Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

What is important vs what is true

Mark has been trying to suggest a different direction for the article. I summarized what I thought he meant:

"Currently, the article is mostly about the differences in what the two groups think is true. Mark is proposing that the article might be more interesting if it was about the differences in what the two groups think is important."

Mark responded: "Exactly right".

I think this would be interesting because it won't be a yet another rehash of the same old "Mormons believe X, therefore they are a cult" "No, they're not because of Y" arguments.

However, I see two issues. One, it looks like the new topic could easily turn into a fresh set of the same thing, two, where do we put the existing content.

First issue, look at Mark's earlier comment, Storm Rider's response, and Mark's response to Storm Rider:

Mark: "...LDS looks to me like nothing more than an enormous business..."

Storm Rider: "...Should we not try to clear this kind of thinking up?"

Mark: "...it shouldn't be the purpose of the article to erase the impression that the churches of the LDS are a public relations engine for a vast business enterprise."

Mark, let me be clear that I'm not saying that you believe that "...every ward is like a MacDonald's franchise...", or that you would put such a thing into the article. But I'm concerned that if it were in the article, you wouldn't think it appropriate for the LDS editors to "...try to clear this kind of thinking up". Or, to put it another way, I feel like you want to to allow negative statements about LDS to stand without any kind of LDS response. If this is not what you meant, please clarify.

Second issue, where do we put the existing content? There is a great deal of useful information about differences in doctrines. If it doesn't stay here, where does it go? I've looked at some of the other possible articles, none of them seem to have a title that would attract someone who honestly wants to know what the differences are between Mormon and mainstream Christian belief. We could just add the "what's important" differences to what is already present, but the article is already very large.

Maybe we could split this into two articles, "Mormonism and Christianity (Beliefs)" and "Mormonism and Christianity (Attitudes) 74s181 12:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is that, just as opinionated, negative statements about the LDS shouldn't stand without a response, LDS attacks on orthodoxy, slander of critics, and twisting of scripture shouldn't stand without a response either (I'm speaking provocatively to make my point). If you want an article full of this kind of argument to be "balanced", you want to reproduce in one page what is going on in thousands of pages all over the internet, in magazines, books, tracts, video, audio, conferences and seminars; and that simply cannot be done - and should not be attempted.

For that reason, the existing content is not really useful information, in my opinion. Especially the section, "Traditional LDS attitudes toward those of other faiths", most of which is the sort of attack that you yourself say demands a response. Only one other article in this subject area manages to pull this off, and that's Great Apostasy - which is a junk article for "information", and by rights should be deleted as thinly sourced and unattributable ramblings (nearly a quarter of which was written my me). But it serves a useful purpose in a large number of other articles about American Religions (Restorationism), and that accounts for its survival, despite being a horrendous thing to find in an "encyclopedia".

I was content at one time to see this article also remain full of junk argumentation. But I now believe that something more respectable should be attempted. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that something needs to be done about the "Traditional LDS attitudes toward those of other faiths" section. Much of what is said has nothing to do with "other faiths", also, I agree it needs to be balanced, but I can see that would be difficult given the way it is written. It needs to be split up into separate subsections at the very least.

Despite efforts to trim the article it continues to grow, it is now 80kb. I really think it makes sense to split the article into at several parts, following are some ideas on what those parts might be.

"Mormonism and Christianity - Attitudes" This would contain differences in emphasis or attitudes between LDS and other Christians, what is important to LDS vs what is important to other Christians. I think a lot of this might be beliefs that are common between the two groups, but much more important to one than the other. It might be difficult to keep doctrinal differences from creeping into this subarticle, but by having a subarticle specifically for that it should be possible.

"Mormonism and Christianity - Beliefs" This would contain the current discussions on doctrinal differences, and why the two groups believe these different things.

"Mormonism and Christianity - Relations" This would contain discussion on how the LDS church interacts with other Christian churches, vice versa, proselytization on both sides, etc.

Mark expressed a concern with "...reproduce in one page what is going on in thousands of pages all over the internet...". I don't think Wikipedia should contain everything anyone has to say, but it should be possible to get a high level summary of the most common ideas. Some things that are relevant or important to some won't be to others, splitting the article this way makes it easier for people to zoom in on what they are looking for, in both browsing and editing.

Thoughts? 74s181 01:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Separate articles already exist, though, which are explanations of the two systems in their own terms. Why should there be an article to synthesize for readers of an encyclopedia, what those other articles say? The title of the topic should dictate its contents. It's called "Mormonism and Christianty".

In my opinion, the article should take as its guide the scholarship that exists in this specific area of study, instead of attempting to craft a study of its own. The article shouldn't try to reproduce their content, but to survey the topic as reflected by them. A book like the Ostling's "Mormon America" (ISBN 978-0060663728) may not be to your liking as an explanation of Mormon doctrine and practices, but it provides insight into the relationship, Mormonism and Christianity, from primarily a sociological standpoint. "How wide the divide?" by Blomberg and Robinson ( ISBN 0830819916 ) is one example among many of Evangelical/Mormon dialogue. "By the Hand of Mormon" by Terryl Givens ( ISBN 978-0195138184 ) looks not only at the importance of the Book of Mormon, but also at the systematic prejudice with which Joseph Smith and his followers were regarded, setting the platform and pattern for how Mormonism was regarded from then on by others. "Encountering New Religions" by Hexham (ed), Rost (ed) and Moorehead (ed) (ISBN 978-0825428937) is an example of how evangelicals have critiqued the past, and is typical in recommending a more serious interdisciplinary approach toward movements like the LDS, instead of focusing exclusively on how Mormons diverge from orthodoxy.

Books like these are not isolated examples. They are part of a growing body of scholarship that surveys the topic of "Mormonism and Christianity". They are not apologetical either in tone or (professed) intent. They are examples of what this article could be in a manner appropriate to the project. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I just want to chime in here on the issue of what is a Christian issue, vs. an issue with organized religion. Often times debates become a Mormon vs Christian thing because there are theological differences, and the Mormons refuse to get in line behind Christian tradition. That aside, pointing out that the LDS church is run like a business, and the churches are built like "McDonald's" has no bearing on this article. Mormon America, although touching on the doctrinal differences in religion, touches much more on the issues with organized religion, and how Mormonism is a perfect example of it. Cultural differences, and issues should not be a part of this debate. I am sure many atheists also think the LDS church is too wealthy, but they think the Catholic church also has too much wealth. The also think mega churches are wrong as well. I would say that the typical Christian has little issue with mega churches, or from a church that meets in a warehouse with a big neon glowing cross on the side of the building, as long as they are teaching the right kind of Jesus. The path you are suggesting for this or any other article seems to me one filled with hypocrisies and double standards. This article should be about beliefs and how each party has affected the other and nothing else. There is no way this article can be written with any kind of balance given the parties interested in the content. I would much rather have it written by a Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim than a Mormon or a Christian. Bytebear 19:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

All of you seem to be insisting that this article can't be written except by comparing doctrinal differences that are already much, much more fully and helpfully explained elsewhere. The reason you don't like "Mormon America" seems to be because it is not about what you want it to be about. WHY shouldn't "cultural differences and issues" be a part of this article? WHY should the article be written as a "debate"? WHAT exactly are you imagining is the "The path [I am] suggesting for this or any other article" that seems to you to be "filled with hypocrisies and double standards"?

Honestly, all this defensiveness is unwarranted and unproductive. Please interact with the point. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

But Mormon America has as much to do with contrasting Mormonism and Christianity as would a book about the wealth and power of the Catholic church. Would you used that in an article about Catholicism and Protestantism? It's not about being defensive, it's about being contextually relevant. What does the wealth of the LDS Church, or the design of their buildings have to do with this discussion? Also, this seems like a lot of original research, or at least opinion. Cultural issues within the church are not important to this discussion and should be in another article, if they can be referenced. How does the way the church builds their meetings houses relate to other Christian churches? Bytebear 21:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What you are calling "original research" is an example of the state of scholarship. This article is what Wikipedia means by "original research". You do realize that you have it backwards, don't you?

That book does not simply discuss buildings and investments, as I'm sure you know if you've read it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And why this obsession with buildings and money? I brought it up as an example of what doesn't need to be talked about, and an illustration of why it can't be. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe I have misread the posts, because it seemed to me that this was what you were emphasizing. I agree that it is not important. This article should focus on how Christians and Mormons interact, and if they do not interact, why. Debate over who is right or wrong, is useless, because to a Hindu, the manner or baptism, the trinity vs the Godhead are both wrong. I am trying to get you to look at the article from outside the realm of either Christianity or Mormonism. That is the only way you are going to make it NPOV. Bytebear 22:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you see that "how Christians and Mormons interact" is focused on who is right, and who is wrong? If you don't want this article to be a reproduction of that - and I agree that it should not be - then a very different approach is required: one that is focused on scholarship, instead of "bearing witness". Good heavens, it's as though you've read nothing I've written. Am I completely wasting my time? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree a scholarly approach is what is required. So what are scholarly sources? I would use Jan Shipps as the main resource. I would avoid anything where one side is trying to prove something. Bytebear 23:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is progress. Do you recognize that this is exactly what is wrong with this article? It serves no other purpose than to try to "prove something". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't have any objection to Shipps, or Givens, or any other Mormon-approved source. But, I would object to elevating any one perspective to a "main resource". For one thing, you will have trouble making the article truly contemporary if you rely "mainly" on an historian. The whole idea of using published works (instead of our favorite apologetics web-sites), is to try to get ourselves and our own evaluations out of the picture, at last. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We should not and cannot attempt to prove who is right and who is wrong. We should be reporting on the debate, not conducting it. The only thing we should be trying to prove is that Mormons do or do not believe, practice or say X, and Christians do or do not believe, practice or say Y. Citing LDS scripture proves that Mormons do in fact believe X. Citing other Christian commentary on LDS proves that there are a lot of people who say Y. This topic isn't controversial because it is wikipedia, it is controversial because real people in the real world feel strongly about these things. That feeling is a fact, the debate is a fact. If a particular feeling is common enough and citable it is worthy of report, regardless of whether or not it is covered in this, that, or the other work of scholarship. As Mark has said, there are 1000's of such volumes, but at a high level they all talk about the same things.

For example, the fact that LDS believe in the First Vision is a key point of difference that needs to be covered here, I think we all agree that it is foundational to the differences between LDS and other Christians, the fact that there are controversies about the account and what the biggest controversies are should be mentioned here, but whether there were two, or three or four versions, when they were written, quotes from people who Joseph did or did not tell are all are facts that belong in the article on the First Vision, not here.

In addition to the article on the First Vision there are many other articles that cover LDS or Christians beliefs and practices. The purpose of this article should be to act as a central clearing house to compare and contrast these beliefs, touching on both similarities and differences, without going into great detail. This article should refer the reader to other, more detailed articles on the various topics, it does some of this already, but this should be increased. I think that some of these topics are covered better in this article than in their 'main' articles, that should be corrected. This is a problem throughout the various LDS-related articles on wikipedia.

As far as whether LDS or other Christian church buildings look more like McDonald's or the Parthenon, or how wealthy a church is, and who benefits from that wealth, I think these are issues of practice rather than doctrine, but if someone thinks these things are important then they deserve to be covered somewhere. If it is a comparitive issue, like the differences in building or financial structures between LDS and other Christian churches then maybe it belongs here. Personally, I don't have a problem if someone wants to point out that the LDS church has considerable financial strength today. This means they are able to quickly respond to a disaster or other needs. If the leadership decides that a church building or a boatload of food and clothing is needed somewhere, plop, out of the factory it comes. This is a different comparison than beliefs about the Trinity or the Godhead, but it is still Mormonism and Christianity. 74s181 12:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Word choice

Would it be too strong to say "condemn" instead of "criticize" in the introductory sentence? I don't think it would be inaccurate, but it might tip what follows so far that nothing except the accusation of damnable lies would seem to fit, and that shouldn't be the intention. What do you think? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

From an LDS perspective, I don't think we would use the term "condemn" regarding the history of Christianity. It goes too far and it is not an honest reflection of the LDS viewpoint.

