Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 10

message: All right.  So there's an article on both mormonisim and christianity.  It's been said they don't belong together in the same article.  Let's see if that's true:
LDVM
This is an hour-long streaming video, best seen in broadband
--Mdoc7 04:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bible versus The Book of Mormon

message: In the absence of official-level ecumenical activities and in light of keeping NPOV, I have replaced the LDS section which really covered shared social work and public relations with a new section titled "Independent activities". It notes that there are no official activities of ecumenism, but adds some individuals on both sides who are working in the area. In the footnotes I noted two activities. RelHistBuff 10:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Independent ecumenical activities

message: Concerning the changes, I had taken out the apologetic argument because the tone of this article was not to convince the other that one's position is right. The idea was to show the differences in how each tradition view their ceremonies. If there is an inbalance in the treatment of the current section, then let's work on it to make it neutral rather than bringing in apologetics. RelHistBuff 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning that Mormon's feel it was part of the church at Christ's time is appropriate - I tried to take out the apologetic type argument from the addition when I restored it - perhaps you might make a run at it that would better fit the tone. --Trödel 17:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going in that direction, especially quoting stuff from FAIR, is opening a can of worms. Apologetics go both ways; one side tries to show from scripture or from history that their side is defensible, then the other side tries to do the same. And there are plenty of apologists on both sides that can act as references. Better is what is done in the next paragraph on vicarious ordinances ("in the spirit world...") which simply explains why Mormons perform these ordinances rather then "defending" vicarious ordinances. Could it be stated that way? RelHistBuff 21:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RelHistBuff & Trödel, you seem to be going back and forth over the secret/sacred cermonies of temples in the LDS church veresus the supposedly completely open ceremonies of of mainstream Christian groups.  First of all, none of the ceremonies in LDS temples have comparable ceremonies in other churches; they simply do not have a corollary.  I think trying to make a comparison between the two is an apples and oranges comparaison.  I think it is appropriate to state that the LDS temple ceremonies are held sacred and that LDS do not easily discuss them.  In fact, they convenant to keep them sacred and not to discuss them.  However, the internet is rife with websites that reveal the entire ceremonies; making the claim they are secret is misleading because they are so many sources for the information.  If you feel it absolutely necessary to discuss ceremonies then one should also state that all comprable ceremonies in the LDS church are also open to the public at large.  Does this recommendation make sense?  Storm Rider (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for one: Marriage/sealing are comparable ceremonies.  It could be argued that marriages performed outside of the temples (by a bishop, or other LDS clergy) are as public as others and this is the comparable ceremony.  But the majority of LDS-to-LDS marriages do occur in the temple.  (No I don't have a citation for this.)  I agree with your sentiment though.  And other than this one nitpick, with the way that you said it too. Val42 23:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Some history: the original text of this section only covered baptism for the dead. I then expanded it to include other ceremonies. The original version of that last bit about the secrecy of LDS ceremonies caused a problem. It was really POVish, the usual polemic attack on the LDS. I tried to make it neutral and less prone to fighting on both sides. If someone could come up with a better formulation that is less objectionable on both sides, that would be great. The info about the type that you two presented is good. It would need to be balanced by the something from the historic Christianity side about why they find secrecy controversial. I don't know why myself so this would need a bit of research. RelHistBuff 22:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph could focus on sacredness and how all Christians treat the sacred.  Some examples, St. Benrnadette did not reveal all of her message from the virgin Mary; in fact, I don't think any of the Marian visionaries revealed everything Mary told them.  We need to find a reference for how the sacred is treated by some of the more notable theologians (a little reserach is needed).  Then introduce specifically how the sacred is treated by Latter-day Saints, which is then expanded into the temple ceremonies.  I think it would be very appropriate to state that those who don't participate in LDS temple ceremonies are perplexed by the strict covenant/code of silence (secretiveness) they perceive of these ceremonies.  This is  a difficult subject because I honestly do not think they are secret (for the reasons stated above), but we as LDS do not talk about the temple except in general terms.  Storm Rider (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ceremonies

