Talk:Plan of salvation in Mormonism

message: It is erroneous to write about the Plan of Salvation only in context with Mormonism (Latter Day Saints). The LDS church is not considered Christian in its doctrines by traditional Christianity for many reasons, the chief being they do not recognize the divinity of Christ from eternity (meaning God the Son had no beginning and is co-eternal with God the Father). The Plan of Salvation is a from the Holy Bible and is laid out from Genesis to Revelation. Mormonism distorts the Biblical view by adding several other books to their "holy" library and by relegating the Bible to less than their own created books.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.233.152 (talk • contribs) 
:First, you clearly need to review the actual beliefs of the LDS Church. They absolutely believe that the Son had "no beginning" and was "co-eternal" with the Father; they simply have a different understanding of the implications of those terms. And they do not believe the Bible to be "less than" their other scriptures - they simply acknowledge the very real historical fact that the biblical texts have been mistranslated and miscopied over the centuries, and that the books contained therein were not the only ones written or in use by the various communities that produced them. The English "Bible" actually comes from the Greek word for "books" and was not originally intended to describe a single, monolithic fount of truth and wisdom - essentially making the Holy Bible used by Christians of every stripe a "created" book. Second, this page is no place for you to be attacking a religion you clearly know little about and have an effective personal vendetta against. Would you like a Muslim or a Coptic Christian making similar claims and opinionated attacks on a page related to your particular branch of Christianity? That's why Wikipedia has an NPOV policy. Third, the LDS Church is the only one to my knowledge which currently and consistently uses the term "Plan of Salvation" with any frequency; indeed, that phrase can be seen as an integral part of LDS doctrine, is a fundamental part of LDS parlance, and suffuses much of "Mormon culture". All that said, I'm glad you at least restricted your attacks to the discussion page. --Awakeandalive1, 20 January 2007
::I don't believe that Awakeandalive1 is correct in saying that Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was co-eternal with the Father.  It is my understanding that he is a Son of god, and an elder brother to humanity.  If that is correct, then how could he be co-eternal with the father?  Second, I have heard other churches use the term "Plan of Salvation" or "God's Plan" before - so Mormons don't have a monopoly on the term as far as I know - although they may be the largest group to consistently use the specific term.  Finally, I think it is a documented fact that most mainstream Christian churches don't consider the Mormon church a "Christian" church and they have several specific reasons for it.  All that having been said, I think the article is good as it stands now, unless a specific example of an alternative "Plan of Salvation" for another religion deserves mention.Descartes1979 03:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So Jesus Christ is not a spirit child of God the Father?--Descartes1979 (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They believe he is. But, as I said, their understanding of the implications of that are very different from your own evidently. Awakeandalive1 (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed, why bring up that old chestnut about whether or not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are Christians. It has nothing to do with the topic. Hot Dog (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Plan of salvation and Mormonism

message: Do you think we can remove the "Stub" designation yet? The article has been almost completely overhauled and I think it's about the equal of any of the other LDS/Mormon-related articles on here (which, to be honest, isn't saying much). --Awakeandalive1, 14 June 2006
:Yes, this is definitely more than a stub now. DavidBailey 12:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The stub is removed. andersonpd 22:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub or not a stub?

message: :I have a question about a certain part of the article. It says, "Latter-day Saints believe that the total, final judgment of mankind will occur at various points during the Millennium, and that Jesus Christ is ultimately the Judge of all men." Where exactly does the doctrine that the final judgment will occur at "various points during the Millennium" come from? I have always thought of it as coming after the Millenium. Anyway, I think the source of this needs to be identified.Arthurlds 02:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I actually haven't checked this page in a while and it looks like there've been a lot of...interesting edits. Frankly it feels odd to me to see God the Father refered to exclusively as "Heavenly Father" - any time "He" isn't in the article, it's because I wrote it. Also, I find it odd that, unlike most LDS sources, Jesus is refered to as a "Him" rather than a "him." But I think the author of the part you're mentioning was confusing the Judgment with the Resurrections, since the LDS Church believes in various resurrections taking place throughout the Milennial period. Awakeandalive1 03:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctrinal Questions & Accuracy

message: I tried cleaning up a few things, but realized there is a pervasive problem with POV wording in this article.  Especially with the sections "Bible references...".  In order to conform with NPOV it should state unequivocally that Mormons believe these doctrines, and should not have the tone that their interpretation is the only way to interpret the Bible verses in question.--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to go ahead and clean up the issues I saw on my own - as such, I am retracting the flag I put on the page. --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, three heavens are directly mentioned in the Pauline epistles: to ascribe that point to Swedenborg alone is to display a lack of proper research. The belief in multiple heavens (or tiers of heaven) was common among Jews of the Second Temple period (cf. "Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" and the Dead Sea Scrolls for starters), with the usual numbers being either three (the symbolic number for heaven) or seven.  Even today many rabbinic Jews believe in this ancient tiered-heaven cosmology.Awakeandalive1 (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: D. Michael Quinn is identified as an "LDS historian".  If that means one who studies LDS history, then that is correct.  If it identifies him as LDS, it appears that is no longer the case and is not correct.  Some clarification would be helpful.  Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited it for clarification. I'd say that as it originally stood, his standing in the LDS Church was absolutely relevant; to argue otherwise would be disingenuous. But i've since changed it to the more neutral "historian." Awakeandalive1 (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - I can see how it was a little confusing, as I read it, I understood it to mean he was a historian of the LDS church, not an LDS member who is a historian. Either way, the current wording is best to avoid confusion. --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  D. Michael Quinn 

message: I wanted to get some input on this. But I think that it's relevant to note that the 37 cents for the book "Heaven and Hell" was, in relative terms, $8 comparatively. This would mean that for someone of Smith's occupation, it would be more than a week's wages to purchase. And that's if he didn't spend money on food, shelter, clothing, etc. Can someone suggest a sentence to add that would convey this point? Infero Veritas (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something to Consider