Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 16

message: Please list what you think are the most important sections from the article.  Please keep in mind that (IMHO) the purpose of the article is to allow the reader to compare LDS and MC views.  You are also encouraged to include what you think are the least important sections - in other words, the sections you think should be deleted.  The text for the deleted sections might be moved to articles on those specific articles, so deleting a section from this article doesn't mean that work will go to waste. wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed the only humble opinion, because the topic is "Mormonism and Christianity".  Anyone who does not subject himself to the topic is not being humble. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Mark, I think "One True Church" could be an excellent section, among other things it could illustrate how we use similar terminology to mean totally different things.  LDS believe that there is One True Church in the sense of an formal organization that is sanctioned and directed by God.  From what I have read here, MC believe that there is One True Church in the sense that the church is the true followers of Christ, even though they belong to many different institutions.  This could be a metaphor for the entire article, that is, you said that the article is an asymmetrical comparison, but viewed in this perspective is it really that asymmetrical? . 74s181 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there is a problem with this approach, it would arise from trying to decide what, or which is the One True Church. Nevertheless, whatever the article is titled, this is the subject we are writing about from our different perspectives.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not mean to suggest that there would be any conclusion as to which was the 'one true church'.  What I meant was, both LDS and MC believe this, but they mean something completely different.  I was thinking today that maybe a section on various examples of this, where we use the same terminology to mean such different things.  Earlier we talked about the temple, that would be another example.  There are others. 74s181 02:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your intention to write the comparison neutrally, and I submit to your plan. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: My nominations for most important are Revelation (including First Vision), Nature of God (rewritten as I described below).  Faith and Works, expanded to include Grace as described below is also important, but this is not a defining difference in the same way as the other two, because MC don't seem to be as united on this one as they are on the other two. 74s181 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Most Important Sections

message: While some sections should go and some should stay, there are some that cover important differences but need to be retitled, refocused, and rewritten.
My first nomination for this is "Nature of God".  There are clear differences between the LDS Godhead and the MC Trinity, and although there may appear to be many similarities, I think we have learned that even the apparent similarities reveal themselves as insurmountable differences when viewed in the light of the more obvious differences.  The "Nature of God" section describes some of this in a factual way but does nothing to capture the depth of the chasm that divides us on this issue, or the ferocity of the torrent raging thru it. 74s181 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would second everything you said 74s181, but we also need to make clear the distinction between the old law which MC and LDS agree is fulfilled in Jesus Christ and the law of obedience to the Gospel which is what you mean by "works of the Law" above. There is a subtle distinction there too. For example when Paul talks about works not having saving power in Romans, he's talking about the old dead works of Jewish law. But when James says "Faith without works is dead, being alone", he's talking about the works associated with being obedient to the terms and conditions of the New and Everlasting Covenant, (which, yes, includes baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, etc). This is what sometimes causes confusion about the LDS perspective on these matters and gets people thinking we haven't accepted the New and Everlasting Covenant but are trying to save ourselves by dead works. Does that make sense? Mpschmitt1 01:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, I think there are two important distintions of 'works' that should be covered in the discussion of Faith and works.  First distinction, works of Charity or the pure love of Jesus Christ vs works of obedience to the law.  Second distinction is within works of obedience to the law, that is, the works of the old law of the Lord commonly called the Law of Moses, vs works of the new law of the Lord, as given by Jesus Christ and recorded in the New Testament. The central 'work' of obedience of the old law was either circumcision or animal sacrifice, probably the former.  LDS believe that the required work of obedience of the new law is baptism. 74s181 13:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for rewrite / refocus 

message: Hey all, if you can catch this over the next couple of nights (starting tonight) PBS is doing a series of shows with Frontline to explore Mormonism. Should prove useful to our purpose here: Click Here Mpschmitt1 23:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PBS/Frontline Special Broadcast: The Mormons 

message: User:WBardwin presented this outline when a reader asked a question on Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#What the differance?.
I am copying it here for people to comment on.  I thought he did a good job.  Maybe others will find it useful as well: wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 18:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He did do a good job.  I've decorated it to highlight its value for meditation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the compliment - glad to be of help.  But, you might consider adding to the center section:  LDSaints don't really believe in "original sin" .  It didn't seem too applicable to the info request, but is a significant distinction.  Just checking in today on someone else's machnine, but should be "back" soon.  Best...........  WBardwin 00:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please correct it as you wish.  Edit the table as you desire, and re-timestamp it if the changes are significant. Thank you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible comparison  outline 

message: With Mitt Romney running for President, several news outlets are discussing Mormonism.  This article from Newsweek might be interesting.  I don't know how long the link will be relivant.  Here is another interesting article. Bytebear 05:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting sources for discussion 

message: Hey all, sorry I haven't contributed in a while. Just FYI, I've added a number of links and book references to my User page that might interest some of you. Mpschmitt1 02:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to my user page 

