it's a different topic altogether from the idea of the eternal progression of God. If many Mormons have believed that God has progressed, and still do believe it, is that not significant in the relationship between Mormons and the MC? - I mean, given the assertions made here that it is "not doctrine"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it significant that many Catholics have an improper understanding of Mary? Should their misunderstanding be stated? Should we dig up some of the "interesting" statements made by Catholic and Orthodox leaders throughout history? Are those statements significant to doctrine?

BTW, I am more than willing to take St. Athanasius at his words; what he states is truth and LDS believe it implicitely. What is suprising is the backpeddling that our orthodox brethren do when faced with these historical statements. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand my question; but to answer yours, yes, it is significant that there are misunderstandings on both sides, regarding Mary. And because there is an impulse that will not go away, and should not be suppressed, to be of one mind with one another, these misunderstandings will be stated in the course of time to enable more agreement.

Meaning is what words are to communicate, and what Athanasius says is not what the LDS mean. Words received apart from their meaning, or with different meaning, is misunderstanding. Because you believe that the Father and the Son are different beings you cannot quote Athanasius and "believe it implicitly", unless you fundamentally misunderstand what he said. I'll boldly say that, our pious hope for you is that instead, you have misunderstood what you believe, and in fact believe what Athanasius means although you have not yet understood it.

You have never caught me backpeddling on this; and you won't, because I know what they mean. Every evangelical who speaks of union with Christ, who speaks of the church as his Body, who anticipates seeing the invisible God face to face, of being revealed as "like him" and "sons of God", also knows something of what the fathers meant even if they deny emphatically the words that the fathers use. This matter concerning words and meaning continues to come between us. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the definitions to which we each place is words can lead to miscommunication; however, the words of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Augustine, Justin Martyr, Hilary of Poitiers, Gregory of Nyssa and many others were blunt and clear. They did not attempt to mince the words or to soften their impact. That stated "that He would become the Son of man for this purpose, that man also might become the Son of God". "The assumption of our nature was no advancement for God, but His willingness to lower Himself is our promotion, for He did not resign His divinity but conferred divinity on man." Christ sought "to raise humanity to divinity". These statements are echoed in LDS doctrine; they are LDS doctrine. There is no confusion.

It is not surprising to me when many western Christians hear the doctrine of Theosis they are stunned and take it for blasphemy. It is unfortuante that the early patristic fathers were not quoted more often so that the belief did not become so unknown in the west.

I am not saying the persent teaching of theosis is the same as the early fathers. Too many of theologians today water down the doctrine so much that I fear not even Athanaisius would recognize it as the same thing; it has become a shadow of what was once taught with clarity.

I was not insinuating that you personaly were backpeddling; I do not sense that at all. However, I have sensed in many other MC when confronted with the statements of the patristic fathers that spoke words even more clearly than Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet, there is confusion, if you do not see that they are speaking of the mystery of the Holy Trinity (as epitomized by, not originating from, Nicea) as concerning the revelation of our salvation.

The terminology (of "theosis" or "deification" )is has become unfamiliar (in the West) to the point of neglect. But it's no surprise if it is not prominent. After all, it could be and often is misunderstood to mean what the Mormons mean; which is not orthodox. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC) - self edit 07:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if i added to confusion, Mark, i was merely using exaltation and theosis and what you call the "eternal progression of God" as examples of things that are not church doctrine, but believed by many within the church. To me what is and what is not doctrine is what needs to be discussed, as the article is full of authoritative statements, not doctrines. It is intersting to me that the Southern Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians can all differ in which doctrines they subscribe to from congregation to congregation based on which church leaders they decide is the most correct, however, they don't allow Mormons to differ in belief from other Mormons. It is true that we are much more centralized and that people have false beliefs about many things, and regardless of how many times Church leaders try to clarify things from Blacks and the Priesthood to Progression of Man or Theosis or whatever. It seems to me to be a double standard, but I can understand why, based on our claim for prophets. But we don't believe that prophets are unfallible in everything they say - but that when they do speak for the Lord, we would be wise to listen. Yes, they declare doctrine, but perhaps more importantly, they give us specific council for our time - For Noah's time it was to get on the ark, for our time it is to protect the family. In both cases, they focused on preparing their people for the coming of the Lord and preaching repentance and faith in the Lord.

Now in regard to the eternal progression of God, let's look back at the statement of LDS Church President Hinckley on eternal progression of God in Time Magazine. As stated before, he said the following in a response to whether or not God the Father was once a man:

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it...I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."

He better than most knows what is and what is not church doctrine in regard to God once being a man. He was criticized by many anti-mormons about his comments. Strange to me that it has been very recently clarified, yet we are still having this discussion. It is not a doctrine or teaching of the church. -Visorstuff (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm the one who added to the confusion; your post was long and I still have not given it the attention and thought that you put into it, so I responded to a part, not the sum, of your comments. I'll remedy that. But, I do follow what you're saying Visorstuff. It is not doctrine. Do you think that it bodes well for the relationship with Mainstream Christians, if you can say to them confidently that the LDS does not teach this? Or, do you think you're being required to go beyond this to say "those Mormons are mistaken, who think this"; and if so, can you envision ever saying that? Or, does Mormonism just not work that way? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that President Hinckley was saying, 'yes, there is a record that Joseph Smith made these statements, but we don't teach this as doctrine, we don't emphasize it.' I think we don't teach it because JS,Jr. didn't have a chance to fully explain it. However, it's out there, and most LDS who have been paying attention at all believe something different about the Father than what most MC believe. The scripture says that both the Father and the Son have bodies of flesh and bone. We know how the Son got his body, JS,Jr. and several of his successors made statements about how the Father got his body. We can't sweep this under the rug, but I agree that it is important to be clear on what is official doctrine and what is not. It is doctrine that the Father has a body of flesh and bone. 74s181 (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a LDS that does not believe God was an exalted man; it was something that was never taught to me though I was aware of the toughts of earlier leaders. I understand the logic behind it, but as I have stated before it does not offer any light and adds much confusion. I suspect that we have leaders of the church and many members of the church who do believe this concept, but it is not the doctrine of the Church.

I think the most the Church will ever say is that it does not know; I would be surprised if they would ever declare those individuals who stated such and such came to incorrect conclusions. However, they have done that before (Adam-God theory) so it is still a possbility. It is funny that it gets far more play by those outside of the church than those in the church. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The LDS claims to add something important to what we thought Christianity was. Here's one thing that Mormonism adds - something significant to us, and yet you are unclear about what it has added. Another thing that it adds is the reasoning that it's absurd to say that God is everywhere, or that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit mutually envelope one another, or that we dwell in the Father, or that the Son dwells in us, because Jesus and the Father have bodies, and they are beings separate from the Holy Ghost - which produces a lot of speculation and uncertainty. I would expect that these issues also get "far more play by those outside" - and yet, this is one of those things that Mormonism adds. What is "funny"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What is "funny"? There are different theories about the history of God the Father within LDS, you can see that Storm Rider and I have different views, both about whether or not there is official doctrine on this, and about what the teaching is, yet we both realize that this particular issue is not a core doctrine, it is not something to lose sleep or get emotional about. And yet, MC zoom in on this and other similar teachings as if they were the defining doctrines of LDS. Yes, the Father has a body of flesh and bone, that is in the D&C, and that is a really major difference and we should talk about it. But the things that JS,Jr. taught in the King Follett discourse and the comments made by successor prophets may be interesting, but are not considered defining by LDS. What is defining is that the men who made the various statement are, in fact, prophets, like Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, etc. 74s181 (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If Christian teaching is displaced by Mormon speculation, this is just as interesting as if Christian teaching is replaced by Mormon teaching. So, I still don't understand the bewilderment if we "zoom in" on things that pretend to replace orthodoxy. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"...things that pretend to replace orthodoxy" LDS perpsective is somewhat different. LDS have prophets that prevent theological speculations from becoming 'orthodoxy' without anyone noticing. We've seen what can happen to the church without a living prophet to prevent this. 74s181 04:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the things that many LDS believe that are significantly different from MC belief are relevant and should have a place in the article, but I don't think that this should be the primary focus of the article. 74s181 04:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've commented often, in our discussions, that a theological comparison may not give an accurate picture, or at least not a complete one. However, the fact that you think of the Trinity dogma as speculation is very much at the center of what we must focus on - because it is tied to the enormous difference in the way that we think of doctrine, of "tradition" and "deposit of faith" as something stable and increasingly clarified in conflicts with doubt, compared to the almost in-the-moment idea that comes with "follow the prophet". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed two-part structure

I've removed the sub-heads that separated "contrasts" from "comparisons". In the process, I also reduced several of the mainstream views, in order to focus these explanations on what may be nearer to the point of departure being discussed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think that the approach of "comparable beliefs", followed by a description that hopefully typifies the disagreement, has proven to be a productive approach in these talk pages, and I would like to see it reproduced in the article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-structure

I've completed a massive re-structuring of the article, re-writing in some cases the Mainstream views (which are still largely unsupported), grouping some related subjects as sub-heads. I have separated most of the discussion of LDS views from the discussion of "mainstream" views. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear issue, part II.

Mark, your questions (06:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)) make me see the nuclear issue in a different way. I'm going to try another summary. 74s181 15:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

1. All Christians, LDS or not, and for that matter, all Abrahamic religions and many others believe that there is an entity who created the Earth and placed us here for some purpose. Christians, both LDS and non-LDS have many beliefs in common on this topic that are different from other, non-Christian religions.
2. Within non-LDS Christianity or, IOW, MC, there is diversity of thought on church organization, including forms of worship, hierarchical structure of the church, etc. Most (not all, see below) elements of LDS church organization can be found in some MC churches.
3. Within MC there is also diversity of thought on good works or, what man is supposed to do in this life. Most (not all, see below) of what LDS teach about good works can be found in some MC churches.
4. However, MC are pretty unified on what God and man are and their relationship to each other, and the LDS view is significantly different, so different as to be shocking or even offensive to many MC.

So, a different view of the nuclear issue. It is a subtle difference, but I think it is a more useful view. Rather than saying "The nuclear issue is the Trinity", we say "The nuclear issue is who God and Man are." Here is a possible outline for the article, organized around this idea:

1. What beliefs are common between LDS and MC? Brief statements with main article tags on common beliefs, including the existence of God, Old Testament prophecy, coming of Jesus Christ, his life and ministry, death, resurrection, atonement for sin.
2. Who is God? Brief summary of the different views, carefully distinguishing official doctrine from speculation, with 'main article' tags pointing elsewhere for more details.
3. What is the purpose of God? LDS have a clear statement on this, with all of our discussion I'm not sure we've ever talked about what MC believe about God's reasons for creating man.
4. Who is Man? Again, brief summary with 'main article' tags.
5. What is the purpose of Man? Current article refers to LDS Plan of Salvation, I don't know if there is a similar article on the MC view, maybe one needs to be created. Mark made some statements above that could be a good start.
6. Differences in church organization. This would include the 'not all' mentioned in #2 above. Things like continual revelation, a living prophet, additional scripture, and the LDS definition of 'one true church', vs the deposit of faith, importance of tradition, role of theology, and the MC definition of 'one true church'.
7. Differences in good works. This would include the 'not all' mentioned in #3 above. Things like general ordination of men to the priesthood, lay ministry, family history, and vicarious ordinances for the dead on the LDS side. I'm not sure what would go on the MC side, that is, what 'good works' MC practice that LDS do not. Maybe a response to LDS practices? But that could turn into a debate.

The lead would then reflect the general outline. I think the McConkie statement is good, then briefly mention the nuclear issue, and touch on some of the other, less signficant differences.

Much of the current article fits somewhere in the outline above. I think that if it doesn't fit, it should be discarded. The focus should be on what it is that causes MC to consider Mormonism as something other than another Christian church. I think that the who / what of God and man are the nuclear issue. A few other LDS practices are also radically different from what any other present day Christian church does. 74s181 15:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that you're focusing on what is of the most interest to you; not necessarily what the article should explain. I don't think that the MC should be a focus at all, if the article is about Mormonism. On the Mormon side, we should be emphasizing the reasons that Mormons provide for their belief that the LDS is the restoration of Christianity. I don't think that Mormon theology is necessarily the most enlightening aspect of Mormonism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"...what is of the most interest to you..." Mark, I think that the article lacks a central focus. I'm trying to find a focal point and also figure out where everything else fits. The 'nuclear issue' I'm looking for would become the key focus. From my personal perspective, the most important thing is continual revelation for LDS, and lack thereof for MC, I see this as the cause, and all the other differences as effects. However, based on your comments I thought that the issue of who God and man are would be more immediately recognizable as a difference to MC. It is also is very important to LDS, so I thought it would be more nuclear.

"On the Mormon side...LDS is the restoration of Christianity." The only problem with this is that the affirmitive argument is a matter of faith, either you accept JS,Jr. as a prophet or you don't. The only 'logical' arguments are negative, i.e., 'MC is in error because of X, Y, Z, therefore, a restoration was necessary'. 74s181 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The article lacks central focus because it doesn't stick to the focus that it establishes in the leading sections of the article. Also, the descriptions of the LDS views are consistently over-long. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that this defect, a lack of consistent approach, model or focus, is largely repaired now. Do you agree? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the changes are useful and a step in the right direction. One glaring problem now is repetition, there are three separate explanations of JS,Jr. and the restoration, one after the other. Even as a LDS, I think this is a bit excessive.<g> Also, I see a lot of stuff further down that in light of recent discussions seems pretty unimportant. But I'd like to figure out if we're going to start with continuous revelation or with the Godhead before trying to fix this. 74s181 (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've merged two of the sections. I think that it's most accessible to the topic, to begin with Joseph Smith and go from there. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"...if the article is about Mormonism." In your view, does the article have a MC side? I'm curious what it would be. If the LDS position is summarized as you describe, what is the summary statement for the MC position? Probably the 'deposit of faith', right? Maybe the whole thing is as simple as 'continuous revelation' vs 'continuous tradition', does that work? 74s181 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much just that simple on that one issue of comparison, yes. And there's probably no other way of contrasting the two in a more vivid way. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) -- — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've revised the section describing the difference in attitude, toward "personal guidance", to better reflect some of the things that we've been talking about lately. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with defining the core or nuclear issue as "continuous revelation" vs "continuous tradition". Mark, it sounds like you're ok with this. How does everyone else feel? 74s181 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the wisdom, or of the "neutrality" and "verifiability" of saying that this is "the core" or "the nuclear" issue. Certainly it shows up pervasively, but why should we not say that God Himself is the core and central issue? I'd like to say that. Why shouldn't we say that the promises of Christ to his Church are at the center or core of the issue? We may adopt a working paradigm, but I don't think that we should pretend that Wikipedia is the source of definitive knowledge concerning the "core or nuclear issue". Am I overstating your intention? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article should provide a side-by-side comparison of Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity. Rather than a "central or core" issue, it should be a collection of aspects of the two religions. It should be limited to those that are (a) important to at least one of the religions and (b) significant differences between the two religions. The explanations should be brief with links to main articles. Any important topics where both pretty much agree should be noted briefly in a "common beliefs" section.

It seems to me the discussion should revolve around how to organize the topics. Which topic is most important will most likely vary from person to person. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 01:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the two-part structure, to encourage re-organization of the various comparisons so that those things that are more "central" or "pervasive" might be ordered and arranged together, in a more orderly or logical way. The idea of continuous revelation, for example, touches on several issues including modern scripture and Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet, as well as the idea of personal guidance and calling. I would also like to encourage the style to spread through the whole article, of giving explanations on comparable issues of importance without the interference of rebuttal. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "verifiability" or whether the nuclear issue would "vary from person to person", Jeffrey R. Holland gave a talk in the last general conference where he said:

...there is one thing we would not like anyone to wonder about—that is whether or not we are “Christians.”

By and large any controversy in this matter has swirled around two doctrinal issues—our view of the Godhead and our belief in the principle of continuing revelation leading to an open scriptural canon. In addressing this we do not need to be apologists for our faith, but we would like not to be misunderstood.

So, a current, recognized expert in TCoJCoLdS says that the LDS perception is that the most controversial or 'nuclear' issues are the LDS view of the Godhead, and the LDS belief in continuing revelation. The majority of Elder Holland's talk focuses on the LDS view of the Godhead. Is this the way we want to go? These two key issues, then some of the other significant issues? If so, which goes first, Godhead / Trinity, or Continuous revelation / Deposit of Faith? Personally, I think that continuous revelation is the root cause, and the restoration of a more correct doctrine of the Godhead is a fruit. From our discussions I suspect that the MC position may be reversed. 74s181 (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You "suspect", as in "accuse"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean when you use the word "accuse" that way. What I meant was, I suspect that MC would say the LDS Godhead doctrine 'fruit' is false, proving that the LDS continuous revelation 'tree' is also false. But I'm willing to go either way, or, maybe it is an asymetrical comparison after all, that is, the LDS 'POV' is continuous revelation, apostasy from the primitive church. Then Godhead, and relationship between God and man. while the MC 'POV' is, ? I'm going to start a new discussion on this. 74s181 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

When you speak of "root cause" you are no longer measuring what is "more controversial"; you are then speaking of causality. To say that one's view of revelation is caused by their view of God (which can only be based on revelation), is to accuse of reversing doctrine and revelation.

