Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 8

message: After the latest rounds of edits, I'm beginning to think that it's possible that this article will work.  COGDEN's reorganization was especially helpful, in my opinion.  It's becoming much more readable and informative, I think.  Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's present form is much better than it was. Good work to all who helped with the rewrite/reorganization. Glad I stayed out of the way. I may add a short summary of what the "Cultist At My Door" Orthodox pamphlet says about Mormonism and do a couple more copyedits, but other than that I don't see much that needs improving. Wesley 16:37, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  dust settling 

message: Hate to come into this discussion late, but I read "Mormons believe that differences between the doctrine of the Trinity and some Latter Day Saint conceptions of the Godhead are relatively minor". That's not what the Mormon missionaries at my door said. They were very emphatic that the doctrine of the Trinity was wrong, and that it was not minor at all. In fact most of our discussion centred on it. Is there an explanation for this? DJ Clayworth 20:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to hear from whoever wrote that sentence, because it seems that either different LDS churches view the Trinity in different ways, or whoever wrote that doesn't speak for LDS as a whole. (or I got a bunch of missionaries who don't know their stuff, but that seems unlikely). Can an LDS member explain? DJ Clayworth 13:17, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Major LDS editors of this article include Visorstuff, COGDEN, B, Sterlingbates, and Tom.  Actually, maybe Mkmcconn can explain.  Anybody game? Tom 16:37, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Your additions do a pretty good job of clarifying what the Book of Mormon is.  I guess it was just assumed before that "new scripture" meant a totally different book. COGDEN may be able to help on the seer stone issue.  As far as the tone of the section goes, I think it fits in pretty well with the logic of the whole article. Tom 16:37, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: The article doesn't exactly say that seer stones were an element of Christianity. Actually, the stones and other supernatural and magical practices and beliefs were a common element of the belief system of most early American Christians, who hadn't yet erected a metaphysical wall of separation (as our culture has today) between their Christian beliefs and their magical beliefs. There are so many possible citations for this that I don't even know where to begin. Even John Wesley was part of this worldview. Check out this 1996 online article from History Today, which states: "In John Wesley's preaching, and in his journals, full credence was given to what the foremost eighteenth-century authority on popular customs roundly condemned as `the residual rubbish of Roman superstition' - namely, belief in the significance, of dreams and other forms of fore-knowledge; faith-healing and exorcisms with the aid of charms and spells; practitioners of occult powers; and the general conviction that one lived in a world subject to the intervention of either benevolent divine spirits or malevolent demonic spirits." COGDEN 17:39, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
In the section "The Book of Mormon and early criticism..." it would be a good idea to give us an an example of which controversial doctrines Smith took a stand on. When he said that the church was apostate, exactly which doctrines did he believe were 'incorrect'? DJ Clayworth 13:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Trinity is minor

message: Bhugh, I don't know that I think your topic sentence is as good as what we had (since I conceived the previous one myself ;-)  ), but I really like your addition of "essential and irreconcilable differences".  I think that phrase may help smooth some ruffled feathers and possibly eventually help shorten the article. Tom 23:12, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure about it myself.  It was like I thought I had a really good idea there for one fleeting moment but somehow it didn't quite work out.  Feel free to revert. Also the more I think about it the more I do like the opening sentence that was there before I changed it (I think that was the one you put together). Bhugh 06:11, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: OK, guys.  This section is so inherently full of straw man arguments and distortions that it can do nothing but cause trouble for the article.  Wesley went ahead and got his quote from "The Cultist at Your Door".  But it and the section above it are back to the same endless, pointless give and take that characterized earlier incarnations of this article.  I ask that the entire section go unless it can be made more entropy-proof.  Sorry to step out of line here, and chastize me if I am wrong.  I am going to try editing it.  Tom 04:07, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you feel that way, Tom. When I added the quote, I thought it would fit in with the Presbyterian and Methodist quotes that were already there. I feel that what became the "Proactive efforts to counter or disprove Mormonism" should properly be a subheading of the "Reaction of Traditional Christian Denominations", since one widespread reaction has been to counter or disprove it. When I added the quote, they were the same section. If the "efforts to counter" section is removed, then for the sake of balance, the entire "Reaction of trad. denominations" section should be removed as well. If that were removed, I'm not sure how useful the remainder of the "Ecumenism" section would be. Suggestions from others? Wesley 16:49, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Since it's relevant to the article, are you saying, Tom, that 'mainstream Christians' and atheists are equally as much in need of conversion to the Mormon faith? DJ Clayworth 18:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proactive efforts to counter or disprove Mormonism

