Talk:Judaism and Mormonism

message: The Mormon doctrine that Jesus is Jehovah (and not God the Father) has a special significance in relation to the Jews and their covenant with Yahweh (or Jesus?). Jonathan Tweet 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jesus section needs some work; the info is basically fine, but the current text has quite a combative tone.  In particular, the lead-in characterizes it as a fallacy that Jews think about Jesus at all.  This is non-neutral and somewhat silly.  It's true that Jesus does not have a central or large role in Judaism, and perhaps that was all that was meant.  But of course Judaism has teachings about Jesus, as the article goes on to describe.  I'm reworking it a bit now, feel free to comment on my changes. --Reuben 22:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "of course Judaism has teachings about Jesus"?!  By all means, share them with us. FiveRings 00:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My pleasure.  There's a Wikipedia article on that subject: Jewish view of Jesus.  See also Yeshu, who appears in the Talmud and has traditionally be understood by Jews and Christians as referring to Jesus.  Maimonides wrote about him.  There are books on the subject , articles , an FAQ , etc., just as there are Christian view of Mohammad or a Muslim view of Buddha.  One simple example of a Jewish teaching about Jesus is that Jesus was not the Messiah.  I would be happy with a different wording than my version, but I think your edit still comes across as somewhat combative.  It's not necessary to repeat the qualification "if such a person even existed," when the very next sentence already makes it clear that many Jews do not believe this.  Also, the comment about a "trinity, even of divine beings" does not reflect trinitarian Christian belief.  See for example Trinity. --Reuben 00:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks much better, thanks.  I'm changing "trinity of divine beings" to "trinity of divine persons," because a trinitarian Christian would not describe the trinity as consisting of three separate beings.  For the same reason, "any deity but God" still isn't quite right, because trinitarian Christians don't believe that Jesus is an additional deity.  I think there's probably a better way to put this, but I haven't thought of it yet... --Reuben 01:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not just Jesus as an additional diety that's the issue though, it's also the duality between Father and Holy Spirit. Many xtians seem to believe that Jews believe in a trinity without Jesus. That unity thing should be re-emphasized. Perhaps a link to the sh'ma? FiveRings 01:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be good in the "nature of God" section, just before "Jesus." --Reuben 01:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus 

message: The AFD discussion currently underway contains the statement "I added a lot of the Jewish information, and it was taken from other Wikipedia articles and other disparate sources."  This is a reminder that per our guideline on reliable sources, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.  The material sourced from Wikipedia articles should be resourced to reliable sources.  GRBerry 02:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I could have said "as I was taught in Hebrew school", but that's harder to cite. What is considered common knowledge in the jewish community isn't common knowledge at all in the mormon community, and isn't necessarily common knowledge (or thought of at all) in the general community. So at what point is a citation needed? (The sign on the wall at the Mikveh says "take off all makeup and jewelery". I suppose I could take a photo). FiveRings 03:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing - Wikipedia not a reliable source 

message: Would someone check into LDS baptism and confirmation.  It is listed incorrectly here.  Baptism is only for the the washing away of sins. Baptism does not make one a church member.  Afterwards priesthood holders confirm the candidate as a member of the church and give them the Gift of the Holy Ghost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.101.30 (talk • contribs) 
:There are two different baptisms of water. Baptism for remission of sins and baptism as an entrance into the kingdom of God (or the Church). In the church today, we rarely practice the first independent of the second. In the early days of the church, members were baptised when they joined the church, before going to the temple for the first time, before recieving the priesthood, before entering into a new plural marriage, etc. In fact, Oliver Cowdery and Brigham Young both were baptized at least six times each, if not more. Later prophets clarified that the ordinance of the sacrament was adequate for renewing the covenants of baptism and that baptism solely for the remission of sins was not essential after one had already been baptized as a church member. In otherwords, people only needed to be baptized once in their life unless they lost their church membership. Whenever we participate in a new ordinance, according to Wilford Woodruff, their former covenants associated with previous ordinacnes are renewed as if they were participating in the original ordinances for the first time. For example, when you go to the temple to be married, your baptismal coventant is renewed and you are again washed clean of your sins. Same when you partake of the lords supper. 
:Baptism is the introductory ordinance to church membership. While it is true that Baptism is for the remission of sins - ie to demonstrate that one has partook of the atonement (blood) unto the remission of sins, not merely for the washing away of sins (water) or the sanctification and justification required (spirit) to keep one clean. Baptism does make one a church member. That membership is "confirmed" at the time of confirmation or when a member is given the gift of the holy ghost. See for example: D&C 20: 37, 41, 68, 72-73 ("truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church"; "And to confirm those who are baptized into the church"; "The duty of the members after they are received by baptism.") also, Mosiah 25: 17-18 (Therefore, Alma did go forth into the water and did baptize them; yea, he did baptize them after the manner he did his brethren in the waters of Mormon; yea, and as many as he did baptize did belong to the church of God; and this because of their belief on the words of Alma. 
:Bottom line? Baptism by water is for church membership and to signify a remission of sins, which comes from accepting the atonement or "received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins," and precedes the baptism by fire (or spirit). Baptism signifies a remission of sins, not neccessarily "washes them away." Baptism is a symbol of the death, burial and ressurection of christ and that we are volunarily laying down and burying our old sin-filled life and lifting up a new life as a disciple of Christ. John the beloved gives an interesting discourse  in 1 John 5 on these three baptisms (blood water and spirit). hope this helps. -Visorstuff 21:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS Baptism 