The MC POV is that adding to the faith which is deposited in the church is "innovation", which adds nothing but doubt, and is apostasy, "anathema", and "anti-Christ". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

While at church last night I had another thought about the nuclear issue, and what you said above about "innovation" fits right into it. I know you're probably tired of this, but please, bear with me one more time. 74s181 (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• LDS believe that the New Testament prophesies both an apostasy and a restoration. LDS believe that this apostasy occurred and that the authority, certain critical doctrines and practices given to the primitive church by Jesus Christ and the original apostles were lost. LDS further believe that God called JS,Jr. to be the prophet to restore the authority, doctrines, and practices of the original primitive church. 74s181 (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• MC believe that the New Testament promises that Christ's church cannot be destroyed. MC believe that no apostasy occurred, and that all of the the authority, doctrines and practices given to the primitive church by Jesus Christ and the original apostles still exist in the church today. MC further believe that what JS,Jr. claimed as 'revelation' is, in fact, 'innovation', and is itself apostasy from the true faith. 74s181 (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you think? If I haven't got the MC position exactly right, am I close? Is a symmetrical comparison possible? 74s181 (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We do not believe that a general apostasy has ever happened in the sense that, the church ceased to exist, or that this is even possible. If a branch is cut from a tree, and instead of being burned it is watered so that it might bear roots and be planted, to grow and bear fruit, then, the life that is in that severed branch testifies to the life that was in the tree when it became severed. The tree may say to the branch, "you have no part in me"; but the branch, if it is alive, addresses the life of the tree and says, "you are our Father,though Abraham does not know us,and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name." — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We are assured that the church is like sheep in the midst of wolves. We are warned that there will false prophets arising from among ourselves, speaking twisted things, to consume followers of Christ for the fulfillment of their own ambition. We are warned that enemies will appear in the church, "not sparing the flock"; and yet, we are commended to the word of God, which is able to keep us. And so, we are prepared to expect that apostasy will happen repeatedly, even continuously; but we are also assured that Christ will not abandon the church, and therefore that the church is also repeatedly and even continuously restored. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

However, there are strains in the Anabaptist and Baptist movements that really do teach that, the church disappeared from the earth - or that, the line of the true church continued among various excluded sects, through the ages. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments have been very helpful. I've had a hard time reconciling 'no apostasy is possible' with the fact of the reformation. Now I see that my understanding of the MC position was incomplete. 74s181 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I was interested in your use of the tree and the severed branch to illustrate the relationship between the original church and the various 'branches' we see today. Many references to the vineyard, the olive tree, branches, pruning and grafting, and fruit can be found in both the Old and New Testaments, LDS believe that most of these refer to a prophecy lost from the Bible but preserved in the Book of Mormon, Jacob chapter 5. A couple of key points, branches on the mother tree go bad, producing evil fruit even though the tree is good, branches are cut from the mother tree and transplanted elsewhere, some produce good fruit, some evil fruit. 'Wild' branches are grafted into the mother tree and are 'tamed' and bring forth good fruit, at least for a time. Some of the branches that had been transplanted elsewhere are re-grafted back into the mother tree, with mixed results. But the goodness of the roots of the mother tree is never at issue. Anyway, I hadn't looked at Jacob 5 for a while, thanks for reminding me about the olive tree. 74s181 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So, Mark, when you say that it is impossible for Christ's true church to cease to exist, are you referring to the roots, or, IOW, the original source of the church? If so, I would agree with that, and point out that while the 'wild' branches may be grafted into the mother tree and bring forth good fruit, and while the 'tame' branches can be cut from the tree and transplanted elsehere, bringing forth good fruit for a time, it is impossible for the 'wild' branches that have not been transplanted into the mother tree to bring forth good fruit. Not as obvious, but I think also true, if the tame branches begin to bring forth evil fruit after being severed from the root they cannot on their own return to good fruit, they must first be grafted back into the mother tree. 74s181 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, would it be more accurate to say:

• MC believe that the New Testament promises that Christ's church has been and will be protected and preserved by the power of the word of God. MC acknowledge that mistakes have been made in the past and will be made in the future, but believe that a general apostasy is impossible, and that all of the authority, doctrines and practices given to the primitive church by Jesus Christ and the original apostles still exist in the church today. MC further believe that what JS,Jr. claimed as 'revelation' is, in fact, 'innovation', and is an example of apostasy from the true faith. 74s181 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be better and clearer to explain the catholic view as the article already does, that the promises of Christ to the Church will not be broken. And, I would rather that what the church teaches about Mormonism and Joseph Smith would not be pretended to be so direct. It would be unlikely that a direct "official" reference to Mormonism, per se, may be found. The story of Mormonism is simply not situated in relation to our own, in such a position that we must refer to your faith in order to explain our own. The article states it plainly enough, that the LDS idea is excluded presumptively by the contradiction of the faith. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I took the hint and shoveled a bit. Still a bit messy. 74s181 (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge "Authority" and "Priesthood"

These two sections speak of essentially the same thing; so, they should be merged. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Ceremonies" are also not distinguished sufficiently, from "Authority" and "Ordinances". The sections should be re-titled or merged. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is more detail in the M&C article than is needed on these topics. 74s181 (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that for the purposes of this article, the concept of "authority" and "priesthood" are similar enough that they could be combined. 74s181 (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as sure about "Ceremonies". Also, I've never liked this title. 74s181 (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the more it seems to me that the problem that nags at me is a matter of the headings that are used. Better titles would suggest a clearer distinction of the content. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be "Ordinances and Sacraments" to give parallel to the the Mormon view and the Christian view. Bytebear (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Other differences

There are a whole load of significant differences not mentioned in this article. Why nothing about Baptism, especially Baptism for the dead? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's there, but it is buried. This is one of the issues that I think should be resolved by merging and re-organizing the sections under "Authority", "Priesthood", "rituals" and "ordinances". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think baptism is a big enough issue to warrant its own section, especially since the two take such a different approach. "Rituals and ordinances" could be a whole new section. I'm sure there is enough difference there too. Frankly I think polygamy should be mentioned. Even if it's not practiced now it's a big part of history. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that differences concerning Baptism should be compared. The contrast of the Lord's Table to the Mormon Sacrament should also be more prominent. I'm unsure of how to "compare" the Temple ceremonies, endowment, polygamous sealing or proxy baptism, other than to link to the section discussing "criticism of Mormonism" under those topics. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not give a short summary of the differences here with a reference to the longer article. We should probably mention open versus closed services too. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As for temples, I think you can talk about the view of temples in general. MC believes them to have had a purpose, but no more. But on secret or closed services, I believe some of the more orthodox branches still have rituals of ordination that are not well known outside the upper heirarchy of the church. I don't know the details of these rituals, but they could be considered comperable to the LDS temple rituals. Bytebear (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream Christianity doesn't have 'temples' as such; temples are seen as an Old Testament thing (again with a very few tiny exceptions).

We don't have to find parallels; we can also make contrasts. As you say, Mormon services are typically closed, and non-Mormon ones are open (there may be trivial exceptions). That's worth saying. In any case there ought to be something written. Can we make sure that the "Mainstream Christianity" section is written by someone who understands the breadth of practice? I've just spent time trying to correct statements made about 'Christianity' that are either completely wrong or true only about Roman Catholics. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me, as long as that person truly does understand the breadth of practice, and can document its common point of difference with Mormonism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream position

There seems to be some misrepresentation of the Mainstream Christian position here. Particularly there is an implie assumption that other Christians have already decided that there are no prophets after New Testament times, and that is the only reason for rejecting Joseph Smith. That's simply not the case; definitely not true in all cases. We also need to improve the part on the 'translation' of the common scriptures to make sure that we understand that the LDS case for mistranslation is based on Joseph Smith's revelation, not on linguistic scholarship. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no new revelation, according to "mainstream Christianity". All the people are called prophets, in Christ; and others are called "prophets", but whatever is meant by a "prophet", it is not a bringer of new revelation, like Moses or Elijah. A Joseph Smith, who brings a correction of the faith given to the church is positively excluded. Who do you have in mind that says otherwise? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly not the case that non-Mormon Christianity considers all people to be Prophets - or prophets. Most Pentecostals and Charismatics consider that prophecy is a specific gift from God, granted to those he chooses. It is also not the case that only Trinitarian churches believe their teachings are consistent with those of Jesus. Non-trinitarians do also. And not all non-Mormons are Trinitarian. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

But even Charismatics and trinitarian Pentecostals do not mean by "prophecy" a correction of the faith deposited in the church. They compare their "prophecy" to what is revealed - or they are called "heretics".

The comparison cannot be to all "non-Mormon Christianity". Such a comparison would go no farther than "non-Mormon Christians are not Mormons". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Many Christians believe in a canon that is at least theoretically open; in other words if there were to be another book that showed the hallmarks of divine inspiration it could be accepted as scripture. The vast majority do not believe that this has actually happened, but believe that it could. e.g. [1] DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No "Traditional Christian" believes in a "theoretically open" canon. To so believe is to be "non-traditional" and "non-mainstream". It is not necessary to deal with every exceptional strand and type - or else, we might as well abandon comparison. If the article establishes a scope of comparison that is verifiable and identifiable, it should stick to that. If wandering outside of that scope adds to the confusion of what is being compared, then it is not contributory. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We should be comparing Mormon and non-Mormon Christians, not "traditional", whatever that means. Did you look at the link I supplied, where the Lutheran church says that's exactly what they believe? The Lutherans not exactly extreme examples. Here's another ref in case you missed it. [2] DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you pursue this idea to compare everything that is not "Mormon" but called "Christian" to Mormonism, you will then be comparing Mormonism to nothing identifiable, or to a thousand contrary things. Nothing will be explained except Mormonism only. "Traditional" or "Historic" Christianity (over against Mormonism), even when inclusive of Protestantism, is not so unidentifiable as you are pretending. Consider the Baptist, Albert Mohler's statement, for example:

In other words, Mormonism rejects traditional Christian orthodoxy at the onset – this rejection is the very logic of Mormonism's existence ... Mormonism rejects Christian orthodoxy as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.
Therefore:
Without doubt, Mormonism borrows Christian themes, personalities, and narratives. Nevertheless, it rejects what orthodox Christianity affirms and it affirms what orthodox Christianity rejects. It is not Christianity in a new form or another branch of the Christian tradition. By its own teachings and claims, it rejects that very tradition.

Any book that might be "added" to the Lutheran canon would not be "new". There will be no new book added to the canon, ever. Remotely, conceivably, by empty and impractical hypothesis, there might be some yet unrecovered ancient book that belongs in the canon of Scripture - but no hint of the existence of any such book is indicated, and no post-apostolic book will ever be considered Christian Scripture. The canon of Christian Scripture is limited to the apostolic deposit. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If by "Traditional Christianity" you mean the main body, the majority of Christians, then I'm fine with that. Many people use it to mean something like "Old style Christianity", and that would be bad because it does not include a huge body of Christian thought and practice. I suggest that we never use the phrase inthe article, for exactly that reason. "Mainstream Christianity" is much better.

Quoting one Baptist isn't the issue here. All it proves is that one Baptist believes in a closed canon, which I would certainly agree with. Most Christians do believe in that, but as I pointed out some Christians believe in an open canon, so we need to record that in the article. Otherwise you are setting up a straw man. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything more clear about "Mainstream Christianity" - it's a made-up term. It's what we say here, only because we are comparing to something out of the mainstream. The tradition against which Mormonism rebels is the issue. The quote from Mohler doesn't address the closed canon at all.

"Some Christians", who aren't Mormons, believe in an open canon: that is indefinite and an exception to a clear, ancient and continuous, well-established rule. Fiddle with the rule to make room for an exception, blur the comparison for the sake of that exception, and that is a straw man. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a framework for comparison, where Mormonism does not simply appear as yet another of the same sort of thing, where it is shown to be exceptional and original, where its own claims make sense, where its own arguments have a context. It is this very framework within which the foil can be identified, over against which Mormonism identifies itself. Quoting again from Mohler, not as an authority, but as an example of why this approach to the comparison of Mormonism is the only one that makes sense:

We are not talking here about the postmodern conception of Christianity that minimizes truth. We are not talking about Christianity as a mood or as a sociological movement. We are not talking about liberal Christianity that minimizes doctrine nor about sectarian Christianity which defines the faith in terms of eccentric doctrines. We are talking about historic, traditional, Christian orthodoxy.

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly like "Mainstream Christianity" either. In either case what we're doing is using the term as a euphemism for "non-Mormon Christians". I'd be happy to use that phrase if it would help. Or we could just compare "Mormons" with "Christians", but Mormons seem to object to that so we'd better not.

Lutherans are one of the largest protestant denominations, so they can't be simply ignored. To say that "all Christians believe this" when a large number don't is painting an incorrect picture, and that's bad for Wikipedia. Nor can we ignore the "postmodern" or "liberal" Christianity. It's as much a part of Christianity as the "traditional".

I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to portray Mormonism as "exceptional and original", though much of the article seems to emphasise the simlarities. I have no problem with that. However we mustn't ignore the "exceptional" parts of non-Mormon Christianity, or play down the huge variety within Christianity. That's why we mustn't make generalizations. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In general I was fine with your recent change, but I altered "cannot be changed" to "has not changed" which better reflects the facts. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Lutherans are simply not saying that new books (not ancient and original ones in catholic use) might in theory be added .

It is specifically the Christian tradition that Mormonism rejects as apostate. There are many "restorationist" groups that say this, like Mormonism but in contradiction of it. Comparison to eccentrics would require a different article. There is no need to "ignore" post-modern Christianity, for example - but what IS it? Do you know? It isn't defined by doctrines or settled practice. You must ignore "exceptional" parts of non-Mormon Christianity, or you will obscure that vastly larger consensus to which Mormonism refers in explaining itself.

You must make generalizations, you must speak in generalized terms of a provisional definition (Nicene Christianity, traditional, historic, orthodox, mainstream), in order to make any comparison, in order to provide a framework within which verifiable statements may be chosen as being representative. The entire "Christian apologetics" enterprise, by which Mormonism is engaged, is constructed upon the provisional definitions described in this article. There are narrower comparisons that might make sense for a separate article, that belong in the footnotes of this comparison: but we cannot justify the existence of an article that doesn't say anything: which is what this would be if the ordinary criteria for comparison are ignored. Comparison to everything is not comparison; it is proclamation. There are already many, many articles that exist for the purpose of proclaiming Mormonism, not comparing it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Lutherans are saying this. I know they are because I gave you references that say they are - official Lutheran sites. And at the risk of repeating myself yet again, Lutherans are not 'exceptional'. Nor are they alone.

Where did you learn that "all Christians believe in a closed canon"? It is possible that whoever told you over-generalized, or simply didn't know the reality? I've met cases before when people outside of Christianity say "the Christian position is this", when it is actually something totally different.

You really can't just ignore 'liberal' Christianity either. It's a canard dismiss them on the grounds of "they don't believe anything", but that's not actually the case. It's a stereotype, though one which may Christians also buy into.

You worry me when you write "You must ignore exceptional parts of non-Mormon Christianity, or you will obscure that vastly larger consensus to which Mormonism refers in explaining itself.". This article is not about Mormonism explaining itself. It's about comparing the two, on an equal footing. If Mormonism defines itself according to something it believes to be true about Christianity, it's not our job to reinforce that belief if it doesn't happen to be true. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Lutherans do not teach on-going revelation; they do not teach that new scriptures may be forthcoming in the future. You are misunderstanding what they have said. You are repeating the same misunderstanding over and over.

EVERY orthodox, mainstream, historical Christian tradition denies that new revelation may be forthcoming, to correct or add to scripture: by definition. This includes the Catholics, who accept all sorts of "private revelations", visions, visitations of Mary and other saints - see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, cited to that effect. And that certainly includes the Lutherans. There are many "Christians" who deny that the deposit of faith is complete, but they are eccentric - Seventh-day Adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses, some streams of Pentecostalism, various other "Restorationists", including non-CJCoLDS Latter Day Saints and many, many, many, many others, whose disparate "revelations" contradict one another. We are not comparing the eccentrics, because we cannot.

If "This article is not about Mormonism explaining itself", then it IS about Mormonism comparing itself; and it IS about those to whom they compare themselves. Your statement makes no sense to me, since you are the one who says that there is only "Mormon Christianity" and "Non-Mormon Christianity" - in other words, whether you recognize it or not, you are asking for "Mormonism explaining itself" without comparison. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is going to be one of those arguments where I give references saying something and you just say "but those references don't say that" over and over again it's going to be a long day. While you're thinking about my references, you might like to be coming up with your own to back up your statement that all Christians believe in a closed canon. And no Mormon sources please - if Mormons want to think that all Christians believe the same that's their affair, but they shouldn't be considered reliable sources on non-Mormon doctrine.