message: In the section 'Ecumenical Efforts by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,' I removed the following addition to Brigham Young's block quote:
:However as noted above he also castigated the mainstream churches for "pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms".pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredomspride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms
Obviously there was some kind of typo/cut-paste gone wrong thing going on, but also the additional quote was not from Brigham Young as the deleted part claims, but from a passage of the Book of Mormon.  Also, it seemed pretty POV to remind people of Mormon criticisms of other Churches in the section about how the Mormon church is trying to reach out to other Churches and promote unity. - biggins 21:34, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that a quote from a group accusing another of "pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms" is entirely relevant to the question of how far that group has reached out in friendship to the other. However since I got the quote attribution wrong it should probably go. I've replaced it with something a little more general. DJ Clayworth 13:36, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't say there is no LDS ecumenism. For quite a number of years, in an effort to make the Church more friendly to new converts, the Church has been slowly recasting some of its doctrines in ways that are friendly to mainstream-Christianity. The missionary discussions and all the LDS course materials taught in worship services, particularly the Gospel Principles manual taught to new members, have been rather ecumenized. Moreover, the church has made ecumenical changes to the temple ceremony, and has started once again praising non-Mormon religious leaders as being inspired of God. That's not to say that in their heart of hearts most old-time Mormons have actually changed their thinking; but it does mean that you're probably not going to be excommunicated for talking like a Protestant in church, and that the next generation of new converts and children are being taught a more ecumenical form of Christianity than my grandparents were taught. If you were cynical you might argue that the doctrine hasn't really changed, but that the Church is trying to fool people into thinking it's more mainstream. But I'm not that cynical. The official doctrine of a church is what the church officially teaches to its members, not what some of its members secretly believe.
COGDEN 23:24, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know for sure that we are using the right word, ecumenical, for what we are talking about.  Perhaps one sense is the movement toward one worldwide Christian church "all one body we".  I think it is safe to say Mormonism partakes of none of that sense.  Perhaps another sense is promoting unity among religions, and I think Mormonism is interested in that to a certain extent.  The Gospel Principle manual makes no attempt to be trinitarian.  It still teaches core Mormonism.  Perhaps you are referring to an effort in Mormonism to be better at not criticizing the beliefs of others?  Tom 15:47, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a better word would be harmony among religions, rather than unity among religions? To me at least, unity sounds like the "all one body we" concept that you're saying Mormonism doesn't go for. Wesley 16:04, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Maybe.   I like.  Tom 22:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  fixing quote 

message: Merry Christmas, everybody.  It looks like there have been a few kicks at the old hornet's nest lately, resurrecting the discussion on this article.  I figured we maybe ought to discuss a few things out of respect for everybody, the newer editors as well as the ones who lived through the titan struggle.  My introduction to this chat would be that we, the survivors, hoped to make this article into kind of an insight into why there has been so much conflict over the years.  As such, we sought not to paper over differences, but to explain why they were so great.  I agree with this approach, and I think we Mormon editors ought to avoid the tendency to engage in apologetics particularly in this article.  We have scores of other articles where we tell our story sympathetically and positively; this article is the designated place to explain why some of our beloved brethren are so avid against us. Tom - Talk 15:47, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
===Grace from the outside===
It is important to explain why, from where User:Wesley stands in his congregation on Sunday morning, Mormonism appears to foster "servile striving for God's acceptance".  Certainly at least in it's caracatured form from the mainstream Christian pulpit and broadcast studio, Mormonism puts its adherents on a "performance treadmill".  At the same time, though the article perhaps should not spend as much space saying so, the article should radiate the tone that this is only a perception, and not the necessary reality for Mormons. Tom - Talk 15:47, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
: Sorry for commenting nine or ten months too late, but since I was mentioned here, I want to point out that I'm not an Evangelical Protestant, and I would not characterize Mormonism as "servile striving for God's acceptance." On the contrary, although I may disagree with Mormonism on a number of other points, this is an area that I suspect I would be in greater agreement with if I knew more about it. The Eastern Orthodox Church sometimes receives similar criticism from Evangelicals because it encourages certain forms of asceticism. So in principle at least I agree with what Tom suggests here about the tone of the article, though I suspect it's a moot point by now. :-)  Wesley 12:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Resurrection at Christmas: discussing things again

