Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 5

message: This sentence compares apples and fish.  Would you explain it?
: Latter Day Saints accept as scripture several books which other Christian groups do not recognize, and which Mormons hold to be revealed by God, and therefore more correct (although no more authoritative) than modern versions of the Bible,
What does it mean to hold up a book in your left hand, and to say that it is  more correct than a book held in your right hand, but not more authoritative?  The book in my left hand contains errors and omissions.  The other is copied word for word from tablets of gold.  On the left are the scriptures handed down from the Great Apostasy.  On the right is the book of the restoration of true religion.  Now, choose your authority.  The sentence is meaningless. Mkmcconn 17:11, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  more correct 

message: "But Protestantism at the time was undergoing a widespread decline from the Trinitarian conception, as various types of transcendentalism, theosophy and unitarianism were gaining strength, especially in the region of the country where Mormonism originated"
This sentence isn't clear enough, and thereby seems to suggest something which isn't true. Protestantism didn't experience a widespread decline in the 19th century. With the rapid population growth in the world during that time, quite the opposite is true. There were many splinter groups (including Mormonism) some of which which date back to the 17th century radical reformation, but as far as numbers went, mainstream Protestantism certainly experienced no decline during the time period in question. Therefore, the concept of trinitarianism cannot accurately be said to have declined in influence. This one should be reworded.
Fire Star 21:23, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your distinction is a good one: Evangelicalism gained tremendously in numbers, during this period. However the intent of the statement is that Trinitarianism was losing its universal hold.  Creedalism in general was held in suspicion, so that through the influence for example of "no creed but Christ" movements, and the rapid erosion of academic Congregationalism in the New England East, non-trinitarian ideas were gaining in popular appeal to an unprecedented degree.  The Second Great Awakening was a boon to free, democratic, creedless religion.  In that environment, anti-traditionalism flourished; and with anti-traditionalism, unitarianism, transcendentalism, theosophy, and prophetic spirituality all gained momentum (a trend which has only continued), as the older "orthodoxy" of Protestantism was attacked from many directions simultaneously.  Mkmcconn 21:31, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I revised the statement. Mkmcconn 21:44, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Erosion of trinitarian consensus

message: The article Controversies_regarding_Mormonism, and its many sub-pages, explain the doctrines of Mormonism in detail.  It seems to me that this page ought to focus on those issues that are decisive in anti-Mormon literature, and in the actions of Christian churches, which are cited as the reasons that the Latter day saints is not considered a Christian church by those who have taken these stances. Mkmcconn \
If this recommendation is followed, we will limit the amount of material that is duplicated between these articles, and will direct to the relevant articles for a fuller explanation of the Mormon positions themselves.  Sound right? Mkmcconn 03:01, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  limiting the exposition of controversial topics 

message: I am deciding I really like that glossary.  It could cut short a lot of beating around the bush.  Hawstom 19:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It can help to cut through the difficulty in communicating. The article is getting bloated; but, not fatally so.  I'm still having trouble seeing to the heart of these issues, to understand why we see things so differently; that problem makes it hard to choose which parts to trim and to focus on the differences that make the most difference, and to explain why - which I think should be one of the goals of the article.  Do you agree? Mkmcconn 20:03, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%.  In fact, I want to slow down and stop editing if you would rather do a little more discussion.  This discussion is tremendously valuable if it helps us focus on the issues that will make the page most concise and meaningful.  You will please forgive me if I jumped the gun a little and contributed to bloat. I only wish we still had B, and that there were more participation (buy-in) beyond Mkmcconn, Wesley, and Hawstom.  We can only presume hopefully that others are watching in silent consent.  Hawstom 23:36, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Very well said, V.  Very well indeed.  I particularly liked your taking it in the direction of the view in Mormonism that doctrine is most important because of the way it affects behavior, and that God leads each believing, seeking, humble, faithful person along the belief path in a unique way.  That is a really good explanation of why you find Mormons seeming at times so hard to pin down on theology.  Heaven is real, God lives, and the Son of Man came to save the world from sin and death.  But what all that exactly means you are going to have to find out for yourself directly from the Source through prayer, faith, repentance, suffering, humility, etc.  As you said, in Mormonism it is perhaps assumed that "I can't really teach that to you.  God will in His way and in His time."  So in this article, it would be important to stick to obvious differences and shy away from nuances, or splitting hairs.  And I think we are heading in that direction.
Just to play devil's advocate: I think the idea that there are no LDS theologians is an elegant idea in theory, but not really true in fact. If Sidney Rigdon, Orson Pratt, B.H. Roberts, James E. Talmage, Joseph Fielding Smith (the Apostle), and Bruce R. McConkie weren't theologians (by any definition of the word), then I don't know what a theologian is. Some of today's well-accepted LDS doctrines started out as ideosyncratic blurbs in the books Mormon Doctrine and Jesus the Christ. COGDEN 01:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