From the mainline Christian churches, I hope that it would be the same. We are not talking about cultists, whom I would think would use the word easily.

It is an inflammatory word choice. It may be appropriate for mainline Christians, but not appropriate to use for the LDS perspective. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be touching on a pervasive difference, although you're the first LDS I've ever encountered who would use the word "cultish" to describe this desire for the removal forever of false doctrines, and of those who invent them.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:6-9

Nevertheless, I'll follow your lead in allowing that the LDS do not necessarily reciprocate the hostility expressed by the orthodox toward their doctrines: which certainly matches my experience, as well. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I misinterpreted your comment. You meant "cultists" as a synonym for "anti-cult apologists", not "members of a cult". I'm sorry that this sense of the word did not occur to me. See below. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you are playing word games; stop it. The term I used was C-U-L-T-I-S-T-S; those who think they are finding and fighting against groups they deem to be cults. Cultish would be used to describ a group that appears to act like a cult (whatever that term means; it is not even remotely defined in today's society and appears to have a different definition depending on which group you are speaking).

It is interesting that you would begin to quote scripture after having desired to move away from the contention often found in scripture bashing. It also would go completely against the advice of one of your choices of books above, Encountering New Religions, where in the advice is for a more incarnational approach. If we wish to be inflammatory, the term is appropriate. Of course, we could also wear signs that condemn liars and homosexuals to hell (both are scriptural), but I wonder how far we might get in our message.

Though LDS would believe that SOME men existed whose hearts were set upon evil, similar to Judas; I think LDS would also say that the vast majority of Christians were striving to do right, but the fullness of the Gospel was not found upon the earth.

If you are asking can we use inflammatory language to describe one another, sure, I just don't think it is helpful. Do I think it is dishonest to use tact? No, I think tact and respectful language is preferred unless there are no other choices. Given the context of the article we can be tactful without being offensive. The more I see this kind of interaction the more I doubt your motivations. Are you looking for a bareknuckle interaction? If so, exactly what are you trying to prove in such an exchange? You are a very confusing fellow. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That sword (Galatians 1:6-9) cuts both ways. We disagree over who it is that has perverted the Gospel of Jesus Christ and will therefore be accursed, but I would hope that as Christians we can agree on Who it is that should (and who should not) be doing the accursing. See Matthew 7.

I agree with Storm Rider, the vast majority of Christians have in the past and are today trying to do right. It is sad that so many are "...blinded by the craftiness of men..." (Doctrine and Covenants 76:75), but we know they will yet have an opportunity to hear the truth (Doctrine and Covenants 138:32) and to repent and become "...heirs of salvation..." (Doctrine and Covenants 138:57–59). 74s181 11:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

74s181, that sword does not cut both ways. At least, not in the same way.

Storm Rider, you don't need to assume that I'm playing word games. I don't use the word "cultists" that way, and I interpreted it as I heard it. The reason for quoting the verse is not to argue, but to point out a difference - as I perceived you to be pointing it out. As I said, after reflecting on your comments, it would be much more tactful to say "criticize" instead of "condemn" - because "condemnation", "abomination", "apostasy", etc. evidently do not mean to you what they mean to us.

I do think that we have a somewhat different aim, though. I am not trying to follow the advice, here, of Hexham's book - I recommend it as an example of some very (encouraging and) interesting developments in Evangelical attitudes toward the Mormons, but it is a book about witnessing to Mormons, in order to reach them for the sake of unity in the truth, in the body of Christ. Not all adopt this approach, and in fact most do not, as you know: and we must keep it real. While I think that Hexham is right, I don't mean to say that the article should assume this or proceed with his advice as its rule.

What I'm here for today is to describe "Mormonism and Christianity". The article must describe conflict without trying to change it; although I understand and sympathize with your desire to change it. Galatians 1:6-9 is central to that conflict, and a particularly challenging obstacle in this present project. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important that we all take a deep breath and relax for a while. ;^)

I have learned long ago, that if I can't believe somebody said something, they probably didn't. ;^) What they thought they said and what I thought they said are almost always totally different, and both sides are usually surprised about the other interpretation. That is why I usually try to read comments a whole bunch of ways before reacting.

I would hope that enough of us have worked on this page (and others) long enough to realize that while we don't always agree, we are all trying to make this article the best it can be. Part of the problem, of course, is that not all of us agree on what that is. But we can all agree that all of us are sincere in our efforts.

The reality is that we can't all agree because we all believe different things. Hopefully most of us realize that intelligent, rational people can believe totally different things and both be sure they are correct. And there is no way either can "prove" to the other which version is the correct one. That is because it involves faith. That's what makes all of this interesting. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I often find Christian apologists attempting to paint LDS as trying to become mainstream; of attempting to join the parade followed by other churches. In reality, LDS do not want to be part of the pack. We honestly and completely see this church as the restored Church of Jesus Christ; there is no other chruch, group, or council that equates to that truth. What we do request is respect, we request that the truth be told about our doctrine, and we request to be treated by others the same way we treat them. We do not protest at their church services, building dedications, proposed building sites.

There is real doctrinal conflict between the restored gospel and mainstream Christianity. I do not want to see it covered up or discounted. However, I also do not want that conflict to exclude the obvious commonalities that exist. For example, the conflict does not negate the ability of a LDS from praying with any other Christian. It does not negate the ability of Christians to come to understand the very deep, abiding love of the LDS people for Jesus Christ; that we acknowledge and teach Jesus' life, crucifixion, and resurrection. We can stand together as followers of Jesus Christ and yet acknowledge we have differences in doctrine. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

While it is part of your faith not to attack the beliefs of others, it is not part of ours. While this attack can be carried out in very ineffective, counter-productive ways, it would be dishonest not to frankly admit that we see the LDS as a very great hindrance to the knowledge of God, which we hope to see eradicated from the earth, and from which we hope every one of you will be extricated along with your children.

You are very right, that the commonalities must not be discounted. This will be the most controversial part of the final article, but I think that I see a way to do it without raising the "POV" flag for readers. I think that the Book of Mormon might be a key to doing this. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I don't think that you are in the same camp as those who carry out those "...ineffective, counter-productive..." attacks. Some of the things you've said suggest to me that you understand the LDS perspective, even as you disagree with it. However, I am confused by this latest statement. I see you as my misguided Christian brother, do you see me the same way? 74s181 03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that you honestly trust in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to set you free from condemnation through his righteousness, and your hope is confirmed by his resurrection from the dead. I think that you trust that the Son of God has given you new life, a promise of eternal life, and that you personally "accept Jesus as Lord and Savior" and demonstrate your gratitude and sincerity by purposing lifelong belief and godly behavior. I think that you relate to God the Father as he is revealed in Jesus Christ in the Bible, and it is on this concrete manifestation of his will and purpose that you focus your theological thoughts, for which purpose you see the Book of Mormon primarily as a symbol of his continued presence and guidance for those who believe in him. And, you think you have in it additional light on the Biblical faith.

But there are things that you do not trust in; and you do not realize who it is that you are resisting when you speak so carelessly of "apostasy" and "doctrines of men", when you are distracted by divisions and blinded by controversies to become the follower of a mere man. You want signs, or you will not believe in the church. Therefore you believe in Joseph Smith, and not the church. I am impressed, alarmed, and chastened by seeing how much falls down, when an entire religion is built up of the same evangelical words, but without that pillar. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification, it sounds like you are saying that it is the institution that offends you, not the members, and you hope to 'save us' by attacking the institution. If I have understood you correctly then we have uncovered another interesting difference, I personally an not concerned about the other Christian organizations, I think that as the members of those organizations see the light then the organizations will wither away on their own, I suspect most LDS feel the same way.

Mark, I know you are probably tired of me 'witnessing', but I think you may be have misunderstood LDS in one way and in order to respond I'm going to have to witness a bit. You said "You want signs, or you will not believe...". LDS do not seek outward signs, the Book of Mormon provides many examples where outward signs and miracles fail to convert, teaching that the only signs we should seek are the manifestations of the Holy Ghost in our hearts. I think Alma taught it best, he defines faith in Alma 32:21:

And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

He then goes on to define the process of developing and maintaining faith in Alma 32:26-43. I won't quote the whole thing here, but a key statement relating to how LDS perceive this process is in verse 35:

O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good...

To me, and to other LDS, faith is THE reality. Since the Holy Ghost has revealed to me that Jesus Christ lives, that the Atonement is real, that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it claims to be, that Joseph Smith was and is a true prophet of God, then anything anyone says has to be evaluated against these facts. I most definitely do not trust in the 'arm of flesh'.

Here's an interesting insight, I never really thought about it in this particular way before. Do you know what LDS consider to be the most serious, unpardonable sin? To deny the Holy Ghost. This, like nothing else, shows how important personal revelation is to LDS. 74s181 12:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Another thing. The Book of Mormon is a foundation of our faith, but the Doctrine and Covenants is (IMHO) a much better symbol of continual presence and revelation. However, the true symbol of continual presence is the continual revelation each of us receive from the Holy Ghost (according to us; Satan according to others ;^)

The Book of Mormon is a foundation because that is the most common source of conversion. I started reading the Book of Mormon when I was an agnostic, having dropped out of Catholicism years before. I started reading it more as a lark, but by the end of the book I knew that the book was true. From that, it was a simple step that God existed, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Once I was comfortable with the succession of authority, that meant the LDS church was the true church. As a result, I had to give up all my hobbies to join the Mormon Church. ;^) That is why I kept coming back to the belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet was at the core of the difference between Mormons and other Christians. If you believe Smith was a prophet, you are Mormon; if you don't, you aren't. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism as a "nation"

As an example of one way that Hexham can be followed, in a manner appropriate to the project, what do you think of looking at Mormonism as a "people" and "ethnic group"? This certainly is the way that Christians in the Western United States generally think of Mormons. This is not how people think, where Mormons are a more pronounced minority - but this does not invalidate the approach.

It is in this light, of Mormons as a "nation", that it becomes easily understandable why the "Mormons view themselves as a persecuted people," just as Mulholland says in Hexham. "A short history lesson should give some insight ... [b]eginning in Missouri in 1838 ..." (Kenneth Mulholland, p 164, Encountering New Religous Movements). Because this history is also part of Mormon sacred history, wherever Mormonism goes it also takes with it this self-perception. That is quite unlike the Christadelphians, or the Bible Student movements, or others: which have complaints about mistreatment, but it is not to them, as it is to Mormons, an element of their self-definition.

It could be in this context that the Mormon reaction to being called "non-Christians" and "cultists" can be explained with equal impartiality to both sides. What do you think? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Think of how the Sunni regard the Druze, for comparison. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The alternative is to think of Mormons as "non-conformists" - a term that well-describes most other Restorationist sects, and focuses on their deviation from normative tradition. But "Mormonism as non-conformism" rings untrue to the LDS, and does not fully account for why their critics are viewed by them as "anti-Mormons". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposed per se to thinking of the LDS as a people. I believe they are unique in many ways from a cultural perspective. I have to laugh at this "persecuted complex" that others talk about. Somehow in classifying it as such, it is supposed to make it seem as just a figment of the LDS collective imagination.

The persecution of yesteryear (the time of Joseph Smith) was real, palpable, and violent. However, the persecution of today is also pernicious. LDS see it every year at General Conference where we have good Christians carrying signs shouting at families as they go to conference. I always find that a particularly poignant moment when a young family passes by someone screaming at them and telling little Johnny and his sister Mary that they are condemned to hell because they are Mormons.

It happens in areas where Mormons are few as their classmates are warned about playing with them (Christians are somehow infected if they play with Mormons). It happens when 45% of Christians can not vote for someone because they are Mormon. Do I think the persecution complex is real? Yes, I think it is real. Is it justified? Walk in a LDS shoes for while and then you tell me.

