Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 11

message: Someone seems to be using this section not just to explain the differences between Mormons and Christians but to write an entire summary of Mormon belief. Could we focus on the differences, please? DJ Clayworth 18:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be Godhead (Mormonism). The section currently has several paragraphs that say "the main difference beteen Christian and Mormon theology is..." and then describe entirely different aspects - oneness, mortal pre-existence, etc. DJ Clayworth 23:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nature of God

message: I added this under the "Differences in doctrines and core beliefs" section because I (and the LDS references I cited) believe this is the most significant difference.  I acknowledge that the last sentence "Historic Christianity teaches that Joseph Smith, Jr. was not a Prophet because the doctrines he taught were false." is a oversimplification / overgeneralization, I hope that the historic / Nicene Christians who monitor this page will edit / enhance this statement rather than deleting the entire contribution. 74s181 02:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be more NPOV is should be restated as, "because the doctrines he taught they believe to be false".  Wikipedia is not an arbitrator of truth, just a reporter of facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) 03:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Divine calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr.

message: Several changes have been made today by User:theHerget which to me seem POV.  Can I get a second opinion, before I revert them?  See [] Bytebear 02:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: let me add that I don't think all the edits are POV, but some definitely are, particularly about Mary and God having sex.  Bytebear 02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reviewed the changes made by that editor and I agree with your assessment.  If the editor in question wants to come to the talk pages and discuss the changes, it would be different.  But it is another thing to insert many POV changes without discussing them on the talk page first. The original language did a good job of communicating information while remaining NPOV. janejellyroll 03:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the changes and then saw this discussion.  Obviously, I also believed they were pov and/or introduced erroneous statements.  If the editor wishes to discuss any specific edits, it would be best if he/she were to discuss it here first. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The charge that Mormons believe that God had Sex with Mary is categorically false, and doesn't belong on any page used for objective research. Jeff Lindsay more than adequately addresses this issue here Mpschmitt1 00:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Changes 

message: I merged in this material from what was once a separate article because it seemed relevant to the discussion. However, I am unaware of the position of Latter Day Saint denominations on this issue other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Could someone help? Chiros Sunrider 04:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the cross Section

message: This section could use some real references from mainstream Christainity:
*==Divergence of Mormonism from historic Christianity==
Smith stated that, as a fourteen year old boy, God, in a theophany (or "First Vision"), .....  Unsurprisingly, traditional Christian denominations disagreed and attempted to discredit Smith.ExMormon, Search on second word "credibility"Trustworthy History?, Search on first word "credibility"
What we have are two references: Exmormon.org, which has nothing to do with mainstream Christianty and a review from FARMS.byu.edu.  Please tell me that there are better references for what mainstream Christianity thinks than a pro Mormon website and an anti-Mormon website. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also noticed a few references from the Bible to "prove" the christian POV, but this doesn't fly as the same scripture is used in LDS teaching (although interpreted differently).  We need references to actual cristians and not from scripture.  I would say that the D&C can be used cases where mainstream Christianity disagrees with the concepts defined (specifically "nature of God". Bytebear 20:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an unnecessary requirement.  No one should be trying to "prove" anything, but only to "verify".  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we please have some real references?

message: Vassyana 08:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im happy with the work being done. But on the above point, to not mention size would be going out of our way to hide something basic to the issue of the relation. I dont suggest its important only here, but nor do I suggest its applicable everywhere. In the context of this article, referencing Catholicism and Protestantism (both sizable chunks of Christianity) only in a footnote is.. unnecessary. -Ste|vertigo 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you think it would be best to address the size differance in such articles? Why do you feel it is important? Vassyana 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, we seem to have agreed that using "mainstream" here, so that point is probably moot. -Ste|vertigo 07:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Just to make sure we're working on the same page: You feel that using the phrase "mainsteam Christianity" indicates that Mormonism is a minority body clearly enough? Vassyana 16:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  b 

message: Is there any particular reason why part of the article reads, "consider themselves to be followers of the Jesus, Christ, (hence "Christians") and believe"? Perhaps I am missing the point, but wouldn't it be more effective just to replace it with "consider themselves to be followers of Jesus Christ (hence "Christians") and believe"? Chiros Sunrider 08:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just assuming here, so take it with a grain of salt. It may have been an edit to try to highlight that LDS follow the actual Jesus, since some anti-Mormons often try assert that the LDS follow a differant Jesus and G-d from the majority of Christians, rather than just a differant interpretation of them. Regardless, you're correct that it is not needed in the article. Just thought I'd provide an explanation from what I've seen. Vassyana 16:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The phrase was very awkward.  I'm glad it's gone.  Incidentally, they said concerning the golden calf, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!" (Ex 32:4)   Were they still in Egypt? Didn't Elohim deliver them? But God was against them.  There is more than a problem of "interpretation" going on there.  When anti-Mormons say that the LDS follow a different Jesus and a different God, this is what they mean.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had several people tell me Mormons worship a different Jesus.  Their argument is that our interpretation of who Jesus was, along with a view different than the Trinity means that Mormons worship a different God.  In a way, they are correct ... the two views are pretty much incompatible.  The real argument, however, would be which one is correct, and that could take a very long time to resolve.  As I used to say to a Jewish friend of mine: "When the Messiah comes, the only difference between the two of us will be if it is His first or second visit."  By that time, we will all mostly be in agreement with each other. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have always be amused with this quality of critique. The image in my mind is that two Christians with different beliefs are on their knees in prayer. Who is listening to their prayers? Are there people that actually think (that being the operative term) that God is prevented from hearing the prayers of all those who strive to follow His Son, Jesus Christ, because they do not have identical beliefs? How is God prevented from hearing prayers? A differnt god or a different Jesus? I have only know one Jesus of Nazareth that hung on a cross, died for my sins, taught the spirits in prison, rose the third day, appeared to his disciples and returned to sit on the right hand of God. He is the same Jesus for a Catholic, Easter Orthodox, Baptist, and Mormon. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reasonableness of this argument is not so far away, leaving off whether the problem is so radical as all that.  If they bowed down to a golden calf, and then got up to play, is their prayer and celebration unto God? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if the two kneeling, praying people both believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, was born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfect life, healed the sick, taught the true gospel, etc., was crucified, died for the sins of the world and rose from the dead on the third day, then I suspect that both of their prayers are heard and acknowledged, even if one is a Baptist and one is LDS.   And BTW, I don't know of any LDS who bow down or pray to golden calves, or any other gilded animal, where in the world did that come from?  "All Mormons have horns, I comb my hair so they don't show".  74s181 02:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I believe that the prayers of anyone who is sincerely asking God for help is heard, regardless of whether they are praying to Jesus, a Golden Calf, or anything in between.  Just as a (good) parent loves their child regardless of how they behave, I believe that Heavenly Father loves all of us and answers our prayers.  It is not up to us to decide who is sincere, whose prayer will be heard, etc.  wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 02:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An gentle sentiment. "Thus says the LORD God of Israel, 'Put your sword on your side each of you, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill his brother and his companion and his neighbor.' ... Then the LORD sent a plague on the people, because they made the calf, the one that Aaron made." Ex 32:27;35 — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Small question about the intro

message: If the comma looks better invisible, then I'll remove it.  But it is sounds weird in English to say out loud, "Jesus the Christ" instead of "Jesus, Christ".  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 08:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks much better.  The phrase Jesus the Christ may be an accurate label (Jesus the Messiah), but it is very formal and most are unfamiliar with the appelation.  Jesus Christ works better. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The, Comma