Now let me quote you. it's from page 3 of the second reference: "Because the authority of the Bible is the Gospel, in theory Lutherans have an open canon". "Lutherans are open to God revealing other books with the power of proclaiming the Gospel such that they should be included in The Bible. I think we would require an ecumenical consensus on those books, even a universal ecumenical council to confirm our convictions (perhaps). Lutherans do not look forward nor expect such additions to the Bible. However we are open to the workings of the Holy Spirit and the Gospel." As I say, Lutheran (and others) allow for the theoretical possibility that the canon might be extended, even though it is very unlikely. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't make a list of canonical books either - their "canon" is just as "open" as Lutheranism. By "revealing other books" Lutherans do not mean "new books", later books, correcting books, books added by a Prophet like the Book of Mormon or the Doctrines and Covenants. By "canon" Lutherans do not mean a list at all. They mean those books that have guided the church into faith; but they mean those writings that are "apostolic" and "inspired": The Lutheran Adolf Hoenecke writes,

Only that Scripture can be canonical, a norm for faith and life, which has actually been given by God, namely, the inspired Scriptures.

The Lutheran view of this is not much different from the Anglicans. J. L. Packer says, not in a way that Lutherans would disagree, that canonicity is a matter of recognition of inspiration and apostolicity, the "list" is accordingly received by the church, not created by it:

The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity, by his work of creation, and similarly he gave us the New Testament canon, by inspiring the individual books that make it up.

Apostolicity and inspiration are Lutheran criteria of "canonicity" - and in fact, this is why the Lutheran NT canon, although not formally, is divided into "uncontested" and "contested". Those books that have been historically uncontested - with regard to authorship - are treated with mild deference over the "contested" books, because the latter are "contested" as to their apostolicity. They do not mean that there are books of modern or future origin, that may - even in theory - be "uncontested". The Lutheran canon might, in theory, be "open" at one end (like any group that does not have a formalized list like those drawn up by the Council of Trent, or the Westminster Confession of Faith), but it is most definitely NOT open at the other (in Mormon fashion). Perhaps you are misunderstanding me, or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but if you are saying that the Lutherans believe in on-going revelation, and an extendable canon in the sense the Mormonism describes you are wrong. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that I do misunderstand you. I understand that you are claiming that all Christians believe in a closed canon, in which it is doctrinally impossible that books are added to the Bible, no matter what evidence there may be. If that's not the case then please let me know. My position is that the majority position is as you say, but that a significant number of Christians believe in an open canon, in which books may be added - at least theoretically - to those considered scripture. The references above were intended to back this up.

You, however, have a lot of assertions there and no references. The only quote is from an Anglican (do you mean J.I. Packer not J.L Packer?). Apostolicity is not an absolute criterion for canonicity (otherwise the Gospel of Mark and the Epistle of James would not be included), and inspiration can occur at any time. You need to find some references - and in fact read up about different Christian attitudes to scripture - before this conversation can continue. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is so abundantly supportable that you must be misunderstanding me. There is nothing you have cited that does, or even could possibly, say different - it is simply the fact of the matter, not something arguable. To make it arguable, you need to change what I've said into something else (like "Apostolicity is not an absolute criterion" by which you evidently mean that only apostles themselves constitute "apostolicity" - which nobody says). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If I understand what you just said, you mean you are so sure you are right that you have no need of references, and even references that appear to say something different must be wrong. If that's the case you need to go off an reflect for a while.

Why did I talk about apostolicity? Because you said "Apostolicity and inspiration are Lutheran criteria of canonicity", which I took to mean that the canon could not be extended because only Apostles could write inspired works and they were all dead. If you meant something different I'm sorry. What I meant was that Apostolicity was not an absolute criterion -i.e. a book could be canonical without apostolic authorship e.g. Letter of James and Gospel of Mark. If that's the case, and given that inspiration can occur at any time, nothing you said were any theoretical barrier to new books being added to the Bible. Theoretically, as I say. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I'm so sure that I'm right about this particular issue that, like evidence that the earth is round I may cite sources all day and all night: but none of them would necessarily be "authoritative" because it's not something that is seriously contested.

"Apostolicity" does not mean "authorship by the hand of an apostle". But it does mean that there is a barrier against on-going revelation, against later books being added to the Bible. If anyone in the "catholic tradition" says that the canon is "open", they always, every time, mean that it is open at the foundation of the church, not in present and future ongoing "inspiration". They never mean that revelation is on-going in that special sense of inspired scripture. If someone means the opposite, they have stepped far, far outside of their tradition. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I get very worried when I hear people say so strongly "I'm sure I'm right" and "it isn't seriously contested". It is seriously contested: I contest it, and the Lutheran Church contests it. I gave you references on that above. So please find references to support your view, or withdraw it. Your point about the roundness of the earth is specious; I can cite authoritative references in abundance to support the fact that the earth is round, but you haven't found any to support your viewpoint, authoritative or not.

If 'apostolicity' didn't mean authorship by an apostle, what does it mean? And if it doesn't mean 'authorship by an apostle' then it isn't a barrier to a new book being added to the canon.

Let me re-iterate my point. I have given you an example of a large group of Christians who believe in a theoretically open canon, and backed it up by references. You have produced nothing to support your view to the contrary, except to say "I'm sure I'm right" and "it isn't seriously contested". Why is it so important to you to believe that Christians believe in a closed canon? It's a relatively minor point, and as long as the article gets it right what difference does it make? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not a minor point at all. What is meant by "apostolicity" is also not a minor part of this point. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you want to think of it as a major point that's fine by me too. As long as we get it right. Anyway, my question about apostolicity was not whether it was major or minor but, since you say you didn't mean 'apostolic authorship', what did you mean?

You haven't provided any references to back up your contention that all Christians believe in a closed canon - are you still looking or can we put that question to rest? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not confident yet that even what I've already posted has been read. What you have quoted does not mean that the Lutheran position is that that modern books may be added to the canon, as you've interpreted them to have said. What it does mean is that, Lutherans don't have a settled list of books, like that formalized by the Council of Trent: the number of books that belong to the canon of Scripture is open for them. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I read very carefully what you wrote. What you wrote above was exactly what you wrote before, but you didn't supply any references to back it up, either the first time or this time. The references I gave clearly show that Lutherans (theoretically) allow for additions of books to the canon. Nothing in what I referenced says that they must be old books. You have supplied no references to show that they must be old books. Therefore I can't agree with you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking me to prove a negative, that's going to be tough. The criteria used for determining whether a writing is inspired have always been applied to books supposed to be ancient. The Lutheran criteria for testing inspiration are not novel. They have lists of inspired books. Their list is not fixed and unchangeable - but this does not make them novel: only the Catholics and Reformed have a fixed list. A book would be accepted as inspired if it is authenticated as apostolic - that is, if the author is an apostle or if the author wrote under the appointment, guidance or approval of an apostle. The inspiration of a book may also be determined from the universality of its use and acceptance in the churches in all times and places, so that a book would be used even if its authorship is in some doubt on account of its orthodoxy and universal use in the church. There are 27 books that are believed to pass these criteria, because their inspiration has been tested against the criteria of authorship and canonicity or universal use in the churches. These and the other subordinate criteria for acceptance would automatically exclude from consideration any book that is known to be of late origin: but not according to you. I'm not sure what to say to anyone who wants to apply those criteria to modern books. I guess that to convince you, I have to hunt around to find someone who states the obvious. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about proving a negative? You made the statement "All Christians believe in a closed canon"; I provided a counterexample; it's up to you to prove your statement or withdraw it. I'm well aware of the criteria for inclusion in the canon, and I'm fully aware that no modern book has passed the test; and maybe none have even tried. But you cannot claim that it is impossible. Which is what you originally wrote. Anyway, as long as you don't mind the statement being taken out of the article I don't mind what you think. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You are asking me to prove that the usual tests, by which churches received writings as inspired and distinguished them from other books, do NOT apply to modern writings. But when would any standard work address this, when all the tests assume that the writing seems to be ancient, apostolic and univerally in use in the churches? Any writing recognized to be modern would be automatically excluded. It appears to be necessary to press this point of logic, to prevent muddling one of the most evident and clear differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christinity. There is no new revelation between the time of the Apostles and the second coming of Christ; of course then, there will not be new Scripture. In this sense, all traditional Christians (I have never at any time said "All Christians" or "All non-Mormons") teach that the canon is closed to new revelation - they all teach a closed canon, in that sense opposite to Mormonism which affirms an open canon. That includes Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox, who do not have a formally fixed list of canonical books (as the Roman Catholics do). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes, mistakes

I just fixed the section on "Priesthood and authority" because it horribly, horribly, misrepresented the non-Mormon position. Many, many denominations don't believe that salvation is mediated through the church. It needs another look because some of the 'similarities' now belong in 'differences', and because I don't have time to find an accurate Bible quote, but even what I wrote is better than what was there before. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

While I'm here it is also not true that non-Mormon Christians see communion as essential to salvation. Catholics and possibly Orthodox might (though even they would probably not take such a blunt view) but for most Protestants salvation and communion are totally unrelated. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And here's another: "Their tradition is seen as a stewardship of the original gift of Christ, rather than formulations with new authority. " Many denominations, including the RC, expect the church to define new doctrine. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like you to mention just ONE, and defend it, that doesn't believe that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. I would like you to mention just ONE, and defend it, that doesn't believe that denies what that sentence says about communion (without your change to it). I would like to see any documentation AT ALL that would support the statement "for most Protestants salvation and communion are totally unrelated". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

For the second issue, you have the same problem that you have regarding the canon, above. Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants all expect new formulations of the same and ancient doctrine, and all reject new doctrines based on new authority. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you are getting your facts from. Virtually all evangelicals believe that the Bible is the pillar and ground of truth, and the church a useful but by no means necessary aid to salvation. I'm frankly stunned that you don't know this; but here's a reference to the Mennonite Confession of faith [3]. Check the section on the church, where you will see nothing about salvation being mediated through it. Likewise check the salvation section. Salvation is between the Christian and God, and the church is considered helpful but not necessary.

The Catholic church can and does formulate new doctrine. Check the various pronouncements by various popes down the ages, on contraception, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and many other things. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am frankly stunned if you think that your own views, or anything and everything that is exceptional, is somehow the norm. You link to a single article, that doesn't even say what you say that it does. If we're stooping to that, do any google search on "church" with "pillar and ground of the truth" — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic church teaches that their developments of doctrine are simply clearer displays of what the church has ALWAYS taught, as interpreted by the Magisterium. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

References for that Catholic teaching please. It's hard to see that teaching on contraception dates back to the early church.

On the other matter, I made a mistype above. I would concede that many believe the church to be "pillar and ground of truth"; what I meant to say was that evangelicals do not believe that salvation is mediated through the church, which was the original topic of discussion and what the article said before I edited it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is based on another unnecessary misunderstanding. There is a difference between the original doctrine being made more explicit, and new doctrines. This is even the case for the Roman Catholic Church, which being the most near to the contrary is the most demonstrative of the rule. And the Catechism of the Catholic church is as authoritative a source as can be found for what that tradition teaches. It's already cited in the article:

¶ 66: "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. [4]

This view is likewise taught in Orthodoxy and Protestantism - if by Protestantism is excluded those "restorationist" sects which distinguish themselves from the Reformation, objecting to the catholic tradition on this point. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll concede for now that there is no room for entirely new doctrine within the vast majority of Christendom. Shall we talk about the other mistakes? DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Put another way, in catholic terms, the church cannot add to the deposit of faith. Or, put in terms of eastern Orthodoxy, the church cannot add to Tradition. Or as Protestants would put it, the church cannot add to the Word of God. These are all saying something in common, over against Mormonism: revelation will not be added to the church; but clarification of what has been entrusted to the church must happen, progressively, over time, until the return of Christ.

The tradition that we are describing is neither distinctively Catholic, nor Orthodox, nor Protestant. It is the once united tradition as it has been inherited, with distinctive alterations by three divided traditions. These three differ from one another in numerous ways; but all differ from Mormonism in a common way. That is why the parameters for comparison are set as they are. If you want to alter those parameters, I would like to see some reasonable explanation for how this would make the article more clear and informative.

The "other mistakes" that you've mentioned so far are similar to those we've already looked at more closely. They lack citations - that is their flaw - but they are thoroughly supportable if not in their particular phrasing, certainly in their general meaning. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No,no,no. We were just talking about one - that all Christians consider that salvation is mediated through the church. In this case you need to go and read up on the Reformation - it was a key principle of Protestantism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, we are not talking about a bland "majoritarian" comparison. If we were, we should only be talking about Roman Catholicism, which constitutes by far the largest single group of "Christians"; or Catholicism and Orthodoxy perhaps. It is coincidental that this article's comparison encompasses "the vast majority of" Christian traditions, but that "majority" is not the sole or even the primary criterion for the comparison. The tradition, specifically, the "Nicene tradition", is being compared - not arbitrarily, but because this is that to which Mormonism compares itself; it is what they mean by "Christendom"; it is coincidentally "usually" or "ordinarily" also what is meant by standard reference works, representing "the vast majority of" Christians. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is only one mediator between God and man, which is the man Jesus Christ. The Church is not a mediator in that sense, according to any in these traditions - even the Roman Catholics. Quite aside from that - a distinct issue - every trinitarian church, without any notable exception, views the church as the visible expression of the life of Christ in the earth. Even the Baptists teach this, who are the nearest to an exception within the divided tradition. This is everywhere - the teaching that there is "one church": the difference within the tradition concerns how exact the lines of this one church correspond to the visible institution: from Roman Catholicism, which means a very nearly exact correspondence to the formal communion with the pope, to Baptists who mean by the visible church nothing more than their congregation. But every expression of that tradition teaches that the Church is the proclaimer of salvation, and the home of every believer. Here is someone, maybe a Baptist saying so (just as an explanation, not as an authority):

Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the church into the truth until the end of time. It goes without saying that this promise has been kept. Consequently there runs through the history of the Christian church a stream of orthodoxy, a line of truth ... Let us suppose that every reader is agreed on this definition of what is truth in the light of the Bible. Does it follow that we are all Christians? No! It follows that we are orthodox. But orthodoxy is not synonymous with Christianity. Orthodoxy is indeed essential to Christianity, but it does not constitute the very essence of Christianity. What the bones are to the human body that orthodoxy is to Christianity. Imagine a body without bones. Is it really a body? Hardly. It is just Mr. Blobby, a lump of flesh, not Mr. Christian. So Christianity without orthodoxy is not really Christianity.

By "body of Christ" no one means "Mr. Blobby, a lump of flesh". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the idea that it is "a key principle of the Reformation" that the church and salvation are quite separate things, maybe John Calvin can persuade you otherwise:

But as it is now our purpose to discourse of the visible Church, let us learn, from her single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels, (Matth. 22: 30.)

Or maybe what Luther says has more weight, if we're trying to find a "key principle of the Reformation":

Therefore he who would find Christ must first find the Church. How should we know where Christ and his faith were, if we did not know where his believers are? And he who would know anything of Christ must not trust himself nor build a bridge to heaven by his own reason; but he must go to the Church, attend and ask her. Now the Church is not wood and stone, but the company of believing people; one must hold to them, and see how they believe, live and teach; they surely have Christ in their midst. For outside of the Christian church there is no truth, no Christ, no salvation.” -Luther's Works, American Ed., (Sermons II), vol. 52:39-40

Every corner of the divided tradition teaches that there is one universal congregation; and that tradition cannot be interpreted as locating Mormonism within that church, any more than Mormons believe themselves part of the catholic tradition. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's quite an essay, and I agree with almost all of it. My objection was to the phrase "salvation is mediated through the church", and as long as you don't write that, feel free to incorporate any of the other things you wrote above. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you agree with almost all of what those quoted are saying, when they explain how salvation is mediated through the church; but you do not agree that salvation is mediated through the church. There's something superficial in either your agreement or else in your disagreement. Anyway, if you're just objecting to a phrase, because you're concerned that it would be misinterpreted in the way that I described, I can submit to that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

History

Do we need something in this article on the history of interaction between the two groups? Something on the early Mormon pronouncements about the nature of other churches, and maybe the Christian response? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The article needs to be a light summary of the interaction, because other articles cover particular things in great detail. The entire article contains references to what the Mormons have said about the other churches: that is basic to the article's thesis, and I don't think it's obscured. But maybe what you're talking about are those very notable interactions that are absent from this article: that concern those teachings and practices that provoked the strongest and most violent antagonism to Mormonism in the past. These would include charges of sanctioned polygamy, formal racism, and theocratic politics. I'm not sure how these would fit in the article though - because it often leaves a false impression when these are raised, that Mormons are still differentiated from their neighbors by these and other obsolete distinctions. Perhaps we might just briefly say that they are currently obsolete? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Apostolicity

DJ Clayworth has asked for clarification of the idea of "apostolicity" that runs through the Nicene tradition. Encyclopedia Britannica: Christianity explains this idea in some detail. In part, for example:

The church erected three defenses against the prophetic and visionary efficacy of pneumatic (spiritual) figures as well as against pagan syncretism: (1) the New Testament canon, (2) the apostolic “rules of faith,” or “creeds,” and (3) the apostolic succession of bishops. The common basis of these three defenses is the idea of apostolicity.

