Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 3

message: Does this seciton belong in this article? Shouldn't it be in the the main (Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints) article only? How does this section clarify that LDS is or is not Christian? UtherSRG 18:35, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: By golly, you're right! It should go in the main article. How'd it get here? Any opposition to moving it? —Frecklefoot 20:21, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. If I hear no objections before midnight tonight locally (NY State), I'll move it to there. UtherSRG 21:37, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, move it. I think it was origionally tied to the Baptizing Jewish dead deal. Visorstuff 22:35, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. UtherSRG 19:18, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Genealogy

message: I think the article is pretty objective overall.  The only line that I think should be changed is this one (which is very subjective):
"While claiming to affirm many traditional Christian beliefs, they substitute radically different definitions of key terms and phrases so as to disguise the differences."
The way it is written, it makes judgments: "substitute", "radically", "disguise."
I think the following would communicate the point more objectively and fairly:
"While affirming many traditional Christian beliefs, the LDS church differs in some of their definitions of key terms and phrases.  Some non-LDS churches feel this is done to disguise differences."
:I think this changes help maintain NPOV status. I'm good with it. UtherSRG 19:19, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with dropping "substitute" and allowing that it's an outside perception that the purpose is to disguise the differences. However, I think the differences are great enough to justify the "radically", or another similar phrase like "differs greatly". Regardless of whether you prefer one definition or the other, or neither, I think it's objective to say that the differences are significant. Wesley 17:20, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between LDS and other Christian churches 

message: Excellent work on this page!  Very insightful and informative. Masterfully worked. Hawstom 06:33, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Kudos

message: So it seems something good came of my rant. Ah it seems so long ago now... (I'll try to not wax poetic...) I'm going to put the notion to a vote:
#Keep the article name as is ("Mormonism and Christianity")
##~~. This article isn't just about "Mormonism and Traditional (or Greater) Christianity". It is also about Mormonism and heretical Christianity, such as Gnosticism or Arianism, as well as off-beat Christianity, such as Restorationism and the Jehovahs Witnesses. Moreover, to define it, we would have to create a messy article named "Traditional Christianity" or "Greater Christianity", and who is to say precisely which groups fit within the "traditional" or the "greater" category? COGDEN 04:08, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: UtherSRG writes: "If I belong to the only local Jewish Temple and I leave it because I disagree with how they are doing things, am I no longer Jewish? If I'm so thoroughly disgusted with how all the major branches of Judaism interpret scripture and I go through all the work of writing new scripture and founding my own branch of Judaism, am I no longer Jewish? Since Kosher foods were defined by what kinds of foods a nomadic desert peoples would best eat to survive and be healthy, if I start eating (by Orthodox standards) non-Kosher foods because I've redefined Kosher in terms of what kinds of foods an American city-dweller would best eat to survive and be healthy, am I no longer Jewish? Etc, etc. And who are you to tell me I'm not Jewish? "
:There is a huge difference between a person being a Jew, which is a matter of ethnicity, and being a person who adheres to the religion of Judaism. If a Jew did what you described above, they would still be a Jew, but they would no longer be practicing Judaism. They obviously would be following their own brand new religion. RK 21:17, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
(Yes, I know that being a Jew is perceived as being both ethnic and racial... but that's just silly says this raised-Jew. If two people convert to Judaism, have a kid and raise the kid Jewish, is the kid an ethnic Jew? Of course not. I used Judaism as an example because it isn't Christianity and I wanted to put the discussion about Smith 'leaving' Christianity into a different perspective.) 
Why is it not so when various Christian denominations schism (and the adherents of the 'new' religion are excommunicated by the 'old' religion) that they are all still Christian, yet the schism between the non-Mormons and the Mormons isn't? And again: how arrogant of you! The next line of my text that you copied here says that to do so is arrogance!  A religion becomes a new religion when its adherents as a group say it is so. When its adherents don't say it is a 'new' religion but rather it is a reforming of the 'old' religion (or some other such statement that links it with the 'old' religion) the field of that religion has been broadened.
Example: At one point the American Unitarian Assocation and the Universalist Church of America were Christian denominations. In 1961 they merged to form the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). Around that time or a little later, the UUA is no longer a Christian denomination. Why? Because we Unitarian Universalists (UUs) as a group say we aren't. As a group, we have reject most Christian dogma (and the concept of dogma!). As a group, we have rejected being labelled as a Christian denomination, even though many UUs are Christian.
Counter example: As a group, the Mormons reject or reinterpret some concepts accepted by other Christian denominations. As a group, the Mormons accept some concepts that other Christian denominations reject. But as a group, they do not reject being labeled as Christians. It is ok (although arrogant) for other Christian denominations to call Mormonism non-Christian, but that doesn't make it so. Mormons call themselves a Christian denomination and that self-determination only widens the field as to what Christianity is. You can now talk about Mormon Christianity vis a vis non-Mormon Christianity (or Traditional Catholic and Protestant Christianity). - UtherSRG 18:48, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point. I still think we should go back to an earlier argument that the LDS Church sits on various national (US) christian coalitions, while Jewish groups and other non-Christians don't participate (although they do participate in other religious coalitions). -Visorstuff 19:56, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: When does a religion become a "new" religion?