message: It is important to explain why, from where User:Wesley stands in his congregation on Sunday morning, Mormonism appears to foster "servile striving for God's acceptance".  Certainly at least in it's caracatured form from the mainstream Christian pulpit and broadcast studio, Mormonism puts its adherents on a "performance treadmill".  At the same time, though the article perhaps should not spend as much space saying so, the article should radiate the tone that this is only a perception, and not the necessary reality for Mormons. Tom - Talk 15:47, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
: Sorry for commenting nine or ten months too late, but since I was mentioned here, I want to point out that I'm not an Evangelical Protestant, and I would not characterize Mormonism as "servile striving for God's acceptance." On the contrary, although I may disagree with Mormonism on a number of other points, this is an area that I suspect I would be in greater agreement with if I knew more about it. The Eastern Orthodox Church sometimes receives similar criticism from Evangelicals because it encourages certain forms of asceticism. So in principle at least I agree with what Tom suggests here about the tone of the article, though I suspect it's a moot point by now. :-)  Wesley 12:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Grace from the outside

message: Any particular reason for reversion, i.e., re-breaking, of the link to the TCJCLDS, that I just fixed?  You'll note I a) retained the LDS-preferred/official capitalisation from the earlier edit, and b) stated my reason, unlike either of the two link-breaking edits.  I don't have the patience for being double-teamed in an edit war, but it's pretty clear policy that links should point to the actual page, not to redirects.  Yes, I realize you might want the page to be elsewhere, but currently, it is not. Alai 03:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The The. 

message: I recently made an edit to the section of this article on "Mormonism salvation and exaltation".  I checked in the morning and misunderstood the praise as something else.  I figured that I'd stumbled into something that had been beaten into the ground and I didn't have time to read the discussion, so I reverted my own changes until I did.  I'm glad that my changes were reverted back.  It means that I'd done well, except in understanding the comment made.  I apologize for my misunderstanding of your comment.
But this was a preliminary change.  My change was incomplete because of other requirements.  I was going to read the rest of the article to see if they are included.  One of the major disagreements between mormonism and other christians is the faith vs. works debate; which I'm sure is included.  But Christ said to Nicodemus (sp?) that a specific work (requirement), baptism, is required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  Also, in the Doctrine & Covenants, marriage is required to enter the highest kingdom of the Celestial Kingdom, or exaltation.  What would be a precise and concise way of mentioning these? Val42 04:42, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
This doctrine can easily be misrepresented.  Remember Section 137 states that even those who had not heard, but would have accepted the Gospel will enter the celestial kingdom.  The difference between the majority of Protestant Christians and LDS Mormonism is that the first group limits being saved to an act of faith summed up by saved by Grace.  LDS also believe that we are saved by Grace, but there must be a willingness to believe Christ, that He is our Lord and as such expects his disciples to follow Him at all times.  He does not expect perfection, but a willingness to follow.  
Yes, saving ordinances are required, but those things (saving ordinances) will all be accomplished for those who did, who would have, and who will be willing follow Christ.  Storm Rider 05:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormonism salvation and exaltation

message: This topic has come up again on Talk:Polgamy as a future topic for Polygamy.  Is there a list of a few groups who have opinions on this question?  Yes, there are pro-Mormon links in this article, and there are statements of acceptance of Mormon baptism, but there isn't a description of which Christians consider Mormons to be Christians, and which do not. I suggest that this be added, if anyone is expert enough to start answering the question. Nereocystis 18:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Mormons Christians?

message: Campbellite, by Campbellites, was not a preferred term.  They considered themselves Christian and preferred that label or the term disciple.  They objected to the term Campbellite Church because they felt they were striving to implement the true, pure teachings of Christ.  It is best summed up with the phrase, "We speak where the bible speaks and are silent where the bible is silent."  Calling Sidney Rigdon a Campbellite minister is accurate because it describes his doctrinal persuasion.
I am not aware of calling someone a Campbellite being a slur of any type.  If so, I would like to see a reference for it.  Rigdon certainly did not consider the term offensive.  Storm Rider 15:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campbellite 

message: The best option is to merge the three articles that follow into a single article because each of the three articles are about the same subject. The main difference is the way the content is arranged and that one title may sound more biased than the next. One article should include all three aspects. The content for the articles "Criticism of Mormonism" and "Mormonism and Christianity" fall along the same lines. --JuanMuslim 04:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Visorstuff and Wesley.  This article serves a different purpose and shouldn't be merged. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With the cup out I will throw in my two cents; I am against the merge and see very different purposes for the articles. Storm Rider 16:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also oppose this merge per the reasons given above. Not to mention that it says that the CoJCoLDS article is to be merged into this one, which doesn't make sense. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 02:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MERGE