Apostolicity is a notion that the church is erected upon an unchanging foundation, upon which the church develops in its encounter with deviations, growing in dynamic interaction with that original deposit, so that over the entire course of the church's existence it more fully explicates that foundational faith, to gradually become a more pure and more fully explicit expression of participation of the whole building in the life imparted to the church at its foundation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

When this idea of apostolicity is defended in Protestant churches, the third defense is heavily modified by circular reference to the first two pillars of defense. No succession of bishops is "apostolic" in its departure from the first two, according to Protestantism - a continuous succession of bishops cannot stand on its own: or else, the church seems to become a vehicle of mere custom, not the transmitter of the faith according to the Scriptures. But note that this is the distinctively Protestant way of maintaining that the "bishop" really does represent apostolicity - and for this reason, Protestantism defends itself by appeal to bishops and councils speaking from the Scriptures, from whom the modern Roman church radically departs (according to the Protestant view of Rome and tradition). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The point here is not to defend the Protestant idea of apostolicity as true, but to show that although it departs from the Catholic idea of "apostolic succession" it nevertheless maintains an idea of "apostolicity" in ordination, which is antithetical to the syncretistic notions of "prophecy" and "new revelation" as represented for example by the ancient opponents of orthodoxy, especially the Gnostics, and by modern Mormonism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, here is an ecumenical and rather liberal view of "apostolicity" (Lutheran/Anglican - sorry about the print-warning dialogue) which I would dare say strikes me as being more Protestant than Catholic in spirit (bullets, numbering and emphasis added):

“ ... apostolicity [is defined] as containing four major strands -

1. faithful teaching,
2. the sacraments,
3. a recognized ministry,
4. and involvement in mission

• Apostolic succession is "a dynamic, diverse reality" embracing faithfulness to apostolic teaching;
• participation in baptism, prayer, and the eucharist;
• "sharing in the Church's common life of mutual edification and caring, served by an ecclesiastically called and recognized pastoral ministry of Word and sacrament;"
• and "continuing involvement in the apostolic mission" of the church by proclaiming the gospel through word and deed.

Apostolic succession is not to be understood "primarily in terms of historic episcopate.

”

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Trinitarians

Mark , please don't use "Trinitarian" to describe all non-Mormon Christians, or I will set a Unitarian on you.

Some of the passages about "Mainstream Christianity" read like they were written by a Mormon. They need to be seriously rewritten. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is not about all "non-Mormon Christians", or you will not have an article to write. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What term do you suggest we use to describe those who are not Mormons? Trinitarian is wrong, you don't seem to like "Mainstream", "Traditional" carries overtones that are too restrictive. Trinitarian is the one I prefer least. Other preferences or suggestions? DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We set the terms of comparison, and then we compare within those terms. The wider you make the terms, the more impossible the comparison. We are comparing "mainstream", traditional, majority, historical, orthodox, catholic, patristic, creedal, Christianity, which is, in fact, Trinitarianism. If we are not comparing to that, then we are not comparing anything except "non-Mormonism", which is nothing describable at all. This comparison could be written in one sentence: "Other self-described Christians are not Mormons". We might go on to describe in how many ways they are not Mormons. That is not meaningful in the slightest. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Trinitarian excludes Unitarian Christians, who in other ways are so close to non-Mormon Christians that it would be silly to exclude them. Using the term also focusses down on one high controversial doctrine, which is not going to be helpful. Do we really want people to think that there are only two kinds of Christians, Trinitarians and Mormons? I can just see the things that will be written on talk pages by Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses and many others if we do that.

The other point is that restricting the comparison to Trinitarians doesn't narrow the range of beliefs much. We will still get 99% of the variation you seem so keen to reduce by only considering actual Trinitarians, with regard to inspiration, doctrine, church practice, sacrements, etc. etc. Is it really worth misleading people so badly for the sake of such a little restriction? DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Trinitarianism does in fact exclude Unitarians. However, for a comparison of the vast and diverse traditions of Unitarianism, readers will have to go elsewhere than to this article. Unitarianism chimes in in the Criticism of Mormonism article, for example. It would be interesting to compare Mormonism to absolutely everything else called "Christianity", or "Judaism", or Masonry, or philosophy, or soup, or nuts. Numerous articles do just that; it just happens that this particular article MUST concern something particular, or nothing in particular can be said. Trinitarianism is not arbitrarily chosen. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is abundantly obvious that there are more "kinds of Christianity" than Trinitarianism and Mormonism. The article does not say that there aren't. And yet, there is only one "traditional Christianity" that encompasses Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism, and that is Trinitarianism. This is what is being compared, not mere "non-Mormonism". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And as a matter of fact, you're wrong in thinking that the difference that "trinitarianism" makes in "non-Mormonism" is a difference of 1%. There are things that Mormonism explicitly and pointedly denies, in rejecting Trinitarianism, that make a very definite and specific difference in virtually every point of comparison. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is that if you take the whole sweep of Christianity you get a very broad range of practice and belief. If you exclude non-Trinitarians you don't get a much smaller range of belief. Do Mormons agree with Unitarians? I doubt they agree much more than with Trinitarians. Besides, the article is about comparing Mormonism and Christianity, not Mormonism and Trinitarianism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself, aren't you? It is impractical to compare Mormonism with everything that is called Christianity. And, ironically, it would be arbitrary. Worse, you would skew the article into a "criticsisms of Mormonism" article - which already exists. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm only repeating my answers because you are repeating your questions. Obviously comparing Mormonism with all of the rest of Christianity is a huge task. I don't mind if you want to refer to this as "traditional Christianity"; it's not a great term, but it's better than "trinitarianism". Maybe the simplest thing would be to define the term at the top of the article and stick with it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Comparing Mormonism to any and everything that is called "Christianity" is meaningless. The terms are defined at the beginning of this article, but you do not want to stick with it. Trinitarianism IS "traditional Christianity" - why should anyone prefer vague terminology and resist its appropriate definition? Won't you give some reasons, instead of simply repeating? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

When you say this ...

"We will still get 99% of the variation you seem so keen to reduce by only considering actual Trinitarians, with regard to inspiration, doctrine, church practice, sacrements, etc. etc"

... you are not looking at what I am so keen to emphasize. I've emphasized things which differ in common from Mormonism, not what differs variously - the elements which, despite real subordinate differences "within" that circle, cause Mormonism to appear "eccentric" and "outside the mainstream". This "common thread" is variously called "tradition", "orthodoxy", "historic Christianity", the heritage of Christian past as it has been maintained despite divisions, and which constitute the definition of "the mainstream" for our narrow purpose here, of comparing that to Mormonism. This embraces in a related way, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant: that is, Trinitarianism. There is a specific idea of salvation implied in this, and of each of its subordinate elements including "inspiration", "doctrine", "church practice", and of the "sacraments".

Nevertheless, it may be possible to group non-mainstream sects with either the Mainstream, or with Mormonism, on a particular point of comparison; and this might be helpful if it can be done without the sacrifice of clarity. For example, the Mormon view of the Sacrament is comparable to a simplified version of Zwinglianism, a symbol of covenant renewal like that held by many Baptists, and their heirs the Christian Connection, Seventh-day adventists, and many others. The Mormon view of Baptism as an ordinance which "regenerates" in the sense of being a beginning response to a command of covenant obedience, could be comparable to some Unitarians, the Restoration Movement, Jehovah's Witnesses, many others. Gnostics, Quakers, some charismatics and others believe in inner "revelation" more than they do conformity to one canonical rule of faith. And so forth. But as we bring in these departures, we will always run the constant risk of pedantic arbitrariness, adding confusion and straining relevance; and so I think it should be done sparingly, if at all. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Review opinion

This article, like most of those dealing with Mormonism, is written from an unabashedly pro-Mormon POV. It would be nice to see a little more balance.

I've repeatedly tried posting other reasons that "traditional Christians" might not consider Mormonism to be part of Christianity, specifically the "plurality of gods" doctrine and the doctrine that states that "the god of this world" was once a man, and that men can become gods of their own planets. Neither of those specifically Mormon doctrines can be construed as Christian (for starters, Christians are monotheists), and I have quoted Joseph Smith's own work in context. Why are Smith's words consistently removed by his own followers? Don't Mormons stand by their prophet on this? RossweisseSTL, 12/17RossweisseSTL (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not "balanced" to introduce into the thesis of the article itself, the position that Mormons are not Christians - because Mormons say that they are Christians. However, it is certainly "neutral" to say that Mormons are not "traditional Christians" if by that is meant, the strictly monotheistic Christianity of the Nicene Creed, the belief in God who is the only eternal spirit, and not a man - because Mormons do not say or pretend that they are. Statements will not be removed or excluded, if they are inserted according to the rules of Wikipedia, especially concerning pretended neutrality, and in the interest of a readable and informative presentation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

After reading this article I must say that quite a lot of work needs to be done to it. Not only is the work POV but it is unabashidly so. The page seems to only be here to provide a space for mormons to show up and try to prove that their religion is Christianity. Someone reading this page who had never heard of the mormons before might be wondering why it even needs to be mentioned. This main point of the reason for the existance of the page in the first place should be stated and clarified. If you are going to go the comparisons route, not a bad way in the least, then you have to compare both form and substance. Not only the practices but also beliefs must be shown for what they are. Those people that do not hold that the mormons are part of Christianity should clearly state why and the reason needs to be more then just that they are not part of your own church. I am sure that there is a ton of sources for both sides. I also have an issue with some of the prose that needs to be re read by the writers and edited. You should not be Ad Hoc ing it but thinking about what you want to write and planning it out before you sit down at the computer. Get a real encyclopedia and read some random articles so you can get the idea of the style you should be trying to achieve and get used to it. Let it sort of sink in. It can still be your own version of it but there is a way to be in the groove and certainly out of groove.

Obviously, there is controvercy and many people do not agree about the subject matter. The page should not be seeking to resolve the issue. It should present the controvercy, the major thinkers that have contributed to it and factually referance statements concerning it. The way it stands now, it looks to me that Wikipedia itself is trying to convince me that the mormons are christians. The page should not be going that far. From my personal point of view, I see a lot of things in mormonism that I personally think are completely incompatible with Christianity, the main of course being the racism. I know that mormons hold a belief about some so called apostacy but from my point of view the so called Great Apostasy was when the protestants decided they wanted to worship a book instead of God. I hold that only Catholics are Christians and anyone not Catholic is an apostate. They may want to claim to be Christians or immitate Christians but all protestants including mormons just are not Christians. That is my view and the doctrine that I accept as fact. This obviously makes me biased and I therefore will not touch the page to edit anything. Along the same lines, it certainly seems odd to come across a page that is set up the way this one is. Now I know you all hate me for what I said and are now planning to track me down and kill me but before you do, take my earlier suggestions in seriousness and improve this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we're going to come across this general objection frequently - that part that shouldn't just be ignored. We could flip the intro, and then the objection might switch to the other side: "Mormonism and Christianity are separate religions ...". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've remodeled the introductory sentence, to avoid the suggestion that Wikipedia adopts the Mormon perspective. It could be improved. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like that edit at all. The previous introduction was quite clear on what Mormons say and believe. The new edit has that qualifier of "tradition" and then makes the heavily POV statement they are different religions. In this context there is only one religion and that is Christianity; within it there are various churches with a diverse set of beliefs. I believe that to be both factual and neutral. A Muslim would not say LDS were not Christian nor most other world relgions. The only people who want to put Mormonism outside the door are other Christians.

Also, the above viewpoint stated by the Anon is obvious POV and a narrow one at that. How many Catholics do you know that would disown all other Christians to blithely? This is a thought process that was common during the dark ages, but is not a prevalent thought today or am I mistaken? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Anon can't help us much. However, all that I've done is splice the two ends of the introduction into one sentence. I've presented the Mormon POV with force and certainty. What is "heavily POV" about the statement, that Christianity is traditionally understood to mean something different than Mormonism? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've re-asserted the edit, incorporating your observation that it is "only ... other Christians" who want to say that Mormonism adds something that is not Christianity to Christianity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This type of editing only leads to edit wars. I request that you revert it, bring the language to the discussion page and work collaboratively with others before making this type of edit to the introduction. It is too controversial and too important. If I go so far as to revert you and explain my revert it would seem like it would be time to go more slowly.

The new language is better, but I am still uncomfortable with it. The first part is out of context; McConkie was stating that Mormonism and Christianity are identical, not that the body of Christianity and Mormonism are identical. It is not a correct statement as it currently reads. The second part may be an accurate statement, but most churches do not use that language.

This is a highly controversial topic and a more cooperative approach is demanded by all. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would not have understood McConkie to have been speaking in terms of bodies at all, until you mentioned it. What I have done, by making an incremental change is certainly going more slowly than reverting edits. I don't know what you're asking for. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the language of the first sentence, to avoid casting McConkie's statement in the wrong context. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like some people have been polishing the article and some of it looks better. The opening line is a difficult matter and all I can suggest is to change Christian Tradition to Non Mormon Christians. This change I think would leave space for those who think that mormons are christians to be included but also for those that think that mormons are not christians. As it stands now it seems to lean on the Mormons are not christians side but I think the change I suggested or another better one would leave it ambiguous enough so that Wiki is not seen to be taking sides.

I still have a problem with some of the prose and some of the organization. I had to read the article twice and think about it before I could figure out the real controversies being talked about were. The article needs to clearly state what the objections to mormonism are that objectors think excludes it from christianity. One place is called the Nature Of Man but it is my understanding that just about every protestant religion has a different opinion about that. The controversy that is actually being talked about is not really the nature of man but is centered on the mormon belief that God was a human being before becoming God. Now I do not expect us all to agree on this and I do not expect Wiki try to resolve it but it seems to me that the very nature of this article needs for the controversies to be more explicitly stated. Some of the writting and sources are very good here at times but as a reader I feel a wonder as to why the conversation was happing to begin with. I really hope that you take these suggestions as positive to improve the article. I really can only give you a readers perspective.

On another note, when mentioning mainstream christianity, I sometimes was wondering if you were refering to the protestant view or the Liturgical (Catholic, Orthodox) view. I know that we can only put what we know and can source but there is also a lot of thinking and teology of some of the more eastern liturgical churches like Coptics or Armanians that is being overlooked. I do not say that we should go through the article and nit pick the heck out of it, these are just some things to think about. Mention of the Ante Nicien fathers would also improve the article in some places.

This article can be a very good article and it does address some important subject matter. I would really like to come back and read the article after some more work has been done to it.

---

--219.127.251.137 (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We will not say Non Mormon Christians. I would really like to see the LDS explanations greatly abbreviated, and more focused on the point of departure from tradition. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, non-Mormon Christians just does not work. There are simply Christians and non-Christians. There are certainly disputes on who or what is a Christian, but Christian is the only label we use to describe a follower of Christ. However, even as I write that I recognize that is a poor definition in Christian society, which gets to the root of one of the controversies we have in this article.

I would like to see a section that explains the MC perspective on the purpose of life; i.e. why we are here. This would be natural lead section into other differences between Mormonism and orthodox church doctrines. Thoughts? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Something like this?

• What is the chief end of Man? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. (Westminster Shorter Catechism Q/A 1)
• Why did God make you? God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next. (Baltimore Catechism Q/A 6)
• The life of man - to know and love God: God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life. (Catechism of the Catholic Church Prologue, I.1 )
• God created man according to His image, intending him to be like Him. ("Orthodox Catechism" Creation of Man] ¶ 5)

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also note that the article still does not say that Mormons are not Christians. The most that can be surmised from the three introductory sections is that, following the tradition would lead to the conclusion that Mormonism corrupts or departs from Christianity. This might suggest to a follower of tradition, the conclusion that Mormons are not Christians; but a reader might as easily conclude that Mormons are in two minds, in doubt of the Christian faith through belief in Mormonism. The article does not push the reader to one or the other conclusion. I think that a conclusive or definitive answer to "the question", either yay or nay, is a matter for apologists and teachers, and not for Wikipedia. We may report these conclusions, but we may not adopt them. Do you agree? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this answer does distinguish the difference between Mormonism and orthodox Christianity quite well. The difference explains a great deal about why beliefs are different; there is overlap, but it is a secondary emphasis.

