Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 17

message: Would anyone be opposed to this page being auto-archived by a bot? Since this page is undergoing move discussion I would wait until after that is finalized  before proceeding, but that also makes for a good time to discuss this. I would think 14 days would be a good date to set for the age, and possibly a shorter period. All other criteria aside from the counter I would leave to their defaults. See User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo for the bot I am referring to. I have also just brought up this same topic on a similar page, so no you aren't seeing double. - Optigan13 05:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot archival of this talk page 

message: From the title of this article I was expecting a simple and straight description of how the two groups view each other. There is a little bit of how Mormons view Christian as churches who lost their way, but nothing the other way around. This is besides all the theological details.  (Mike Morgan 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trinitarian Christianity is not founded upon the rejection of Mormonism, and has no "doctrine" concerning Mormonism.   In defense of their own doctrine, mainstream Christians might criticize Mormonism (and they do: this is called "apologetics").  There are whole Wikipedia articles dedicated to a description of these criticisms of Mormonism; but, this isn't necessarily one of those. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the title may or it may not indicate that there are "two groups".  Since Wikipedia is both gullible and agnostic, it may be that to be anti-Mormon is to be anti-Christian; or, it may be that Mormonism is anti-Christian; or there may be some grounds for mutual acceptance - Wikipedia doesn't know. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Mike is looking at this article more the way I would like to see it.  How has Mormonism interacted or reacted to other Christian churches and vice versa.  How do they cooperate on social issues.  There is a lot missing from this article when you only focus on doctrine.  For example, the Boston Temple had a lot of resistance from the local non-Mormons, but the Catholic church (among others) supported the LDS Church's position on freedom to erect the building.  There is also no history of other denominiations in Utah and how they were greeted.  The LDS Church recently gave donations to the Catholic Church for the restoration of the Cathedrial of the Madaline in SLC.  Why is this not mentioned in the article?  Perhaps we are being too narrow on our scope. That is why I prefer the historical approach as opposed to the point-by-point doctrinal approach. It certainly makes things easier to reference. Bytebear 19:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see anything preventing this development - and as far as I'm concerned, I think that would be a good thing.  However, it is a mistake if the article is too narrow in being limited to theological issues, to try to correct this by limiting it to an historical approach.  Even if you were to approach the issues in terms of historical developments, you would be forced to compare the distinctions of doctrine - because these are above all what typified or aggravated those developments.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  I think we can weave in both together.  Rather than say "Traditional Christians reject doctrine X", instead, say "In a letter written by so-and-so, Church Q has said in regards to doctrine X, bla bla bla".  This way, you have to reference everything, and you get a more balance.   The article should not be about who is right, but about how one side has reacted to the actions of the other. Bytebear 21:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good.  I would caution, however, that the back-and-forth style of debate-point-counter-point-rebuttal, even (or perhaps especially) in the style of a history, makes a weak and unreadable article.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Opinion of Mormonism and Vice Versa 

message: There has been some back and forth on the second paragraph of the intro and the explanations confirm a misunderstanding of motive. The sentence in question now reads as follows:
:For their part, Trinitarians by definition teach that the gospel concerns who Christ is; and by direct inference, the Tradition alleges that any, ostensibly including the Mormons, who depart from the biblical understanding preserved in the catholic churches are prevented by their doubt of the scripture's own teaching from believing and proclaiming the Gospel of reconciliation through Christ.
First of all, I still believe that the revert by Csnerica leads readers to a conclusion that is POV. The current sentence does not make it clear that it is catholic interpretation of scripture, but it takes a stronger position by stating first those "who depart from the biblical understanding". IMHO, the sentence would be both more neutral and accurate by stating:
:For their part, Trinitarians by definition teach that the gospel concerns who Christ is. More importantly, Tradition proclaims that all who depart from the catholic churches' biblical understanding are prevented from believing and proclaiming the Gospel of reconciliation through Christ.
This more accurately reflects the references provided, no? Also, it is not so much biblical interpretation, but it is Tradition that really provides the meat for this doctrine. It may be even better to drop the "biblical understanding" completely. This doctrine in a historical perspective really got its legs with first Irenaeus and then Athanaisius among others. Irenaeus, though adamant about beliefs, was just as strongly adamant about authority and where there was no apostolic authority there was no church. It was a much more definitive position than that of the Catholic church today. For him, there was only one church and there was no room for anything remotely similar to ecumenism; all non-Catholics would be damned in his world. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are we to say what is "more important".  More important to whom?  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And what does "neutral" mean, in your comment?  It's the Mormon view, not the mainstream view, that the Trinity is "not so much biblical interpretation".  It is true that, the boldest clue that the Bible is being messed with, is when someone takes the Bible and pulls out of it something incompatible with what the churches have believed.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scripture and Tradition in the intro 

message: It may be possible to describe comparable beliefs, give the LDS view, give the MC view, and then discuss the implications for the relationship given these similarities and difference under a separate sub-heading.  I would like to see some example of that model actually working, before splattering graffiti all over the article - but as Storm Rider says, and as 74 has always insisted, what really matters to the LDS, and always has been in these discussions, is the effect created between the two communities.  Keeping in mind, however, that "impact" is a subjective matter - and this is not a symmetrical comparison - it seems to me that this has the potential of creating a lot more confusion, and I doubt its likelihood of success.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem that it must address this issue.  The difficulty in doing so is obvious from the fact that we have Archives full of attempts to do this, and it has not happened.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing implications 

message: There is only so much time in the day, and there are priorities in my life that need more time and attention right now.  So, while I don't expect to be completely absent from Wikipedia, don't be surprised if days go by without any contributions from me. 74s181 14:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less active.