Please, don’t ever think that Christians always operate in a loving manner with those around them. We are very qualified in our actions; we tend to only love those who are just like us. Please take note of the “We”; I believe LDS can be insensitive to their associates when they are in the majority. However, you will never see a group of Mormons out protesting the building of a Lutheran church or a church of any other group, Christian or not.

LDS can be viewed as a separate people, but that does have negative consequences. If you pigeon hole a group then it is very easy to begin to make generalizations. We have beliefs in common, but we are hardly homogeneous. However, we are certainly nonconformists. Cheers, Mark. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

When I say "Non-conformism", I'm not just talking about an attitude about "freedom". There is no implication that if we treat Mormonism primarily in terms of "a people" instead of as "non-conformity", that we mean to say that all Mormons think alike, that they are "conformists" of a different stripe, much less that they embrace the Tradition. These would be unjustified inferences.

What I mean is to provide a more accurate explanatory framework, in which the Christian approach to Mormonism has been, and is still, interpreted by Mormons. It is in this light that Christian (mostly Evangelical Protestant) confrontation with Mormons is seen not as "evangelisation" but as "persecution". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure you what mean, but if you are suggesting that Mormons confuse "evangelizing" with "persecuting", I would disagree. Most thinking people are fairly sure they are correct, and that those who think differently are wrong. I understand that, and have had many cases when people have tried to "correct" my way of thinking. Actually, my own brother has been trying for years. ;^)

Persecution is quite different than attempts of conversion. Conversion attempts are honest attempts motivated by concern; persecution isn't. Anti-Mormonism is real; it is not a figment of our imagination.

Having said all that, I agree that many Mormons are non-conformists. Certainly most converts are non-conformists. I can't imagine a conformist being able to go through the changes required to become a Mormon. You stick out like a sore thumb most of the time. ;^) However, I'm not sure about them as a "nation." Certainly Mormonism is a culture much more than most other Christian groups, but there is so much diversity among the individuals that a nation might be misleading.

On a different note, I was thinking of one big difference between Mormons and Christians that might help the article. The demands that LDS impose on their members are considerably more than most Christian religions. LDS put much more emphasis on service and doing good works. Many Christian groups provide service and do good works, but I'm not aware of any that are as organized and widespread as LDS. I will try to add something, and maybe others can contribute as well. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If this continues to generate such confusion, then maybe it isn't a profitable way to approach this topic. When I am speaking of "conformism" I am not thinking in terms of "freedom". Please stop responding to it in those terms.

Let me put this another way. Please read this carefully, in light of what I have just said. I will italicize all of those indications that the author is speaking of Mormonism as a non-conformist religion, which defines itself primarily as a theology that is trying to pass itself off as orthodoxy (which in the author's case would mean nothing other than an straight-forward interpretation of the Bible speaking for itself).

The author can quite candidly state that never in over a decade of research in the field of cults has he ever seen such misappropriation of terminology, disregard of context, and utter abandon of scholastic principles demonstrated on the part of non-Christian cultists than is evidenced in the attempts of Mormon theologians to appear orthodox and at the same time undermine the foundations of historic Christianity ... It is extremely difficult to write kindly of Mormon theology when they are so obviously deceptive in their presentation of data, so adamant in their condemnation of all religions in favor of the "restored gospel" allegedly vouchsafed to the prophet Joseph Smith." - Walter Martin: The Kingdom of the Cults, pg 181-182

Do you see now what I mean? Shall we deal with Mormonism as a branch off from orthodoxy, an alternative theology, approached primarily in the rational-doctrinal terms of its teachings, compared to the same teachings of orthodoxy, to show that it does not conform? This is exactly how Martin is treating it.

Or should we deal with Mormonism on its own terms, as a people of history and society, a culture that is centered on a trans-generational religion, which has a message of its own, that is very much centered on following Jesus Christ, but with priorities of its own, that is not trying to pass itself off as being something other than it is? If we follow this way of looking at it, a very different picture emerges. Do you see why? It is a matter of interpreting Mormonism in context. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill, when you say "LDS put much more emphasis on service and doing good works", and compare its relative virtues of "organization" and "widespread-ness", you are pointing to the issues I'm trying to put forward. I think that you are describing the context in which Mormon theology functions, the context in which most Mormons experience Mormonism. When you say that someone isn't a Christian, don't you mean that they don't reflect the way of life that you would expect from a follower of Jesus?

Perhaps you realize it, but this is quite the reverse of your Christian neighbor. His worship is theology, his idea of salvation is theology, his morality is theology: who God is, is what everything else flows from, for him. His hope follows from Christ's death, of whom he is made a partaker. This is all one thing to him, as saying that Christ is the same God as the Father, out from whom the Spirit who indwells the Christian is sent, on account of which he has hope of sharing in his very life. This is what he means by "grace" and the "new covenant". The Christian life is not a natural progression worked out by conformity to moral, ethical, religious or cosmic laws, to him. It is the very opposite of apotheosis, it has nothing to do with theogony. In this context, Mormonism is not only "different" from "his interpretation" or "his tradition", it stabs at the heart of the gospel and everything in his Christian experience. But in this context, Mormonism is not being viewed on its own terms; and this is why the reaction is so surprising. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as good works are concerned, each member is expected to serve in a calling. These can range from Bishop, teacher, clerk, and most anything else that can help the congregation. We are also expected to be home or visiting teachers, which means that we take responsibility for the welfare of some number of families, visiting and checking up on them on a regular basis. Virtually every member in a unit has several people who are on hand to help with whatever they need. That is what I was talking about when I referred to widespread organization.

I normally don't say anyone isn't a Christian (except for Jews, atheists, etc. ;^). You must be thinking of somebody else. ;^)

I suggest that "Kingdom of the Cults" isn't a very objective book, suggesting that Mormons distort early Christian history. Do you realize that some of the most recognized scholars in the Dead Sea Scrolls are LDS? There are some very theological LDS, but others who don't have that much interest in it, because they feel quite comfortable knowing that they are sons and daughters of God. When we pray, we expect (and often receive) answers from God. Not generic answers, but answers to specific questions. We don't have to come up with theories about what God wants, we can just ask Him. We also have prophets who give us guidance and counsel. We can also ask for blessings of comfort and guidance. As a result, active LDS don't feel alone or disconnected from God. Theology is an interesting activity for some of us, but none of feel it is necessary to know God better. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I sure wish that I could get you fellas to interact with the point that I'm addressing, instead of getting thrown off by everything I use to direct you to it. I am trying to provide more stable terms of comparison, and you continue to think I'm looking for terms of criticism.

The lead header of this article is entitled, "Divergence of Mormonism from mainstream Christianity". This sets the plan for the whole topic. From then on, it treats Mormonism as a departure from mainstream Christianity. Your earliest and vociferous critic was not "mainstream", but the Restorationist leader, Campbell. Mormonism "departs from" them, as well. They don't follow the Pentecostal movement, either - in either its orthodox or heterodox forms. It "departs from" them, as well. Etc. Etc.

Shall we define Mormonism in terms of its departures? Very well then, if that's the way you want to go. This article should be written by the anti-cultists and Hugh Nibley, who specialize in arguments about "departure". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, this is interesting. If we assume that all Christians feel as you describe, are you saying that theology essentially replaces/fill in for a personal relationship with God? This is remarkably different from what each LDS is taught. We teach our children, each other, and thse interested in learning about the Gospel that prayer is fundamental for a Christian; it is not purely reflective, but communication with a Heavenly Father that know you personally and, just as important, wants you to know Him. Theology, the study of the nature of God and religious truths, though based upon scripture is necessarily a study of the thoughts of those theologians who have gone before. Surprisingly for LDS, none of them claim to be called of God, but rather claim to be scholastically trained. This reliance is huge and fundamental. When you spoke of it striking at the very heart of the Gospel, you said a mouthful. For a Latter-day Saint, nothing replaces or is more important than maintaining a personal relationship with God.

I have never thought of the difference in the terms you use, but I think you speak true. It answers how mainline Christians have developed a definition of Christianity that has nothing to do with the Bible, but everything to do with the Councils. It also explains how often these same people deride Mormons and their "burning bosom". --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I'm with you on this, I've certainly learned some interesting things about mainstream (maybe we should label them "theological") Christians. I'm not convinced yet that all non-LDS Christians are really that interested in theology but I'd like to see an example with citations. I have some ideas but this was your idea to begin with, after patiently leading us to the light I think you should "throw out the first pitch".

However, I also think that there needs to be a place that compares doctrines, if mainstream Christians are as interested in theology as you say then we need a place where people can come and learn about the real doctrinal differences rather than depending upon heavily slanted tracts from either side. 74s181 04:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would you need any more proof than the hundreds or thousands of web pages that will return with any search for "Mormonism vs Christianity", "Mormonism and Christianity compared", "Mormon view of God", "Mormonism denies"? Compare this to "Mormonism vs tradition", "Mormonism and tradition", "Mormon view of tradition". Look at what the creeds are about, what the early fathers disputes focused on, and what they thought was at stake. What do you think "mainstream Christians" are "interested in" from even the most lazily gathered superficial evidence?

While Christian critics of Mormonism have not consistently done an admirable job of understanding what matters to Mormons on their own terms, Mormons have done a pretty poor job of recognizing what matters and why, to "mainstream Christians". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, is it now your turn to raise doubts about what your motives are? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Much of what I said was serious. It does explain the purpose or need for the Councils. For LDS the Councils are/were an example of the Apostasy. However, for MC they represent a holy convocation of learned men (I have never read where they were, as a group, considered holy, but individuals were considered saints of great holiness) who proclaimed a guideline of beliefs. Their statements were a summary of what they mutally agreed were the most significant statements (beliefs) of the Bible.

The most common definition of a Christian put forth by MC is that identified by the Council of Nicea. To be Christian one must believe in the Nicene Creed or, en bref, the Trinity. This definition is foreign to LDS. Though LDS do not often think in terms of who is Christian and who is not as quantified by specific beliefs, we accept others as Christians by their proclaiming to follow Jesus Christ as their Savior. One is not a "better or bigger" Christian because one has a specific set of beliefs. Bart Erhman had some excellent thoughts in this same vein as I recall; it has been a while since I read several of his books.

Please also remember that we are painting with some pretty broad brush strokes. I do not believe that a personal relationship with God is not important in MC (In fact I think that for many if not most Protestants it is very important), but I still think that you are right that theology plays a more significant role in MC than it does in LDS spiritual life. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It matters to us who God is, if we say that we have a "personal relationship" with him. We do not believe every spirit. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Mark, I'll take a shot at it. I'd like to add a section that says, in essence, LDS believe that seeking and receiving personal revelation from God is more important than studying theological debates. I'd reference Matthew 16:15-17:

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And then follow up with a quote from a talk by President Spencer W. Kimball:

"It should also be kept in mind that God cannot be found through research alone, nor his gospel understood and appreciated by study only, for no one may know the Father or the Son but “he to whom the Son will reveal him” (Luke 10:22). The skeptic will some day either in time or eternity learn to his sorrow that his egotism has robbed him of much joy and growth, and that as has been decreed by the Lord: The things of God cannot be understood by the spirit of man; that man cannot by himself find out God or his program; that no amount of scientific or philosophical research nor rationalizing will bring a testimony, but it must come through the heart when compliance with the program has made the person eligible to receive that reward." (Spencer W. Kimball, “President Kimball Speaks Out on Testimony,” New Era, Aug 1981, 4)

Is this the sort of thing you had in mind? 74s181 11:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I hope you see the complete arrogance of that statement. It is a prime example of the conflict between MC and LDS. First it is a common statment in anti-Mormon literature...they extol the truthfulness of the Holy Spirit except for Mormons who can not possibly be inspired by the Holy Spirit and are rather unique in that none of them are familiar with God and must be listening to demons for answers to their prayers. Funny that only Mormons are inspired by demons, but when any other Christian prays they get a direct communication with God. Second, the assumption is that they must be wrong because the Holy Spirit would never say anything in conflict with the proclamations of the "Holy Councils"....which, for LDS, are the councils of men not even proclaiming to be inspired, but simply attempting to quantify God in terms that mankind can understand.

