Wikipedia

Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 5

< Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Older discussions are archived here:

more correct

This sentence compares apples and fish. Would you explain it?

Latter Day Saints accept as scripture several books which other Christian groups do not recognize, and which Mormons hold to be revealed by God, and therefore more correct (although no more authoritative) than modern versions of the Bible,

What does it mean to hold up a book in your left hand, and to say that it is more correct than a book held in your right hand, but not more authoritative? The book in my left hand contains errors and omissions. The other is copied word for word from tablets of gold. On the left are the scriptures handed down from the Great Apostasy. On the right is the book of the restoration of true religion. Now, choose your authority. The sentence is meaningless. Mkmcconn 17:11, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not having an explanation, I'm content to remove the parenthesis, which is the only part of the sentence that causes problems for me. Mkmcconn 22:55, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I disagree. 'Correctness' and 'authoritativeness' are distinct concepts. The former has to do with literal veracity and avoidance of error, while the latter depends mostly upon the (ultimate) author. LDS theology clearly teaches the Bible to have been authored by God, ultimately, through the mouths (and pens) of his prophets; therefore, it has the authority of Deity. But from the LDS point of view, the Bible we have today is a somewhat random hodge-podge of books, letters, and writings, very incomplete, which have been transmitted through the ages in a less-than-perfect way. Thus, it is not always correct. So-called "modern" scripture, however, is either dictation from God's mouthpiece (the prophet) or a one-generation, divinely-inspired "translation" from original texts; thus, the possibility for error is vastly reduced. While I can't speak for anyone but myself, I believe that most Mormons have this understanding -- the Bible is just as authoritative as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price (that is, all are proclamations of God's word and teachings), but is more likely to be incorrect in some given passage. Spoxjox 06:33, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC) ____

Erosion of trinitarian consensus

"But Protestantism at the time was undergoing a widespread decline from the Trinitarian conception, as various types of transcendentalism, theosophy and unitarianism were gaining strength, especially in the region of the country where Mormonism originated"

This sentence isn't clear enough, and thereby seems to suggest something which isn't true. Protestantism didn't experience a widespread decline in the 19th century. With the rapid population growth in the world during that time, quite the opposite is true. There were many splinter groups (including Mormonism) some of which which date back to the 17th century radical reformation, but as far as numbers went, mainstream Protestantism certainly experienced no decline during the time period in question. Therefore, the concept of trinitarianism cannot accurately be said to have declined in influence. This one should be reworded.

Fire Star 21:23, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Your distinction is a good one: Evangelicalism gained tremendously in numbers, during this period. However the intent of the statement is that Trinitarianism was losing its universal hold. Creedalism in general was held in suspicion, so that through the influence for example of "no creed but Christ" movements, and the rapid erosion of academic Congregationalism in the New England East, non-trinitarian ideas were gaining in popular appeal to an unprecedented degree. The Second Great Awakening was a boon to free, democratic, creedless religion. In that environment, anti-traditionalism flourished; and with anti-traditionalism, unitarianism, transcendentalism, theosophy, and prophetic spirituality all gained momentum (a trend which has only continued), as the older "orthodoxy" of Protestantism was attacked from many directions simultaneously. Mkmcconn 21:31, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I revised the statement. Mkmcconn 21:44, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cheers! I did a small search, and there isn't a Wikipedia article related to the radical reformation as such, the Puritans, Cromwell, the Quakers and all that. That is when the concept we are discussing was first seriously challenged. I may have to see about starting an article, it is a fascinating period of history. I'll keep you informed.

Fire Star 21:49, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

unnecessary section

This section seems to me to be irrelevant to the main thesis, which is a comparison between Mormonism and its opposition, called in the article, "traditional Christianity". This article should gain much more depth, as it grows. The section is not helpful, IMHO. Mkmcconn 23:01, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

===Comparison of the Jesus Christ Conceptualized by Mormonism with the Jesus
Christ Conceptualized by Other Christian Professions===
====The Jesus of Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism====
  • Nicene Creed; Chalcedonian Creed
  • Most Christian denominations believe that God is an infinite, non-physical spirit of whom Jesus alone has physically revealed Himself through the Incarnation. Some of the Church Fathers teach that when God made man in His image, He made man specifically in the image of God the Son, Jesus.
====The Jesus of Early Christian Heresies====
  • Monotheistic Modalism (a.k.a. Sabellianism) - God is one, acting in three different personas (in the theatrical sense) or modes.
  • Arianism - "There was a time when Jesus Christ did not exist; He was created by God the Father."
  • Gnosticism
====The Jesus of Modern Nontrinitarian Sects====

paragraph to summarize differences

I removed this paragraph to invite discussion of how better to summarize the differences that it aims to encompass Mkmcconn 23:52, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

traditional Christianity conceives of this historical narrative as taking place in a larger context of God's purposes to redeem mankind from sin and the consequences of sin, to return mankind to an intimate knowledge of God, which is eternal life. This history, for traditional Christians, begins with God Himself; and so, the Christian life is concerned first and last with who God is, especially as revealed for salvation through Jesus Christ. It is only in that light that the creeds are important, which defend the Trinity and the absolutely unique divinity, and the true humanity, of Christ. In that respect the Mormon understanding of Jesus is quite different from the understanding accepted by the traditional branches of Christianity.

limiting the exposition of controversial topics

The article Controversies_regarding_Mormonism, and its many sub-pages, explain the doctrines of Mormonism in detail. It seems to me that this page ought to focus on those issues that are decisive in anti-Mormon literature, and in the actions of Christian churches, which are cited as the reasons that the Latter day saints is not considered a Christian church by those who have taken these stances. Mkmcconn \

If this recommendation is followed, we will limit the amount of material that is duplicated between these articles, and will direct to the relevant articles for a fuller explanation of the Mormon positions themselves. Sound right? Mkmcconn 03:01, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is a lot of room on the raft of Mormon (and similar) articles for much redundant content, so your proposition does make sense. Fire Star 05:54, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are just making a lot of very wise sounding comments. All the comments above dated the past few days. I stand mouth agape and assenting. Hawstom

I have been ruminating on some ideas for approaches to organizing this page. Two different ones have come to mind. First idea: We could use a historical chronological approach. Second idea: We could use an ideas approach. And both ways we can get much more meaty than the current article. Hawstom

First Idea: Present the uneasy relationship as it develops. Divide the tensions into periods with their main themes and underlying forces.

  • The pre-Church, pre-missionary period of the 1820's. Smith claims the vision and the Gold Plates. Palmyra is in a tizzy over his claiming new revelation, new scripture (gold plates), creeds abominable, angelic ministrations. We can report the reaction of the local clergy and the local "christian" ruffians.
  • The pre-polygamy period of the 1830's. Smith, Cowdery, and associates claim new, sole priesthood. Organize only true church. Send out missionaries with the Book of Mormon. Revelations on salvation and liberal views of God. Inspired Bible translation. Encourage gathering of believers (from among existing christian congregations), first to New York, then Ohio, then Missouri, then Nauvoo, Illinois. Political threat of Mormons. Missouri outrages.
  • The Nauvoo period. Secret and denied polygamy. New doctrines about man and God. Political power. More missionaries and gathering from Europe.
  • The Utah period. Utah isolation. Public and fervent polygamy. Tensions with United States. Mountain Meadows Massacre.
  • The Globalization Period.
  • Today

Second Idea: Present the core ideas that are in conflict.