message: I think the intro is getting pretty heavy.  I propose an intro that tries to say there is a conflict and always has been, but that doesn't get into any more specifics than absolutely necessary.  Anyway, I fixed a logical contradiction I perceived in the first paragraph.  I chose to remove the statement that Smith's reputation with magic was a source of friction, since the next couple of senteces essentially said it wasn't really all that unusual.  I think the establishment of the conflict is much weaker in its current form than it was when it started with visions of God and angels saying all the other churches were wrong and a new church to take over the world was needed.  In its current form, I fear the intro will be a magnet for bloat.  Anyone in favor of a revert?  Tom 04:39, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the introduction should summarize the nature of the conflict, but I agree that it is probably too detailed and that material should be shuttled to the main body of the article. My most recent revision to the intro was essentially an attempt to make the article more NPOV. Among the historical records of which I am aware describing the earliest conflict between Joseph Smith and his community, there is only one that characterized the conflict as being about Smith's understanding that all other sects were false. That record is Smith's own account in 1938. From the perspective of a secular historian, Smith's later account might arguably have been influenced by the passage of time and later events which might have colored his memory as to the precise reason many in his community didn't much like him. He does admit in his 1938 account, however, that he had a reputation as a treasure-hunter. Most (if not all) the other first-hand accounts, including his family and early neighbors, characterize the conflict between Smith and his community as having to do more with Smith's reputation as a folk-magician. Smith's community was certainly disturbed by his claim to heavenly visitations, but it's reasonable to conclude this was more because of their dislike for folk-magic (which was quite common at the time, but considered somewhat outside the mainstream), than their dislike for any doctrine that other Christian sects were false. While Smith likely made private statements concerning other Christian sects to his family (such as his statement to his mother that Presbyterianism wasn't true), it is not clear that Smith was publically preaching these ideas until much later, after about 1830. COGDEN 05:24, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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

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

message: I wonder if my perception of the "spirit" of this article has any parallel on the LDS side.   My impression is that if one author had written it, he would have had in mind the desire to explain to curious Christians and troubled Mormons a little bit of the background behind the conflict between Mormonism and the rest of Christianity: and this hypothetical writer is most definitely a reasonable and open, but unquestionably devout Mormon.  If you don't see this, maybe we have too little common ground to begin with, to try to fix it.  It seems important to me that articles should make plain the knowledge-base behind them.  In other words, this article cannot be written without Mormon help.  But it must be written without giving such strong hints about the identity of the writers and their motivations.  Mkmcconn — 23:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are suggesting that this article is overweighted in being written in a too-Mormon-sympathetic tone. I agree that the article shouldn't hint at the identity and motivations of writers one way or another, and I see hints some weaker and some stronger of an amalgam of probable identities. That just tells me we've still a ways to go to get this right....wikipedia the seemingly endless work in progress...I'm glad you've cared to participate responsibly, Mkmcconn. —B|Talk 02:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes.  It will be really good to see where you will help take the page from here.  Tom 03:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: p.s.  One thought.  It may be that it is actually "natural" for an article to "feel" like is is written by an "insider" with the review and help of "outsiders".  I would certainly rather not trust myself to write about Islam or Atheism, or even the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (if I could only find an insider to take over).  In this case, there are two parties of insiders to the conflict, and both need to have a visible hand.  Just a thought.  Your insights are always appreciated, Mkmcconn. Tom 04:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not in any hurry to do anything. Personally, I think that the article is interesting.  But I do think that as it goes on it wanders a little from explaining the conflict between traditional Christianity and Mormonism, and becomes focused on explaining Mormonism.  If it's appropriate to have this kind of article, I think it's important to keep it screwed down, tightly conformed to the phenomenon it purports to describe.  (Thanks for the encouragement) Mkmcconn — 16:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  overweighted, don't you think? 

message: Just wanted to acknowledge that I've been making numerous changes.  I've tried to keep them unbiased and, as a result, balanced.  I'm happy to discuss the reasons for my changes, most of which fall under one of the following categories:
1. Correcting statements based on Mormons (aka heresay), rather than Mormonism.
2. Clarifying doctrinal statements that were explained using Mormon terminology.
3. Correcting misinformation.
4. Enhancing grammar, paragraph structure, or continuity.
One or two of my changes relate to the misconception that salvation equals exaltation.  I suppose it's not a good idea to debate the subject here (heaven knows it's been flogged to death), so if there's strong disagreement about my changes in this, or any other, regard I will happily undo them.
(BTW, how do I add my signature to the bottom like everyone else?)
: Welcome! You can add your signature to the bottom by typing three tilde characters ( ~ ) in a row. That looks like this: Wesley
: If you type four, you get your signature plus an automatic time/date stamp of the time you make the comment:   Wesley 16:48, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many changes 

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