In the construct you present prayer for the purpose of finding truth has no place in the lives of a Christian. Their only recourse is to study Tradition and take it for granted that those individuals were obviouly more intelligent than any of us and they had to have known better. All of the Bible verses that talk about the benefit of asking God are set aside for the opninions of man. It makes reason stare in amazement. You have been shaking your head thinking that we just don't get you; please know that it is a two way street. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 11:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"complete arrogance ..." - You have that puppet talking again, Storm Rider, putting words in my mouth that don't come from me. What I said wasn't at all arrogant.

"in the construct you present ..." - I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it's how deeply you distrust me, not how shallowly you understand me, that makes the biggest impression on me. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

74s181, it wasn't what I was looking for under this heading of "mormonism as a 'nation'" but it's certainly an example of a better model for the comparison of Mormonism, than the rational-dogmatic model that the article currently presents. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, the arrogance was in the statement, "We do not believe every spirit". This infers that LDS are careless in who they listen to and, in a worst case, given that there are only God and Satan, LDS are guided by the Evil one. This is a type of statement that I believe LDS would simply not think of; we think differently about other believers. Understand that it is not that LDS are righteous or more pure (not at all), it is that we don't think the terms/consructs that MC do. Other Christians are not wrong, they are simply lacking the fullness of the Gospel; it is an absence of fullness not an absence of light.

I am definitely guilty of not trusting most Christians. My interactions have been many and varied; some have been very sweet, but the vast majority of my interactions have been with Evangelicals wholly lacking in anything that could be considered Christlike behavior. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I say again, there is nothing arrogant in what I said. I think you'll be happier with me, if you focus on what I'm trying to do with the article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of an off-the-wall suggestion (I never claimed to be "normal" ;^)

Mark, it sounds like most of your knowledge about Mormons is from books. Assuming you don't live in an all-Mormon community, I would suggest that you find the nearest LDS ward in your area. Show up on Sunday and ask to speak to the High Priest Group Leader. This will most likely be somebody who had been in the Bishopric and has a lot of experience, but won't be too busy and have time to talk to you. Start off by telling him you are not interested in joining the LDS church, but that you are interested in learning more about how LDS think. Explain that you are working with some LDS members writing some articles about religion. (If he knows what Wikipedia is, even better.) Tell him you would like to attend the meetings, and would like somebody to talk to about what goes on, especially somebody who has studied Christian theology. (If you live in the Philadelphia area, come to South Philly & I would be glad to talk to you.) You will probably learn a lot more in a lot less time about LDS than all this typing back and forth.

You can use lds.org to find the nearest chapel and their hours (often there are more than one congregation meeting in the same building. I would avoid student or young single adult (YSA) units, mostly because you won't get as good a cross-section as with a family ward. If you get self-conscious easily, most men will be shirt & tie or suits, but the first time I showed up I was in jeans and a sports shirt and nobody made any comments.

If you live in Utah or something like that, don't do this. Some of those folks have never met a non-member and they will get waaaay too excited to do you any good. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, most of what I know about the LDS comes from listening to them and trying hard understand them. I come from Wyoming, and live in Oregon. There is no shortage of Mormons to talk to where I have lived, any more than there is of books by, about, and against Mormonism. Thanks for the invite. I know it's sincere.

However, what I'm trying to do under this heading does come from a book. It does not come from listening to Mormons, but from thinking about what Mormonism is beyond its doctrines of this and that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't dismiss my suggestion too quickly. While you may have a lot of Mormons to talk to, have you talked to them about any of this? The reason I ask is because, based on my interpretation of what you mean in some of your comments, I'm not convinced you understand how important prayer is for LDS. I have taught a number of lessons for youth about how to recognize promptings of the Holy Ghost.

I have yet to find a book written by a non-Mormon that portrays what I think is an accurate description of LDS. In many cases it is because the author doesn't seem to want to portray an honest picture (either that or their study was very superficial). Many times they are based on other secondary sources, so they just repeat many of the same distortions.

The old adage of not judging somebody until you have walked in their shoes apply here. That is why I think that if you were to attend some meetings, listen to the discussions, and talk one-on-one to an LDS about what you experienced, you will get a much greater understanding of what makes us tick than all the books you have read so far. 20:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what I've said that would lead you to this impression. I am surprised, since I have consistently tried to steer the article away from doctrinal disputes as definitional of Mormonism, toward Mormon piety and culture and way of life on its own terms, above the level of anti-cult books and LDS answers to them. Who insisted that the lead should emphasize the place of prophecy, priesthood, and personal guidance? Who has been complaining that this article emphasizes things that warp insight into the religion, and frustrate the comparison of religion, because it primarily compares theology outside the context of experience, outside the context of family and history? I think that this is another case of you not reading me very closely, if at all. And unfortunately, my visit to the ward will not help you to do a better job of that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't even thinking about Anti-Mormon books, although I guess I should have been more clear. (That is the problem with the written word - it is too easy to mis-interpret what is being said, which then colors your interpretation of the rest of what is being said.) I'm talking about newspaper articles, articles in Time and other magazines, etc. Actually, I found one book that was pretty close (don't remember the name right now), but the author spent a lot of time talking to LDS when writing his book. It was pretty accurate, but there were small details that stood out and told you it was by a non-member.

The comments I was talking about was that the Book of Mormon was a sign of continual presence, confusion of evangalization with persecution, etc. If a religion believes they have modern prophets and continual revelation, they aren't non-conforming or breaking off from any other religion, they are following their leaders. They totally disregard theories and philosophies based on what they perceive as doctrines of men, mingled with scripture.

Actually, your comment about non-conformists struck me as funny (although I realize you didn't mean it that way) because I'm used to people telling me that Mormons are conformists - we always do what our leaders say, which is also funny to me. (Brigham Young once remarked that what he feared the most was that the members would trust their leaders too much, rather than always gaining a testimony of the truth. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 22:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't see your religion as breaking off from another one, trying to "pass yourself off" as people intensely interested in comparing yourself to traditional Christianity, then why are you content with an article that leads with "Divergence from mainstream Christianity"?

Regarding the Book of Mormon, it is a marvel to me that you would work so hard to find something to disagree with in what I said. The Book of Mormon is the best-known advertisement for Joseph's credentials as a prophet, and for the "restored gospel".

I am not trying to be anything but an editor of Wikipedia, and in that role I'm trying to make it more plain why this article doesn't work very well in some ways - although it's slowly improving, IMNSHO. In that role, it sure seems as though these misunderstandings of yours should be more easily cleared up than they are; it's regrettable that I have chosen words that get you so terribly sidetracked.

Regarding the evangelism question, scoff if you want, but the line between what is perceived by Mormons to be evangelism, and what is perceived to be persecution, is very often a thin and blurry one. I'm tempted to give examples, but these exchanges seem like such a distraction from the task. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never been satisfied with 'Divergence', and Mark is absolutely right about this, so I changed it. 74s181 01:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work. I've tweaked it and added some things based on what we have been discussing. Thanks, Mark for your contributions to this discussion. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article is not improving in its neutrality toward the subject. It remains to be seen whether anything but the Mormon view will find a place in this article, especially considering the length. The section "Faith without works is dead" for example, is superfluous. It does not compare on the point of difference. It is also a selective generalization to say that modern theologians are studied more than ancient ones. But these are just new problems, that are like many others throughout the article.

There is a big difference between saying that traditional faith is concerned with the knowledge of God, which is expressed in every aspect of life - and saying "the study of theology [is] the best path to true knowledge of Jesus Christ". "Theology" happens in worship, in baptism, communion, preaching, prayer, and everything else. Everything directs toward knowing the Father in the Son, in the Holy Spirit, in us by reason of the coming of Christ. You say that this is a doctrine on paper, that you can study by reading books, something invented by a committee of scholars. This is not what we say.

Once having granted that there is such a thing as a consensus of "orthodoxy" (which you call Nicene Christianity), this must be maintained as the foil throughout, or else the reader should be aware that the article is designed to provide Mormonism without any respondent. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who added that section, I obviously don't agree that it is superfluous. Mormons put a lot of emphasis on works to demonstrate faith. Granted, I didn't do too good of a job adding the mainstream Christian perspective, but it is late, and I'm tired. I will try to add some tomorrow. I am hoping that you will be able to contribute to the mainstream perspective. Actually the fact that you think it is superfluous might be a good thing to add to the article.

I just went through the entire article and made a number of tweaks. Except the section on Traditional LDS attitudes. That section is very long, and I'm not sure how much it helps to compare and contrast Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity. Is it just me? Or maybe I'm too tired to think much about that section. At a minimum, I think it should either be stripped down or broken into sub-sections. Thoughts? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 06:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You have pointed to something that is evidently important, but you have framed it as an issue of comparison, leaving the impression that Nicene Christians are antinomians. There is a comparison, as I understand your views, but it is not on the point of "faith without works is dead".

I very much want to see the "traditional attitudes" section go away. There are aspects of it that are significant to this topic, but it is very bloated. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, earlier I thought you said that the LDS editors should not try to provide the mainstream Christian perspective. I added the new 'attitudes' section including a statement on the importance of personal revelation to LDS, and a single line as a 'straw man' based on what I thought you were saying was the MC position on theology. Bill added some more to this statement. This morning I changed the title to 'Personal revelation and theology' to clarify the two contrasting attitudes, matching what Bill did to the 'Faith and Works' title. Originally I was hoping that you would provide the MC contrast and I would still like to see you or some other MC editor do so. 74s181 11:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the 'Faith and Works' section, this is one could be viewed both as a doctrine and as an attitude. If I understand correctly, MCs (other than Catholics) are insistent that salvation comes by faith alone even though good works are, well, good. OTOH, LDS are equally insistent that good works are both needed to develop true faith, are a 'proof' that such faith exists, and that certain works of law (such as baptism) are also required for salvation. I have always thought that the difference comes from the definition of 'works', usually when Paul talks about works or the law he is talking about the dead works of the law of Moses, or IOW, worship centered on the practice of animal sacrifice, which I think we all agree was fulfilled and came to an end with the infinite sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Clearly there is a difference in both attitude and doctrine, should this be covered both ways? I think not. 74s181 11:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the 'Traditional LDS Attitudes' section is a problem. I think it contains a lot of interesting stuff, but it doesn't fit with the tone and brevity that I think we are trying to establish for the rest of the article. In fact, looking at the article as a whole, it seems that the further you get into it, the more long winded it gets, I suspect this is due to editors starting to read and edit at the begining. I think the outline and structure of everything starting at 'Recognition of the rites of other denominations' needs to be reworked, maybe into a section titled 'Interactions between...' or something similar, this would give us Also, since I think we've decided that 'Mormonism' more or less equals TCoJCoLDS and not the LDS movement in general then does the 'Community of Christ' section belong in this article? I have known several RLDS / CoC folks during my life and I can remember that they used to really take offense if you called them 'Mormons'. I don't know if this is still true or not. 74s181 11:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I try to balance Mormon vs Mainstream Christian when I can; however my understanding is spotty and dated. When I left Catholicism, the Mass was still said in Latin and only Sunday masses counted. In fact, it was shortly after you didn't have to fast from midnight before taking Communion. As for mainline Christianity, most of my experience has been with Quakers and Unitarian service (and Jewish, but that doesn't really help here. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

74s181, what I said is that you will need to allow Mainstream Christians to speak for themselves, and recognize as we also need to recognize that the two sides being compared are not corresponding coordinate entities (they aren't mirror images). To understand what you believe we'll need to look to your beliefs not ours, and you shouldn't tell us what we believe, over our objections - even if we can't document these beliefs as readily as citing the most recent GA.