  • Man. Mormonism teaches man is coeternal with God. That man existed before this universe was created and will exist after it has passed away.
  • God. Mormonism ennobles man by teaching that even God the Father was once a man in some other unknown space/time universe. And Mormonism has other less important differences of interpreting Biblical teachings about God, such as the current LDS understanding that the God of the Old Testament (Jehovah) is Jesus Christ, and that Michael the Archangel is not Jesus Christ, but Adam.
  • Universe and Creation. Mormonism teaches that God created this universe as a probationary estate for man. That the number of God's creations is far greater than the number of sands on a million worlds. That the Atonement of Christ is the most important event to occur in this universe.
  • Life and salvation. Mormonism teaches that all men will be judged according to their thoughts, words, and deeds. (Book of Mormon) Mormonism emphasizes the importance and reality of the agancy of man, that God will not alienate from man the ability to walk his own path, that man is an agent to act and not to be acted upon, save by the eternal law at the last day (The Book of Mormon). That the atonement of Christ gives sinful man power and forgiveness to walk in holiness by faith day after day, (Moroni 10:34) moving with a clean slate to ever greater faith, hope, and love. That God "is more liberal in his views and boundless in his mercies than we are willing to believe or to receive." (Joseph Smith) That those "of all nations" (Peter) who seek faith, hope, and love in this life will enter paradise immediately on death, while those who largely waste their probation will be cast into the darkness of hell to be buffeted until their redemtion and bodily resurrection through the atonement of Christ. That at the resurrection, all will be redeemed to Heaven and receive the greatest reward they are capable of receiving, except those who rebel in the light of day and are again cast into the abyss to become permanent Sons of Perdition. (D & C 76) Mormonism teaches that faith, repentance, baptism, laying on of hands for the Gift of the holy Ghost, the Temple Endowment, and Eternal Marriage are all necessary for the highest reward in Heaven.
  • Revelation. Mormonism is founded on the idea of continual revelation. The Book of Mormon teaches that revelation, spiritual gifts, and angelic ministrations will never cease as long as the earth lasts, unless there is no faith among men. Mormonism includes new scripture and new priesthood as new revelations of God.
  • Church and priesthood. Mormonism claims to be the one true church of God with the one true priesthood of God to officiate in holy sacraments. Mormonism does not accept any sacraments of any other church as valid before heaven. Mormonism requires baptism of all men by Mormon priesthood, and therefore teaches baptism on behalf of the dead, as well as temple endowment and eternal marriage on behalf of the dead of all faiths.

One of the above might work. Sorry I used men to mean people. :-D Hawstom 07:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

better foundation

That's a much better foundation, Hawstom. Now, it seems to me that it is clarified for anyone who happens on the article, that the task is to explain not merely what Mormons believe (I think the "final" version will have less detail, not more, in that regard), but to focus on sorting out the differences that make a difference, identifying who objects, and why they oppose Mormonism, and the nature of their opposition. This may even help to distinguish the sometimes subtle difference, between those who are attacking Mormonism and those who are defending traditional Christianity; which would be profitable. Mkmcconn 15:52, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Yes, good point. There must be more than a few Christians who don't necessarily oppose the LDS who still make distinctions between their own denominations and Mormonism.
Fire Star 20:31, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would favor Hawstom's second organizational approach, by ideas. One thing I think I'm learning through this exchange is that some differences are perceived as more significant than others, depending on which "side" one is on. This difference in how the actual differences are weighted should also be noted in some NPOV fashion. Wesley 17:33, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that the "Classic Differences", "Current Conflicts" and "Unorthodox Practices" sections in the current article should be merged into one according to Hawstom's outline. What do you think? Mkmcconn 19:12, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree too. Sorry I didn't really do too well at reducing bloat. As Mkmcconn said, I am all for ending up with less, not more. I only wish I had gone better toward that in my night of editing madness. Is a good way to start throwing the old material into the new sections, then pruning? Or do we just prune? Hmm. We'll see who does what. The hopeful thing is we appear to be building a consensus on what we can jhust come right out and say and quit beating around the bush. Hawstom 06:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I did think the Current Issues section should stay separate, because a lot of times the Current Issues aren't the Classical Differences (or maybe they are depending on whom you ask). It does seem that we ought to be able to concisely state the case under the headings of Revelation, Church/Priesthood, God, Man, Universe and Creation, and Life and Salvation. Hawstom 06:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Glossary

I am deciding I really like that glossary. It could cut short a lot of beating around the bush. Hawstom 19:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It can help to cut through the difficulty in communicating. The article is getting bloated; but, not fatally so. I'm still having trouble seeing to the heart of these issues, to understand why we see things so differently; that problem makes it hard to choose which parts to trim and to focus on the differences that make the most difference, and to explain why - which I think should be one of the goals of the article. Do you agree? Mkmcconn 20:03, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree 100%. In fact, I want to slow down and stop editing if you would rather do a little more discussion. This discussion is tremendously valuable if it helps us focus on the issues that will make the page most concise and meaningful. You will please forgive me if I jumped the gun a little and contributed to bloat. I only wish we still had B, and that there were more participation (buy-in) beyond Mkmcconn, Wesley, and Hawstom. We can only presume hopefully that others are watching in silent consent. Hawstom 23:36, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've been sitting back and watching this process, and I am impressed with the progress made (I felt it best for me to cool down before joining back in - arguments are not needed). I think the "glossary" should have its own page - similar to Common Latter-day Saint perceptions. One of the issues is the seperation the Saints had from the outside world for nearly a half a century in the Territory of Utah - the seperation allowed for Mormon doctrine to become firm and established while assigning slightly different meanings to words. Another issue is the preciseness of wording - most Mormon theologians feel that God does not waste words in modern revelations, so each and every word has a distinct meaning - example - most christians would consider eternal punishment and everlasting punishement the same thing, however, Mormons see them as completely seperate issues. This is largely due to modern revelation. A final issue is the agrarian world view that still persists in mormon culture, thought systems and terminology, even though most Mormons are not agrarian in employ. They tend to see God as a practical being - in control, but still human-like, and heaven not as a white expanse, but rather as a place where colors are plentiful - an eden. I beleive most Christians outside the LDS Church have a different view than this. Regardless of whether most Mormons believe these things, the doctrines are taught (correctly or not) and the belief systems are perpetuated in some form. -Visorstuff 09:02, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, V. Isn't Mormon theologian an oxymoron? I just got through telling M that it is said in the LDS church that there aren't any theologians in the LDS Church, and lately, that is beginning to make more and more sense to me. In fact, I am thinking that when God told Joseph Smith the creeds were an abomination and corrupting, He meant more that arguing and worrying about such things instead of loving God and neighbor was abominable than that any specific creed was particularly abominable in what it said. Aren't there some creeds (maybe the Apostles') that the average Mormon wouldn't find too painful? Anyway, that term stuck out at me. Mormon theologian--go figure. Hawstom 08:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Despite liking or not liking the term, a theologian (according to common definitions) is a professor of theology. With BYU and such classic LDS scholars as McConkie, Robinson, Millet, Matthews, Anderson, Garrett, Sperry, Porter, Nibley and Griggs as well as other LDS Scholars (which would include the general authority leaders of the Church, the term has to stick - by common definition. I do believe this is one of many reasons why the BYU stopped offering degrees in religion during the early 80's, and then begin to allow it again for institute and religion teachers during the late 90s. In addition, anything that goes through the correlation committee is considered doctrine. The folks that sit on that comittee would by definition be considered theologians. I will say, however that the standard Christian connotation of the term is different than within the LDS Church - and in that way I agree with you. I also agree with your statement above about it being said there are not any theologians in the LDS Church (according to the non-lds connotation).

