Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 9

message: In the vote for this article to be a featured article, many had commented that the lead section was too long. I agree and I also find the current lead section to be slightly POV. I would like to make a bold update that would hopefully show NPOV, balanced between the two “proper nouns” that are named in the title of this article. Almost all the text is from the current lead section. I tried to follow the comment above from User:Hawstom: “we sought not to paper over differences, but to explain why they were so great”. RelHistBuff 13:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit of leading section

message: I hope everyone isn't getting annoyed with my constant meddling and insisting that the smaller Latter Day Saint denominations (particularly my own) are represented. There may be a different relationship between Christianity and other Latter Day Saint denominations besides Mormonism. I propose this article be renamed Christianity and Latter Day Saintism and be rewritten to cover the whole spectrum of Latter Day Saints and other Christians. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  18:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I understand that your viewpoint is not as well-presented here as the Utah church, I think the past editors did try to integrate it in. If you really think something is missing then please go ahead and discuss it. I don't think the whole article has to be rewritten. It was overly long and I tried to cull a few things to make it readable and I think it covers the subject fairly well now. As for the title, I much prefer the older title because the word "Mormonism" is more well-known outside of... er... Mormonism. Could we vote on the title change? RelHistBuff 06:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Another point about your suggested title: googling "Latter Day Saintism" gives a paucity of results. I think it is being a bit pedantic to use the term. In any case the term is not even defined in wiki namespace. Secondly, the original editors worked long and hard with this title, so at least in respecting their work, they should be consulted before changing it. Thirdly, it was clear that the original title and article was inclusive to all Mormon denominations in general. If there are no votes on this by the end of the weekend, I will change it back to the original title. Having said that, it would be great to hear what you feel is under- or mis- represented in the article. RelHistBuff 12:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The Latter Day Saint movement is colloquially known as Mormonism.  The best title is the one that allows people to find the article they are looking for, rather than attempting to find a compromise that accomdates every denomination's preference. Whether they embrace the term or not, they all use the book of Mormon, as far as I know.  The LDS church has a website using the word "Mormon" , because they recognize its ubiquitous use, even though they don't prefer it themselve.  The titles you just suggested are even  more objectionable.  The last one further splits the categories and implies that the primary denominational interrelationship is one of opposition, which is hardly the case.  --Blainster 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "The Latter Day Saint movement is colloquially known as Mormonism."
Yes, but the term hasn't meant the entire Latter Day Saint movement since at least 1860. LDS church members are Mormons. It is those denominations that want to be and/or are completely seperate from the LDS church that are not Mormons. Members of the second largest Latter Day Saint denomination (the Community of Christ) for exampke, are quite definately not Mormons. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have explained that non-LDS members of the movement don't consider themselves Mormons (presumably because of its association with the largest church).  The problem is that to those outside the movement, everyone in it is "Mormon".  The  present title allows non-members to find this article, which gives the various groups the opportunity to explain here their different understanding of the term.  --Blainster 18:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think in general the past and current editors have tried not to use the term "Mormon" other than in referring to the character or the "Book of Mormon". However, there is a strong weight to keep Mormonism in the title as it is because: 1. non Latter Day Saints use it and 2. the LDS Utah church uses it. But it is correct that we must be sensitive to the smaller denominations, hence, the careful editing. RelHistBuff 17:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that to those outside the movement, everyone in it is "Mormon".
That is my point: that IS a problem. The root cause of that problem is ignorance. If wikipedia's articles call all Latter Day Saints "Mormons" than (1) that caters to the POV that all Latter Day Saints are Mormons and/or (2) that allows an innacuracy. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  15:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big problem with title 