message: Anyone else think this rather long article would work better as two separate ones?  "Mormonism and Judaism" would be a comparative religion article (cf. Judaism and Christianity), currently all of section 7 and subsections, and "Mormon views of Judaism" (a similar idea to Judaism's view of Jesus) would include the current introduction and following sections up to 7.  Kaisershatner 16:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An even better template is Relations between Catholicism and Judaism. I'm going to make the split if no-one comments.  I'm going to solicit comments from major editors here and maybe the Mormonism project?  :) Kaisershatner 17:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no objection to the split.  In any case the article could usefully be rewritten and significantly shortened.  In particular, many of the sections read as simply a statement of Mormon belief, followed (or preceded) by a statement of Jewish belief.  It would be better to combine sections into a running text that just touches on the most significant points, since there are already very thorough articles on the two religions individually.  If you would like to reorganize the article, and a split would help you do it, it sounds fine to me.  --Reuben 17:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I agree with the split. The point-by-point format was the end product of a lot of editing and arm wrestling - integrating the two texts never worked out (in my opinion, because the Mormon editors kept trying to find analogies that didn't exist). FiveRings 22:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a tough decision, but I am mildly against at this point.  There is no relationship from the perspective of Judaism.  The relationship is one way, from Latter-day Saints to the House of Israel.  I do agree that the article may be improved.  Let's mull this over a bit longer.  Storm Rider (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?

message: Either 275,000 or 245,000 or (more probably) some other number. Not both numbers of members. (OK if they have 275,000 members they for certain have at least 245,000 members, but such sloppy logic won't be accepted by common encyclopedia readers!! :) Rursus 12:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a refernce for the current membership - I believe the current number comes from adherents.com. --Trödel 14:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Community of Christ, number of members??

message: Can we get a reference for "Latter-day Saint places of worship are frequently offered to Jews for their use in religious observances or celebrations."? Cdwiegand 22:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Places of worship 

message: I've heard a handful of Mormons claim that "new wine" means "unfermented wine."  Can any provide a citation for this? I've inserted a citation request into the article. Paulistano (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch; the scripture states "pure" wine, not new wine. All cross-references led to clarity that it was wine without clarification of being unfermented wine. Further, I find no commentary that one would use to produce an interpretation of new wine. I changed to reflect the actual language of the scripture. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfermented Wine 

message: The chronology has:
# July 23, 1857 (Rosh Chodesh Av (the first day of the month of Av)) - June 29, 1857: U.S. President James Buchanan declares Utah in rebellion of the U.S. government. Buchanan appoints Alfred Cumming as governor of Utah. Cumming is to be escorted by a regiment of the U.S. army, initially led by Col. Edmund Alexander.
# July 18, 1857: Two Mormons, Porter Rockwell and Abraham Owen Smoot, learn of Buchanan's declaration in Kansas City while on a mail run. The same day, Col. Alexander and troops begin the journey to Utah.
# July 23, 1857: Rockwell and Smoot arrive in Salt Lake City and inform Brigham Young of the government's plans to overthrow Utah. 10 Years of predicted peace comes to an end.
So they heard about it and Alexander movesmfive days before it was declared and arrived the day it was declard?
Avraham (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 04:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronological Contradiction

message: The Nature of Jesus section appears to have some weasel words and looks like the section could be better sourced. Two sentences in particular come across ugly and possibly anti-Christian in nature: "Jews also do not believe that God has a physical body or gender; the idea that God might have physical, "begotten" children is therefore absurd to them." Absurd seems not only a harsh adjective but is somewhat vague and lacks quoted material. As well as "Jesus, if such a person ever existed, is not considered differently from any of the others."  Why is this sentence added? The portion of the article is not discussing if Jesus existed or not and the question reads hostile toward Mormons and Christians.  Ka'Jong (Ka'Talk)
:Sorry you feel that way. Most Jews do not believe that Jesus ever existed. To simply say "Jesus is not considered differently.." would be to imply that he did. This is misleading at best, and offensive at least. If you can come up with a better word than "absurd" to imply categorical rejection, go for it. FiveRings (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nature of Jesus / Weasel Words