In addition, I believe this is one reason why MTC teachers and institute teachers are instructed not to correct doctrine, but leave that up to priesthood leaders. Although these two groups probably knwo more about doctrine than most in the church, they need to be reigned in as to not become theologians at large for the Church. According the Elder Oaks, the scriptures teach varying doctrine to individuals according to their needs. Now I am paraphrasing 'and' not intending to mean that doctrine will be contrary, but that a particular point of view is okay to have at one stage, and it changes as you grow in understanding (think luke skywalker's argument with obi-wan kenobi about point of view in Return of the Jedi - "what I told you was true, from a certain point of view"). A few classical examples are found on Common Latter-day Saint perceptions. They are not correct doctrinally, however, they are not completely incorrect either. Doctrine, because it affects behavior, is and should be a very personal thing. In this regard, all are commanded to be theologians within the Church, therefore there are no true theologians in the Church. -Visorstuff 14:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Very well said, V. Very well indeed. I particularly liked your taking it in the direction of the view in Mormonism that doctrine is most important because of the way it affects behavior, and that God leads each believing, seeking, humble, faithful person along the belief path in a unique way. That is a really good explanation of why you find Mormons seeming at times so hard to pin down on theology. Heaven is real, God lives, and the Son of Man came to save the world from sin and death. But what all that exactly means you are going to have to find out for yourself directly from the Source through prayer, faith, repentance, suffering, humility, etc. As you said, in Mormonism it is perhaps assumed that "I can't really teach that to you. God will in His way and in His time." So in this article, it would be important to stick to obvious differences and shy away from nuances, or splitting hairs. And I think we are heading in that direction.

Just to play devil's advocate: I think the idea that there are no LDS theologians is an elegant idea in theory, but not really true in fact. If Sidney Rigdon, Orson Pratt, B.H. Roberts, James E. Talmage, Joseph Fielding Smith (the Apostle), and Bruce R. McConkie weren't theologians (by any definition of the word), then I don't know what a theologian is. Some of today's well-accepted LDS doctrines started out as ideosyncratic blurbs in the books Mormon Doctrine and Jesus the Christ. COGDEN 01:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

True of course. God may not like creeds, but that doesn't mean Mormons don't. Mormons seem to love them as much as the next guy. It is apparently only a few insistent leaders with vision who keep insisting that "such things ought to be done away". Which brings up the interesting question as to what Mormonism is. Is it the First Vision? The Book of Mormon? The Priesthood and new Church? The 1830s? The Utah Plyg Colonial Isolated Period? The modern LDS Church (leaders, correlation committee, or members)? Which of these IS theologistic and which isn't? Hawstom 16:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Greetings All,

Wikipedia is warning us that the page is over 32kb, and that perhaps it should be broken into sections.Fire Star 15:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not urgent to do that. We should try to merge and trim, first. I haven't had time to look at it, myself. Mkmcconn 18:05, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK. The article is really coming along nicely, my references for Mormonism are out on loan for the present, but once I have them back I'll contribute a bit more generally, if not necessarily to this page. Cheers, Fire Star 06:23, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous editor said: ": which differs from the Nicene Creed. (Actually it doesn't; the Creed in its Greek original says they are equal in being, not that they are the same being; and that they are differnt persons, not just different "persons", whatever that means.)" I removed the reference and fixed the article. Hawstom 22:11, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A Dangerous Church

I removed the following material that I think does not address any current serious issue between Mormonism and Traditional Christianity. If anything, it would be an issue between Mormonism and Society. I originally created this section as a statement of one of the three Hot Issues between Counter-Cult Christians and Mormons in 2004. One of the Hot Issues is that Counter-Cult Christians allege that the LDS Church is excessively authoritarian, and controls the individual lives of its members. This is the Cult argument. I just didn't dare use the word "cult". Tom (hawstom) 18:31, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Should the section be renamed to "A Controlling Church" or something else less ambiguous? Tom (hawstom) 18:31, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The snip below and the portion you did not cut out all belong more properly to Authoritarianism and Mormonism. It is a long standing and broad issue encompassing the topics of cult, censorship, influence on its members and society et. al. I will move the material that article and try to incorporate it there. B 19:52, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, B. Tom (hawstom) 22:17, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

BEGIN SNIP

By the ambiguous use of "dangerous", it is presumed that critics mean that the LDS Church poses a significant risk of controlling the world or its membership with violence, the threat of violence, or the use of the LDS Church's significant finances to exert political and social influence and control. Many of these critics point to politically influential LDS Church members (Ezra Taft Benson is one such member) as being a sign of the Church's extensive influence.

In regard to violence, critics point to the early Utah period of the LDS Church, when this combination together with the effects of isolation, provocation, and decades of persecution from other so-called Christians, they claim, fostered a climate allowing for the Mountain Meadows Massacre carried out in large part by Mormons and what critics consider to be polygamist excesses. However, Church doctrine specifically denounces any agressiveness of the Latter-day Saints to take over land, etc., in order to "redeem Zion." Latter Day Saint history in the 1800s has shown that Church members were willing to use violence as a means to defend (or they used violence when they perceieved they needed to defend) land, family or religion, as is the case with the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the Battle of Crooked River. Regardless, such a centralized organization that has been set up militarily, full of people willing to sacrifice all for their religion, is a concern to many people.

To the typical LDS, the charge of "dangerous" appears as unjustified paranoia based on naive and grave misunderstandings of LDS theology and culture. LDS are not pacifists, but they are not violent jihadists either, nor do its typical members or leaders harbor hidden intentions to control the world or its membership with violence, the threat of violence or any other immoral influence.

With respect to politics and religion, when circumstances warrant it, the First Presidency occasionally directs its local leaders to read aloud its letters to congregants at its regular Sunday meetings to remind members that the LDS Church does not endorse any political party or candidate and that no member should suggest that the LDS Church does do so even if, for example, a political candidate is a member of the LDS Church. Occasionally leaders of the LDS Church take positions on moral issues--such as abortion, same-sex marriage or gambling--and encourage its members to be politically active, but leaders try to steer the church away from participating in the political process. Improper political activity would also jeopardize the LDS Church's standing with the IRS as a charitable organization defined under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

With respect to government and religion, from the beginning of the Latter Day Saint movement to the present, the typical LDS from the United States (about half of the LDS reside in the United States) is fervently patriotic about the "inspired" form of government which they feel barely made it possible for the LDS Church to arise, survive and thrive. Although the LDS tolerance for submission to earthly sovereigns is expressed in the Twelth Article of Faith, they highly admire democratic forms of government like the United States for the individual freedoms which it protects. While LDS anticipate that Jesus Christ will sometime reign over the earth in a theocracy and while leaders of the LDS Church attempted to establish a theocracy that was compatible with a democratic government in the early Utah period, this does not diminish the respect LDS have for a democratic government.

Regardless of any Christian's level of devotion to democracy, it is arguable whether democracy and decentralization of a religious organization should be vital to the healthy perpetuation of that religion. The ongoing denominationalism may be precisely attibuted in part to the democratization and decentralization of Protestant and other religions as these groups splinter further and further. LDS canon states that "God's house is a house of order". In one respect this scripture means that although each person is privileged to a personal relationship with deity, in terms of a formal organization which formally represents and acts in the name of diety, that organization is headed by God alone; God reveals religious principles to prophets whom he authorizes to speak in his behalf. Prophets, apostles and revelation, not democratically-run ecumenical councils, are fundamental themes in the Bible. To LDS the hierarchal organization of the LDS Church is a model which follows the same organizational form of the early Christian Church "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone". (Ephesians 2:20).

END SNIP

Beyond time/space/universe? huh?