message: There has been a couple of edits that placed images in the article which would associate it as part of a set of articles on the Latter Day Saint movement. I see this article as balancing between two movements. Does anyone know of any appropriate neutral images that is representative of this balanced perspective? This issue was discussed when the article was being voted on being a feature article and no one had a good idea for an image at the time. RelHistBuff 21:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I have added some text on theosis and a new section called "Accepted canon". The section under efforts toward Mormons was retitled and I replaced the text that was there with a small description. The original text was basically doctrinal on the subject of grace vs. works and did not cover the topic of missionary work. The old text, however, may be good for use in another subsection on doctrinal differences. RelHistBuff 20:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the doctrine of the Trinity has always been part of Latter Day Saint teachings. There are some disagreements as to an alleged difference between the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit but generally Restoration Branches members say that they are the same thing. (part of the Trinity) --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  15:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As there were no comments, I took out the two sections. However, I added some text in section 2 "Some differences..." in order to improve the flow. It also gives the opportunity to inform the reader that most of the comparisons in section 2 is with the LDS Church. It might be interesting to put in a final subsection (a new 2.6) that would give comparisons with the Community of Christ and mainstream/traditional Christianity. RelHistBuff 22:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New and changed sections

message: There are a lot of edits being made by Reiddp. I reverted once with a message to discuss on the talk page, but he is continuing anyway. So this is to discuss the changes. I noticed some of the changes do add details to certain doctrines or statements. But a good portion of the changes are scripture quotations added to defend a POV. This article was not meant for apologetics. The article is to inform readers about the differences, not to prove via scripture that one side is right or wrong. I would like to remove the apologetics, but keep the changes that add or correct details. RelHistBuff 09:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense taken. Adding quotations could help in aiding to understand the issues, but I think they have to be used carefully otherwise they get perceived to be apologetic. Anyway, I will put back some of the your text and make an attempt improve on it. RelHistBuff 10:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of your additional text surrounding the previously existing text are untouched. On some occasions I kept the scripture quotations because they were certainly enlightening, but I made them into footnotes. I did remove some of the quotations either because they sounded defensive or I thought that putting it in would create an unbalanced situation (making one side appear better defended than the other). Concerning your point on the temple tours, I was ambivalent, but I took it out because as it sounded a bit defensive someone may want to mention details of the controversy and I think we should stay away from that. The original sentence was already there as it is before I started editing the article and so far no one has added anything controversial. RelHistBuff 11:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Using scripture quotations for apologetics

message: What is the purpose of the section entitled Official Position.  The recent addition on Baptists followed by a list of several items of dispute seems rather to be its own article without any form of rebuttal from Mormons.
For example, on Scripture they state, "The Bible explicitly warns against adding to or detracting from its teaching (see Rev. 22:18-19; Deut. 4:2)."  LDS love when people quote these scriptures because it shows a lack of understanding of the genesis of scripture and/or the meaning of the verses involved.  A literalist can easily be positioned to state that everything after Deut. 4:2 is an addition to the Bibile and then must be thrown out or they must admit that the scripture must have a different meaning.  Revelations is even better:
:18  For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall aadd unto these things, God shall add unto him the bplagues that are written in this book: 
:19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the abook of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 
For those with only a rudimentary understanding of the genesis of the New Testament one easily sees that the verse is specifically speaking of the book of Revelations.  These are the kinds of "disputes" that are so easy to overcome when a person actually reads the scriptures for themselves to understand its meaning.  Baptists too readily admit that what they have been taught is not accurate.
Now let me clarify something before any of our Baptists friends goes apoplectic.  What I am stating is that it is easy when teaching about scrpture to see how others interpret scripture differently and why.  In fact, one can readily come to a conclusion that we might each be members of the "right" church, but that other churches and faiths can teach us a great deal.
I propose that the Baptist "section" be parsed considerably or broken out to its own article so that its points can be more directly answered from a Mormon perspective.  As it is now the article is completely out of balance.  Thoughts?  Storm Rider (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article history, one can see that a user just put that in. Probably a newbie mistake. I agree that most of the stuff is completely inappropriate for the article. I will edit it out next. As for the purpose of the "Official position" section, older versions of the article had a listing of whether each of the churches (LDS and non-LDS) recognized each others' baptisms (and effectively how they viewed each other's validity). Rather important info for this article, but the title of the section is not great. Can anyone come up with a better title? --RelHistBuff 08:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about Recognition of other denominations --Trödel 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had included "...the rites of..." just to be more specific as currently the text only covers the topic of baptisms. But without that specification is fine as well and is better than before. --RelHistBuff 21:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lets leave it and see if anyone else has a different suggestion --Trödel 02:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Position?