message: Someone removed my previous links to General Conference saying that it had nothing whatsoever to do with this article, and yet there were several talks that had everything to do with this article, so I'm posting again. Perhaps they were offended by my overly patriotic tone, so I'll leave that out this time and just get to the facts ;-) If you decide you still don't like this for some reason, please consult me on my talk page before you just delete it and I'll see if I can come up with something you feel better about.
Several talks dealt directly with this theme we're covering here and I'll put links to them below:
* The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent by Jeffery R. Holland speaks directly to the subject of the LDS view of the Godhead
* Why Are We Members of the Only True Church? by Enrique R. Falabella (self evident by the title)
* Scriptural Witnesses by Russel M. Nelson talked about the LDS Cannon of scripture and why Latter-Day Saints consider those books scripture.
* Faith, Family, Facts, and Fruits by M. Russel Ballard talks about how Latter-Day Saints are taught to represent themselves to those of other faiths and backgrounds.
* The Power of Godliness Is Manifested in the Temples of God by Octavio Tenorio dicusses the unique doctrine of Temple worship in the LDS faith.
* O Remember, Remember by Henry B. Eyring discusses how Latter-Day Saints view the character of God and gratitude toward God.
* God Helps the Faithful Priesthood Holder also by Henry B. Eyring explores the role of a lay priesthood in the church.
Mpschmitt1 02:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conference Talks Relevant to This Page 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
*This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
*See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**it has been
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't.
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Vassyana 23:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiauto review 

message: ::TCC, You have absolutely hit the nail on the head regarding one of the biggest problems I have been having with this article myself. I agree that the article feels quite lopsided still and I would suggest several reasons for that:
:# Those of us who are LDS have shared quite a bit of detail about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it's doctrines. 
:# There have been fewer contributors from the other Christian camps thus far and detail has been disappointingly shallower in my opinion on what Mainstream Christianity affirms. I would like to see some other Christians step up with those details, since I myself don't feel very qualified to comment on other people's traditions, though I do know something about the history of "Mainstream" Christianity. Part of the trouble is (as you rightly point out) while many would like to present "Mainstream Christianity" as a single monolithic entity, completely united in all of it's doctrines and practices in contrast to dangerous heretics like us Mormons, the historical and culturally observable fact is that there is no such monolith. I've made this point before and I've tried to insert some of what I know in those areas (for instance mentioning the different concepts of the Trinity held by Oneness Pentacostals). But there is a wide range of differences within Christianity itself over various points of theology that this article tends to ignore. I've felt like the article could use more exploration of that because as it is right now it seems like "Mainstream Christianity" is being equated with Evangelical Protestantism which is but one branch of a much larger tree. I have been reticent to start editing in that direction because it might make the article even more complicated as we start focusing on all the schisms and differences within Mainstream Christianity. Please realize though that the mainstream Christianity sections were written by our "Mainstream Christian" contributors for the most part and not by Mormons, so perhaps some of the tension is due to those schisms within Mainstream Christianity over "the right way to be Christian"?
:# I agree that the mainstream section of the Faith and Works section is lacking something and I haven't understood why no one from the mainstream camp has corrected it. I also agree that the nature of God section could use more exploration of other Christian beliefs surrounding the trinity. Same with Personal Revelation and Theology
::I think we are on the same page here. Let's take a crack at making it cleaner and more balanced. But let's also be careful to not remove things simply because they're too positive or too negative on one side or the other, let's just balance with the counterpoints...
::Oh and as far as using terms like the restored gospel, etc. goes, I don't have a problem with that. I think each side should be treated neutrally. If Latter-Day Saints refer to what they believe as the restored gospel, I see no reason not to state it that way. Likewise, if another Christian group has terminology particular to their beliefs, it is not necessary in my opinion to point out at each usage: "But not everybody believes this". That could get tedious. Using occasional phrases like "what the LDS regard as" or "what Evangelical protestants maintain.." are sufficient to remind the reader that the article is not taking sides, simply presenting facts.Mpschmitt1 03:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not had time to work on this article as much as I had in the past.  The attempt for this article was to let each side present their case, and the reader decide.  Because of this, we tried to avoid the POV of one side within the POV of another.  Here is what Mormons believe ... Here is what Christians believe.  This is different than many of the other Mormon related articles, but I think it works much better.  Each side can present their view without interruption.  If you think a Mormon belief is wack-o, then instead of inserting something to that effect in the Mormon side, you would add why Christian think Mormons are wacko to the Christian side. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 13:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may work; it would seem that this series would allow for a more in-depth comparison of the respective groups cited and would remove the problems we all see with the term "mainstream". I am not sure about the number of groups/articles, but certainly the first two. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mainstream" views poorly referenced 