One (repetitive) section of the article (which I cut out) jumps from

  • "Smith also taught that God the Father begat His FirstBorn Son, Jesus Christ, as well as all human spirits (souls) and all the evil Spirits, including Lucifer."

TO

  • "Traditional Christianity is silent on anything beyond this universe . . ."

Mormonism is just as silent. So I cut out the leap from one point to the other not taught in Mormonism. I also removed the response "many Christians are very hard pressed to fathom how this teaching of Mormonism could be harmonious with the eternity of God" to the straw man doctrine. —B|Talk 21:51, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From what you explain, it sounds like those edits were pretty good, B. Thanks. One of the current heavy accusations against Mormonism is that it denies the eternity of God by saying that he was once a man. But Mormonism implies that Eternity is an existence outside of this universe and time and space. I've heard it said in the church that Jesus Christ is the Lord God of the Universe. The Scriptures say time is only measured unto man and all things are present unto God. Only in the Book of Abraham are there indications to the contrary, and it appears that those passages (Kolob, greatest stars and planets, etc.) are symbolic of the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ. So isn't it rock solid Mormonism to counter the eternity of God accusation by saying, "Yes, God is eternal in that He is not of this Universe and Time. Mormonism simply states that in another Time He was a man"? Is it rock-solid Mormonism to say He was God at the beginning of Time, but before He created this Universe, He too had a Father? We cannot deny the eternity of God and be in harmony with the Book of Mormon. Should we explain this conflict in the article? Tom 04:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mormonism implies alot of things about which it is silent and there is no explicit doctrine and mere speculation. It is speculatory to suggest that according to Mormonism "Eternity is an existence outside of this universe and time and space" and everything else that might imply.
Not to mention that much of the interpolations you present are nonsense. For example, by definition universe includes everything including God and all time and space. Nothing exists outside of the universe or space or time. If you believe otherwise, then go join the ancient Greek philosophers and the Catholic or Orthodox church. Their doctrine of the "Unmoved Mover" or "Supreme Cause" should you please you well. (Theologians eventually gave up Aristotle's geo-centric cosmological model of the universe in the 18th century, but despite good reasons otherwise, the old Christian religions still can't give up the ex nihilo or unmoved mover nonsense or other neo-platonic mumbo-jumbo with which those religions are infused.) W W Phelps got it right in If you could hie to Kolob (hymn), when he says, "No man has found 'pure space,' Nor seen the outside curtains, Where nothing has a place." Why? because there is no "pure space"; there is nothing outside the curtains (i.e. universe)...all that exists is the universe and it goes on endlessly without beginning or end. Perhaps, our part of the universe is partitioned off from the rest of the universe in some way that affects time and space. No one knows. But that doesn't necessarily mean different or multiple universes or time or space.
Besides all that, Tom, despite conventional or unconvential interpretations of various scriptures in various Mormon circles, there is no official exegesis nor additional revelation about the "Eternity of God" or multiple universes or times. As far as Mormonism is concerned there is at least one universe and to suggest more than one universe is speculatory. How all things can be before God or how time and space fully operate, I don't know, nor is it unambigously explicitly made clear in Mormonism. Don't bother countering to my comments here, Tom, because I'll just ignore them. There is no official exegesis and I've heard it all before. So, don't waste my time or anyone else's. Another annoying thing that you do, Tom, is that you often pose questions to use these talk pages as an invitation for discussing issues in a way that usually doesn't help move the article along. You are no Socratic teacher, and if you ask because you are unsure, then please take your issues to some other non-wikipedia forum. —B|Talk 14:48, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why all these personal attacks? Where is the Wikilove? Can any good come from an atmosphere of tension, friction, and spite? Tom 16:12, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

I think the intro is getting pretty heavy. I propose an intro that tries to say there is a conflict and always has been, but that doesn't get into any more specifics than absolutely necessary. Anyway, I fixed a logical contradiction I perceived in the first paragraph. I chose to remove the statement that Smith's reputation with magic was a source of friction, since the next couple of senteces essentially said it wasn't really all that unusual. I think the establishment of the conflict is much weaker in its current form than it was when it started with visions of God and angels saying all the other churches were wrong and a new church to take over the world was needed. In its current form, I fear the intro will be a magnet for bloat. Anyone in favor of a revert? Tom 04:39, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that the introduction should summarize the nature of the conflict, but I agree that it is probably too detailed and that material should be shuttled to the main body of the article. My most recent revision to the intro was essentially an attempt to make the article more NPOV. Among the historical records of which I am aware describing the earliest conflict between Joseph Smith and his community, there is only one that characterized the conflict as being about Smith's understanding that all other sects were false. That record is Smith's own account in 1938. From the perspective of a secular historian, Smith's later account might arguably have been influenced by the passage of time and later events which might have colored his memory as to the precise reason many in his community didn't much like him. He does admit in his 1938 account, however, that he had a reputation as a treasure-hunter. Most (if not all) the other first-hand accounts, including his family and early neighbors, characterize the conflict between Smith and his community as having to do more with Smith's reputation as a folk-magician. Smith's community was certainly disturbed by his claim to heavenly visitations, but it's reasonable to conclude this was more because of their dislike for folk-magic (which was quite common at the time, but considered somewhat outside the mainstream), than their dislike for any doctrine that other Christian sects were false. While Smith likely made private statements concerning other Christian sects to his family (such as his statement to his mother that Presbyterianism wasn't true), it is not clear that Smith was publically preaching these ideas until much later, after about 1830. COGDEN 05:24, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's good info. Thanks, COGDEN. I think a good NPOV view of the genesis of the conflict is important, and my attempt was certainly from the LDS POV. I hope we can come up with something that is pointed and specific for a good intro that helps avoid devolving into another mudfest like we have some months back on the page. I'd like to see more specifics about your understanding, maybe in the article. Direct quotes from Lucy Mack Smith or community members would sure be nice. It seems to me that the earlier the better, and direct quotes are best to avoid disputes. And I agree that we might do better than the 1838 recollection of the conflict, if anything better exists. Tom 23:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I can explain better why I think the current intro is less effective. If you think of the intro as a segue into the greater issues, then the introduction of folk magic in the intro seems rather out of place, because folk magic is not central to the historic conflict. The historic conflict has been about gold bibles, polygamy, arrogance, sheep-stealing, political power, isolationist Utah, and authoritarianism, to name a few. Folk magic disappears into the anonimity of history, though it could conceivably have been at one time fuel for the antogonist's pen or pulpit. Even more recent conflicts such as theology pale compared to the big historic issues. A few months ago when the article was getting sour, I thought the Mormons might do well to admit that in a way we started the whole problem. I confess that while that approach quelled the dispute, it might not have been the best ultimate approach. Tom 23:45, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think you are headed somewhere useful, there, Wesley. For the moment, the current intro simply needs polishing. I hope COGDEN will make an attempt. I will scramble it up as a starter. Tom 17:47, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We need (somebody needs) to think about this again and write a good intro that really captures the core problem and tries to explain the conflict in one paragraph. Tom 23:45, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to categorize the points of conflict into social and theological types? By social I'm thinking of things like folk magic, polygamy, voting in blocs etc., and of course theological would address more of the doctrines, and the claims of direct visions of Jesus with new revelations, etc. I think that defining these sorts of groupings in the intro might help readers immediately get a general idea of the conflict, and help with the body of the article where these areas are expanded and described a little more fully. What do you think? Wesley 16:30, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have one remaining problem with the intro. I have a hard time believing that anybody in 1820 Palmyra, New York would have indigestion over Smith's folk magic. Can we have a reference please? A contemporary statement saying Smith and his Mormons are a no good church and unChristian because they are involved in folk magic? If it wasn't an issue then, it doesn't belong in the intro. Tom 20:06, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If I can, I'll take a crack at revising. In any event, think the intro needs to be recharacterized a bit. The earliest friction between Smith and the established Christian churches appears to have been part of a broader campaign among the fashionably elite Christian ministers to root-out folk magic, which was practiced and accepted by the fast majority (80-90%) of Americans at the time (whereas only about 10-20% were members of the organized religions). The mainstream religions took notice of Smith's specific folk-magic activities only when he started using his seer stones to produce new scripture in the 1827-30 period, which had controversial things to say about mainstream religious doctrines. Thus, the earliest conflict was not really Mormonism-specific. The traditional Christian ministers in the 1820's had heard so many stories of visions, etc., from their new converts who had been raised in folk magic, that they were certainly not impressed by the visions of Joseph Smith. Prior to the Book of Mormon, Smith was just another deluded, superstitious folk magician; after the Book of Mormon, he started to be dangerous. COGDEN 22:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That makes some sense. As a practical matter, we have to remember that if our edits don't "feel" right to readers, they are going to be continually overwritten. We have to come up with something that is acclaimable. Of course that is tough. I found the March 1881 Kelley interview of several Palmyra residents (not ministers) that pretty much agrees with what you said: not much remarkable about Joseph Smith except the plates. Some talked about digging. Is there any better reference than that? Tom 16:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, p.s. I think the current intro is good, as it conforms to your explanation above. I have no problem with it. Thanks a lot for thinking through this with me, COGDEN.  :-) Tom 16:53, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