We do a disservice without including the actual positions of major churches vis-avis the LDS church/Mormonism. As you say, we should report and go no further. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How would you answer your question about the "purpose of life", and how would your answer distinguish the LDS from the mainstream? How would your answer explain "a great deal" about the difference? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few minor edits to the intro. Let me know what you think. Mpschmitt1 12:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is bad style to bicker back and forth. If the first sentence does this, it should be fixed rather than made worse. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words blur the meaning and evade verifiability. "Many Christian traditions" is an entirely different statement, than "Traditional Christianity". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Not every Christian tradition has an official position on Mormonism. Some are more concerned with teaching their own doctrine than criticizing that of others. Again I'm led to ask what Traditional Christianity is exactly since there have been and are now widespread disagreeements within it's own ranks over the very issues that cause some (nay, many) Christian traditions to label Mormons as unorthodox. But the paragraph is fine as you re-rendered it Mark, so I'll leave that as it is. Though I disagree that "Many Christian traditions" is a weaselly expression. Quite the contrary actually if soleley for the reason that "Traditional Christianity" seems a non-entity when you get into the minutae...A term used to tie together a wide range of disparate Christian systems loosely tied together by 4th and 5th century creedal declarations, but who in many instances have been as historically critical of eachother as they are now of Mormonism. I'm not saying this to be provocative by the way, so hopefully it comes across the right way. If you'd care to delve more into this topic and provide counterpoint to what I'm saying, it might be an interesting thread. :-) Mpschmitt1 01:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Very few of them do Mpschmitt1, but neither do they need to. The reason is, it's a matter of definition. Mormons have defined themselves outside of Trinitarianism, outside of Traditional Christianity. If Trinitarianism is, by definition, Traditional Christianity, then Mormonism by definition excludes itself from it. The divided groups in that tradition have indeed been, are are still, critical of one another; but not on account of a departure from Trinitarianism, as with Mormonism. "Many Christian traditions" is exactly what would be meant by "weaselly" in the context of that comparison, just as it would be weaselly to say "many Mormon groups" in the place of "LDS". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It also is not relevant if there is dissent of some from what their own tradition teaches, if we are comparing their tradition and not the spectrum of conformity to it. For example, if it is the tradition that God created, it is outside of our comparison to discuss those who deny that God created, against their tradition. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet if you asked a Baptist, a Oneness Pentacostal and a Catholic to discuss what the Trinity is, you would most assuredly end up with some points of disagreement, no? So in part, my question is: If strict conformity with some Trinitarian definition is requisite for admitance into the Traditional Christianity tent, why isn't there a consistent definition. And who gets to decide what that standard is since there is still wiggle room that allows for Oneness Pentacostalism and other Evangelical traditions to play nicely. To me it seems the Oneness Pentacostal "one in person" definition is just the Mormon issue in the oposite direction. And yet they are not declared to be un-Christian... Splitting hairs I know and probably not that important to our article to continue discussing it, but if you have thoughts on this, I'd be interested (you can post to my talk page). It's something that's perplexed me for some time now.Mpschmitt1 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A "Oneness Pentecostal" is not a Trinitarian; and the Baptist tradition does not define the Trinity differently than the Catholics. And, as I've said many times, the bane of any meaningful treatment of these issues will show itself every time the discussion turns to whether Mormons are Christians or not. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, I know, I don't want to get us off that conversation again, but I still have the sticking point here for certain reasons:

1. The understanding of nature of God on the part of the Baptists is not exactly identical to that of the Catholics. For instance, a Catholic would say that prayer to Saints and to Mary is as effacacious as prayer to the Father (I was raised Catholic by the way), but the Baptist would say that God always desires to be addressed directly (to one of the three persons in the Trinity with no other intermediaries). This would be two different views of how God desires to be addressed, but it is an also a difference in the understanding of an attribute of God. This is admittedly not a very big deal in an of itself, but I'm sure if you dug into the deeper regions of theology for both parties, you would find a number of small differences that add up to a big question: God is who he is, there is no changing Him. So on each and every point regarding his nature, one side or the other must be right or they are both wrong. So who gets to ultimately decide? (A correct understanding of the nature of God being a litmus test for discerning a true Christian from an imposter)
2. Okay so further research has made me understand that Oneness Pentacostals are not Trinitarian (my bad there). So then, my question is: Are they Christian? And if so, why? (And what is the difference that makes their theology close enough to the "pale of orthodoxy", but leaves the Mormons labeled as a cult.

I think these kinds of questions are important because they lead to the question I've raised before about an exaggerated sharpness to the distinction between Mormonism and "every other branch of Christianity", since "Traditional Christianity" is not the monolithic body that the article seems to need it to be for it's point to be made in the strongest way possible.Mpschmitt1 (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The difference you're pointing out is off the issue you're drawing attention to. The view of God is the same. The idea of the duty (of worship) required of by God is different.
2. Modalists are not orthodox. Their teaching concerning God leaves God unknown.
3. Everyone is made so that they feel themselves alternately the center of all and the most left out of all. People who use words like "cult" will use it liberally, you can be sure.

Trinitarianism is what it is; and the churches that hold to it differ with Mormonism in a consistent way. The article does not pretend that there are no divisions - attention is drawn to this frequently, so that it is unreasonable to say that it presents a view of monolithic unanimity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No you're right there. I think the article has really improved over the time I've watched it (much of that improvement has been your doing too, Mark :-). I didn't mean to make a categorical statement there about the article, though I did anyway... What I meant to say is that the article would be much better able to draw a clear line of demarcation between Traditional Christianity and Mormonism if:

1. All other Christian traditions agreed down to the minutae on all points of doctrine that, in the minds of some, makes Mormonism un-Christian, and
2. Traditional Christianity had a single duly ordained authority structure that governed the entirety of Church direction, doctrine and practice, that could be traced back in an unbroken line to the original Church.

To which you might understandably reply, "Yah, so what?" But what I was trying to say was that since neither 1 nor 2 exist in Traditional Christianity at present, one is left to question by what authority Traditional Christianity decides that Mormonism has gotten it wronger (technical term) in a way that makes it wronger enough (another technical term) to no longer be welcome at the table. I look through history and see instances where the Wesleyans, the Lutherans, the Catholics, the Southern Baptists, the Northern Baptists, etc, etc, were all on the receiving end of similar persecution for some difference in theology or another to what Mormons have historically received, and then I see a pattern emerging of (after a long time, sometimes centuries) gradual acceptance and room at the table for that Christian perspective that was previously considered heretical. Many were burned at the stake in Medieval days for teaching things that Evangelical Protestantism proudly declares today. I wonder whether, with time, as other Christians become more accurately and intimately acquainted with Mormonism that there won't be a similar tempering of criticism and concilliatory compromise. To be sure neither side is ever going to stop declaring "We are the Church of Christ", but I think there is much room to grow in the way of mutual appreciation and that is beignning to happen as more accurate information is shared about Mormonism. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

< It would be easier to compare Mormonism to Romanism or Orthodoxy; but this is not the arena of contest so to speak. If we write an article comparing Mormonism to in something smaller than that arena, or different, then those who expect to find insight into the contest, who are familiar with its boundaries, would come here and say "this does not describe it". But as the issue is framed here, while it cannot tell the whole story without telling too many different stories, the article at least tells the story of "Mormonism and Christianity" in its outlines, as it is being enacted in the world. And, as such, it gives (or rather, it ought to give) a partial but clarifying explanation of the confusion you speak of above. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Belief in mistranslations in the Bible

The following line:

The belief in these mistranslations is "a matter of faith" for LDS, and not based on any form of textual scholarship.

is both inaccurate and biased against the LDS theology. My main issue with this statement is that the complimentary non-Mormon Christian belief is not held to the same standard. Most non-Mormon Christians do not believe the Bible to be without error based on textual scholarship but as a matter of faith. Certainly some on both sides will use textual scholarship to bolster their respective beliefs, but the belief itself is first and foremost a matter of faith. I'm sure that FARMS or Nibley probably has done some textual scholarship in this direction. Beyond this main concern, this kind of statement needs to be attributed to a reliable source to avoid appearing as OR. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue with believing the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly" is not unique to Mormonism, but it is stated in their Articles of Faith. In fact, I know of no Christian religion who would say they belive in mistranslated Bibles. But the implication is that Mormons think the Bible is flawed beyond belief, which is not true. I would say their belief is in line with most Christians who know the Bible has flaws. It is only the Bible inerrency crowd that fight this battle, but I wouldn't call those folks mainstream and are outside the scope of this article. Bytebear (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys told me not long ago that you do not believe that God is not visible, that he is a spirit and not a man as the Bible says. Isn't it more accurate to say that you believe that the Bible is contradictory and incomplete: it is flawed beyond belief, except that Joseph Smith rescued its real meaning, saving the word of God from oblivion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the point was that the term "invisible" is better translated as "unseen". God is in the form and shape of a man. But he is unseen to all but a few chosen few who have seen God. The Bible is correct, but the translation to "invisible" is not completely accurate, nor does it give the full meaning. To use that single passage as evidence that god cannot be seen contradicts many other verses that say that God has been seen. Smith did not rescue the real meaning, but he did clarify it. Bytebear (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The point was that "the Bible is incomplete and contradictory", in the words I was given. Without Smith's clarification, the church concluded that to see the Father it is necessary that the Son reveal him, and it is otherwise impossible; but Smith helpfully adds to what is written, so that such an idea may be put away. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of scholars would agree that the Bible is incomplete and contradictory. That is not in dispute. The question is whether the Book of Mormon was introduced by God to clarify the Bible. The answer is no. The Book of Mormon did nothing to correct the Bible. It is a second independent witness of Jesus Christ. Bytebear (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Based upon current scholarship of the last 50 years it seems quite evident that the Bible was mistranslated, added to, and taken away. That appears to the the factual outcome of academic review. The LDS view that the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly does not infer that Joseph Smith was the end all of translations, but rather that there was an acknowledment that the Bible was not a perfect work. More importantly was that understanding the Bible is enhanced or greatly expanded by guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is not appropriate to project other things other than that simple statement.

This is puzzling that this is really an issue. Does not orthodoxy acknowledge the Bible to have been translated by man and that there are errors within it? My understanding is that there is an acknowledgement of minor errors, but not conflict of a doctrinal nature (except only by more liberal theologians). This is the type of "issue" that seems to be more to incite Christians who have a marginal, if not negligible, understanding of Christian history and beliefs and/or a knowledge of current scholarship. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether, being set down by many authors at different times and transmitted by faulty human means, these books are incomplete and contradictory as they are given to us. For the church, the definitive answer to this has been found in the incarnation of the Word of God. But the Mormon contention obviously leads to a different conclusion, and can be seen in the corrections and Scripture in addition to both the Old and the New Testaments set down by one man, Joseph Smith Jr., at various times in his life. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Trinitarian divisions

I think that the article lacks a direct explanation of the difference in attitude toward the divisions of trinitarian churches. I would suppose that these divisions are the most obvious aspect of what the LDS mean by "apostasy"; and they are the hardest to discuss from the "mainstream" side, because the three main divisions are fundamentally in disagreement about the nature of their division and the issues that must be resolved to heal them. And, in the case of Protestantism, the very idea of Christian unity is prone to be disembodied. This separation, even if deemed necessary, is confusing to describe and a "scandal" to the world; and it is often presented as the LDS trump-card in debate. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a trump card so much as a very important question to be resolved, since, in the LDS view, a key aspect of the true Church of Christ is that there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism (Ephesians 4:5, Mosiah 18:21). The Church is to be a single body (1 Corinthians 12), where all parts of the body work in unison under the head of the Church (Jesus Christ ~ Ephesians 5, D+C 33:5), who plays an active revelatory role, working directly with his appointed leaders and physically visiting when necessary (Mark 16:20, 1 Corinthians 12:27-30, Ephesians 2:20, D+C 76:22-24, D+C 110). The Church is to teach a single doctrine that is uncorrupt, sound, pure; and full of gravity, sincerity and godliness (Titus 2:1-10, 1 Timothy 1:1-10;6:1-12). And this doctrine must be confirmed by the Holy Ghost in the heart of the believer through the believer's obedience to and active, daily participation in it (John 7:17). The core of this doctrine is to be based on faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and the conferral of the right to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands of the priesthood of God (1 Tim 4:14, Heb 6:2). And without this priesthood authority (which can only be conferred by proper Divine Authority), "the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh" (D+C 84:20-21). So it is a pain point for the LDS to see so much schism in what ought to be a single unified body under Christ. We view the current schisms as the direct result of (and evidence of) this loss of divine authority delegated to man in the world and believe that is a testament to the necessity of the restoration of that authority. Without revelation and proper priesthood authority, the Church drifted apart and the schisms we see today are the result of that drifting. (Back to the parable of the men on their way to Iceland). So it's not that we desire to throw a trump card or win a debate. We desire that all men and women everywhere would gain a testimony of this restoration and be able to receive the fullness of the blessings of the gospel available to mankind through the restored priesthood authority of God. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is what makes that priesthood authority effective in the ordinances of the Gospel. Every other doctrine of the Church stands upon the fact that Jesus died for the sins of the world and rose from the dead. Without that fact, nothing else would matter. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But it is a trump-card. It is brought out regardless of the topic in a way that suggests that merely mentioning it nullifies the discussion. So, it seems that it should have more than passing mention in the article. Or, it may be because I'm a Protestant that it's brought up this way. Perhaps you would speak differently to a Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we would speak the same message regardless of the particular branch of Christianity. The message would be the same: "God has restored his Church and priesthood authority on the Earth. Take all the good that you have gathered in learning and testimony in your Churches and let the restored Church of Christ fill in what you yet lack for a fullness of joy." (a rough paraphrase of the general message of the Church). I think you're right in that it becomes a trump card in some conversations (How do you continue a discussion with a person who just keeps saying "God says you're wrong, end of story."?) and that is unfortunate. I have a good friend who is an Evangelical Protestant and has described our conversations as "peering together into the heart of God". To be sure there are differences neither one of us will budge on, but there are also marvelous similarities in our faith and knowledge of God, and in our testimony that we have been rescued by our Savior Jesus Christ. Some would say, "But you believe in a different Jesus." Strange that neither of us feels that that is remotely true while we discuss what God has testified to us by his Spirit about our Savior. We can both see the working of the Holy Ghost in eachother's lives. We also have many comonalities in the way we experience and recognize God's love and blessings in our lives. My friend is one of the most godly men I know and if anyone were to ask me "Is he Christian?", I would be the first to jump to my feet and give a firm answer in the affirmative. My relationship with him has strenghtened me tremendoulsly spiritually. So it is not that there is no good in other Churches, nor is it that God's hand is not actively working among his children of other faiths. It is that God has provided a vehicle for restoring the fullness of the Gospel to the Earth with all of it's attendant blessings. I have witnessed things in my life because of this restored Gospel that make it impossible for me to deny the hand of God in it. And because I have had these experiences I am more inclined to encourage truth in others wherever I see it sprouting, whether or not that person will accept Mormonism as Christianity restored. For perhaps some day they will. If a person is ready to be encouraged in Christ in any way, I'll do it, and let the Holy Spirit guide from there. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no "different Jesus"; there is only faith and doubt. But have you forgotten the question I've asked? I mean, the topic I'm hoping you'll address. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the LDS side of this question is already addressed in the LDS discussion of the "priesthood". I don't want to expand my own essay in the article about how different the concept of priesthood seems to be, in the LDS. But, it might help if we discuss it more directly here, so that we might select appropriate resources. First though, is it true that the "priesthood" is what you would point to as the "answer" to these divisions I'm pointing to? And is it correct that you think of "priesthood" especially in terms of "authorization" and "authority"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're asking, but here is a capsule summary of the LDS view of 'priesthood'. The Priesthood is the power and authority to act in the name of God. Jesus Christ held it, is the author of it, he is a "high priest after the order of Melchizedek forever". He conferred the priesthood upon his apostles who were then able to perform the same kinds of miracles that Jesus did, but more importantly, were able to preach with authority, baptise, and confer the gift of the Holy Ghost. Peter received additional priesthood keys which authorized him to lead the church and gave him the power and authority to bind on earth and in heaven, see Mattew 16:19. I think this scripture is very important to Catholics, I don't know what it means to Protestants. 74s181 (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A typical Protestant view is that Jesus meant by "this rock", the profession that Peter made that Jesus is the Son of God. Personally, I think that this is a strained interpretation, but not entirely incredible. I assume, as others might, that Jesus meant that Peter is implicated in "this rock", and it was for that reason that he was given the name, "rock" - and yet, there is a disproportion in this promise, between the little rock that Peter is and the great foundation stone upon which the church is founded. Thus, Jesus also says, "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you": what Peter has said, which earns him this acclaim, is not from himself; and therefore, Peter is not himself the basis of the church to which Jesus is ultimately referring, but is put in the position of appearing so (as are the other Apostles). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, I don't mean that they "appear so" in an empty way. The Apostles, and the bishops and elders who receive ordination from them, are made really foundational by the Holy Spirit who formed this faith first in them and afterward in us in communion with them. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The LDS understanding concerning this scripture may be useful in helping to clarify the LDS position on revelation and authority. To paraphrase in my own words:

...for you have not learned this by the teaching and learning of men (flesh and blood), but by revelation from the Father.