message: I am going to throw out an entirely different approach. Instead of an article comparing and contrasting doctrine (after all, you can go to those individual articles and read the differences in detail), which tends to end in POV debate over which is better or correct, I suggest instead to take a historic perspective.  How did Mormonism begin in conjunction with other Christian groups at the time.  How did the move West affect their standing in the global Christian world?  when and how have other Christian groups interacted with Mormomism?  What historic events have affected the relationships?  I think this goes a lot further to explain the relationship, and it should be easier to reference.  Go from a historic event driven perspective rather than a doctrine point by point discussion.  Bytebear 00:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Mainstream' Christians may disagree among themselves about certain doctrines, but when the subject of 'Mormonisim' comes up it seems like they close ranks pretty quickly. I think that the unifying doctrines are the Trinity, and the rejection of new scripture, like the Book of Mormon.  Other doctrines are not as clear cut, there are 'mainstream' churches with doctrines similar to many LDS doctrines.  I think makes sense to report on that, but comparing Baptists to Episcopalians is clearly out of scope for this article. 74s181 04:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This article once contained a lot of history, I think it is better covered in other articles with the word 'history' in their titles. 74s181 04:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Doctrines should not explored in depth, a 'main article' link and a quick summary is all that is needed here.  If there isn't a 'main article' for a particular doctrine then make one. 74s181 04:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Real' Christians implies a definition, I'm not going anywhere near that. 74s181 04:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different approach recommended 

message: When you guys edit out of chronological order it makes the article very difficult to follow. Though I am aware a minority of editors enjoy doing so, I find it disrespectful of the editors who edited prior to them. Further, when others then edit in chronological order future readers find the discussion disjointed. I request that you please edit chronologically so as to make this discussion easier for all to participate and feel like their comments are valued and that future readers are more capable of following the progression of logic and thought. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please edit chronologically

message: Mark, you asked what it means to a LDS to be alive in Christ. We do not have creeds that provide a ready answer that can be repeated with the often mistaken assumption that because words can be repeated that universal understanding is achieved. LDS use scripture and though I believe it will be a long response, I hope that by the end of reading a few scriptures, some quotes by Robert Millet (an LDS scholar), and some of my commentary you will understand what it means to a LDS to be alive in Christ.
:*And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.  For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments. And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins. 2 Nephi 25:25-26
:*But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear. Moroni 8:13-16
:*And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts? Alma 5:14 
It is not enough to just believe in Christ. Those who follow the Light of the World will no longer walk in darkness; they become possessors of the light of life (John 8:12; D&C 11:28). A person who is in the process of becoming a new creature alive in Christ is in the process of gaining more and more light (D&C 50:24) and thereby learning and acquiring a new set of priorities. Such a one, though growing daily, is at the same time becoming more and more eager to know and abide by the will of God. There is less of "My will be done" and more of "Thy will be done." There is less of "But I want to . . ." and more of "What wilt thou have me to do?" In short, as we grow into a spiritual union with Christ, we begin to develop an eye single to the glory of God, a heart bent on building up the kingdom of God and establishing his righteousness. "And if your eye be single to my glory," the Savior declared in the Doctrine and Covenants, "your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things." Such consecration of the heart will eventuate in transcendent blessings: "Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will" (D&C 88:67-68).
As the Savior and foreordained Messiah, Jesus our Lord became the "author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Hebrews 5:9), and the Father's gospel—the gospel of God (Romans 1:1-3)—became his, the gospel of Jesus Christ. In the Book of Mormon there is a story of the people of Benjamin, who after having heard their king's glorious sermon, had been stirred in their souls by its import, and had made a covenant to keep the commandments of God from that time forward, Benjamin declared: "And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters" (Mosiah 5:7). By desire, through covenant, and through the mediation of the Holy Spirit, they had become new creatures alive in Christ.
To be alive in Christ is to know him not as some ethereal being, but as a personal Savior; this is to be born again. To be alive in Christ is to reflect His light to the world and to follow Him, to seek His will and forfeit our own will. To be alive in Christ is to fail miserably and yet know that we are washed in His blood unto forgiveness through the penitent heart of being a child of Christ. I am curious; how would you say that your teachings are different? --Storm Rider (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree! This is what I was trying to say with the charity / love comments but you did a much better job.  Yes, being filled with with His Love, His Light, becoming as a little child and seeking His will, not because we are trying to 'earn' some great reward but because we love Him and our fellow men. And what you said about failure, that reminded me of President Packer's  talk in 2004, "...when he falls he shall rise again, for his sacrifice shall be more sacred unto me than his increase, saith the Lord." (D&C 117:13) 74s181 12:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That's eloquently stated, Storm Rider. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But 74s181, you are trying to earn something.  Surely it's more meritorious if you do it for the right reason - love is the command.  Nevertheless, by obedience you are earning your place in eternal life.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...you are trying to earn something."  That is how it starts out for most people I suppose. But no more for LDS than for one who accepts the invitation for baptism in any Christian church, or does no more than formally state: "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Savior".  All of these things are an act, a choice, performed in the hope of salvation.  74s181 02:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "...earning your place in eternal life."  I believe this less the older I get.  I no longer think I can prove anything to God, He is all knowing, after all, so he knows me perfectly, while I am a mystery to myself.  The only person I can prove anything to is myself. 74s181 02:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I perceive that you are thinking I'm speaking of a difference in attitude, rather than a difference in belief. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS: "Alive in Christ"