Regarding the Community of Christ, I think that they should be mentioned if they appear on either side of a comparison. I understand for example, that they want themselves sharply distinguished from CJCLDS on certain points, but not on others. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

But I'm not trying to tie your hands, to tell you that "LDS editors should not try to provide the mainstream Christian perspective". I encourage you to be bold. But eventually, someone will wish to allow this perspective to speak for itself - and it will be different than you might have expected, and might not have all the "reliable source" credentials that you have a right to expect before the article is reviewed. I'm only asking for patience in that regard. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of mortality

I continue to consider Mark's comments and encouragements and I suppose I will continue to fall short, but I will give it a try. It may be the same comparative exercise we are trying to get away from, but maybe not. I hope that I am not moving into just more complex subjects.

I do believe that historical Christain theology and LDS theology differ on the purpose of mortality and the need for a Savior. The concepts direct many other thought processes and teachings. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy (2 Nephi 2:25). This concept of joy is unique; it qualifies humanity. The Fall in Christianity provides a completely different foundation upon which theology is built. Mark, if we discussed these divergent concepts and how they have influenced Christian cultures, would be coming closer to your vision for the article? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We've talked about so many things, that they're getting confused with one another, I think. The whole purpose of the article is comparison; but it's the way that they are compared that bothers me. I want Mormons to explain what Mormonism is, and why they believe it to be Christianity in its fullness. And then I want to the mainstream Christians to be allowed to explain how they regard these aspects of Mormonism, not only how they disagree with them. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think these new sections might help in this respect. IMHO, Mormonism tends to be a very pragmatic religion. We place a lot of emphasis on what we do, although it is always prefaced with the need to do the right things for the right reason. One of the problems I have had with many Christian religions is the concept that faith is all that is needed: it doesn't matter what you do, you will be forgiven. It makes sense to me if the person is trying to do the right thing, but those who deliberately do whatever they want believing that God will forgive them sounds a lot like a group that might hear "I knew ye not."

I am hoping that you will be able to provide some insight into the Mainstream Christianity viewpoint of these issues. I think this approach will be more successful than the traditional comparisons of doctrines. Much of what we believe is because it was revealed to us by a prophet, and since Mainstream Christianity doesn't consider them prophets they naturally will not agree (or at least accept it as a revelation.) IMHO, going through the actual differences is much like talking about the trees instead of the forest. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It will be tempting to be distracted by the distinctive emphases of various groups. And after all, how can an article pretend to summarize with authority the consensus of two thousand years of traditions that have to some extent developed without constant interaction with one another? Any statement will be full of hidden nuance. Nevertheless, you did specify "mainstream" and "traditional" as the comparison model. You are asking for comparisons that express what those who consider this multi-faceted tradition representative of them have in common, rather than where we differ: what is generally true, rather than what is consistently true.

In that light, those who "deliberately do whatever they want believing that God will forgive them", because they went to confession and said their hail marys and our fathers, or because they prayed the sinner's prayer and claimed Jesus as their savior, are not representative of this tradition. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Describing the forest before we talk about the trees is exactly what I've been groping to express, Bill. Thank you. I'm sure everyone will know just what that means, even if they were completely lost trying to figure out that this is what I was talking about. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Importance/Priorities

I don't know what the better way is to say it, but I'm not happy with this introduction to "Differences in attitudes and emphasis".

One important but rarely discussed area of difference between Mormonism and other Christians is what the two groups believe to be important.

Is testimony indeed "one important" element - or isn't it just about the most complete way to describe the whole ball of wax: you tell me, but it sure seems that way from the outside. You say that you have a prophet leading you. No one but you believes this; so how do you know? You have a testimony, which you believe to be a supernatural confirmation in your own heart, that what you believe is from God.

In contrast, mainstream Christianity has a long history of encountering groups with this kind of subjective claim on inexpressible esoteric knowledge, as well as other ways of claiming to know God. Theology concerns knowing God as revealed in Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures, and as experienced by faith, in the worship and life of the church. The creeds are the product of countless comparisons of this worship and life over against the counter-claims of teachers who would lead us to a different God, away from this communion. This is what I meant when I said that we do not see theology as imposed upon us, by books and the decrees of committees or popes, but as expressed in everything (as explained by books, as agreed in councils, as represented by popes).

Now you'll want to know about the divisions among trinitarian Christians - and well you should, as it is a foundational principle of your own religion, as the article already says. More than that, you'll wonder what the Baptists would think of this churchly view of things, when they are so adamant about the exclusively particular nature of faith and communion with God. We'll run into these problems throughout.

But all I'm trying to point out here, is that when you compare broad characteristics of approach in this way, you are not looking at single items or areas of difference, but the general framework of religion, according to the terms of generalization that you've provided by speaking of "mainstream Christianity". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the introduction either, but I'm guessing after we flesh out the content, the introduction might fall into place.

I don't think that the "Mainstream Christianity" opinion need be a single point of view. Certainly Catholics and Protestants normally don't agree. I think it would be quite appropriate to mention, for example, that some Christian religions believe point A, while another group believe point B, and Mormons believe point C. In other words, you don't need to frame all of Christianity into a single point of view. I tried doing something like that in the section on Religious authority - Catholics understand (but don't agree) while Protestants don't see what all the fuss is about.

As for the "it doesn't matter what I do", I have heard that from a number of Christians. And, of course, there is the bumper sticker: "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." ;^)

As for Testimony, there are actually a whole bunch of testimonies. LDS often use the term as though it is singular, but we have a different testimony about each doctrine. It is quite common for someone to have a strong testimony of one point of doctrine and a weaker testimony about some other doctrine. How do we know? I wish I could tell you. ;^) Each person gets their own testimonies and often in very different ways. Even answers to prayers are experienced differently. Some talk about a burning in the bosom, others a calm and peaceful, for others it is a tingling sensation. Typically, we get those sensations through fasting and prayer, and after we have several spiritual experiences we start to recognize the promptings of the spirit. Personally (never wanting to be normal) I often use the Old Testament approach ... asking for a sign.

So to answer what I think is your question, testimony is very important, but all encompassing at the same time. The belief in a prophet is the core differential between Mormons and non-Mormons, which include Christian, Jews, atheists, etc. If, however, you were pointing out that some of my characterizations of Mainstream Christianity was way too broad, I would love it if you could help flesh out the differences. Much of my familiarity with Christian beliefs come from Christians trying to convince me that I am mistaken and misguided. My guess is that they concentrate on those aspects that most bother/offend them. For example, the "people are saved regardless of what they do" type people would try to prove that point, the Catholics would defend papal succession, and other groups might attack other doctrines. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern is to maintain one level of comparison at a time. The differences between the denominations are very real, and very obvious. Christian traditions separated from one another in many directions, so that they look back on where they came from from different angles. However, except as they follow the Restorationist tendency that is also deposited in them, they all look back at the same thing and their views can be stereoscopically aligned as it were - without claiming that their differences are unimportant. I believe that you do the same thing, but in a different way, in order to say that the LDS has always had the same doctrine.

When we descend into the trees, we will talk about a bewildering diversity on every side. But if we've adequately handled the description at this more general level of description, we'll know much better what we're looking at - the trunk alone, the tail alone, the ears alone, all will look like either "this" elephant, or "that" elephant, to the reader. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Forest vs trees - All along I've thought about this article in terms of those differences where all, or nearly all, 'other' Christians would agree that "Mormons believe Y and real Christians don't". Thus, forest A and forest B. I finally gave up on trying to define the 'mainstream Christian' forest, and just accepted that it is. 74s181 05:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro to 'Differences in attitude and emphasis' - I'm not married to the one line intro. When I added the section it needed some kind of introduction, that was what I could come with. I thought we had agreed that this was 'rarely discussed' and 'important'. My thinking was and is that there are a few big differences in attitude that make it seem like we're speaking different languages when we talk about certain topics. Personal revelation, or testimony is one such difference, I agree it is one of the largest. Another big one is Faith and Works. 74s181 05:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about the whole faith vs works thing today, and something came clear that I hadn't thought of before. I'm going to get a little 'theological', it's unfamiliar territory for me so please be patient. In Mathew 5:48 Jesus Christ said:

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

LDS take this scripture very literally. We understand it to mean that we are to become perfect in the same way as our Father. The LDS quad has a footnote for the word 'perfect' in this verse, it says "GR complete, finished, fully developed." The 'GR' indicats that this is a definition for the original Greek word. I found a parallel Greek New Testament and learned that the Greek words translated as perfect are teleioi and teleios. I've never studied Greek, so I'm guessing that the first is more of a plural form, Christ speaking to the group, and the second is a singular form, refering to the perfection of the Father. I poked around some more (isn't the Internet wonderful?) and confirmed the sense of the definition to have arrived at a goal, to be finished, or mature.

There is no footnote for 'Be ye' in this verse, but since I already had the parallel Greek New Testament open I checked and discovered the Greek word esesqe, this one was more difficult to find, it means 'become', suggesting that we must take an active role in the process.

ANYWAY, the point is, LDS see perfection as a process where we gradually become perfect or finished, or mature. We believe that thru the process of repentence we tap into the atonement of Jesus Christ and move closer to this goal. LDS also believe that when we choose to do good works when we don't really want to it becomes easier to do so in the future, because we have changed as a result of our choices. The realization I came to today is that mainstream Christians view the perfection in the verse above more as a sudden transformation, that they expect to stand before God and if they have met the requirements for salvation He will suddenly cleanse them from all sin. So, the short form, LDS see the fulfillment of this statement as an ongoing process, while MCs see it as a sudden change, partly at the time of conversion, but mostly at the judgement.

It also seems to me that MCs don't believe they can make any change or improvement to themselves, that any such change is entirely due to an act of God. OTOH, LDS believe that although we can't cleanse ourselves without the atonement, we must go thru a repentence process to take advantage of this gift, it is an act of will to choose to repent and improve ourselves. "...For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still."

Anyway, Mark, I'd like you to confirm whether I've got the sense of the MC perspective on forgiveness / perfection right or not. 74s181 05:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how to answer. The framework within which you're thinking of this is different, so my answer will not match your question, I think.

Sanctification is a process. Day by day we are to die to sin, and live toward God, through Christ who died for us and was raised for our justification. The Wesleyan idea that the process attains to perfection in this life is not the norm, the (my) Calvinist view that our conformity to Christ by grace is NOT acceptable to God for its own virtue is not the norm (we believe he receives only Himself and his love, and he receives us as we are joined with his love, in Christ, by faith in Him), and Roman Catholics are not the norm in believing that this perfecting process must continue after death until we are made perfect (the doctrine of purgatory).

But what runs through these differences, is that we view the process of sanctification as putting aside our own life, in order to more consistently and constantly live out the life that is in us and toward which we are directed, which is Christ himself. It is not a matter of "meeting requirements" - these requirements have been met by Christ. What we think we are doing, is adding to ourselves from God Himself, day by day, something that does not belong to us - joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, virtue, faithfulness, knowledge, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, brotherly affection, gentleness, and love. We are alive toward God by the Spirit within us, therefore we must walk by that same Spirit who has delivered us from death.

Glorification is not ours to attain, except in Christ. We are made partakers of Christ's glory. His incarnation removes the obstacles to the realization of our perfection, by being everything we should be; but his death makes his perfection ours, when he put into us his Holy Spirit who raised Him from the dead.

More cryptically: We are now, but not yet, everything that He intends us to be, if we are in Christ.

See? Not really an answer to your question. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Mark, it is an answer, it sounds like I was totally wrong on this and that LDS and MC are closer than I thought. The biggest difference between LDS and MC belief is the end point, this is a major if not the major difference between LDS and MC, we've talked about it before so I won't bring it up again. However, it sounds like we are pretty close on how we get to the end point. Both MC and LDS see it as a process, and use the same word to describe it - 'santification'. Both MC and LDS see the process as sacrificing the things of the world (you said, 'die to sin', LDS say 'put off the natural man'). Both MC and LDS believe that we can do nothing on our own, only thru the atonement of Jesus Christ.