And I say unto you that you are the small rock (Petros), but upon this rock (Petra), the bedrock of Jesus Christ and revelation of Him will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give you the power and authority (keys) to build up and administer my church (kingdom), along with the sealing power (bind and loose), that the ordinances you perform on earth will be acknowledged and of full effect in heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74s181 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that you separate the gift of "keys" from the gift of the Holy Spirit: as though the "keys" are not a distribution of the one gift, but a different gift. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The LDS view is that the Gift of the Holy Ghost is conferred upon a newly baptized member by laying on of hands during a priesthood ordinance. This ordinance is performed by one who holds the Melchizedek priesthood, the priesthood is the power to perform the ordinance. Before the ordinance is performed it must be authorized by one who holds the proper keys. If it isn't so authorized, the ordinance is of no effect. Based on what you have said here and elsewhere, it almost sounds like the MC view is that the Holy Spirit is more of a force or power than a being. 74s181 (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is quite a perversion of anything that you have ever heard me or any Trinitarian say, to twist what we mean into saying that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal "force or power". On the contrary, the "ordinances" that we perform are the visible aspect of the acts of the Lord, the Holy Spirit. You might as well have accused us of saying that we view the Lord as a force or power rather than as God. He is working; our part is only to show what he is doing. But since by "beings" you evidently mean "people", you are closer to what we mean if you say that we don't believe you, that the Father and the Holy Spirit are two people. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"...perversion...impersonal..." I did not mean to offend, I am trying to understand. Elsewhere, it seemed that you were equating the priesthood to the Holy Ghost. LDS view the priesthood as a power, literally the power of God, and the Holy Ghost as being thru whom this power is manifest, so it didn't sound quite right, that is why I asked. And, when I said "being", I meant more in the Trinitarian sense of the Father and the Son as one God but still individual (not separate) "beings" not in the LDS sense of physically separate beings. I should have been more clear. 74s181 (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that you offended me; I said that you're distorting what I said; and I guess you're doing that by confusing it with what you would mean, if you said it. You mean by the priesthood an impersonal "power" and token of authorization or permission. We mean something very different, that could only very superficially be seen as like what you mean. It is evidently not what you mean. The priest is "an icon of Christ", as the Eastern Orthodox like to say. His priesthood is a participation in the priesthood of Christ, through the Holy Spirit who conforms this believer to himself, making of him a visible display of what He, the Spirit is, within the believer, invisibly: a helper, a minister, an explanation of Christ, an expression of the unity of the Church. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

When LDS talk about authority they mean permission, 'keys' means, the authority to grant permission. Most male members of TCoJCoLdS have been ordained to the priesthood and can, for example, baptize and confer the gift of the Holy Ghost, but only when authorized to do so by the one who holds the keys of these ordinances. This is usually a Bishop or Branch President, I guess this would be similar to a head minister or pastor of a congregation. 74s181 (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So now I'm curious, Mark. I've heard of Priesthood of all believers, what is the relationship between this and an ordained minister or pastor? 74s181 (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The most superficial notion possible, regarding the catholic priesthood, is that it is a mark of authorization, given to individuals like a token, which is constitutive of the power to perform rituals connected to the unearthly realm.

The catholic and orthodox idea of "apostolic succession" is not a superficial concept of historical continuity, from man to man; rather it is an historical signification of the continuous presence in the Church of the Holy Spirit, in whom Christ is really present. The priesthood of the church is a participation in the priesthood of Christ: it can't be understood separate and apart from that. It is this historically continuous communion of Man and God in Christ, that is the central issue: "Christian priesthood" concerns the historical communion of God and Man, continuous in the unending communion in one Spirit, in the Church. God and Man: the Church's continuous communion in one Spirit, by union with Christ.

Priesthood is a distribution of the same Spirit shared by all. It is emblematic of the unity of the church, not its division. The servant is ordained and called to a particular congregation, to be an according-to-the-whole man, a catholic man. This minister is a servant precisely because Christ is the servant of all, so that in the Holy Spirit all of the people are shown to be "servants" and "priests" in the priestly minister. This is what is meant by "the priesthood of all believers".

That this is the idea, is made most clear in the practice of Communion. Even among Protestants who object to the idea of a priesthood for other reasons, it is only very exceptionally denied that the whole people are constituted a community, integrated and fulfilled as "one people", through the ministry of communion. Otherwise they would only affirm that he died, once upon a time; and they would stop showing forth themselves as crucified with Christ, by baptizing and the Eucharist; they could as well dispose of a ministry ordained to this purpose; they could as well dispense with the empty ritual, since they would then only affirm by it their presumption of mental comraderie with God, quite apart from the presence of Christ in the whole church - and therefore the ritual may be discarded without any loss at all; and furthermore, they could as well abandon the pursuit of unity of the whole church, or their joining in any church, "as the habit of some is". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've read thru your response to my question about the priesthood several times and I only understand bits and pieces of it. It reads like you are being very careful, I'm not sure why. I've numbered my comments so you can more easily respond, if you choose to do so. 74s181 (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1. "The most superficial notion possible..." I think I understand this, it is similar, but not identical to what LDS believe. 74s181 (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
2. "The catholic and orthodox idea of "apostolic succession"..." I always thought that the Catholic church (capital C) claimed "man to man" apostolic succession. 74s181 (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
3. "...the continuous presence in the Church of the Holy Spirit, in whom Christ is really present." I think this means that Christ is / has been continuously present in the Church by the Holy Spirit, at least, I think this is what you've said before. 74s181 (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
4. "The priesthood of the church is a participation in the priesthood of Christ..." Maybe this means that MC believe the Priesthood is the power of the word, and can't be separated from Jesus Christ? I don't have a direct reference for this, but I would say that the LDS view is that the power of the priesthood comes from Christ, He is the source of all. 74s181 (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
5. "Priesthood is a distribution of the same Spirit shared by all..." The only thing I understand in this paragraph is "This minister is a servant precisely because Christ is the servant of all...", but "...shown to be "servants" and "priests" in the priestly minister" derails me again. 74s181 (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
6. "..."one people", through the ministry of communion..." Do you mean that the act of taking communion unites MC of various denominations? 74s181 (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
7. "Otherwise...they could as well dispose of a ministry ordained to this purpose...empty ritual..." Maybe you're saying that if someone "exceptionally denied" the community of the communion then everything else would be empty ritual, and they might as well abandon it? 74s181 (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic church does teach that it is an historical succession, but it is superficial to think of their idea as just an historical continuity of ordination from man to man. The idea is that there is no historical lapse in the promise of Christ to abide in the church.

I don't know what you mean by "MC believe the Priesthood is the power of the word". Do you mean, "the authority to preach"? How would that relate to what I said? I see no connection.

I don't see you addressing the idea of union with Christ at all. I don't see you speaking of the presence of Christ in the Holy Spirit at all, or anything about the Church's participation in Christ I don't understand how you can miss seeing that in what I said. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me throw this into the discussion as well here...In the LDS view, Amos 3:7 is still in force. That is that God will do nothing without revealing his secrets to his servants the Prophets. The way we interpret that is that there needs to be some authorized servant of God on the earth to receive revelation so that (and this answers your earlier question to me Mark) the divisions we see in the Christian world at large today would not occur. If there is a man who holds the priesthood (which we understand to be the power of God delegated to man), and this man has the keys in that priesthood of Prophet, Seer and Revelator (as we believe the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve now do in our modern day), then he is authorized to do two important things which serve to keep the doctrine pure: 1. Speak directly with God concerning his plan and the direction the Church should take 2. Receive revelation concerning matters of doctrinal or theological dispute to set contention to rest and insure the purity of the doctrine being taught. Now if one takes this view, then resolving matters like "What is the nature of God?" (which the credal councils sought to resolve, not by revelation but by study and consensus) becomes much simpler. If there is a man who is authorized to receive revelation and he comes forward and says, "I have spoken with God and this is who and how God is", and this statement is verifiable by the witness of the Holy Ghost to the individual hearing that testimony, then that calls into question (in the LDS view) earlier contrary conclusions drawn by well meaning, faithful, yet unauthorized believers of earlier times. The God of Mormonism is entirely plausible within the actual content of the Bible, though it is not consistent with the interpretation of the Bible of credal councils and their doctrinal heirs in later centuries. But since we don't believe these councils or the teachers that followed them had the Apostolic keys to receive such revelation, then we don't feel beholden to change our doctrine to suit those opinions. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Christ is our prophet. We believe him. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Mpschmitt1 is correct. A living prophet acts as representative for God on Earth. Without a living prophet, there is no representation. To say "Christ is our prophet" is inconsistant with this concept, because Christ isn't here to act as prophet. Bytebear (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Christ is alive, and Christ is with us. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no right or reason to question that assertion Mark, for that is something strictly between you and your Lord. This comes into a theme I've begun to notice more in the scriptures. Jesus often taught the concept illustrated in John 10:27. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." And it is reiterated in a number of LDS scriptures, most powerfully in Doctrine and Covenants 84(see verses 43 - 77). The Spirit of God has witnessed to me that Mormonism is not some heretical cult, but rather the restoration of the pure, plain and simple truth. I know the voice of Christ. He is my Prophet, Priest, and King (as we often sing on Sunday). I love him with all my heart and and I follow Him and Him alone. And My Father in heaven, My Savior Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are the one true God (see Mosiah 15,2Nephi 31:21,Doctrine and Covenants 20:1-29) who gave me this testimony (not to muddy the waters here, as the Father will always be the presiding member of the Godhead and in that sense himself, the one true God, but these scriptures also make clear that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one" in the "entirely unified and united" sense that the LDS understand "one" to connotate. This has already been discussed at length but I wanted it to be clear. Three distinct beings, one in purpose, will, desire and all other attributes, except for their individual identities as beings). Gordon B. Hinckley is the prophet of the Church on the Earth. I receive personal guidance in my life directly from the Holy Ghost and President Hinckely receives revelation for the Church as a whole. So to your witness that Christ is alive and with you, I add my own. My invitation to you Mark and to anyone else reading this is that they not take my word for it, nor Gordon B. Hinckley's word, nor anyone else's, but that they go directly to that Lord who gave them life and is eager to bless them and ask in sincerity for themselves if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is what it claims to be. For there are only two options: Either it is the restored Church of Christ or it is the greatest heresy and ruse that was ever foisted on the Children of God by Satan. There is no middle ground. I know where my witness came from, and it was from my Heavenly Father. I cannot persuade anyone else of that in any other way but by inviting them to go to the Source themselves and test it in sincere prayer. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You are speaking in evangelistic mode, should I answer in kind? I can see how important it is to you to persuade others that the LDS is Christian. But surely you can see that it is the Mormon adulteration to which we would object, not the part that you claim to have in common with us. So if you wish to persuade us that your testimony is added to ours, then discard the Mormon part of your Christianity and embrace the Christian part of your Mormonism, not just in speech but in all, and then we would be know that Mormonism does not make you double-minded or separate you from us as Christians.

But as for this article, the point is that the LDS teaches that the Godhead is three different people who think exactly alike. They are supposed to be three gods in complete agreement. Trinitarianism teaches quite differently, that the Father is in the Son, and by the gift of the Holy Spirit he is in the church to conform the church to the likeness of his Son. Regardless of any evangelistic purpose that I might have for saying this, the reason for saying it here is that it is a significant difference in the two teachings, and grasping that difference exposes numerous related comparisons. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if you answered in kind actually. Sometimes I prefer some good heartfelt testimony to all of this quibbling over points of doctrine :-) But perhaps this isn't the forum, so if you want to share a testimony with me, feel free to post that on my talk page. Tell me what your relationship with Christ has done for you and how you've come to know what you know is true (or whatever else you think might benefit me). I'm all ears (and I really mean that). As far as discarding the Mormon part of my Christianity goes, I'm afraid that isn't possible for me... I think we're back to that McKonkie quote in the first section again. To me, the two are synonymous. I'm not trying to minimize the differences though. I definitely understand the nature of the great divide and grow more and more aware (the more I'm studying Trinitarian, particularly Evangelical Protestant, Christianity nowadays to be able to better that perspective), the immensity of importance that some of these issues really have in this discussion. And I understand better why my brothers and sisters of other denominations sometimes feel that what I believe is so strange. But I believe it to be the work of God and if I have to choose between offending man and offending God, well...Mpschmitt1 (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I assure you that, it is entirely possible to know Christ apart from Joseph Smith. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, no argument there. I know a number of people who have relationships with Christ that haven't yet accepted the restoration. I see them Loving and serving God, doing right in their lives, and teaching their children many correct principles that will bless their lives. I also see that they are changed people because they have allowed God to govern their lives and because they sincerely seek him. I believe that such people, given enough time and room to work it out with the Lord (if they had a desire to know and sought the answer sincerely from Him) could come to see the additional blessings and joy the restoration could add to their lives. So I encourage them in that and invite and share when I feel its appropriate, but I don't push, because I don't want to derail (or at least hinder) the good work God is doing in their lives by causing contention and strife over points of doctrine. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What you've just said to me is that it is knowing Joseph Smith, not knowing Christ, that restores the church. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh No... That's not what I meant to imply at all, I'm sorry if that's how it came out. Christ restored the Church through a man, no more perfect than you or I, who was nevertheless called to be an instrument (not "the instrument" or "the only instrument") in the hands of the Lord. The first and most important knowledge that a person needs to come to is a knowledge that they have a Redeemer, Jesus Christ who was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the great Emmanuel (God with us), who came to the earth and took upon himself flesh to bear the pain and suffering of all mankind and to die for the sins of the world so that we would not have to suffer if we would accept him as our Lord and Savior (see Alma 7:9-14 and the very moving passage about the suffering of Jesus in Doctrine and Covenants 19:15-24). That is the core and essential message of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and Joseph Smith repeatedly deflected attention from himself to the place where it rightfully belonged: on Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind. He often taught that every other practice doctrine or teaching in the church was entirely dependent upon the Atonement of Jesus Christ and that everything else the Church did was meaningless without it. So knowing Joseph Smith personally doesn't mean much (I can't say I do), but from what history I've studied about him, I think if Joseph were here today, he would say "Get to know your Savior. Be acquainted with his voice. Trust him. Live so you can have the Holy Spirit to be your guide.". Joseph was very clear about his faults and weaknesses and didn't gloss over the revelations (which are available in the Doctrine and Covenants to this day) where the Lord chastened him for his foibles. He was just a man. Like every other prophet since Adam, he had his shortcomings, but he was also ordained of God to fulfill a special purpose to which he, like Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5), was called before he was born. And that purpose was to restore the priesthood keys and authority necessary for the children of God to be able to avail themselves of the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel. The Atonement was given by our Lord and is an Eternal gift, but without ordained and authorized ministers of that gift, people were not able to fully receive its blessings. That is why we do temple work for the dead who did not get a chance in this life to hear and accept the fullness of the Gospel. God is perfectly Merciful, but he is also perfectly Just. And Mercy and Justice needed to both be satisfied, which is why the Savior Jesus Christ came to do what he did. The ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ, performed by worthy and authorized ministers of it, are but the gateway through which people access the cleansing of the Atonement provided by the Savior. But they are a necessary gateway, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost bestowed by the laying of hands (again from authorized ministers)after baptism is perhaps the most precious gift (excepting the Atonement of course) that God has ever bestowed on His children. Innumerable blessings have come into my life because of it and that gift is a sanctifying influence in the life of any believer who joins the Church. Without the ordinances of the priesthood,"the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh"(D+C 84 20-21), and though a man or woman may have mighty faith, he/she cannot be fully clean without at some point receiving these ordinances for him/herself. So what God restored through Joseph Smith was the full and complete Gospel, or the full and complete authority to act in the name of God, administer the necessary saving ordinances, and teach the pure and precious truth of God, correcting the errors that had seeped into the Church since the death of the Apostles that Christ himself ordained when he was on the Earth. What we have then is a Church that is founded upon Apostles and Prophets with Christ being the head of the church and Guiding it by direct revelation, with all of the attendant spiritual gifts that accompany the true Gospel (see 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians chapters 2,3,and 5; Galations 1:12;Mark 16:20, etc, etc). Often I get the question, "I've accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior, I've repented of my sins, why do I need Joseph Smith?" To which I would answer, you don't need Joseph Smith to accept Jesus, but you do need the authority that God saw fit to restore to the Earth through Joseph Smith to avail yourself of the fullness of the blessings God intends for you to receive (including entering into the presence of the Father and the Son in the Celestial kingdom someday). To claim what Jesus won for you already, a man must repent and be baptized (Acts 2:28),and Receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Hebrews 6:1:2) and continue faithful to the end in covenant relationship with the Lord, receiving through making and keeping the covenants God establishes the blessings that the Lord desires to poor out upon us. (Hebrews 6:3-20). There is so much more that I could say on this subject, and so many more scriptures that come to mind, but the main point I'm making is that there are so many places where I see plain and precious Biblically sound truth being practiced in the Latter-day Saints' lives. I see the Law of Tithing being administered and lived in the proper spirit. I see ministers of God who are called to serve in the priesthood magnifying their different callings and responsibilities for no other reason than that they want to serve the Lord (we have a lay clergy, so no local leadership gets a salary and even the Prophet and Apostles only receive a stipend sufficient for their living expenses). I see the gifts of the Spirit outlined in the Bible manifest regularly in various ways all across the Church. I see something supernal and transcendent in the experiences I have working in our Temples. I see the hand of God in every aspect of this work and I see the sacrifice that Joseph Smith and others like him endured to be the Lord's instruments in establishing it. So I'm grateful to them for what they did. But my greatest gratitude and loyalty is to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If we continue in this mode, Mpschmitt1, it's only because it's what opens your understanding to me, and I'm learning; but we mustn't forget that this is not a place for general discussion - we have a task together, to improve the article. If I said to you that in Christ you share in what He is, and you are the Temple and a living stone in Him who keeps you, would it be a big let-down to know that you have no need of such passing elementary principles of the world as temples, and tokens, and regulations, or a prophet like Moses, for He has come and in Him a righteousness from God has been given - or would you not hear me, and assume that despite what you've said you already know this? We should then regard you as prisoners, upon whom we must have mercy; and the blind, to whom we are sent to give sight; and the deaf, whose ears must be opened; and rather than curse you as a traitor, we should plead and bless and pray for you; then perhaps you would know the stranger who speaks to you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have once again taken a perfectly practical thread related to the article and bent it off into the realms of personal witnessing and areas that are very important and interesting, but not really relevant to the task at hand on this page. Sorry... :-) But your last response has peaked my curiosity about some things and I think there might be some fruit in a follow up so I'd like to move that last thing you said over to my talk page and continue the thread there if that's okay with you. I think there will be some fruit for me in continuing the discussion with you and understanding your perspective there, so if you'd indulge me, I'd appreciate further conversation on this topic. I'll move it some time this weekend and let you know when my followup questions are posted. If you'd rather have the conversation via email, that's fine too. Just let me know and I'll give you my email address. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"Christ is our prophet" The LDS perspective is that Christ is our King, and the prophet Gordon B. Hinckley is his spokesman, his visible representative. But we do not blindly accept the word of the prophet, we are encouraged, really, required, to seek personal confirmation of President Hinckley's prophetic calling and of the instructions he gives us. This is done thru personal revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost. 74s181 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my attempt to understand your response to my "Priesthood of all believers" question, I probably should have stopped at "...I only understand bits and pieces of it." Here are a few thoughts. 74s181 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• "...no historical lapse in the promise of Christ to abide..." Yes, but which church? The LDS view is that 'the church' is a formal organization, there is a joining process (baptism), there is a list of people who are members kept on earth and in heaven. Mark, I think you are equating 'the church' with 'Christianity'. I think I understand what you mean from a theological perspective, but when we talk about ordinary people, let's say, a Baptist, does he really think he belongs to the same 'church' as a Roman Catholic? What I mean is, if you explained this concept to him he would agree, but is this really how he thinks about the 'church' that he belongs to? If I ask him what church he belongs to, does he say, "I'm a Christian"? Probably not. Maybe I'll ask a couple people today what they think about this idea. 74s181 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• "...power of the word..." You've used 'the word' to refer to Christ, that is what I meant, the power of Christ, not "the authority to preach", although that is part of it. If anyone does anything other than read scripture aloud in a monotone voice, he is interpreting, adding his own thoughts, and the LDS view is that he shouldn't do that without proper authority and inspiration. See D&C 42:11-14 "...if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach." 74s181 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• "I don't see you addressing the idea of union with Christ..." I did respond to this, see my #3. However, it is probably true that LDS have a different view of 'oneness with Christ' than Trinitarians, because we have a different view of the oneness of the members of the Godhead. See John 17:21, LDS believe that we are to become one with the Father and the Son in exactly the same way that the Father and the Son are one with each other. Mark, from what you've said I think MC believe that Christ acts as the bridge between God and Man, he is one with the Father, we become one with Christ. Is that right? 74s181 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1. A Baptist might substitute "Christianity" for the church; but as a Reformed Christian I do not. And certainly, a Catholic does not; and that's the view under discussion. There is an over-lap between the Catholic view of "apostolic succession" and all but the most anti-sacramental view of the "priesthood of all believers"; and that's what I'm trying to describe. If someone extremely denied the priestliness of the minister who gives communion to the congregation, then they might as well deny the necessity of gathering together at all - which indeed is how far some go. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
2. By "the Word of God", we don't mean "the power of Christ" - as though we think Christ is present only by remote influence. We mean, really and livingly present. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
3. As you said, Christ is the only mediator between God and Man. We are reconciled to God by union with his body, by the covenant in his blood, through the gift of the Holy Spirit whom the Son sends out from the Father to dwell within us. Priesthood is a distribution of that one gift. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In your #1 you said that you do not substitute "Christianity" for "the church". I thought that the point was that "the church" is not any particular institution, rather it is all those individuals who accept the core traditions that have been handed down, uninterrupted and without change. Your other point, are you saying that some extremists say that since there is no need for a minister, there is also no need to gather for communion? But Christ commanded this, right? 74s181 (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