should wikipedia classify Mormonism as a Christian denomination ?

As a comment to the definition of Christian denominations: The author claims (like many others), that Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian denomination. I say: NO WAY!!!! Not all who say they are Christians are Christians. If we think, that all who say to believe, that Jesus is religiously important figure to them, are Christians we are led strognly astray.

According to this kind of thinking we can say that Muslims or Hindus are Christians, because they think Jesus as a profet or guru. I agree, that Muslims could be said to be "Christian" heretics, but I think it could be more truthful to say, that Islam is a syncretistic religion made up from all religions Muhammed had heard about, like: Judaism, Christianity, "Christian" heresies, arab paganism, gnosticism etc. Both of these (Muslims, Hidus) have kind of faith in Jesus, but they completely differ in way of understanding His person and work and both Muslims and Hindus have their own religious books.

Like Muslims, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have kind of faith in Jesus, but not same as is explained in New Testament (which is basic document of Christianity). Their doctrine is completely different than that of Christians and they have their own book, what they think is as authoritative as Bible. All this is against Christianity. Their doctrine is seemingly made up from different religious traditions like Free Masonry (which is as such also a syncretistic religion).

This "claimed to be Chrisitans-but not in reality are" list we could add also Gnostic "Christians" and Jehovas Wittnesses on the basis that they draw their doctrine from somewhere else than from Bible (e.g. from falsified Bible translations or additional filosofies and prophesies).

Those who base their faith solely on Bible and confess Jesus to be their personal Saviour from sin and hell, only way to God and heaven are Christians. I could add to this list a faith to Trinity, full humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ and personal nature of Holy Spirit, corrupted (sinful) nature of humanity, becoming saved by faith alone to Jesus, not by your own good works or religious duties, to be characteristics of true Christianity according to Bible. --anon: 213.243.161.189

You have some interesting points. However, they are not NPOV. Generally, I think a better measure of Christianity is one's own self-labelling. Do LDS people say they are Christian? If so, then they are Christian. Do Muslims say they are Christian? No, so they are not.
A few interesting notes on my general feeling. Many Jews for Jesus type folks claim to be Jewish, and I generally feel they should not be counted as Jews. Many Orthodox Jews feel that Reform Jews aren't Jewish. There are many Unitarian Universalists who are Christian, even though Unitarian Universalism isn't a Christian religion (any longer).
So, a line has to be drawn somewhere. For some, the line will be drawn to tightly. For others, the same line will be drawn too broadly.
Another view might be to imagine a series of concentric circles, each one representing broader and broader versions of Christianity. At what circle do you stop labelling it Christianity and start labelling it something else? Where does LDS fall on this kind of map of Christianity?
UtherSRG 16:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I personally am not LDS, but I agree with their designation as "Christian" even if I disagree with thier idealogy. They believe that they will become Gods in their salvation, but the point is that they believe that the path to their idea of paradise (receiving their own planet), is only by means of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. According to peter, the confession of God and Christ are the only requirements for being considered Christian.

Corey 21:05, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's all a matter of whether you define Christian broadly (and thus more inclusively) or narrowly (and thus more exclusively). The Christianity and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article more fully discusses the issue. The problem with defining Christianity narrowly is that it also presumes a narrower view of history, tradition, interpretation, etc. when such things are debatable and harder to justify the narrower the definition. What the NPOV dictates is that the LDS claim to be Christian and that most of Christianity deny that claim. B 21:47, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

I've become more confortable with designating LDS as Christian, for the purposes of these articles. The depature point is not in the use of the word for self-description, but the meaning of the term - thus, "LDS" is an important qualifier; just as "Trinitarian", "Catholic" or "Protestant" are important in each context. Where this policy is followed, cooperation has been eased, mutual respect has been heightened, and disagreements have been distinguished from prejudices - which, for Wikipedia (even if not for the courts of a church, or before the judgment seat of God), is what matters. (Not sure which statement Corey is thinking of; but if Peter said that, he's wrong! ;-| ) Mkmcconn 22:02, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think I'm in agreement with B: NPOV dictates that we pretend we are newcomers to this world and have to put aside our perspectives from our current and past religious (in this case) affiliations. Would these newcomers to our planet be told that LDS is a Christian organization? Would they be told they are not a Christian organization? Would they be told they are Christian, but of a different kind of Christianity than Catholics or Protestants or Amish or... -- UtherSRG 00:33, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Self designation doesn't work, since that would include many Hindus as Christians. Christianity should be defined more narrowly than this. The view of history need not be narrowed any more than by considering historical evidence that we actually have, and excluding documents that we imagine might have existed. If the LDS is listed as a Christian denomination, there should at least be a visible link to the Christianity and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article (or whatever it happens to be called this month). Wesley 17:53, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've never heard of Hindus describing themselves as Christian. I'd like to know more about that. Barring that, I agree that including a link to that article would be a Good Thing(tm). -- UtherSRG 18:40, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I didn't intend for my NPOV comment above to mean self-designation was the applicable rule. I meant given the entirety of the LDS doctrine, its claim deserves to be mentioned along with denials of that claim. Hindus do not become Christian merely by self-designation. B 20:39, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Wait a second, A Hindu does become A Christian merely by self-designation, no? Don't millions of people all over the world become Christians by self-designation, even while failing to shed their old traditions? Of course that doesn't mean that Hinduism is Christianity. :-) So the root question these friends are driving at is this: Does Mormonism tend toward its adherents personally becoming Christians? Can Mormons become Christians within Mormonism just as we suppose Catholics can become Christians within Catholicism? I think that the answer to that is the answer to the simpler question: Is Mormonism a Christian branch? My answer is that Mormons have at least as good a chance as Catholics or Baptists of personally becoming Christians within their churches. Here's my case as a study (Hawstom 20:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)) :