message: There has been a section that includes a paragraph on LDS views of Heavenly Mother.  As tenuous as LDS doctrine is on the issue---she is acknowledged, but there is no teaching, no clarification, etc.---it seemed necessary to include it.  However, what has been missing is a corresponding and far more clarified position of Marian adoration.  I barely touched on the subject and I request that those with a deeper understanding and more eloquent "pen" enlarge on the teaching.  I find some similarities between the two teachings and it would help readers to better distinguish between these teachings.  Storm Rider (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RelHistBuff, you removed all of my edits without any explanation as to why.  First, Heavenly Mother plays no role in LDS concept of the nature of God and yet it has been placed in the section.  From the outside, non-Christian world, the orthodox veneration of Mary seems very close to worshpping Mary and is easily confused with the perception of her being the "Queen of Heaven".  How is someone a Queen of Heaven and not be part of the nature of God.  Hopefully you see my point, that both positions are without merit, but should be explained int he article.  Storm Rider (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marian tradition and Heavenly Mother

message: Today I made several edits and deleted a few value judgements.  The purpose of this article is not to write a religious tract; a very difficult proposition for all invovled.  I believe we more closely adhere to NPOV policy by simply stating facts and letting readers decide about differences, etc.  Our purpose to not make value judgements, but simply to write and let readers decide if there is a difference.  Thoughts?  Storm Rider (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Value judgements

message: I found these two sentences next to each other: "God the Father ... is the only God worshipped by Mormons; Christ, as the mediator between mortals and the Father, is worshipped as Lord and Savior." However I also find that Christ is God. So is he a God, but not worshipped as one? If so then the first sentence needs to be changed to reflect this subtle difference. DJ Clayworth 15:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, lets start by restricting the discussion to the LDS. It still remains that from the description of the Gdhead given here, it's pretty much impossible to find an actual difference in belief between LDS and regular Trinitarian Christianity. Surely someone who reads this article understands enough to explain how they are different? Of course if they were not life would beome a lot easier. If LDS would acknowledge that the Trinitarian view of God is in fact correct then that would go a good way towards reconciliations between the churches. DJ Clayworth 18:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why it's so hard to make a clear line between the two views is that it's not a cut and dry thing and there are a lot of touching points where the two theologies mesh very well. The trouble is, it's rarely presented that way by prominent anti-Mormon polemics organizations. They only seem interested in presenting the most sensational material available at the expense of objectivity and historicity. It is a pattern I see repeatedly, and one that I feel is totally inconsistent with the mandate of a true follower of Christ. We must be honest and fair at the very least. I see very little of honesty or fairness in many of the attacks I've read about the LDS Church.  I've found that every time an issue is brought up (DNA, the origins of the Book of Abraham), it is immediately presented as a "death blow" to Mormonism only to be refuted some time later by additional discoveries of Science or scholarship (the Spaulding Manuscript issue is one example ~ and there are still anti-mormon writers who bring it up, despite the evidence against it having anything to do with the Book of Mormon!). Scholars can be wrong, they can make mistakes. Science is constantly evolving and changing it's mind. I'm not going to put my faith or eternal future in those hands ('Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh the flesh his arm' Jeremiah 17:5 , 2 Nephi 28:31).  It is only by revelation, spirit to spirit communication, that a man can know God. The experience of God will put the most erudite of philosophers to shame. (okay that's the end of my rant :-) If any of you have wondered about the legitamacy of the most common attacks on Mormonism (including the DNA and Book of Abraham issues) some good places to debunk most of them are www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ,http://www.fairlds.org/ fairlds.org],shields-research.org,and BYU's FARMS organization). On the Godhead issue, I've tried to make this distinction more clear by correcting the description of the Godhead from an LDS perspective. I've tried not to be too wordy and to respect your wish to focus on the differences, but we're talking about the Nature of God here :-) In order to get an accurate understanding of the complexities of the LDS view on the Godhead (or for that matter the Trinitarian view) one must provide a lot of detail. And even then, it's still inadequate, because were using finite words to try to encompass three Eternal beings whose hearts are entwined in a way we mortals can only begin to understand. Mpschmitt1 02:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarity needed

