Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 12

message: "Mormonism and most of mainstream Christianity[1] have conflicted since the inception of the Latter Day Saint movement in the 1820s in the United States. Latter Day Saints (LDS) proclaim a Christian faith, but are distinct in numerous ways considered controversial by many other Christian denominations. This article focuses on the current distinctions and conflicts.[2]"
Addresses the fact LDS and mainstream Christians have always conflicted, that LDS identify as Christian with some controversy and the article focus. "Mainstream" Christianity defined by both wikilink and footnote. Second footnote directs readers to the History of the Latter Day Saint movement article for more information about a historical perspective.
"Latter-Day Saints adhere to modern scripture. The LDS also believe that revelation is on-going and in the guidance of present-day Apostles with prophetic authority.[3][4] This contrasts with most Christians who believe that active revelation ceased with the end of the "Apostolic age" and hold to a closed canon."
Addresses what causes the divergence from mainstream Christianity and why this is a divergence. Wikilinks and footnotes confirm basic assertions.
"Mormons believe that the authority and authenticity of the original church of the Apostles was lost after a Great Apostasy, leaving the remaining churches in a fallen state, having less than the fullness of the Gospel.[5][6] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be the restored church of Jesus with the same authority and structure of the ancient church. Reciprocally, many other Christian traditions consider Mormonism to be a corrupted form of Christianity, or Christian in only a nominal or cultural sense.[7] Their apologists consider LDS claims to be incompatible with the Bible and unsupportable from either tradition or history.[8]"
Addresses why (what foundational reason) the LDS hold to the divergent beliefs noted above. Provides the counterpoint view. Footnotes provide references of fact, address the who of "many other Christian[s]" and refers the reader to the Criticism of Mormonism article for more info about the critical view.
I hope this helps clarify my position and the reasons for the current lede edits. Vassyana 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I appreciate your attempt to help me understand what you're doing, and your interest in my concerns. 74s181 00:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for understanding I have the same goal in mind that you do: to make this a better article. I appreciate the good nature you are showing. I have no problem explaining my edits and my view. I'm not going to reject your concerns out of hand. I am only a single editor. I might have a particular idea for something I work on here, but part of working on Wikipedia is moderating such views and taking into account the views and critiques of other editors. I am sure working together in good faith we can really improve this article. Thank you again for your understanding and willingness to work together towards improvement. Vassyana 06:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining the current lede 

message: The intro seems to try to over to much ground making it a bit confusing. I would counsel succinct sentences without going into details. The differences are modern day revelation resulting in new scritpure, authority, and other doctrines. Later in the aricle I would explain these things in more depth, but initally trying to broach so much is not helpful.  Would you mind cutting out a mority of it? I will wait on comments before editing. I know you guys have worked a lot on it, but I don't think it works well yet. --Storm Rider (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think needs to be done with the introduction? What is particulaly troubling to you? Vassyana 17:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Introduction as of Feb 20

message: It reduces readability to debate particular issues within the same paragraph - unless the issue of the paragraph is the debate concerning the point itself.  If the paragraph or section is explaining the view of traditional Christianity, it is not clarifying to answer this explanation with a rebuttal in the very same context: this has the effect of turning the paragraph into an explanation of Mormonism, rather than what the opening sentence promised. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Howzat...Mpschmitt1 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistic consideration 

message: The most recent edits have introduced a slight contradition / redundancy into the second paragraph of the lead.  
: "...same authority and structure as the ancient church..." 
: "...many similarities between currently held LDS beliefs and those of early Christianity..."
"Same" is much stronger than "similar". LDS believe it is the same authority.  Structure? Well, comparing the primitive Christian church to the early restored church, both are founded on a foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone, the structure is very similar, I don't know enough to say it is exactly the same, I don't know if anyone knows that much about the details of the workings of the primitive church.
Anyway, maybe we could eliminate the "many similarities" statement but retain the reference? 74s181 05:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second sentence is talking about the apostate/post-apostolic early church.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the clarification, both here and in the lead, it makes more sense now. 74s181 12:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early church