message: I'm going to try and attempt to put these in a table at some stage... also I feel if the figures are equivalent to each other as much as possible, that would be helpful.--MacRusgail (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: Brigham Young University had a symposium in 1978 and invited only non_LDS scholars. The school published a book about it, and it is also here on internet. There are some interesting thing there.
Professor Emeritus W. D. Davies, a famous scholar in theology (and not a member in LDS) said: Mormonism is the Jewish-Christian tradition in an American key. He explained in "Israel, the Mormons and the Land" http://rsc.byu.edu/pubWDaviesIsraelMormonsLand.php
Professor W. D. Davies and Krister Stendahl were two of the famous scholars that was on the symposium. Stendahl was active in jewish-christian dialogue, and was a very good friend with LDS Church. The temple in Stockholm had very much opposition from almost every swede, and with his support and help it was possible to build it. The opposition became less. He saw the LDS Church as jewish-christian.
Reflections on Mormonism : Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center Symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/rsc&CISOPTR=36013  90.231.11.211 (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish-Christians 

message: While I enjoyed this article and am glad that it exists, I think the "Plurality" section is actually an illustration of how Judaism and Mormonism differ, not how they are similar.  While Hasidic, Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, and Humanistic Jews likely all consider themselves "Jewish," the different denominations within the Latter Day Saint Movement, while sharing a common origin, are different and separate religions.  (I as a member of the LDS Church, would not attend services at a Community of Christ meetinghouse.)  As written, this paragraph and the "Mormon" section of the Demographics paragraph that follows it seem to imply that they are parts of one larger church, which they are not.  As such, I suggest that this paragraph be removed.  (I have further issues with the terminology used in the paragraph, but will hold off voicing them unless there are objections to the above edit.)  Thanks much! Kingsfold (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Plurality" Section 

message: The numbers contained in the "Mormon" part of this section seem to be taken directly from  LDS membership statistics, where the paragraph directly includes all followers of the Latter Day Saint Movement as "Mormons."  A note should probably be added clarifying that the numbers reflect the size of the "Salt Lake" denomination only.  Thanks much! Kingsfold (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Demographics" Section 

message: The paragraph stating that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints constitutes about 97% of the total adherents in the Mormon faith is inaccurate. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Mormon faith - all other denominations stemming from the original Church as founded by Joseph Smith may be part of the Mormon tradition, but are not part of the Mormon faith and should not be designated as Mormons. This statement has been removed.ccdesan (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Priesthood and Clergy" Section 

message: I read a National Geographic printed sometime before 1990 that mentioned how the geographies of Israel and Utah (long associated with Mormons) have some similarities.  This is a much lighter issue than theology and may not be a valid component of this article.  Unfortunately, I don't remember the issue of NatGeo.  The Great Salt Lake was compared to the Dead Sea.  Both lands have a Jordan River and Utah Lake was compared to Yom Chinnereth/The Sea of Galilee.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.44.120.114 (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I went to Jordan High School, in Sandy, Utah (15 miles south of Salt Lake City).  Another similarity is the cedar tree;  in Utah, they are actually juniper trees, but because of early Mormons noticing the similarities, they named Cedar City, Utah, after the Lebanon cedar trees.  In and around Cedar City, there are more juniper trees than there are tumbleweeds and cactus plants combined.   . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So yes, the Jordan River (in Utah) connects the large and dead Great Salt Lake on the north, to Utah Lake on the south — which looked, to the early Mormon pioneers, to be like the Sea of Galilee, on the north, flowing into the Dead Sea, on the south, via the Jordan River.  Quite similar, except up-side-down in Utah, whatever that might mean to the Creator. FYI. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography of Israel and Utah 

message: Editor2020, Talk 17:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  D&C 13:1 

message: great article.. but could use more "evidence" or citations if you're not yet an expert on mormon or jewish doctrine and practice. Where in the "mormon bible" or accepted "king james bible" do l.d.s. or mormons claim that  "rescuing the spirits of the wicked from hell ".
Since when did any LDS or Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) teach of only two kingdoms or destinations???  Don't they keep/ preech their doctrine that the afterlife has many tiers or kingdom's -- as King James bible remind all that my Father's house has "many mansions"??    Your citation is non-existant here... Maybe this article needs serious research or revision.
Organist00 (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  great article.. but could use more "evidence" or citations if you're not yet an expert on mormon or jewish doctrine and practice. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Judaism and Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204053447/http://www.jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?050708+rabbis to http://www.jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?050708+rabbis
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080813084933/http://uscj.org/Ordination_of_Gays_a7194.html to http://www.uscj.org/Ordination_of_Gays_a7194.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Judaism and Mormonism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20060323033000/http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/mystery.htm to http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/mystery.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified