Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 19

message: The Religion and politics section seems to me to say nothing.  It states the LDS view as though it were in contrast to something.  But what?  Furthermore, there's plenty of mingling of "church and state" in the history of the LDS, and the statement as written seems to suggest that this is a contradiction of something basic to Mormonism - which is historically preposterous.  If what's intended here is to clarify that the LDS is no longer what the rest of us would call theocratic, as it once was - that is, it longer has its own militia, no longer seeks to wield or even influence the government in its favor, no longer envisions an earthly kingdom of Zion - then that's what it should say, if that's the case.  For the MC view in that section: what is envisioned, to make that statement verifiable?  Who is it speaking for?  What is the purpose of this section? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion and politics 

message: My sympathies are with my Mormon colleagues, after the death of President Hinckley yesterday (1/27/2007). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you.  To members of The Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, Gordon B. Hinckley was a prophet of God.  But I think that even among non-LDS he will be remembered as a great man who served God and his fellow men to the best of his ability to the last day of his long mortal life. 74s181 (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condolences 

message: We are, as usual, getting into confrontation mode. As a way of getting out of this can I propose a simple experiment, for a period of time. Those editors who have an affiliation with the LDS refrain from editing the sections describing the rest of Christianity. Those editors with an affiliation with any other church refrain from editing the sections describing LDS. I think that would cut down on some of the arguments. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is in fact the mode in which we have been operating as a general rule, for most of the life of this article.  Are you making an insinuation about my "affiliation"? I ask, because it is with me that you are having problems of "confrontation".  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Proposal 

message: Mark, I'll address this to you, but this is really a question for any MC participating in this discussion. 74s181 (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll let Mark answer about his case, but practice varies within Protestant churches. Some 'ordain' in much the same way that the Catholic church ordains. Anglicans are an example. In these cases an 'ordained' minister is usually for life; once you are a 'priest' you are always one. In some Protestant churches leaders are not ordained; the word is not used, and the meaning is different since it is essentially an appointment to a particular job; you are a 'pastor' only while you are doing the job of a pastor. In those cases the church leaders are not usually called 'priests', for exactly the reasons you give. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a quick historical note, the word "priest" is derived from the word "presbyter", which comes in turn from the Greek word for "elder" as used in the New Testament. So in Orthodoxy (and I presume Roman Catholicism), priest, presbyter and elder are all interchangable terms. Since you asked, I'm not ordained, but I am a "tonsured reader," which means I've been blessed by my bishop to read the epistle and certain other parts of the service within my local parish. (There was a "laying on of hands" via the Gospel, and a haircut.) It's sometimes considered "minor clergy", and is the first step towards ordination, although one can also remain a reader for life. Wesley (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordained? 

message: I find this article to be bias. Why does this article not address the doctrine of the Mormons and the vastly difference between Christianity?
2 Nephi 5:21-23: "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."
Is'nt it true that Native Americans and Africans are loathsome and cured according to Mormon doctrine? What I do not understand is why most of these articles are allowed to be so bias. --Margrave1206 (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is because you are a single issue of interest; it skews your perspective badly. Your understanding of LDS doctrine and history is lacking as has already been pointed out. It has also been noted that your behavior elsewhere appearsto be troll-like in nature. The topic of this article is Mormonism and Christianity. It's objective is comparative religion in nature, it is not an anti-Mormon website, which seems to be your objective. No need to point out the other articles that address your specific issues again. Your refusal to pursue those articles again seems to support your objective is to casue argument and mischief rather than improve articles. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Margrave gave a skewed perspective, but he has a good point. This article is largely a presentation of the LDS point of view, omitting many things that LDS find unconformatable and frequently giving an inaccurate picture of the non-LDS perspective. This is evidenced by the 'factual accuracy' note at the top that has now been present for many years. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "factual accuracy" note at the top has been present because the user who put it there a few months ago took a wikibreak, and no one has been interested in taking it away.  The article is about a controversy.  The constant complaint has been that it does not adopt an anti-LDS argument, it does not make the LDS look as ridiculous as it should.  Instead, it simply describes what Mainstream Christianity is, and shows how the LDS is different from that.  The complaint seems to boil down to the article being too neutral in its approach. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No, the article is marked as biased because it's biased. No-one wants to take it away because it's still applicable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's so controversial here? Anyone who read and understood Dean Swift would see the irony here. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias Article 

message: We need an article contrasting Scientology and Moronism; These are the two great native born US religions.217.43.168.194 (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We need reliable sources that do the contrasting, or it is original research. — Val42 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  L Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith 

message: I think we've had this conversation on other pages, but my memory is that "Latter-day Saints" refers to a particular church whereas "Latter Day Saints" refers to the movement as a whole, including all its branches. We want to compare (as far as possible) all the branches so I've changed the term back to "Latter Day". Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  Latter-day Saints refers only to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Latter Day Saints refers to the Latter Day Saint movement.  Give the context of this article, I wonder if Latter-day Saints is more appropriate.  But that's a debate for another day. Bytebear (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to claim much knowledge of the differences between the LDS branches, but it would be better to cover all branches where possible. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, however, I see the Community of Christ as being much more in line with traditional Christianity than the LDS Church because of their adoption (or acceptance, if you will) of the traditional view of the trinity, and other aspects.  Most if not all sources contrasting Mormonism with Christianity will be focused on the LDS Church (or perhaps FLDS when dealing with polygamny), although this is not a focus of this article. My suggestion is to use Latter Day Saint movement when talking historically (pre 1847), and Latter-day Saint to speak of the church as a body (including but not mentioning splinter groups) when discussing the Rocky Mountain saints.  Oh, so many labels!!! Bytebear (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh how true, and on both sides. DJ Clayworth (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latter Day/Latter-day 

message: It is not "neutral" to neutralize the view of traditional Christianity toward Mormonism.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark's edit is correct. The perception of the LDS church by other churches should be stated flatly and should not be "softened". The current language is an accurate view. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality 

message: The LDS sections of this article seem to have extensive quotes inline in the article to back up certain statements. Is there a reason why these should not be made references? It would cut down on the discrepancy in length between the LDS and Orthodox sections. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think people typically read footnotes. The inline quotes, if they add content or clarify a remark, are more useful  than a footnote in my opinion.  On the other hand, I think that the LDS sections have a tendency to be less concise than they could be.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes