Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 4

message: I understand the concept behind this term, however, within the LDS Church it has a completely different connotation. Only one historian (and those who reference him) used the term to distinguish between the Missouri Mormons (CoC, Strangite, Hedrickite, etc) and the Utah Mormons (LDS, FLDS, PLDS, etc). However, I think the term is very misleading, setting up theat Mormons in Utah have a different belief set than those who live in Florida and Arizona, etc. Let's remove the term with something more POV. Most people don't understand the context. Any objections? -Visorstuff 08:24, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your objections; since the LDS writers don't seem to object, your recommendation makes sense to me.  Mkmcconn 23:46, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree. Somebody needs to coin a word that means "follower of Brigham Young". COGDEN 03:06, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Utah Mormons

message: Cogden seems concerned that it is not neutral (!) to say that the LDS means something different than traditional Christianity does, in their account of Jesus.  I have tried to point out that the interpretation, the meaning, is very different.  He has surprised me by saying that this is a peculiar POV; and has surprised me further by telling me that the word I'm groping for is "ontology".
:I don't blame you for being frustrated over this.  But I think COGDEN and others of us are sincerely having a hard time finding the core truth of statements like "different...in their account of Jesus".  Would it help to say that all of Christianity agrees on the Bible as a standard, but the branches diverge in different directions from the base of what is in the Bible?  Most of Christianity uses various creeds, early findings on heresy, and other Catholic history to discipline their interpretations and extrapolations from the Bible, including the idea of the Trinity.  But LDS reject the creeds, are not averse to the heresies, and generally dismiss the whole of church history after Constantine as "The Apostasy".  LDS claim that the creeds and the accusations of heresy arose from a corrupt Christianity and are thus non-binding, and even in themselves corrupting.  LDS reject the sacraments of the whole of Christianity based on their understanding of apostasy and priesthood authority.  Partly in reaction to this, and partly because of LDS divergence from the creeds and their dismissal of Christianity as a whole, other Christians generally also reject LDS sacraments and do not commune as church brothers with the LDS.
Indeed there is a difference in ontology.  But this is only peripheral to the story.  The meaning of Christ's birth, life, death and resurrection is different.  If they did not mean something different, they could join our churches without being baptized into the Trinity, we would be in communion with one another, free to intermarry without consequence.  Please help me to understand the hangup that Cogden seems to have with acknowledging that there is a difference in meaning, in practically everything that Mormons say, even where there is a superficial sameness of words: Jesus came from the Father, was born of a virgin in the likeness of sinful flesh, was crucified for the sake of sinners, and rose again to receive the glory which has been his from all eternity, at the right hand of God.  Mormons can confess the same thing, but mean something very different by their words than would be traditionally meant.  
Mkmcconn 16:19, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Beginning with a constructed cosmos rather than all things called forth from nothing, and ending with self-fulfillment as the ultimate goal rather than the all-embracing glory of the only God: from start to finish the meaning is consistently different.Mkmcconn
The above concerns me (Hawstom) too.  These are suspicions you sincerely worry about, but they strike at places in the human heart that simply cannot be institutionalized.  You are getting to the point of speculating on the desires of a Mormon's heart.  I propose that we set forth some golden question such as, "Is a Mormon just as likely to become a Christian as a Catholic or a Baptist?"  What is it to be a Christian?  The Founder said, "If ye have love one to another."  What do Christians teach?  The Founder said, "In that day...will say, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these..., ye have done it unto me."  So shouldn't we be asking, "Does Mormonism lead its adherents to heaven in the way of Christ?  Do Mormons learn to deny self and love God and all men?  Or do Mormons become sons of Hell, odious and spiteful, and anti-Christ?" Hawstom
Would such outcome based judgements make more sense, giving the nod to self-labelling?  What harm could come of that? Hawstom 23:14, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: My aim here is only to try to understand Mormonism, and its claims, in comparison to traditional Christianity.  Over and over, this is frustrated in two directions.  First, Mormonism claims to be something entirely new, compared to traditional Christianity; this is followed immediately by attempts to sound like practically the same thing, and I get complaints about being offensive if I draw out any implications that clarify these differences.  Logic, history, doctrine, all go blurry in a very distinctive way that I have not experienced with any other correspondents.  I am judging nothing.  But I admit that I find this exceedingly frustrating.  Mkmcconn 01:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  meaning 

message: Well, I was bold and edited.  Personally, I think it is only a start.  The direct and expositional approach could be caried right down instead of getting eventually lost in vagaries.  We can proceed right through the later developments in Mormonism that raised even more eyebrows (though not more intensely).  Or maybe sticking with the early earthquake I presented is the right thing.  In the future, I will try to be more bold and less of a talker. Hawstom 21:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the introductory paragraphs are improved, more engaging, more informative.  They are somewhat redundant at points.  Perhaps you can fix that? Mkmcconn 23:35, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I also like the edits, and hope Hawstom will continue. COGDEN 03:10, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New intro

message: The article contends:
:When the Latter Day Saint movement was founded in the early 19th Century, most early Latter Day Saints came from a Protestant background, believing in the Jesus of the Trinity.
I suggest that this is not easily supportable.  While certainly most of the early LDS were Protestant, it does not follow necessarily that they were Trinitarians.  Socinianism and other types of Unitarianism were extremely prevalent, especially in the birthplace of Mormonism.  Trinitarianism was very much on the decline in many of the churches, hand-in-hand with the prevailing currents of the time, to reject the existing forms of Christianity. Mkmcconn 22:58, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  early mormon trinitarians? 

message: Wasn't polygyny, not the fact that "Mormonism rejected the creeds and sacraments of all other branches of Christianity", the earliest cause of offense?  That, and the Nauvoo state seem to figure pretty highly as the chief cause of fear and eventually violence.  Otherwise, can you find proof that theological conflict was any stronger against them than against many other anti-traditional and utopian sects that were springing up all over at the time (perhaps none with the success parallel to the LDS - if that can account for special opposition)? Mkmcconn 23:46, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Polygyny didn't start until the 1840s, by which time there had already been bloodshed and an extermination order expelling them from Missouri. Probably the first serious cause of offense was Mormon theocratic aspirations, which disturbed the people of Missouri immensely, because of their growing political power. There were some problems before that, however, possibly on the level of that experienced by other anti-traditional or utopian sects, but who knows: according to Smith's history there was quite a lot of serious early conflict, though it's hard to verify it historically. COGDEN 03:16, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the clarifying Mkmcconn 03:23, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I think all we have to go on for the 1820's, during much of which Joseph Smith lived with parents in Palmyra, are 1) the accounts of Joseph Smith, his mother, his brothers and sisters, Martin Harris, the Whitmer Family, and Oliver Cowdery and 2) the earliest recollections of detractors of Smith.  With all that, the record isn't really all that sketchy, though it is hard to verify history.  I think is quite safe to say the current first paragraph is an accurate narrative. I tried to play it safe.  For example, I placed the First Vision "circa" 1820.  Hawstom 05:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  earliest offense