re: #2, we've had that argument before, but I don't remember your answer so I'll ask again. Christ was resurrected, He has a physical body, He ascended bodily into heaven, if He is "really and livingly present", where is He? That is, where is His body? 74s181 (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

re: #3, are you saying that priesthood is a distribution of the gift of the covenant in his blood? Sounds like this relates to communion, is that right? 74s181 (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1. You've re-invented what I said, so that I don't recognize it. I'm not sure how to interact with your response. The church is a particular institution. The minister's service in the church is historical, visible, particular to time and place; but he represents in his service a participation in something in all places, in all times, from heaven: the communion of all the saints. He is a priest, therefore, whether he is called a priest or not. He is a priest by participation in the priesthood of Christ. He is a priest by distribution of the one gift of the Spirit given to all; so that in being seen as a priest by participation in Christ, the whole people are shown to be priests when they are shown to be one people by his service of communion.
2. The church is called "the body of Christ", because we participate in his body. Christ is the dwelling place of God, precisely because he is God. And the church is the dwelling place of God, in Christ. He is really present in us; and we really participate in him. In communion, he is given as really present to us. You may say that you don't believe it; but it is really what is taught and believed. There's not much to "argue" about, if we separate what you believe from what we believe.
3. Any priesthood in the church is a participation in the priesthood of Christ. It is given to us in the gift of Him, and it is not merely a gift given by him. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"correctly translated"

Is it true that the LDS teaches that the Book of Mormon is correct regardless of whether it is correctly translated? Doesn't their history demonstrably prove the contrary? Smith himself made over 600 alterations to the Book of Mormon, improving its translation. 116 pages were lost, presumably as part of a plot of deceitful fraud to trap Smith - there is no attempt by the LDS to say that the original version and the new version are identical. Smith communicated his "translation" to scribes - and later found numerous faults in their inscription. In addition, some few changes were clarifications of meaning - a substantial improvement of translation. Without those changes, a different meaning could be inferred - and so the translation was repaired. I don't think that it is correct to say that the LDS teaches or assumes that the Book of Mormon is correct without these corrections. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The 116 pages were never retranslated, so they are lost forever. t wasn't so much the scribes, although many spelling errors were also corrected. The alterations you describe were not improvements, but corrections from the original manuscript and the printing. The first edition (and several afteward) had printer errors that Smith corrected. Spelling, grammar, punctuation, the addition of chapters and verses were all changes. Smith did make some changes to clarify doctrine. For example, "Jesus Christ the eternal Father" was changed to "Jesus Christ the son of the eternal Father". Both translations are correct, but the former is a very Old Testiment way of describing Jesus Christ (i.e. Jehovah) and the latter is more in keeping with the New Testiment. You have to usderstand Mormons view of the Godhead and how the OT God was Jesus Christ. Later the church did take out many of the "And it came to pass" phrases for brevity. Here is a link with more information [5]. Bytebear (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So, are you saying that if Smith did not "clarify" and had not made the "corrections" and "changes", that the Book of Mormon would have been just as "correct"? That wouldn't make much sense, would it? If the book was correct with the errors, then it would not need correction: it is said to be correct; doesn't this imply that the corrections were called for in order to make it correctly translated, transcribed and printed? For the other issue, "Eternal Father" is a different translation than "son of the eternal Father": I assume that the latter is thought a more correct explanation of meaning, a better communication of the intent, to the reader - else, why make the improvement? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Corrections were made. But they were not errors introduced by Smith in the translation process. The translation process was perfect. But you had those words go from Smith to scribe to printer. Those corrections were simply to put the text back to the original.

As to the corrections in concept, like "Eternal Father" changed to "Son of Eternal Father", you need to realize those issues were not with the translation. They were with the original authors, Nephi, Moroni, etc. Nephi was an OT prophet. Moroni was a NT prophet. Each prophet had slightly different concepts of God, as did (and do) Jews and Christians. The changes in text were to bring the whole book into a doctrinal understanding based on post-Jesus terms for God and Christ. It also clarifies the meaning to us. To Moroni or Nephi the meaning is clear, but to us modern LDS folk, it may be a bit murky unless you fully understand LDS theology. Note, that this also may have been the original correct translation, sinse Smith made the corrections himself, and there are still parts of the text which were not changed. Smith was never 100% happy with any of the published copies, and made corrections for further editions up until his murder. in 1981, the church revisited those corrections, and adjusted the text a final time, using Smiths original manuscripts as a guide. Also, Moroni gives his own judgement on the translation- after all, he was transcribing from other records (acting as scribe and editor), so he could easily have made mistakes himself. The LDS Church does not claim the book to be perfect. Nothing in this world is. But the translation from God to Smith was perfect. Everything before and after that was subject to error. And the book is "the most correct" of any book on Earth, in principals and message. No other book (if true) accurately describes the mission of Jesus Christ to the "lost sheep" of Israel. This alone makes it more correct than all other books about Christianity and His mission. Even the Bible is mute as to who those "sheep" were. But, I am not an authority and cannot be used as a source. There are certainly sources out there that explain this better than I. I gave you a good jumping off point. I suggest you take the leap. Go to LDS.ORG and do some searches. Also, isn't this discussion better suited for the Book of Mormon article? Bytebear (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The article says that Mormons believe that the Bible is the word of God in as far as it is correctly translated, but that "No qualification in as far as it is translated correctly is placed on statements about the Book of Mormon." That sentence makes Mormons sound stupid. Is it accurate? I don't believe that. Have you been saying that the book was "correct" before the corrections were made? If the Book of Mormon is translated into German, would you say that it's the word of God regardless of whether it's correctly translated? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking whether that sentence should stay or go. Is it accurate or, is it misleading? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is misleading, because it implies that the Book of Mormon is always perfect. This is not the case. Your example is good, because if the German translation had errors (which it may), then the same stipulation goes for that translation. The issue is with the term "translate". The translation by Smith was perfect, but the book had transcriptions and translations before and after Smith, so it's a single point in time. I would balance the statement with this from the Title Page of the Book of Mormon, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."[6] In this sense, the Bible errors are also the "mistakes of men." Bytebear (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind fixing that sentence, so that it better reflects the LDS position, please? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Bytebear; I think your changes make the statement much clearer and much more representative. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This should also help: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_textual_changes Mpschmitt1 (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Mainstream" churches as heading

Unless there is data and references to back it up, showing that any other churches accept the doctrines and other ideas of the LDS, mainstream is not the right term. "Other churches perspective" might be the best option. Fremte (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 09:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

one opinion

Not that anyone has to impress me or anything but this article is a real disappointment. There is no focus, the language is gargled and it doesn't make any sense. In every issue presented here the mormon oppinion is presented first then a so called rebuttal that is nonsensical. This boiles down to an attempt by mormons to white wash their beliefs so that they don't look weird to others. You all are trying so hard to please everyone that you are loosing sight of facts, which is all that is meant to be in an encyclopedia. For the more then 18 houndred years before Smith Christians believed that there was only one God but Smith says that there are many. That is not only one but probably the prime reason why Christians feel, believe and teach that mormons are not Christians. Mormons are free to object using their own theology of course but the issue is still there and has not changed and should be specifically pointed in matter of fact fashion with sources in the article. As the article stands now it is really just a place for mormons to say "we are the real Christians and you are apostates". That really isn't fair or neutral now is it. If you are going to have a page like this to talk about this specific controversy then do it right or just get rid of the page. This bland white wash does no justice to it or the the host site. Maybe you all can start one of those "SANDBOX" things and get to work on this.

Here are the major issues that I know of that most Christians will tell you prevents mormons from inclusion into the group. -Multiple Gods

-Jesus had three wives and a plithera of Children

-We will be judged not by Jesus but by Smith

-Humans can become new Gods

-There is no Hell

-There is no final test (purging)

-God did not protect his church but let it die so Smith could start it again

-Peter did not recieve the keys from Jesus, Smith did 18 houndred years later

-Mary was not a virgin, Elohiem raped her right after he married her even though she was his daughter but then divorced her so she could marry Joseph

-The kind of teachings about race found in the mormon religion is completely incompatible with the message of the true historical Jesus

Now I know all the mormons right now are either really mad that I brought these things up in the way I did, or are protesting, or thing that I know nothing. I don't care. This article is not about me. These are in fact the issues that any Christian not in the mormon church will tell you makes mormons not Christians. Since this seems to be the specific topic of this page, these issues are what logic would say needs to be digussed. Anyone trying to make this page about fancy language that doesn't say anything is really a Troll or a Vandal. This page should do justice to the subject of be done away with. I don't care either way, but his page as it is has got to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.36.194.188 (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there's a case for making a simple language version of the article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Mad at you? Protesting? or "thing" that you know nothing? Well, it is obvious the last one is true. Your knowledge of Mormonism is limited to anti-Mormon websites or possibly what very ill informed or ignorant “ministers” of the religion.

I am not sure where to begin. First, the doctrine of gods is found in the Bible. You might want to review the article on theosis. Second, what definition of "Christian" should be used? The teachings of Jesus or the teachings of man lead to very different definitions? If you use the words of Jesus about his followers, you will not find anything that precludes LDS from being called followers of Jesus? Third, you might want to use spell check for future edits. Fourth, this is not an article about what Evangelicals, or anti-Mormons, think about Mormons. It is about a comparison between Mormonism and Christianity. Fifth, you do not have a clue about LDS beliefs, doctrines, or teachings. Nothing that you said above is believed by LDS or any other Mormon group known to exist.

Simple language would not meet the objectives of this Anon. S/he is looking for something entirely different; s/he is looking for what myths are told by anti-Mormons about Mormonism. This list is almost too laughable. We are forced to wonder what type of people would create it! What is worse is that the creators of this type of complete fabrication know it will be believed by the members of their churches. What does that say about them? How gullible can "Christians" be? If they believe this type of tripe, what does it say about their beliefs or what they will believe just because their ministers say it? What is evident, it there is not a thinking person found among believers of this type of silliness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I can see that whoever it is just above me is one of the whitewashing mormons I warned you about, and on top of that he is rude and wants to make this about me dispite the fact that he will never meet me. He comes onto the internet with only the intention of insulting me. He feels big and strong knowing that he will never encounter me face to face. Just a quick word though, since I also know that the article is not about him either. Why would I use a spell checker for a language that is not my native language? I am not going to buy English language software for my computer just because some guy in UTAH who not only can only speak English but whose entire religion is based on English with a complete disconnect to any more ancient language, wants me to. It is surprising that this guy is one of your "ingroup" with all of the personal attacks he likes to throw out.

But besides, this article is not living up to anybody's standards exept those that want people to not read the page. I honestly don't see why mormons would be upset by other people pointing out that they believe in a plurality of gods. Don't the mormons think they are correct? Shouldn't they be trying to spread their faith? Shouldn't en encyclopedia article about then only contain facts? It is a fact that mormons believe in multiple gods. It is also a fact that other cite this information as a prime reason as to why mormons can not be included as Christians. You will notice something in the way I present this. I don't care about the mormons. I don't care about the evengelicals or whatever other Christian group you want to smear just because you think that I am attacking the mormons. My brother is a mormon to be completely honest with you so figure that one out. Stating facts about the mormon religion and what they believe that is not acceptible to Christians is not attacking mormons, it is being factual. Don't the mormons all believe that the Christians are in error anyway? Common people, be consistant. If mormons don't believe the things that I listed above then it is simply a matter of I am wrong and the Christians that say that mormons believe that are wrong. However, don't point me to an article on pagan gods to prove that Christianity should be a multitheistic religion. That is just dumb.

The controvercy that this page seems to intend to present deals with why Christians almost universally think that mormons are not Christians and why mormons think that they are. That is what you should be dealing with here. I did not come here to bash the mormons. I can do that by calling my brother and calling him a bigamist any day of the week and it be a lot funnier. I didn't even mention the bigamy thing because that is not a doctrine that prevents mormons from being Christians.

The non virgin bith of Jesus,

multiple gods,

Jesus as a married man,

and the doctrine on the great apostacy,

those very specifically seperate mormons from Christianity. These things need to be pointed out in clear and simple language. The Christian interpretation and the mormon interpretation should be given so that the facts and thinking from both sides are shown. Other matters of custom should also probably be pointed out. Christians will normally recognize baptizms performed by other Christians but never recognize baptizms by mormons. Christian groups will accept converts from other Christians with mimimal education requirements but do require mormons to go through a lenghthy education and formation process.

Now, let's see if any of this that needs to go into improving the article will ever get there without personal insults by Mr. WHITE Wash above being thrown my way. Seriously though, anyone who needs to come onto the internet just to insult people is pretty lame. Get a real life. I'm just a visitor here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.36.194.188 (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2007

The doctrine of the LDS church is that Jesus was born of a virgin birth; that is found both in the Book of Mormon and the Bible. There are have individuals, Brigham Young in particular, who have made statements regarding how the virgin Mary conceived a child, but none of those statements have been adopted as doctrine of the church at any time.

LDS believe in God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit; however, they believe they are one God; or in the terms of the New Testament, one Godhead. LDS do believe they are separate beings.