The only difference I can see is the need for works of the law. LDS believe that the need for baptism is an absolute, the only difference between the need for faith and the need for baptism is that baptism is an event, and the care and feeding of the 'seed of faith' ('Seed of faith' lecture in Alma 32, parable of the sower in Luke 8) is a process. I'm a bit confused on what MC believe, I've heard some say that baptism is "just a symbol" and isn't a requirement. Others say that you must be baptized, but it doesn't matter that much who does it. Mark, I can't find it now, but I thought you said somewhere that one should be baptized by an ordained minister or something like that. Anyway, it looks to me like we are pretty close on the question of faith vs works. 74s181 23:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If I have misunderstood and LDS / MC are in fact far apart on any one point, I'm going to guess that it is in the area of works of the law. If so, I'm wondering if it would be useful to define the different types of 'works' mentioned in the New Testament, and show how LDS and MC agree or disagree on each.

Works of the Law of Moses - this was the orthodox law at the time of the coming of Jesus Christ, and He instructed his disciples to be obedient to it while He was alive. LDS and I think MC believe that Paul (and to a lesser extent the other apostles) taught that Christ's sacrifice fulfilled the Law of Moses and it was no longer in force after His death and resurrection.

Works of the Law of Jesus Christ - From the LDS perspective this superceded the Law of Moses and includes baptism, the sacrament (Lord's supper) and other saving ordinances. From the MC perspective, I don't know if MC consider these things 'law' or required behavior in the same way that the Law of Moses was required behavior prior to the coming of Jesus Christ.

Works of Charity - Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc., see Matthew 25:31-46 and LDS hymn 29, also Luke 10:25-37), I think that LDS and MC agree that these good works are good and things that we ought to do, but neither places any particular requirement on how much we should do.

Works of God - creation, miracles, our very existence. I think that MC and LDS agree on most of this, LDS also believe that the salvation of man is God's work or purpose. Moses 1:39 "For behold, this is my work and my glory - to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." I'm sure that MC won't agree that this is scripture, but I'm curious if they would agree with the stated idea.

Anyway, is it worth talking about the different kinds of 'works' in the article? Or, are we actually close enough in agreement that we don't need to cover this in any detail. It seems to me that MC think LDS place too much emphasis on works, I'd like to explore that and this is the best way I can think of. 74s181 23:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The place at which the LDS differs from traditional Christianity is not where you thought it was - it's not on the issue of "Faith without works is dead", and it's not on the issue of whether the moral law is of binding obligation - but that doesn't mean that there isn't a difference. There is a difference in the conception of what grace is, as the section already says. I don't think that we should go into significant detail here, or we will obscure, rather than clarify, this already subtle point of comparison. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I re-read the 'Faith and Works' section, the closest thing I could find to a 'subtle point of comparison' is this:

"...those in other Christian traditions perceive it to be a program by which they are trying to obtain favor with God, as though by doing these works they are earning the right to heaven, in the same way that the LDS believe that God merited his exaltation."

Is that what you meant? 74s181 10:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The article expands on this statement, and clarifies the general issue upon which the two perspectives conflict misunderstand/argue/conflict/disagree with one another:

Perceptions that Latter-Day Saints believe they could somehow earn heaven arise from subtle differences in conceptions of the grace of God. However, in the LDS understanding, the grace of God provided by Jesus Christ is arguably the most prominent element of official LDS doctrine. Without the Atonement of Jesus Christ, salvation would be impossible, regardless of how many good works an individual performs in this life. In the Book of Mormon, for example, the prophet Jacob writes:

There is a subtle, central difference in what "grace" is perceived to be. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Religious authority

The description of the Mormon view of the importance of authority should be expanded greatly. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, the brief statement says "tends". Are there any exceptions important enough for this word to belong there? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's under this section on authority, that the article should describe the schisms and the denomination explosion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Because, unless I'm mistaken, the LDS sees these divisions as a crisis of authority (where we see these divisions as a crisis of faith). 01:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, if we keep this up, you might be able to pass yourself off as an LDS at some point. ;^)

I will let somebody else talk about the divisions, since I know so little about that (although I met several people from the Monongahela Branch that followed Sidney Rigdon.)

I'm not sure about how typical LDS view the split, but I think both perspectives have validity. Certainly the original dispute was based around authority, but it was most likely (IMHO) actually faith that determined who followed what group. The miracle of Young's appearance changing to Smith's was considered by many a sign. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 02:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very generous thing to say. I think that the holes in my understanding are probably pretty obvious to you, and I've embarrassed myself more than once in these exchanges. But I was thinking of how the LDS view divisions among mainstream Christians - which I believe is thought of in very much the same terms as how they view divisions among themselves (in terms of a crisis of authority). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you ever said that might have been embarrassing. I think the results of these conversations will create a great article. We seem to be building an article that explains the differences without any of the debates that often distract from other articles.

Remember that many of us are converts to the LDS church, so some of us have considerable experience with Christianity. There are a lot of ex-Catholics like myself, and a fair number of former Protestants. Interestingly, what religion they came from can affect what attracts them to the LDS church. For Catholics, priesthood authority resonates very well. Back in the 60's when I was still Catholic, when somebody left the Catholic Church, they almost never joined a Protestant Church. If you are used to authority, the lack of it in Protestant religions doesn't seem right. For ex-Protestants, it is the workings of the spirit that often attracts them. Stuff like that makes Catholics nervous. ;^)

Life-long LDS are definitely at a disadvantage in trying to understand other Christians. To them, all of the Gospel is taught as a single, integrated unit. Classes about the Bible will often refer to LDS scriptures to interpret some passages, and so to them all the scriptures are tightly integrated. LDS can't understand how Mainstream Christians can interpret the Bible the way they do. The problem, of course, is that messages from the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants influence their interpretation of the Bible. To an LDS, they can see that a doctrine fits well into how they interpret the Bible, but for the MC they interpret the Bible based solely on the Bible, and you often can't get to LDS doctrine from the Bible alone. LDS can't understand how the MC can get that message from the Bible, and the MC can't understand where the LDS came up with these off-the-wall interpretations. We converts try not to laugh when this happens. ;^)

I'm wondering if that is why MC thinks that LDS treat the Bible as a second-class scripture. They think LDS distorts the Bible to fit the LDS scripture, but in reality each influences the other. Personally, I think that causes problems when LDS and MC try to communicate, since the LDS isn't used to thinking about only the Bible. This is one area (IMHO) where converts can be more effective in communicating. Of course, none of this has any affect on conversion, since we believe that there is nothing we can do to convert somebody; we believe that only the Holy Ghost can do that. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

They see "additional revelation" as an insult to the deposit of faith. If the Book of Mormon is viewed as nothing but a typical romantic Christian novel, written in the style of Scripture, it would be criticized only for its modalistic idea of God and a number of other oddities - which otherwise is not offensive, and is frequently an insightful commentary on the Bible and Christian faith. However, the offense of "another scripture" is insurmountable. This is particularly the case with D&C, which if you'll forgive me for speaking plainly, is perceived as having the very same pompous air and pretense of new authority as the Quran - and, not at all insightful. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have trouble accepting any other reaction to D&C from non-Mormons. I agree with you that if the Book of Mormon had been presented as a work of fiction, there would not have been a strong reaction. However, I can see no way to interpret D&C other than either true or false. It's kinda like "a little bit pregnant" - it doesn't make sense. You can't read that book and think of it as somebody's opinion about God; it keeps claiming to be from God, and keeps criticizing other Christian churches.

Do you find the Quran offensive? Is that typical of mainstream Christianity? I'm not talking about some of the recent interpretations of the text from fundamentalist radicals, but the actual text. How about Pseudepigrapha? Gnostic writings? I enjoy reading such things to see various ways in which people approach God. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I perceive an offense in the Quran. It claims to correct the word of God, changing the testimony and replacing it, declaring that things are missing from it and altered in it for the purposes of deceit, but pretending to reclaim these things by over-writing that testimony: transforming the Bible into a subordinate revelation and elevating the man, Muhammad, above the multitude of witnesses to make of him the sole accessible authority, and thereby suppressing knowledge of Jesus Christ the savior of the world. I would be surprised if you cannot understand how this is "offensive".

There is a big difference between appreciating things for intellectual enrichment or "enjoyment" (in which light, the Quran says some interesting and instructive things), compared to following these writings as the very light of God (in which respect the Quran is no more enlightening than the statement "in the day you eat of it, you shall be as God, knowing good and evil"). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an interesting topic for discussion within the article. Mormons do not consider the Quran offensive. In fact, many Mormon scholars go so far as to identify Muhammad as a prophet who had a "portion of light and truth." (This statement probably being quite offensive to those of Islamic faiths.) Similarly, the Mormons believe the Apocrypha to contain light and truth. I believe they reject the Pseudepigrapha entirely. Anyway, this probably is another example of their belief that God communicated through prophets in every land and not just to those mentioned within the Bible. Kail Ceannai 11:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This makes the Mormon idea of a prophet sound very modern and mundane. In my own tradition, we would say that the same light is reflected everywhere; but a prophet is different from a philosopher, as the moon is different from the sun, as Christ is different from Muhammad. It seems appropriate to me that Islam has been represented by the crescent moon and the morning star, ever since the sack of Constantinople. The banner of stolen light. But if you have the light of unending day, you will not steal a candle. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice he said "some Mormon scholars consider him a prophet". That isn't LDS doctrine, or even common among LDS. I'm guessing they are using the term prophet in the biblical use - someone who is aware of the will of God. Personally, I'm more likely to consider Khalil Gibran a prophet than Muhammad. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Religion and Philosophy

The "Science and Religion" section should be replaced, with a section entitled something like "Faith and Philosophy". The apologetical reasoning of ancient Christianity, to some extent as reflected in its ancient creeds, makes use of the categories and terminology of non-Christian philosophy. Although the LDS cannot believe this - because it seems to be a tenet of their faith, concerning the creeds, to think otherwise - these philosophical categories were very self-consciously modified and adapted for the purposes of Christian rhetoric. Regardless, without question, these categories alter the expression of doctrine.

This is an issue of very high importance to every Restorationist sect, without any exceptions; but perhaps most of all (not really controversial to say this, I think), to the LDS. The eighteenth and nineteenth century was a time in which Western civilization radically rejected classical and Medieval metaphysical categories, and this is very clearly seen in the LDS: we would go so far as to say that the LDS epitomizes this rejection in the most dramatic way possible - by making a religion out of it.

It's really in light of this that such a subordinate issue as "science and religion" must be understood, because, something comparable to a very large degree happened in the mainstream churches, with the rise of "Modernism". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, Mark, but I'm fairly certain I'm missing something. I added that section because of all the creationist / evolution press that has been getting a lot of attention. The fundamentalist Christian camp seems very opposed to any science that calls their interpretation of the Bible into question. I'm not sure about mainstream, but I suspect that they are less concerned about this. I recall resistance from the Catholic Church in many scientific claims (like Ptolomey, for example). It seems to me that there is a lot within this topic.

Having said that, I'm not sure of the connection between that issue and Philosophy. Can you give some examples of the issue? Maybe that will help my understanding. (Then again, I lost an hour of sleep, so that might have something to do with it also. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 22:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As I was saying, the connection with classical philosophy, is in modernism's rejection of it. Mormonism is an example of modern religion in that sense. Objections that naturally arise from Mormonism against the terms in which orthodoxy theology is expressed, are examples. Essentially, in orthodox theology, God is the context within which all else exists. He is Himself eternity, and time and place are subject to him.

Classical Christian speculative philosophy, and the rhetoric associated with it, borrows heavily from the terminology of impersonalistic, and idealized rationalistic conception of God. For example, you can find this kind of thing in Philo: "the great Cause of all things does not exist in time, nor at all in place, but he is superior to both time and place. . . .God is the creator of time also. . . so that there is nothing future to God, who has the very boundaries of time subject to him;. . .and in eternity nothing is past and nothing is future, but everything is present only."