message: Okay - have you been to any of the early temples? No crosses. The article stated the following: 
:Latter-day Saints do not typically use the Christian cross as a symbol of their faith. While the cross was built atop the earliest Latter Day Saint temples, many modern Latter-day Saints are disturbed by this symbol of Christ's death, and prefer instead to focus upon his life.
Weather vanes and christian crosses that adorn church buildings - even during the 1800s are very different and not sure how that conclusion was obtained (no cross on Kirtland - just a weathervane. Same with St. George. Manti didn't even get a weathervane, and Logan's weathervane is an arrow - each of the weathervanes are nearly equidistant crosses, not a traditional Christian cross). In addition, the Nauvoo Moroni (definitely not a cross), parallells masonic symbols in some respects. I've revised, but still unhappy with it. Not sure what was meant by the statement in the article - it seems out of place. -Visorstuff 22:10, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross

message: Regarding this text:
: However, the Latter Day Saint movement has had an uneasy relationship with orthodox Christianity. Despite adamant Latter Day Saint professions, very many 
Let's see, how much of Christianity is trinitarian? The Roman Catholic Church alone accounts for just over half of self-labeled Christianity. Add to that the Eastern Orthodox Church (second largest single denomination), the Anglicans and at least a simple majority of the remaining Protestant denominations, and we can easily estimate more than 3/4 of self-labeled Christians are trinitarian. This is without including those Hindus and other pluralists who may call themselves Christian in addition to calling themself a member of another religion. Adding such pluralists to the equation would lower the percentage of Christians who are trinitarians; is that what is intended? Wesley 03:57, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one thing to say that most Christians are trinitarian. It's quite another to say that most Christians think Mormons are heretics or non-Christians. There is a sizeable population of trinitarian Christians who are open the idea that people who believe in an alternate metaphysics of Jesus are still Christians.  COGDEN 05:34, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is this "sizeable population" quantified? Is there any research  to justify this assertion? Wesley 16:56, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: The survey you cited defines a biblical worldview as: "believing that absolute moral truth exists, that it is based upon the Bible, and having a biblical view on six core beliefs (the accuracy of biblical teaching, the sinless nature of Jesus, the literal existence of Satan, the omnipotence and omniscience of God, salvation by grace alone, and the personal responsibility to evangelize)" (http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=156&Reference=B). It's worth noting that the "salvation by grace alone" would exclude most Catholics and Orthodox who may be otherwise more conservative theologically, not less, since the idea of sola gratia was introduced in the Protestant Reformation. This may explain why only Protestant pastors were surveyed. Also, headlines of the past few months have observed that Anglican churches in Asia, Africa and South America are generally much more conservative than Anglicans and Episcopalians here in the U.S.; I would suspect the same to be true in other denominations as well. That definition of a biblical worldview also doesn't exclude non-trinitarians, directly or indirectly. I don't think it contradicts my initial assertion at all. Wesley 17:32, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: There's nothing relative about "majority"; it has a well accepted mathematical definition of "greater than half" or "greater than 50%". Words like "sizable" and "most" are more relative terms, by comparison. The question of geography is easy: take the whole world into account.  I still stand by my initial statement, though perhaps we should strike the word "most" from every wikipedia article even slightly controversial, since it's POV to actually quantify the term??? Look out, science articles, all the fringe theories are about to get more respect in wikipedia through a simple s/most/a majority of/ edit.  Wesley 15:21, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Many" or "Most" 

message: I can understand why calvinism was chosen as a contrast; but, editors here have chosen a badly mangled version of calvinism.  I'll fix that; but watch to see if the contrast to Mormonism is hurt in the process. Mkmcconn 18:30, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  calvinism 