There is no doctrinal evidence that Jesus was married in scritpure; i.e. scripture is silent on the matter. There have been individuals who have postulated ideas that Jesus was married, but again their ideas have never been adopted as doctrine of the church.

The doctrine of the apostacy does not separate a church from Christianity. You are confusing the term Christianity with the Catholic church. The Restorationist churches, there are many, all believe that the truth or priesthood was lost from the earth. They all believe the true church or doctrine was later restored to the earth; all are followers of Jesus Christ. If you are saying that the LDS church has not genesis from the Catholic church or from other orthodox churches, you would be correct. However, if you are saying that LDS do not follow Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, was crucified for our sins, was raised on the third day, and will return again to the earth, then you are wrong.

Attack you personally? No, I attacked your ignorance of Mormonism. As far as you being the only person on here that speaks other languages, it would be better for you to not speculate. You are wrong too often. You will find that LDS often speak multiple languages because so many of them chose to follow the Great Commission and served in foreign missions. Personally, I speak four languages; two fluently and two sufficiently to converse in minor business situations only. Also, I certainly do not live in Utah.

There is a difference between a whitewash and stating the facts. Your problem is that you do not know what LDS believe; what is doctrine and what is not. The doctrine of the LDS church is only found in the standard works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) and in official declarations and proclamations. The prophets may clarifiy the understanding of scripture, but their words do not become doctrine unless they are added to the standard works.

I think this conversation has gone as far as possible; let's move on. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem that you continually fail to realize is that the article is inadequate. I personally do not have a problem wiht mormons claiming to be Christians. You can claim whatever you want, that won't affect me. The problem is that there are a great number of Christians, probably almost all of them that will say very quickly that mormons do not belong to that group. Whatever the reasons are is what is creating this controvercy and is a very notible topic for a wikipedia article. So this page is here to in part address this controvercy. The current page is defficient for that purpose. You are saying that what Christians know or think about mormons is wrong. Ok, but those arguements are still out there being promoted by mainsteam chruches, not crazy frindge individuals. You can say that those arguement are wrong, or not in line with the fact but the fact remains that it is being said about you everyday and the ones saying it usually have a mormon source for the information that is a lot more reliable then random white guy on the internet who claims to know four languages. You claim that mormons don't believe these things but your church's documents say that you do. I have to take what you say with a little misgivings. Maybe you are just trying to use polite language and avoid people thinking bad about mormons. That is fine but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. I didn't come here to bash mormons. I also didn't come here to try to make people love them by hiding information.

But no matter what I say, you the white guy will assume that I just don't know what I am talking about. Notice that I didn't bring up embaracing things about mormons. I don't care that you are all white, although the racist stuff before the 70's was completely imcompatible with Christianity. I don't care about the council of the gods, the pre-existance or the idea that you say that Satan is my brother. That would all not exclude you from Christianity in the strictist sense. The fact of multiple gods, that god the father was once a man and distortions in the historical narrative of the life of the historical Jesus specifically excludes you from Christianity.

I am not taking sides. Mormons can claim to be Christians till the cows come home. I don't care. The other guys can say that you are not Christians. It makes no difference to me. I don't want this page to be one sided and righ now it is. I have no problem with mormons saying that the arguements of the other guys are wrong and giving the mormon oppion. Right now it is all mormon oppion. I came to this page and all I see is "mormons think that they are Christians because". I am not seeing what they are responding to or how the mormons statement was responded to.

A very large number of Christians, something like 99% of them, will say that mormons are not Christians. There has to be a reason for that. The mormons can call it lies up and down all day long, but the Christians still think that they have very good reason for excluding mormons. The mormons can say till they loose their voice that they don't believe what the Christians say they believe but that is not the issue. How many lies or missrepresentations about evengelicals, or Catholics or Orthodox make it onto this site to simply be refuted as inaccurate by the believers of those religions? Why create a page the can present both sides of the issue but then ignore the issue as much as possible? The facts are that most Christians will not include mormons in their number. They have a reason for that and since it is just a big issue, wheather you agree with it or not you have to admit that it is a notible topic for Wikipedia. Mormons are free of course to counter, clairify and bring facts to light but the issue, the very notible topic, is not going away or in any way is going to be resolved on this site. Every Christian denomination will rebaptize any mormon coming to them. Are you saying that that means nothing? If you are then you are wrong. The Lutherans will not even rebaptize Catholic who they hate and sometime act with extreme violence against. Any mormon convert to Christianity will specifically be told that every doctrine of the mormon church is counter to Christianity and start from scratch in their education. Every single spiritual leader of any Christian denomination will say that mormons are not Christians. You can dance around this all you want, or hide facts or try to ignore it or say that it is wrong to bring it up but you are wrong. We have a page here on the great apostacy, I could very well say that it shouldn't be here by acting just like you. In fact, that is not a half bad idea. I should get one of those little name marker and suggest just that.

I know for a fact that most, probably more then half, of what is said about the mormons is very well grounded. Every mormon I have ever meet personally, and it is a really high number, all believe that Mary had sex with Elohiem. They all believe that she was married to him. They all believe that Elohiem was once a human being and if they are good mormons then they will one day become a new god. Every last one of them believes exactly that. They also believe, my brother as well, that if he is a very good mormon, then Elohiem will take away the curse of his dark skin and make him a white man. They believe that Jesus was married and often treat his story as if he was a fictional character that could be rewritten instead of a historical person whose actions lay unchangably in the past. I got everything I know about the mormons from your mormon missionaries who came here to try to convert us. I watched the little video on Smith and asked all of my usual questions. If what I said about the mormons is wrong then you should look for blame in yourselves, not me. I couldn't care less about you.

One last comment, the word Christian does have a definition but I see no one making use of it. I will let you in on a secret, it is of Greek origin and does not mean a follower of Jesus. It means "anointed person". Christ is a past perfect participle of a verb that means 'anoint'. Onto that you add the person or people opic enclitic "ian". Christians were called Christians for a very specific reason before Jesus was ever called Christ. Christ is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word for Massiah. It actually isn't a very good translation either, only carrying half of the meaning of the Hebrew word. The Gospels, and in effect Jesus being refered to with the Greek word Christ post dates the use of the word Christian. Christians were Christians while Jesus was called Massiah but before he was ever called Christ. Your arguement that followers of Jesus are all Christians is just wrong and would force into the group of Christians some muslims and hindus that would surely reject your thinking. Try again. Conversation is over with you, but not over in general or on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.36.194.188 (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

These are all wonderful points. Please return with verifiable references and we can add them to the article. (By the way, I highly doubt you can find them). Bytebear (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And exactly which points would you like for me to verify? You can doubt all you want, I can probably pull everyting I need from the LDS website and official statement from Christian leaders on the topic. Just let me know. I don't still have the card for the missionary guys but I am sure my brother does. Those two would probably be glad to be asked back to my house and give it to me right from the hourse's mouth as it were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.36.194.188 (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Any of the points you bring up need to be verified. That is how Wikipedia works. Any claim must be backed up. Christian leaders have said a lot of things about the Mormon church, but many of them are not verifiable. A historian or neutral theologian would be a better source. Missionaries would also be an unreliable source. You cannot quote them, but you can quote LDS church leaders, but only in a neutral way. In other words, you can't use quotes by Brigham Young without balancing them out with quotes by other church leaders that may or may not agree with Young. Regardless, you cannot, for example, find one LDS quote from any church leader saying Mary wasn't a virgin at the birth of Jesus. It just doesn't exist. But you can find plenty of anti-Mormons, and misinformed believers of such tripe, that do say such thing. The problem is, you are one of the misinformed, whereas most of the editors (both LDS and non) know better. Bytebear (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous, you will want to read Wikipedia:Five pillars, and concentrate on Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. — Val42 (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend Anonymous, it seems that you have a strange idea about what Mormons believe and also a strange misconception about what kind of work has been going on on this page. This page is the product of a number of people, some of whom are Mormons some of whom are people from other Christian denominations who like you doubt the divine claims of Mormonism. All have a voice here, and all have helped determine the content of this page. The fact that this page does not support the outlandish claims of Anti-Mormon Ministries is not a reason do doubt its objectivity. Quite the opposite, actually. A number of people have sought to disabuse you of certain misconceptions. I'll offer my answers to a few of the items you brought up here here, so hopefully this will help. In answer to your implication that God had intimate relations with Mary I would offer Jeff Lindsay's excellent short and to the point treatment of this subject here(search for the text "Mary" on the page to find the link). To your assertion that Mormonism has some racist leanings in it's doctrine, I would direct you to blacklds.org and this article where you will find ample resources to answer that question and assure yourself that Latter-day Saints are not racists. To your assertion that we do not believe in hell, this statement from the official Church website clarifies: "Latter-day revelations speak of hell in at least two ways. First, it is another name for spirit prison, a temporary place in the postmortal world for those who died without a knowledge of the truth or those who were disobedient in mortality. Second, it is the permanent location of Satan and his followers and the sons of perdition, who are not redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ." If you still doubt this statement, go to click on this link for a list of all the references in the Book of Mormon to hell. Lastly, to your assertion that Mormon doctrine is out of step with Biblical Christiantiy because it believes people can become like God through faith in the Atonement of Jesus Christ and obedience to the Gospel, I offer these scriptures for your private reflection:

• Psalms 8 ~ Where we learn that in our mortal state we are made a little lower than the angels.
• Psalms 82 ~ Where God refers to men as gods. Later used by Jesus to defend his own claim as the Son of God.
• Acts 17:29,Phillipians 2:15 ~ Where we learn that we are the offspring of God, sons.
• Romans 8, Colosians 1:10-12 ~ Where we learn that we are heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ
• Hebrews chapters 1 and 2 ~ Where we learn what Jesus inherits and because we are joint heirs, we will also inherit through Christ. It speaks of Jesus receiving a lofty position as Son and the worship of the Angels who are not called sons. The writer specifically says that there will be those above the angels (to whom the angels minister) who are "heirs of salvation". The writer then alludes to Psalms 8, making the connection that through Christ we will all be made with Christ higher than the angels (since we will be heirs of salvation if faithful to the gospel).
• 2 Corinthians 3:18 ~ Where we learn that beholding the glory of God transforms the beholder into the same image, from glory to glory
• 1 John chapter 3 ~ Where we learn that the true meaning of being a child of God is that when he appears, we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is.
• Revelation 3:21 ~ Where we learn that those who overcome will sit down with Christ in His throne even as he overcame and is seated with the Father. The throne being emblematic of the fact that followers of Jesus will rule and reign with him.
• Revelation 21:7 ~ Where it is declared that he who overcomes shall inherit all things and will be called a son

Hopefully this puts it in proper perspective. I'm not expecting that this will persuade you that I'm right. Many Christians take a different interpretation of these scriptures than we Latter-day Saints do, but to me it's pretty clear that what Jesus won for us involves inheriting all that he inherits and becoming Sons and Daughters of God. To sit down with him on his throne and rule and reign with him. Without the Atonement this is impossible, but with it, it is a gift to us if we repent and follow Him. So when you read an Anti-Mormon statement that says Mormons are un-Biblical in their perspective because they believe in becoming like God, I would ask you to consider these scriptures from the Bible and ask yourself if it is truly un-Biblical to believe such a thing, when the text couldn't be any plainer...

As to your other points, to answer briefly: We believe that Jesus will be the final judge of all men, but as the bible makes clear, the Saints will have part in that final judgment (see 1 Cor 6:2-5). Joseph, being a prophet and apostle will have some responsibility over his dispensation as will other prophets and apostles from other dispensations (like Peter and the other 11 see Matthew 19:28 and Revelation 20:4). God did not depart from the Church, the church departed from God. If you doubt the fact of the great apostasy, I would recommend Paul Johnson's "A History of Christianity" (Mr. Johnson is Catholic) but he examines the path of Christianity from Paul to the present and it's quite apparent that after the death of the Apostles the Church divided and was no more one body, one faith or one baptism. There is no official doctrine in the Church concerning whether Jesus was married or not, but I would have no problem with that teaching were it to be put forth. There is nothing in the Bible to preclude believing such a thing. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think that it argues against the idea that Jesus was married, that the Church is called his Bride? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I consider it to be a beautiful illustration of the sealing power of the priesthood, by which husband and wife are bound together, children are bound to parents, and the Church is bound to Christ, even as a bride is bound to her husband, and through Christ to Heavenly Father in an eternal covenant union and great celestial Family. It is the perfect metaphor to describe that holy union that we may be one with Christ as he is with the Father (John 17).

The Church is also referred to as his body. Another wonderful illustration of the unity that should prevail among believers in Jesus Christ. Yet it is not literally his body. It is clear that he has his own body in the literal sense, but in referring to the church as Jesus' body Paul teaches a powerful principle for how the Church should conduct herself. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So, in both cases, you think of this as being an illustration and metaphor? And, do you understand this analogy in a linear fashion - the marriage between a man and a wife is the concrete example, and the union between Christ and the church is the referent explained by it? But in the context of Eph 5:47, it is marriage that is in the referential realm, and the union between Christ and the Church is the concrete reality that is used to explain it (which is yet, "a profound mystery") . So, in that context, he doesn't say that Church is joined to Christ "even as a bride is bound to her husband", but rather that a husband is joined to his wife "even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior". So, at least in the context of Ephesians 5, the nature of marriage is in the dark, and Christ serves as the illumination. Therefore, the referential relation is a spiral, not a line - we understand something of the union with Christ by analogy to marriage, but we are in the dark regarding the more profound issues of marriage, which are illumined by Christ. So, I would maintain that the marriage between Christ and the Church is a "literal" marriage - and consequently, it is significant to allege that he was or is married. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the metaphor works both ways. It says that Christ is the head of the Church even as the husband is the head of the wife and makes the point that Christ's love for the church is as a husband's love ought to be for his wife. That he lays down his life (or all that is necessary) to make her holy. So there's the other part of the metaphor that I wanted to follow up on last night but I had to get to other business... Christ's love and tenderness for the Church is likened to the ideal marriage relationship. Such a relationship sanctifies and cleanses the parties involved and prepares them to enter the presence of God. The one caveat here is that Christ is already perfectly holy and pure and we are not. As Christ's concern for us leads him to call us to holiness, so ought a husband to so love and cherish his wife that his whole life is committed to helping her toward holiness and joy in the Lord. On my talk page response to your response to that other thread (hows that for the start of a sentence) I go a bit more into the Lord's use of symbols that kind of has relevance here as well. To be more clear here, however, something more must be said about the sealing power of the priesthood. In our faith we often refer to the sealing of a husband to a wife as a marriage but there is a subtle distinction. It is important to note that children are also sealed to their parents and those children will also one day marry and be sealed to spouses and have children who are sealed to them. And through vicarious work for the dead, our ancestors are sealed to us. The goal being an unbroken chain back to Adam. The entire family of God united through the covenants administered through the ordinances of the priesthood (and the receiving and honoring of those covenants), which ordinances are null and void without the Atonement of Jesus Christ upon which everything else hangs. In this covenant we are also all sealed to Christ and our Father in Heaven. So in a sense it is the kind of "marriage" you speak of in that the entire Church is His. In the same sense a husband and wife belong to each other in the marriage covenant and children belong to the parents etc. etc. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You can see a closely related spiral frame of reference operating with regard to the church as "the body of Christ". We are to understand something difficult by reference to something easy: the union of Christ with his church, and of each member with one another, can be understood by comparison to the way that a human body is knit together with many parts participating in one life, operating together as a whole. But there is something that we do not understand about our own bodies, which is illumined by Christ - that is, that his breath is within us, and we are alive with his life, and therefore we can be assured that our bodies will be made alive together with his body. So in this different referential frame, the church is his body concretely; but we mean this in a different sense, obviously, than when we speak of him and his body personally. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

One simple argument from silence in scripture is that when Jesus was on the Cross, he evidently asked John to take care of his mother Mary, which according to church tradition John did; yet no mention is made of any wife or anyone else who might require care after Jesus' death and resurrection. On another note, if you don't believe that the Church is literally Jesus' body, you probably don't share the early church's understanding of the Eucharist. You might also examine Irenaeus' writings concerning Jesus as the second Adam, and Mary as the second Eve; were Jesus married, surely his wife would have been the second Eve instead? I think Irenaeus predates most dates I've seen given for the LDS 'Great Apostasy.' Wesley (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument from silence is a good one, I think, Wesley.

The water and blood that issued from his side on the cross after he died has consistently been understood as the beginning of the church - the church's sacraments of baptism and communion are identified here with his death, so that the life of the church is in his resurrection and gift of his Spirit that raised him from the dead. It is a likeness to the way that God made Eve from Adam's side. Even before Christ, Israel had been called the bride of God (Isaiah 62:5, for one example); but there is a new concreteness added to this. In Christ there is a concrete marriage to the church, like the first marriage of Adam and Eve - and in the detail that Christ left glory to seek his bride and departed from his mother at death for the sake of the church, the marriage between Christ and the Church is more literally what Adam described than his own marriage: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Furthermore, as Chrysostom says in his homily on marriage, Jesus was nailed to his bride the church. It strikes me as very typically Gnostic, to speculate that Jesus might have had a wife or wives. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)