As a child, I picked up the ambient Mormonism, and I was also admonished to read the Bible, Book of Mormon, etc., which I did thoroughly by age 15. As a teen, I also began to read the writings of the current church leaders. By age 15, I consciously came to the realization that my salvation was in the hands of the Son of Man, and I place my faith wholeheartedly in Him. This was largely due to the Book of Mormon, my seminary classes, and the General Conference addresses I listened to. From then on I have increased in gratitude and understanding. From my own experience, I would say it was quite likely that as a Mormon I would become a Christian within Mormonism. Hawstom 20:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is that at the root of the simpler question: Are Mormons Christians? Hawstom 20:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On Christianity, it seems unlikely that "Christianity" can be clarified - and therefore the best approach has seemed to most editors, that we simply describe the beliefs, and the groups that dissent from beliefs, held in common by catholic-type churches: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant. I certainly do not think that it can help the article at all, to subjectify the meaning, equating "Christian" with a private sort of experience. Mkmcconn 20:51, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Regarding Hindus becoming Christians by self-designation, I was thinking of Ghandi's statement, "I am Hindu. I am a Muslim. I am a Christian." He believed, as I think many Hindus do, that a person can be all three at the same time, conflicting doctrines notwithstanding. On another occasion Ghandi suggested that he would have converted to Christianity if he had ever met one, meaning met someone who appeared to follow Jesus' teachings such as the Sermon on the Mount. On this occasion he had a more narrow view of what it meant to be Christian. Apart from Ghandi, my wife once had the opportunity to visit a place of worship of some Hindu sect, where they had side by side pictures of Jesus, Mary (his mother), and Krishna. Should a worshipper at such a temple be called "Christian" because they worship Jesus, even if they see Jesus as just one more avatar of Brahman, like Krishna? That's what "becoming a Christian inside Hinduism" would look like, I think. Wesley \
Certainly, Mormonism looks a lot more like Christianity than does Hinduism. Most Hindus don't care whether they are recognized as Christians, while Mormons certainly do want to be recognized as such, AFAICT. I don't think Wikipedia should draw a conclusion one way or the other, but neutrally present the reasons for and against classifying Mormonism as a Christian denomination. Wesley 17:07, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What outsiders generally notice, and why they probably painlessly classify Mormons as christianity, is not what Mormonism "looks like", but whose picture is obviously prominent in Mormonism. Every prayer offered thrice or more daily in every Mormon home is in the name of Jesus Christ--never in the name of any other. Every week every Mormon takes the emblems of the body and blood of Jesus Christ--never of any other. In the average Mormon home are no images of other deities, only pictures of Jesus Christ--holding little children, guiding the young man on a ship, coming to earth again, teaching the woman at the well. Every bishop tells every adulterer that he may receive the full fellowship of God and of the church through the forgiving sacrifice of Jesus Christ--never any other way or through some other guru or deity. Mormonism is christian not because of how it looks, but because of who it looks at. The issue of whether Mormonism is or should be classified as a christian religion is moot. The open question is whether you feel comfortable letting your daughter attend church Sunday at the local LDS ward building. Tom 20:07, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here's another way of looking at the issue. From an outsider's perspective--believer or non-believer, here are two interesting questions to ask about any particular religion or religious organization:

  1. How good is it? Does it tend to make its adherents children of hell or children of Christ? Better humanitarians or worse? Better neighbors or worse?
  2. What kind is it?

Wikipedia seems not to address the first question, though it may be the most important. And the answer to the second where Mormonism is that Mormonism is a unique christian religion, not in the Protestant family. Tom 20:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The first question is certainly important to someone trying to choose a religion, but it is too subjective for Wikipedia to address. For instance, what does it mean to be a "child of Christ"? Is your answer so broad that it also includes good Buddhists? The answer to the second question is that, based on any historical evidence we have available to us, Mormonism is a unique religion, not in the Protestant family, not like any other known group of people who called themselves Christian or worshipped Jesus Christ as both Son of God and God Himself. Read the New Testament in the light of the first and second century Christians whose writings we do have, like Ignatius, Barnabas, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. When I last discussed this with either you or another Mormon, the only meaningful response was that there might be historical records we don't have that show otherwise.
I don't deny that many Mormons are very nice people. There are also nice people among the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and on and on; no religion has a monopoly on them. Most religions do help people be nice. The point is that Mormonism's beliefs and practices are quite different from the visible Christianity of history; this is something that I think can be presented relatively neutrally.

Fair enough. So how does Dr. Wesley or Dr. Tom, professor of religions, classify Mormonism?

  • Are they Buddhist? Well, they believe in an afterlife, and they believe in eternal progression. But they don't follow Buddha (I can't even spell it).
  • Are they Islamic? Well, they believe in polygamy, and they pray a lot. But they don't follow Mohammed.
  • Are they Jewish? Well, they revere Abraham, Moses, Adam, and Enoch. They follow some old testament patterns (Sabbath, marriage, fasting, tithing, priesthood). Maybe they are jewish.
  • Are they Christian? Well, they partake of the flesh and blood of their God, Jesus of Nazareth, every week. They pray in their homes in his name and make him God in their music and paintings. They say they "do all things" in his name. But other Christians reject them as too different.

Again, Wikipedia is not for original research, but how do we classify Mormonism? Give a positive proposal. Go to List of Religions and Religions and think about it. Tom 19:13, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Being the guy I am who likes to both lump and split, I do see the arguments for lumping Mormonism with Christianity and for splitting them apart. If I were to do this taxonomically (Kingdom, Phylum, class, etc.) and put Christianity as a Kingdom (fitting... Kingdom of Christ...), Catholicism would probably be a Phylum, and Protestantism would be a (younger) Phylum. Mormonism would probably be a distant Subphylum of Protestantism, while the majority of Protestants would fall in a more closely tied Subphylum. Hrm... I'm gonna have to think about how to name these groupings better.... Anyway, Mormonism fits into the general category of "Kingdom Christianity" better than it does into any other religious Kingdom, despite the fact that certain specific aspects of their practices and beliefs differ from "mainline" Christianity. (Remember, to many Protestants, Catholics aren't considered to be Christian either. But there is no doubt in any non-Protestant's mind that Catholics are anything but Christian.) So... should Wikipedia classify Mormonism as a form of Christianity? My answer, still, is yes. - UtherSRG 20:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand what we are trying to do, here. It can't be fruitful. Mormonism is a different religion, that calls itself Christian. It sets itself over against the "Christian world", as a replacement for it. In that "Christian world" there is a kinship between Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, that is entirely absent in Mormonism. Focusing for simplicity on the LDS, it has different Scripture, different gods, different Spirit, different prophets, different church, different history, different cosmology, different anthropology, different ritual, different sacraments, different salvation[, to wax at least a bit hyperbolic User:Hawstom ]. Besides this it has in common with what we otherwise call Christianity a few things, like belief that the ethical teachings of Jesus should be followed.