The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (the post-Kantian "Enlightenment") radically challenged such categories, and with this challenge there arose a widespread re-examination not only of Christian philosophy, but of Christian orthodoxy as it had come to be expressed in the categories adapted from classical philosophy - the terms of Medieval reasoning. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that what you're wondering is, what is the connection between this philosophy topic and the science stuff? For us, knowledge of God is not on the same map with science: if you learn something about physics, you have learned nothing about God, except as a creation of God. In contrast, I have a very hard time conceptually differentiating Mormon science and philosophy, from Mormon theology. They appear to me from the outside as though they refer to different places on the same map of knowledge. It is not any surprise, in this light, if Mormonism fits pretty well with assumptions that matter has no beginning, and produces a kind of evolutionary theory of human and divine development. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. I have never thought or the phrase "Mormon Science". The LDS church is very neutral on the subject of science. We have many members in many branches of science, and for the most part, we consider science as something totally different than religion. That seems quite different to me than the creationist, anti-scientific sentiment often attributed to fundamentalist Christian churches.

I doubt that the LDS church has ever made a stand on any scientific issues. Actually, at one point the Quorum of the Twelve were divided on the concept of evolution, and from what I heard the discussion became intense. The prophet at that time, Joseph F. Smith, finally called a halt to the debate. He said that whether evolution was true or not had no effect on salvation, and so members were free to believe what they wish. There was a well-known scientist who once said "My religion requires me to believe the truth." That's as close as I've heard to issues of science and religion. As for your comment on physics, I think that matches the LDS view as well - it helps us learn about God's creation. It might help us appreciate the beauty of God's creation, which I suppose can in some way teach us something about God, but not directly.

That isn't to say that some members might have theories about relationships, but they are not official doctrine, unless I'm forgetting something. The LDS church puts such a strong emphasis on each person working out their own salvation that I would be surprised if it attempted to accept some theory as doctrine. Even in cases when the church takes a stand against some issue, individual members are free to make their own choices, as long as they don't publicly question the motive / authority / whatever. (For example, my Bishop made comments after the Sept 11th terrorist attack that I didn't agree with. I didn't question whether he should be Bishop, only his personal judgment and/or understanding of the situation.)

Having said all that, I remember recently teaching a lesson where I pointed out that to God all things are spiritual. (D&C 29:34). I guess that can be sort of a science, but I don't think of it that way. Are most of your Mormon friends life-long LDS or converts? How many are there? I'm wondering if maybe you are getting some kind of skewed cross-section of LDS. (But then again, as I keep saying, I have never claimed to be normal. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it helps to realize that Fundamentalism is a phenomenon of the modern era. While I reject a retreat from or redefinition of reason, such as that of modern "post-modernism", I would say that there is a clear distinction between the very long and broad orthodox view of knowledge, and Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism (which views all types of knowledge in a modern way - a scientific knowledge in that sense) is a modern expression in continuity with that wide orthodoxy (whereas Modernism is not), just as I think Medieval concepts of knowledge (all knowledge is philosophical) is in line with that multi-faceted orthodox mind, but pagan philosophy is not.

To see what I mean about Mormonism, I still think that it helps to think in terms of my metaphor of a map. You can't get to Mormon theology by doing biology and physics, or by studying even a library full of opinions. You can only get there by way of the heart, from above, because like Juneau, Alaska no roads lead there. And yet, God was once one of us, you say - and so you think him still to be one of us, only he has become immeasurably more than us. We and they are two of the same kind of being: and for this reason, accurate knowledge of one corresponds to accurate knowledge of the other - they provide data for the same kind of knowledge, but in different areas of knowledge. I would think that, in light of this, it would be a point of pride for a Mormon to express the opinion that Mormonism is "more reasonable" and has a "scientific foundation" - as David H. Baily does, in his paper "Scientific Foundations of Mormon theology". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As much as I enjoy Dialogue, it is certainly not mainstream Mormonism. There are some that call it heretical. ;^) We claim that God was once like us, but we don't consider him still like one of us any more than we think our great-great ... -great-grandfather is one of us. ;^) A small child might intellectually realize that their grandparents were once little like them, but that doesn't mean they really grasp what that means, and it certainly doesn't cause the child to believe they are like their grandparents. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you'll forgive my presumption, I think that regardless of how outside the mainstream Baily is, I think that you're drifting outside the circle yourself if you are saying that the doctrine that God was once one of us does not suggest to you a connection and familiarity with him, that is suggestive of all kinds of information. For one thing, you believe that Jesus was once one of us, do you not? I assure you that this suggests to orthodox Christians a connection and familiarity that otherwise would not be considered possible. However, we believe that in studying the biology of man, and the physics of man, we are studying only the biology and physics of a man, and not of a potential deity in its Terrestrial condition.

Since you believe that deity and humanity are one and the same kind of being at different stages of development, it seems to me to be an unavoidable implication that in studying man you are studying a species of potential deity, if not even the very same biological family, as God himself: and in following Mormonism, you are studying what actualizes this potential. In fact you say as much, when you are talking about the difference between a child and her grandpa. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Indwelling, Infilling, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost

Could somebody from the mainstream Christian camp explain the meaning of and difference between indwelling of the Holy Spirit and infilling of the holy spirit for me? I mentioned that there were similarities between the Gift of the Holy Ghost as understood by Latter-Day Saints and the term indwelling, but apparently I didn't quite get it right. Let me lay out the LDS perspective and if somebody could compare and contrast indwelling and infilling of the Holy Ghost with that, it would help me see the contrasts in the mainstream Christian perspective... Latter-Day Saints believe the following things related to the Holy Ghost:

1. All people are born into the world with what is called the "light of Christ" or a portion of God's light that enables them to distinguish right from wrong.
2. Before baptism into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a person may be able to feel the influence of the Holy Ghost, but they will not be able to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, which is the right to have the Holy Ghost as a constant companion.
3. After baptism into the Church, the priesthood lays hands on the person's head and invites him or her to "recieve the Holy Ghost". If they take this invitation and accept it by faith in Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost will remain their constant companion and guide through life. In a sense, the influence and presence of the Holy Ghost becomes a permanent fixture in the heart of the believer. This part seems similar in certain ways to the concept of indwelling in many mainstream Christian circles.
4. After this reception of the Holy Ghost, the person then becomes empowered in their lives to receive when needed special guidance and direction from the Holy Ghost and to have their lives and actions magnified by this influence. This seems similar to me to the concept of infilling in other contemporary Christian denominations.

Have I got these two terms wrong? If so someone please set me straight here... Mpschmitt1 19:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream Christianity means that the person of the Holy Spirit, not just his influence, is present within them. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should ask a question, instead of recommending that answer. Can the person of the Holy Spirit be fully where you are, and fully where I am, at the same time? I've been told many times by Mormon friends, that spirits like the Holy Spirit are bodies, located somewhere in space. Where is the spirit of the Holy Spirit located? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on who you ask. ;^) I have heard both what you mention, but also that because he is a spirit, he can be everywhere. I would be very surprised if there is an actual doctrinal statement on this topic. This is one of those "mysteries" that result in long theological discussions which, while fascinating, doesn't seem essential for salvation. All I have to do is wait until I die and then ask him. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Holy Spirit has been explained as both; though he is a spirit, his presence is felt everywhere. I would also clarify the statement by schmitt above, in LDS theology those with the Gift of the Holy Ghost are provided His presence in their daily lives, not just His influence. It is more than that; it is constant companionship. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is the right to expect the constant companionship, provided you are in harmony with the Gospel. As long as you take advantage of repentance and the atonement, you can continue to expect that constant companionship. Of course, it is up to the member to listen to the (sometimes subtle) promptings. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How significant is this difference between "presence" and "constant personal attention and influence", as I have it now? "Indwelling" and "companionship" must not be made to seem alike, unless they are the same idea: and it is very evident to me that they are not the same. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking around, it looks to me as though what the LDS mean by the omnipresence of the Holy Ghost is that, he is accessible from anywhere, because he is omnipotent and omniscient. It seems unlikely that they are saying that by becoming perfect, the Father lost an infinite attribute - although there is evidently a mystery about why the Holy Ghost would be instrumental in his achievement of omnipresence. Millet says, in What is our doctrine? (pg 29), "Our Father in Heaven is indeed omnipotent, omniscient, and, by the power of His Holy Spirit, omnipresent."

John Widtsoe, might offer a way of reconciling this difficulty, when he says that the Holy Spirit is in some respect not to be confused with the Holy Ghost (Evidences and Reconciliations, 76-77). This would avoid the problem of assuming that the Holy Ghost has a more perfect power than the Father does, or that without the Holy Ghost the Father has a deficiency of power.

James Talmage says that, no "actual person of any one member of the Godhead can be physically present in more than one place at one time" (The Articles of Faith, 39).

To summarize these understandings of LDS doctrine, they seem to coalesce around the idea that no personage is present everywhere at the same time, including the Holy Ghost. The omnipresence of God, or of any personage of the Godhead, is acheived as an effect of knowing all things, and having all power - it is not an inherent quality of being. If this is what omnipresence means in the LDS, then it's what we would call "ubiquity". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As an analogy, think of the messages that you are reading right now. My message is present everywhere on the internet, in such a way that, although I am confined to a space, and my message (or a copy of it) is also physically limited, I can communicate to all or to none, at the same time.

It's only a matter of whether you have the equipment, the opportunity, and the will to access my message, that determines whether I, personally, will have entrance into your heart and mind by these means at my disposal. Except in a trivial, technical sense, my ability to be present with all of you at the same time in this sense is not limited. See the similarities of concept? That's called ubiquity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good analogy Mark. Here's another quote from Joseph F. Smith to round things out. I think this makes it a little clearer: Joseph F. Smith distinguished between the person and the influence of the Holy Ghost: “The Holy Ghost as a personage of Spirit can no more be omnipresent in person than can the Father or the Son, but by his intelligence, his knowledge, his power and influence, over and through the laws of nature, he is and can be omnipresent throughout all the works of God” (Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939], p. 61). So the power and influence of the Holy Ghost is omnipresent, while the person occupies a particular place in the universe at a particular time. For baptized members of the Church who have receieved the Gift, this resides as a Constant companion. The voice of God constantly by your side, guiding your decisions in a still small voice, residing in your heart and bringing peace, teaching you the truthfulness of all things. I agree with Storm Rider, this is more than just an influence. It is companionship. Fellowship and friendship with God. There are also (at least from my experience) times where I feel a special outpouring of the Spirit that is stronger than at other times (when I am teaching a particular lesson, or performing a particular song, or ministering to someone in need, etc) when I know that the Lord is guiding me for a very special reason. This seems a stronger outpouring than the normal day to day guidance, which sometimes is so still and quiet that it might go unnoticed. Nevertheless it's there...this article is also helpful as an overview Hope that helps...Mpschmitt1 01:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

One other tidbit...

This scripture: D+C 130:22 makes it clear that the Holy Spirit can dwell in us (according to LDS theology).Mpschmitt1 01:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and so does the Bible. But how do you make this intelligible to yourself, in light of the statements that no personage can be in two places at the same time? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The key phrase above that answers that question I think is: "by his intelligence, his knowledge, his power and influence, over and through the laws of nature, he is and can be omnipresent throughout all the works of God". Throughout all the works of God includes us since we are His creation. He is Omnipresent throughout all the works of God. Including our own hearts. Mpschmitt1 02:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree; this does make omnipresence intelligible - by converting it to the notion we would call ubiquity. But, this appears to be a different explanation, than "being a personage of spirit".

Wouldn't you say that the Father is omnipresent through "his intelligence, his knowledge, his power and influence, over and through the laws of nature"? He does not need the Spirit in any of these areas, since each of these attributes describes the Father in himself. But more to the point, if the Spirit is a god separate from the Father - although not yet incarnate, and not yet exalted - what does he have that the Father does not have - or what does the Father have which would be an impediment to the Spirit - so that the Spirit is able to "indwell" in a manner different than the Father?