message: This is one of those pages that just seems to attract problems.  This subject is not my forte, but I can see this page is already headed for trouble like the old Book of Mormon page was.  The tell-tale sign is that redundant statements are popping up all over the page.  For example, at the bottom, these two statements are identical and repeat what is said at the top.  I don't know what the vision is for this page, but it needs help!
:Most other Christian churches, the Catholic, Orthodox, and many Protestant, do not recognise Mormons as even heretics, because of the massive belief difference.
:Most Christians hold that the tremendous doctrinal differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity are significant enough to define Mormon teachings as non-Christian. 
Hawstom 22:50, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I've noticed that there is a lot of redundancy, especially due to trying to properly place critical views.  I think that you can safely prune these out as you discover them, without worrying that you are over your head.  Mkmcconn 23:13, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree. There's a lot of redundant material that doesn't fit within the structure of this article. I've moved it to Talk:Mormonism and Christianity/Redundancies. I've found some useful non-redundant NPOV material there, but there is probably more, if someone can find a place for it in the article. COGDEN 21:11, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't know. It doesn't seem any more prejudicial than "Presbyterianism and Christianity".  It might communicate bias, but only to those who are either defensive, or to those who are hostile; to those who are neutral, I think it sounds neutral.  But, what would you suggest instead?  . Mkmcconn 21:50, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I think it's pretty neutral. If we start adding words like "traditional" or "orthodox" Christianity, these words have their own connotations, because then we have to define what it means to be an "orthodox" Christian, which is a thorny question in itself. To some, Protestantism isn't orthodox, and the "traditional" Christianity is Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, or Coptic/Gnostic/Essene/whatever. Certainly John Calvin and Martin Luther didn't consider themselves to be traditional Christians. And even the apostles and their followers would seem quite unorthodox to us today, what with all their communism, miracles, glossolalia, secret meetings and rituals and stuff. COGDEN 02:22, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the contrary, Martin Luther did see himself as a traditional Christian, and started out trying to "reform" Catholicism by calling it back to what he believed were the original teachings of Christianity. He affirmed many Catholic teachings that later Lutherans abandoned. And whenever I read about the apostles and Christians of the first two centuries, they don't seem unorthodox at all. The Orthodox Church still practices "communism" in the monasteries, and the miracles etc. are still reported to occur. Secret meetings probably still happen in Muslim countries like Egypt, though I'm just guessing. The early church is still here AFAICT, warts, sinners and all. As far as the title goes, I think the current one is more current than some of the previous attempts; any suggestions for a better one?  Wesley 17:43, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Time For Weeding

message: It's absurd to leave the impression that Mormonism is only superficially different, and then follow this with details that go to the heart of everything that trinitarians believe about God, Christ, revelation, the Church, and the history of redemption.  This is the impression left, by using phrases like "not within the range of permissible practices": as though the exclusion of Mormon doctrines from the fellowship of Christian teaching is only a matter of taste and politics, or irrational prejudice at work. 
The opening paragraphs could be simplified.  
: "Christianity has been defined in many ecumenical and denomination creeds.  Those who self-consciously accept those definitions view Mormonism, when they learn of its teachings, as by definition, a non-Christian movement.  Mormonism challenges the very idea that Christianity's doctrines are valid; and consequently Mormons view themselves as being Christians - even Christians par excellence.  
Mkmcconn 20:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this paragraph has some useable points, but it is still too POV and it is overgeneral. There is no support for the general assertion that those who accept trinitarianism or various other creeds view Mormonism as non-Christian, whether they "learn of its teachings" or not. The fact is, most Christians probably haven't even heard of Mormonism, and if unless they studied it in depth and were good friends with a zealous evangelical, they would think Mormons were generally Christian, but maybe a little weird. Certainly, most Christians don't think Mormons are going to hell simply because the metaphysics isn't quite right. If you took a poll, I doubt most Christians would care. Of course, some do care very much, but we can't paint that POV as a mainstream POV. A more accurate statement (but POV, maybe, in the other direction) would be something like this: "Regardless of Latter Day Saint professions of belief in Jesus as the Christ, some Christians define Christianity in such a way as to exclude Mormons and others who do not share their view of the Godhead as a metaphysical Trinity." Moreover, the purpose of the creeds was not to define Christianity, it was to define who was a heretic. COGDEN 01:51, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening paragraphs