We can call this Christianity because they call it Christianity, just as there are some atheistic movements that want to be called Christian. And, we do call them Christian in this vague, self-labelled sense (see List of Christian denominations). But we must admit that it is extremely confusing, if not deceitful, to claim that it is part of the same thing that is otherwise called Christianity. Mkmcconn — 20:47, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Come up with a description or definition of Christianity that covers all other forms of Christianity (or even just those forms you want to call Christianity) and I'll bet you donuts that the description or definition will fit Mormonism as well. I'm not saying that Mormonism fits tightly in with a majority of Christian denominations, I'm just saying that when you make the umbrella large enough to truely encompass all of Christianity, you will find that it encompasses Mormonism as well. Underneath that umbrella you'll find other, smaller umbrellas: Catholicism, Protestantism, Episcopalianism, etc. However, to fit all of those "acceptable" umbrellas together, the Mormonism umbrella fits the description as well. Despite its differences, its similarites pull it inside. - UtherSRG 21:18, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Forget this line of discussion. I cannot see how it can be profitable, or even relevant. Mkmcconn — 21:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Second Mkmccon. This has been rehashed to death. Jan Shipps, non-Mormon professor at U of Illinois, who has researched and written much on Mormonism classifies Mormonism as a new religion similar to how Christianity became a new religion from Judaism. This is a fair chacterization. Whether Mormonism can be classified as Christian or not depends, as I have stated elsewhere, on whether Christianity is defined more narrowly or more broadly. And since there is NO ONE DEFINITION OF CHRISTIANITY, trying to lock down a definition to decide once and for all whether Mormonism is included or not is backwards and fruitless. It suffices for this article's purpose to compare and contrast Mormonism with the other various manifestations of Christianity without deciding once and for all whether Mormons are Christians or not. —B|Talk 15:06, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I would be happy to see the article take the compare and contrast approach without deciding once and for all, as you propose. I chiefly didn't want to see suggestions that Mormonism be unequivocally called Christian without any dissenting voices, lead to people concluding that it would be NPOV to call it just another Christian denomination. To answer UtherSRG's challenge though, the Nicene Creed and the traditional doctrine of the Trinity would suffice to include most Christian groups while excluding Mormons and just a very few other nontrinitarian "denominations". Jan Shipps' classification doesn't sound unreasonable. Wesley 16:53, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If the nontrinitarians aren't Christian, what are they? If they are Christian, why are't Mormons? - UtherSRG 17:33, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In what context? Here, where a definition of Christianity is being negotiated between conflicting views, we are calling these groups "x" Christians: "New Thought Christians", "nontrinitarian Christians", "traditional Christians", etc. Historically some contributors, like the JWs, do not like this way of working out the conflict of visions. I can understand the tension that they feel, between what they believe Christianity is and what they are being asked to negotiate here. For example, in the context of my church officially, the definition is not negotiated with Mormons. For a pluralist, as you seem to be, you seem to want Wikipedia to somehow imply that my church is wrong, perhaps bigoted. We can't get anywhere going in that direction. It's out of place. Mkmcconn — 18:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I feel it is fair to characterize Mormons as "nontrinitarian Christians" or nontrinitarians even though Mormons do not have too much in common with other nontrinitarians. If it is useful to have a demarcation line (or lines) as to whether x believes Mormons are Christians are not, that should probably be the primary line of demarcation. Mormons readily agree that they are not trinitarians and many Christians agree that Mormons are not Christian because they are nontrinitarians. As long as the edits reflect that wikipedia is not classifying Mormons one way or another, there should be no problem. Have we beaten this dead horse enough yet? —B|Talk 19:51, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
(Bah on you for giving me an edit conflict! ;) Saving now and then reading your edit....)
The context is secular: Wikipedia. In other contexts (such as in your own denomination) you are certainly free to determine if various other denominations are reasonably in alignment with your denominations description of what Christianity is. I apologize if I said anything to imply otherwise!
However, it's these hurt feelings (yours and the JWs, etc.) that using the broadest terminology works to minimize. (Not eliminate, but minimize.) I definitely don't want to imply that Mormonism is anywhere near as close to "mainline Christianity" and Protestantism or Catholicism are.
"X Christians" still implies that they are Christian, just not (necessarily) closely tied to "mainline" Christianity. The problem is that there is disagreement on what "mainline" Christianity is - a significant number of Protestants say that Catholics aren't Christian - and inconsistency in using the form. I think we're getting closer to common ground. However, you wouldn't say "Catholic Christians", as it is understood that Catholic Christianity *is* Christianity, it's just different from Protestant Christianity. Certainly Mormonism isn't as closely tied to whatever you pick as "mainline" Christianity, but it's still not common to say "Mormon Christians". If that's what it takes, we should be consistent: Either it is "Mormon Christianity" and "Catholic Christianity", or it is "Mormonism" and "Catholicism" and both imply different Christianities.
Also, "x Christians" can be disingenuous: "Mormon Christians" can imply there are "Mormon non-Christians", besides the probably more obvious "non-Mormon Christians".
All that aside, what I've been trying to advocate for, is that the term "Christianity" represents not just mainline, but all the "x Christianities" as well. So when using the term "Christianity" by itself (again, in this secular context) one should mean the broadest umbrella because that is how it will be interpretted. When one wants to talk about a narrower concept, one should choose a more specific term: "Protestantism" or "Protestant Christianity", "Catholicism", "Mormonism", "New Thought Christianity", etc., and if "Christianity" isn't included in the term used, expect that it will be understood. This means that to include Protestants and Catholics and Episcopalians, but exclude Mormons, the term "Christianity" alone does not suffice.
Said in another way: "Protestanism" implies "Christianity". So does "Catholicism". So does "Mormonism". They each, though, imply a different kind of Christianity (of varying relationship to "mainline Christianity"). "Christianity" implies all the possibile things that imply it. Some are closer to the "mainline" of Christianity, while some are more removed from that "mainline": "Protestantism" implies "mainline Christianity", but "Mormonism" does not.
Similarly, "Baptist" and "Methodist" each imply "Protestant", but "Protestant" doesn't imply either one individually. It implies all the things that imply it. The only difference is that, for the most part, each kind of Protestantism is about as equally removed from the "mainline" of Protestantism as every other kind is; the different kinds of Christianity vary greatly in how far removed from the "mainline" of Christianity they are.
Defining "mainline Christianity" as "Nicene Christianity" is certainly the largest reasonable umbrella definition for "mainline Christianity", but it also says that there is a bigger umbrella ("Chrisitanity" is bigger than "mainline Christianity") that contains all of "Christianity", including Christianities that reject the Nicene Creed.
Finally, I'm assuming most of you are Christians. I'm guessing tha Jan Shipps is also a Christian. Please take my word for it that your attempts at NPOV result in a Christian POV of one kind or another. My purpose in participating in this dialogue comes from having never been a Christian, and that the most prominent view of Mormonism outside of the Christian world is that Mormonism is a form of Christianity. (A Mormon missionary would be as welcome or rejected in "XYZ country" as any other Christian missionary would be, etc.) - UtherSRG 20:13, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Replying to B: I think we're moving closer together. Certainly Wikipedia can't say "Catholics say Mormons are Christians" if such a statement is not true. We can, however, show that depending on what is meant by "Christianity", Mormonism may or may not fall within the term. I think that the most NPOV is to step outside of Christianity, show that for the largest defintion, Mormonism is Christian, then show where the Mormon umbrella falls under the larger umbrella and how the various other umbrella say it isn't Christianity. - UtherSRG 20:23, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We are not aiming for a point of view that is neutral, but rather a Neutral point of view. The difference is very important, and explains why it is okay (although not ideal) that what an atheist writes sounds atheistic, and what a Christian writes sounds like a believer. It concerns accuracy, fairness and completeness (in that order, IMO), as opposed to blandness and broadness. (Accuracy is not always fair. Fairness is not always complete.) Mkmcconn — 20:27, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I believe it is accurate to say "manyoverwhelmingly, most Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christian". I believe it is accurate to say "many non-Christians and some Christians consider Mormons to be Christian." I believe it is fair to include both perspectives. I think it is both fair and accurate to show that the broadest definition of "Christianity" includes Mormonism. I believe it is both fair and accurate to show how various groups define Christianity in ways that doesn't include Mormonism. - UtherSRG 20:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
But it is also accurate to say that this "broadest definition of Christianity" is itself a point of view, to which practically no one actually subscribes who describes himself as a Christian (including Mormons, as far as I can tell). But this POV can be included for the sake of completeness! Mkmcconn — 21:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Considering that the argument "most Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christian" is infinitely recursive (in most programming languages <g>), it's imperative that we not use "Christians" to describe those holding the opinion. Perhaps we need a new thread to decide whose perspective the sentence will actually describe, then use concrete terms. I'm a bit concerned about the fact that some of the articles about Mormonism are based on opinions rather than cold facts. We really should trim the opinions out since, frankly, nobody cares about them. (The problem is the articles would be quite diminished <g>.) — Sterlingbates

Would a bit of research help? Please take a moment to peruse Christian denomination for an interesting and, I think, fair pespective. User:Hawstom

overweighted, don't you think?