The D&C passage seems to imply pretty clearly that what is different about the Spirit, is that he is a personage of spirit - he is made of different stuff, to put it crassly, which enables him as a personage to be present in two places at the same time. It seems to imply less clearly that, if enfleshed, this would not be possible for him. And yet, we have several statements that say that it is not possible even for a personage of spirit to be in two places at the same time. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is a very subtle distinction that we're running into here (sorry I haven't been on the board for a while, work's been crazy). So here's the deal... The Holy Spirit has a body of spirit, but the Father has a Body of Flesh and Bones, like the Son (again I'm not expecting you to believe this, I'm just laying out the LDS perspective). It's clear that the Father and Son are omnipotent, omniscient, etc (all of those attributes we would attribute to the Spirit as well. But the Spirit's distinction is that he does not have a body of flesh and bones (yet). Nevertheless, he does have a body. Joseph Smith taught that spiritual matter is just a refined form of physical matter, and the Book of Mormon teaches that the Spirit is in a form like a man (can't find the reference at the moment, but I'll put it in when I do). In other words his spiritual body is like a physical body only purely spiritual matter. Jesus Christ was in this state before his mortal ministry as well (see Ether 3:14-16). I'm not sure of all the mechanics of it but it is interesting (just my opinion, not official doctrine) that Jesus was providing guidance when he was just a Spirit in much the same way that the Holy Ghost now provides guidance, and that Jesus said when he went away, he would leave "another comforter" to teach the truthfulness of all things and bring all things to our rememberance. So perhaps there's something about being a spirit that enables that kind of communication. (again, just my opinion) But what we do know from scriptures is that the influence of the Holy Spirit fills the immensity of space, and that through his instrumentality souls are converted and taught and reminded of truth. The Word of God is delivered into the hearts of believers by way of the Holy Ghost's power and influence. He became after the death and resurrection of Jesus, the chief operating agent when it comes to communion between God and man. So it's not that he's in two places at the same time but he's in one place in time and space with the capacity to know and understand and have influence over all things everywhere (hence the omnipresence and omniscience). There's nothing that goes on in the universe without his knowledge of it. But that's not to say that the Father and the Son don't also have the same influence... I'm not really sure about that one, but it's a good question...I'm afraid if I go beyond this, I might be getting too far from official doctrine and too much into the realm of speculation, so I'll do some more research and get back to you...Hope this helps a little though.Mpschmitt1 00:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Mpschmitt1. One of the things that we have trouble with, is your materialistic view of things. It's as though you're saying our God is impossible (a trinity in one spirit, simple yet infinite, eternally unchangeable in being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, truth), but nothing is impossible for man. To our minds, the "what" of God is entirely erased by this, and the "who" of God is ascribed to an imaginary creature.

In many ways we admire the "who" that you speak of; because we recognize in whose image he is imagined to be. But it is not He. It is only made to look like Him, because it is made in the likeness of a mortal man. That's the way that it comes across to us, anyway. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, (side note) I'm really beginning to appreciate our exchanges on our topic because you're really pushing me to think about these things in ways that I normally dont and asking the deeper and more difficult questions, and that in turn is producing more fruit in understanding as I ponder and search these things through. So I thank you for that...

I think I understand what your saying in that last posting, but let me make certain. You're saying the LDS perspective is difficult because in the MC view, God transcends all kinds of natural laws (time, space, physics, etc), but it seems to you that we tend to be very naturalistic in how we view God and his sovereignty. In a sense, this is a valid criticism because we believe that God upholds and obeys and utilizes the Laws of the Universe in what he does for mankind. It is not in violation of physical laws, but in a higher manifestation of them (because he understands them perfectly). Hence the creation of the Earth and our solar system is often referred to as an organization rather than a creation ex nihilo (even as the Hebrew (Genesis 1:1) word translated as "created" in the old testament indicates a "fashioning" as a carpenter would fashion something out of wood). God did not violate natural law in this creation, but manifested his Mastery of all natural law in a way that only God can. Speaking about the influence of the Holy Ghost and comparing it to electricity, Talmage wrote:

There are powers and forces at the command of God, compared with which electricity is as the pack-horse to the locomotive, the foot messenger to the telegraph, the raft of logs to the ocean steamer (He's writing in 1920s mind you, so his examples are a little out of date). With all his scientific knowledge man knows but little respecting the enginery of creation; and yet the few forces known to him have brought about miracles and wonders, which but for their actual realization would be beyond belief. These mighty agencies, and the mightier ones still to man unknown, and many , perhaps, to the present condition of the human mind unknowable, do not constitute the Holy Ghost, but are the agencies ordained to serve His purposes.(The Articles of Faith, page 146)

. Therefore the fact that we believe that God operates by natural laws should not be construed as a diminishing of his sovereignty, but rather an affirmation that He is sovereign over all things, including the Laws and forces that exist in the Universe and that he utilizes and manipulates these laws in his dealings with mankind. Could he break them if he wanted? Yes. He is God. But where there is no need to break them and where such forces could actually be used to support his purposes, what wrong is there in His doing so? He is Lord over all things and has dominion over all things. I found this other quote (also from Talmage's "The Articles of Faith", which by the way I highly recommend along with his "Jesus the Christ" as a way to find answers to the deeper questions you seem interested in regarding the LDS Faith) which I think says what I was trying to say earlier in a much better way:(pay particular attention to the way he explains how the Holy Ghost influences God's creation while existing in time and space, and how the Father and the Son operate through him in their dealings with mankind):

The Holy Ghost undoubtedly posseses personal powers and affections; these attributes exist in Him in perfection. Thus, He teaches and guides, testifies of the Father and the Son, reproves for sin, speaks, commands, and commissions, makes intercession for sinners, is grieved, searches and investigates, entices, and knows all things. These are not figurative expressions, but plain statements of the attributes and characteristics of the Holy Ghost. That the Spirit of the Lord is capable of manifesting Himself in the form and figure of a man, is indicated by the wonderful interview between the Spirit and Nephi (see 1 Nephi 11)...However the Holy Ghost does not posess a body of flesh and bones, as do both the Father and the Son, but is a personage of spirit. Much of the confusion existing in human conceptions concerning the nature of the Holy Ghost arises from the common failure to segregate His person and powers. Plainly, such expressions as being filled with the Holy Ghost, and His falling upon persons, having reference to the powers and influences that emanate from God, and which are characteristic of Him; for the Holy Ghost may in this way operate simultaneously upon many persons even though they be widely separated, whereas the actual person of the Holy Ghost cannot be in more that one place at a time. Yet we read that through the power of the Spirit, the Father and the Son operate in their creative acts and in their general dealings with the human family. The Holy Ghost may be regarded as the minister of the Godhead, carrying into effect the decisions of the Supreme Council (i.e. Father, Son and Holy Ghost).(p. 144-145)

So I don't think we mean exactly the same thing when we say the Spirit dwells in us. We mean that his influence becomes a constant companion and compass for our lives. Abiding with us as long as we do not drive Him away by our disobedience and sin, for he is used to keeping good company and sin diminishes the persons ability to "tune in" their spiritual radios as it were. But sin we will, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and when we do, the spirit withdraws which becomes for us an indicator that repentance is forthcoming. When we repent in sincerity, this constant companionship returns and we continue, having recieved correction and instruction from God the Father and God the Son, through the instrumentality of God the Holy Spirit. On the other point, it is not that we are saying that mainstream Christianity's view that God is a Trinity is impossible, it is that we say that that is not who God has revealed himself to be through his prophets. Yet there is an important commonality in the two views that need to be recognized. All of the wonderful personal attributes associated with God (his love, omnipotence, mercy, kindness, generosity, paternal care and concern, , holiness, justice, truth, eternal nature, wisdom, goodness, etc) are exactly the same in both theologies. The distinction is what form this Being we call God takes. For the MC, it is One God manifest in three persons who are eternally distinct, yet are one Being in Trinity, and for the LDS it is One God manifest in three persons who are eternally distinct, and exist as three separate Beings that are completely united in all other Godly attributes (their personal and physical identities excepted). Mpschmitt1 11:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I very greatly appreciate these exchanges as well, and they confirm my usual experience that Mormonism has not taught you to be easily offended, or to hate even those who strongly condemn your teachings. For this reason I hope that everything I say only establishes you in these godly characteristics, and does not destroy whatever faith in the truth you have, but only strengthens it - even as I hope that you will find even purer light, and agreement with the whole Church in the truth that more fully accords with that which is brilliantly reflected in your Christ-honoring behavior.

You've written a lot here, that will take me some time to digest. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

New Section: Church Government

I've also added a new section entitled Church Government. I tried to represent the mainstream Christian perspective on church authority as well as I could, but feel free to give some feedback if I'm off in that (or if other parts need to be changed)Mpschmitt1 21:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it would be better to fold the concepts raised there into some of the other sub-sections. Much of what is said is covered to varying degrees elsewhere, and the hierarchical structure of the church is fairly well documented elsewhere. I'm concerned about having too many sub-sections that we slice and dice the same concepts a bunch of different ways. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 22:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I get that concern. If you like any sections of the Church Government section and you just want to cut and paste them elsewhere and get rid of the section all together, I'm fine with that. Or if you have a different idea....(or if you just want to drop that section altogether, that's probably fine too). I do think it's important to make clear the distinction between mainstream Christianity's understanding of priesthood authority and church structure and that of the LDS perspective because it's a pretty central distinction. Mpschmitt1 23:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that you need to be careful in choosing the right amount of detail. Point readers to articles that have fuller descriptions, and provide just enough here to give the basic idea of how they contrast. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, although I'm sure that these things are important to you, and I can see why you added them, it's a lot of boring details to me. I read through it looking for the things that make a difference in general terms, and I only encounter them here and there. The opening paragraph makes a brave attempt to fairly represent mainstream Christian views of church government, but manages to make a few casual observations about the attitudes typical of conservative non-denominational churches, and the liberal Protestant ecumenical movement, pointing out how this differs from the catholics, and a few others. This doesn't really help much, except to describe how confusing Mormons find the present ecclesiastical scene, in contrast to which it boasts of the clarity and confidence of the LDS. This typifies the section: it is too long, and its central issue is exactly the same as the section on "Religious authority", and only elaborates on exactly the same idea in a manner that does little more than advertise Mormon confidence (and in that way, it is quietly argumentative).

There are several statements that do strike me as significant for the purposes of comparison, though.

1. They maintain that the LDS restores the original specific structure and hierarchy of authority of the New Testament church "evidence[d] in the Bible."
2. Every worthy male in the Church is ordained to the priesthood.
3. The President of the Church is the highest ecclesiastical authority on the Earth and is considered a Prophet.
4. The regular affairs of the church are "governed or guided on ... which doctrines are to be official doctrines of the Church ... with the participation of the President's two counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."
5. "equal in authority to the Quorum of the Seventy as a united body"
6. At every level of leadership in the Church, the same process of Divine direction is sought and the structure of the leadership in the Church is formed according to this revelatory process. (See Personal revelation and theology above).
7. Latter-Day Saints believe that the true authority to govern and lead the Church of Jesus Christ was lost with the death of the Apostles who walked with Jesus during his mortal ministry.

Nothing that is said about the mainstream churches is of much value in explaining what runs in common through the traditional views. I think that these statements should be merged with the section above it, to expand what is said concerning Religious Authority. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I recommend we delete that section and move any essential points elsewhere. I also think we should do as Mark suggested, that we make sure we only include the details necessary for comparison, plus include a pointer to a more detailed description on some other page.

I imagine that it will take several iterations to get things right. One side might write what they think will provide contrast, only to find out that there isn't that much difference. In the beginning we might add a fair amount of detail, but then trim it to only include the items mentioned in the comparison.

Mark, I would encourage you to add any section you think is important to MC that is different than LDS. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to merge the two sections where they seemed to overlap. There are excellent articles on Wikipedia, that compactly describe these elements of the LDS structure, which I recommend should be pointed to for more information - cutting as much as possible from this section, for readability and to encourage the completeness of the general survey. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

However, I understand the pinnacle importance of this point of comparison, and I think that it should be expected to have more detail than is strictly necessary for a general comparison of principle. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)