message: In the current version of the 'Nature of God' section it majors heavily on the Mormon view of Godhead vs Trinitarian. Yet I would find it hard to slide a piece of paper between the current description of the Mormon view of the Godhead and the Trinitarian view. Could someone more knowledgeable about the Mormon view please write something that explains where Mormonism differs from Trinitarianism? DJ Clayworth 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, lets start by restricting the discussion to the LDS. It still remains that from the description of the Gdhead given here, it's pretty much impossible to find an actual difference in belief between LDS and regular Trinitarian Christianity. Surely someone who reads this article understands enough to explain how they are different? Of course if they were not life would beome a lot easier. If LDS would acknowledge that the Trinitarian view of God is in fact correct then that would go a good way towards reconciliations between the churches. DJ Clayworth 18:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why it's so hard to make a clear line between the two views is that it's not a cut and dry thing and there are a lot of touching points where the two theologies mesh very well. The trouble is, it's rarely presented that way by prominent anti-Mormon polemics organizations. They only seem interested in presenting the most sensational material available at the expense of objectivity and historicity. It is a pattern I see repeatedly, and one that I feel is totally inconsistent with the mandate of a true follower of Christ. We must be honest and fair at the very least. I see very little of honesty or fairness in many of the attacks I've read about the LDS Church.  I've found that every time an issue is brought up (DNA, the origins of the Book of Abraham), it is immediately presented as a "death blow" to Mormonism only to be refuted some time later by additional discoveries of Science or scholarship (the Spaulding Manuscript issue is one example ~ and there are still anti-mormon writers who bring it up, despite the evidence against it having anything to do with the Book of Mormon!). Scholars can be wrong, they can make mistakes. Science is constantly evolving and changing it's mind. I'm not going to put my faith or eternal future in those hands ('Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh the flesh his arm' Jeremiah 17:5 , 2 Nephi 28:31).  It is only by revelation, spirit to spirit communication, that a man can know God. The experience of God will put the most erudite of philosophers to shame. (okay that's the end of my rant :-) If any of you have wondered about the legitamacy of the most common attacks on Mormonism (including the DNA and Book of Abraham issues) some good places to debunk most of them are www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ,http://www.fairlds.org/ fairlds.org],shields-research.org,and BYU's FARMS organization). On the Godhead issue, I've tried to make this distinction more clear by correcting the description of the Godhead from an LDS perspective. I've tried not to be too wordy and to respect your wish to focus on the differences, but we're talking about the Nature of God here :-) In order to get an accurate understanding of the complexities of the LDS view on the Godhead (or for that matter the Trinitarian view) one must provide a lot of detail. And even then, it's still inadequate, because were using finite words to try to encompass three Eternal beings whose hearts are entwined in a way we mortals can only begin to understand. Mpschmitt1 02:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trinity/Not Trinity

message: I changed personages to beings in the description of the Godhead. We use beings in other articles, so I presume it is also correct. Personages is too close to Trinitarian persons, and will cause confusion. DJ Clayworth 19:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personages

message: "Christiandom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common orgin."
In modern English spelling, "Christiandom" should be "Christendom" and "orgin" should be "origin". Since these are in a direct quote, I hesitate to change them without checking the original first; and I don't a copy of George Q. Cannon's "Gospel Truth". Could someone check up on these two possible spelling errors?
I suspect that "orgin" is just a typo, but "Christiandom" could be the original spelling. If that is the case, has the correct spelling changed since George Q. Cannon's time? If it was incorrectly spelled for his time, it should probably be written "Christiandom [sic]" to indicate that it was misspelled by George Q. Cannon.SharonSmith 00:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Spelling Errors in Footnote #5 

message: I removed a statement that 'the issue was one of theological disagreement' a) because it is unsourced and b) because some of the leaders use phrases like 'wicked' and 'condemned to hell' which take it way beyond the realm of a difference in theology. DJ Clayworth 15:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed statements

message: Somebody should clean up the mess in this section.  Several footnotes are way too long and are not really footnotes, just a big extension of the discussion at hand.  Mdoc7 22:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Traditional LDS attitudes toward those of other faiths