I wonder if my perception of the "spirit" of this article has any parallel on the LDS side. My impression is that if one author had written it, he would have had in mind the desire to explain to curious Christians and troubled Mormons a little bit of the background behind the conflict between Mormonism and the rest of Christianity: and this hypothetical writer is most definitely a reasonable and open, but unquestionably devout Mormon. If you don't see this, maybe we have too little common ground to begin with, to try to fix it. It seems important to me that articles should make plain the knowledge-base behind them. In other words, this article cannot be written without Mormon help. But it must be written without giving such strong hints about the identity of the writers and their motivations. Mkmcconn — 23:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think you are suggesting that this article is overweighted in being written in a too-Mormon-sympathetic tone. I agree that the article shouldn't hint at the identity and motivations of writers one way or another, and I see hints some weaker and some stronger of an amalgam of probable identities. That just tells me we've still a ways to go to get this right....wikipedia the seemingly endless work in progress...I'm glad you've cared to participate responsibly, Mkmcconn. —B|Talk 02:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes. It will be really good to see where you will help take the page from here. Tom 03:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
p.s. One thought. It may be that it is actually "natural" for an article to "feel" like is is written by an "insider" with the review and help of "outsiders". I would certainly rather not trust myself to write about Islam or Atheism, or even the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (if I could only find an insider to take over). In this case, there are two parties of insiders to the conflict, and both need to have a visible hand. Just a thought. Your insights are always appreciated, Mkmcconn. Tom 04:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm not in any hurry to do anything. Personally, I think that the article is interesting. But I do think that as it goes on it wanders a little from explaining the conflict between traditional Christianity and Mormonism, and becomes focused on explaining Mormonism. If it's appropriate to have this kind of article, I think it's important to keep it screwed down, tightly conformed to the phenomenon it purports to describe. (Thanks for the encouragement) Mkmcconn — 16:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Changing a few words

I'm proposing this because I'd rather not start a change/revert/change chain. Instead I'd like to see if the changes are reasonable. I apologize in advance for not giving context, I figured the comment is large enough already and you can do a Find for each <g>. I propose the following changes:

1. "rapid church growth (as a result of zealous proselytizing by Smith, his family, and associates)" to "...(as a result of vigorous proselytizing...". Zealousness is often viewed as a negative description, despite what the dictionary says.

2. "conducting secret ceremonies reminiscent of Freemasonry" to "conducting secret ceremonies". Reminiscence is a suggestion, rather than a concrete association. Suggestions can be viewed very controversially.

3. "Thus, at least in theory, Latter Day Saints are expected to be tolerant of other religions and religious lifestyles. However, early leaders and members of the Latter Day Saint movement at times voiced views concerning "the Christian world" which could be considered antagonistic." Three problems here: 1) The expectation of tolerance in each member of the LDS Church is not "in theory," it is quite concrete. 2) Each member, including the prophet/leader/president, is free to form their own opinions and share them. For this reason, the two sentences should not be connected by "however" which implies that sharing one's opinion is intolerance. (At least the sentence following it should share equal connection.) 3) The wording of "concerning "the Christian world"" could be rewritten to say "concerning other Christian churches".

4. "to which access is severely restricted. The practice of keeping the core teachings secret appears to be another similarity to ancient gnosticism, which relied on secret knowledge" to "to which access is tightly controlled." The last sentence there is another "appears to be" which, as I've seen for other suggestions, does not belong in an encyclopedia.

5. "While the weather vanes that were built atop the earliest Latter Day Saint temples were often in the form of a cross, many modern Latter-day Saints are purportedly disturbed by this symbol of Christ's death, and say that they prefer instead to focus upon Jesus, the resurrected Lord and Son of God." The latter half is entirely conjecture and should probably be removed. The statement need only say that Latter Day Saint buildings do not bear the symbol of the cross.

Those are my thoughts :) I hope they're reasonably presented. --Sterlingbates

This page has been relatively free of reversion wars, because discussion has been admirably open. You don't need to be nervous about these changes, in my opinion. Mkmcconn — 22:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sterlingbates, and thanks for editing responsibly: engaging the community and explaining your edits. I think I may object to removing some material about JS's first vision, but I have to think about it some more. What is your reason for removing that material? (regarding stricken part: nevermind I misread the edit.) —B|Talk 15:16, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'll go ahead with them then. Thanks. --Sterlingbates
I'm all for removing subjectiveness. But some of what you're proposing to remove should stay.
1. "as a result of proselytizing" Why not just leave out the adjective instead of substituting?
2. "conducting secret ceremonies with similarities to Freemasonry": Change reminiscent to similarity rather than remove Freemasonry.
3. by all means dump "in theory"
4. "to which access is severely restricted. The practice of keeping the core teachings secret appears to be another similarity to ancient gnosticism, which relied on secret knowledge" to "to which access is tightly controlled."  : this loses an apt comparison, which should perhaps be to "mystery" religions rather than Gnosticism.
5. The statement need only say that Latter Day Saint buildings do not bear the symbol of the cross. - Although the history that they were once present and were removed would be lost. - Nauvoo 01:34, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with you on a couple points.
1. I don't have a problem with that, I just didn't think of it :)
2. Encyclopedias (which wikipedia aspires to be) deal in concrete terms. They also do their best to avoid assigning statements to an organization that the organization would not assign to themselves.
4. See #2. We could create an article to analyze the historical origins of Mormonism; I just don't think that belongs in this article.
5. That's a concrete way of saying it: "Buildings once bore the symbol of the cross." I prefer that to the way it was worded.
In my editing I changed the formatting some for both grammatical and sequential reasons. I thought that some of the paragraphs didn't connect well, or the information within them was disjointed. I'm certainly open to discussion on them tho. --Sterlingbates

Many changes

Just wanted to acknowledge that I've been making numerous changes. I've tried to keep them unbiased and, as a result, balanced. I'm happy to discuss the reasons for my changes, most of which fall under one of the following categories:

1. Correcting statements based on Mormons (aka heresay), rather than Mormonism. 2. Clarifying doctrinal statements that were explained using Mormon terminology. 3. Correcting misinformation. 4. Enhancing grammar, paragraph structure, or continuity.

One or two of my changes relate to the misconception that salvation equals exaltation. I suppose it's not a good idea to debate the subject here (heaven knows it's been flogged to death), so if there's strong disagreement about my changes in this, or any other, regard I will happily undo them.

(BTW, how do I add my signature to the bottom like everyone else?)

Welcome! You can add your signature to the bottom by typing three tilde characters ( ~ ) in a row. That looks like this: Wesley
If you type four, you get your signature plus an automatic time/date stamp of the time you make the comment: Wesley 16:48, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

major deletion

I propose that we delete the entire section, ==Current Trends of Conflict==. I realize that this is a bit drastic, but I do think that I have the beginnings of a reasonable proposal for what should take its place. My userspace thinking page gives some of my rationale. I would appreciate comments there, if you are interested in improving my thinking; or comments here if you are opposed or in favor of the proposal to delete that section. Mkmcconn — 01:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mormonism_and_Nicene_Christianity/Archive_5&oldid=1005350197"