Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

What's the purpose here?

Having just read the entire article, some of it numerous times while making various edits here & there, it strikes me that there is a major question that needs to be asked and resolved about this article.

Simply it is, why is this article here? What is its purpose? What questions or issues is it trying to address?

Right now the article strikes me as

1. History of Mormonism with special swipes here and there at conflicts with Christian churches/ministers

2. A list & explanation of some Christian doctrines.

3. A list and explanation of a whole lot of Mormon doctrines.

So how is this article going to be better, more enlightening, more interesting, more useful than just three separate articles, one on the history of mormonism, one on Christian doctrine, and one on LDS doctrine?

I don't know the answer here, but it seems to me that some thinking should be done.

My own inclination would be to pursue the historical approach. Listing a bunch of doctrines is #1 boring and #2 non-illuminating (if I wanted that I could go to the church in question and pick up some tracts . . . they've got the doctrinal explanations down to a science).

On the other hand, putting the doctrine and doctrinal developments into historical context could be very, very interesting though, particularly if in this article the context is the history of how mormonism and christian faiths have interacted, clashed, affected each other, and finally learned to (sort of) peacefully coexist.

Just for example, I doubt it is any coincidence that the RLDS church (now community of christ), which chose to stay physically within the culture and society of the U.S., turned out to be much more ecumenical and like a Protestant denomination with just a slightly different flavor. The LDS church, by contrast, chose to live apart and to a large degree create its own separate society (practices like polygamy and the word of wisdom must be seen in this context). Out of this experience came an LDS religious tradition that is far more separate and distinct from the mainstream of American Christianity.

Coincidence? Maybe . . .

Another soggy area of the article, that I think makes it come across much flatter than it ought, is that both the varieties of Mormon faith and the varieties of (other-than-Mormon) Christian faith are greatly glossed over and we are just left with a sort of generic blobby Mormon blob on one side and a vaguely "Christians all believe alike" blob on the other.

Again, if I had the knowledge and research available (and the time, of course) I might try to remedy this with historical detail. Instead of trying to round up in some all-knowing, Thomas Aquinas-like way what "all Christians believe" about X or Y, it might be more profitable to document what PARTICULAR Christians who have jousted with PARTICULAR Mormons in different historical eras have had to say, and what this tells us about both Mormon & "Christian" beliefs as well as about society at large.

For instance, LDS & Christian doctrine is slightly or extremely different in a whole host of ways. Why do some differences come to the forefront in some historical periods, while others (in abstract just as important and just as much in conflict) fade into the background. Then a few years or decades later, the previously important issue may fade and the obscure issue come to the forefront. Why?

By the same token, are there some issues that have CONSISTENTLY stayed at the forefront of Mormon/christian conflict throughout all the years? Why do these particular issues have more staying power than the others?

And I have always thought that a profitable vein to explore would be the areas where, somehow, the biggest bible-thumping Christians and the LDSers--who usually seem to be the most mortal of enemies--somehow manage to work together in perfect harmony on social or political issues. I'm thinking particularly, in the past 30 years or so, of woman's issues (ERA), gay rights, abortion, and a host of other minor issues ranging from Sunday School to smoking to playing with face cards to gambling.

And, speaking of history, it seems worthwhile to pursue the historical thread of LDS-christian interaction after the Nauvoo period--how about the early Utah period? How about the whole polygamy controversy leading up to Utah's statehood (memorable LDS/Christian debate going on there, much of it VERY well documented)? How about the relations between Mormons and various Christian churches in the immediate post polygamy period? Did the resolution of the polygamy problem improve relations or did it just result in new defenses being thrown up?

How did the growing internationalization of the LDS church throughout the 20th century affect its relations with christian denominations?

And how about the "mob violence" in Kirtland, Independence, and Nauvoo? Was this mostly social or religious in character? (or both?) Was it whipped up by particular preachers? (and if so, what were there arguments and justifications?) Or did it have some other root cause? And why was it particularly designated as mob violence in the Mormon mythology of these events? Is there anything about LDS beliefs that makes it go in that direction? Because in characterizing the American populace as a bunch of mobs who are "out to get us" (with only a few "friends" like Thomas Kane to ameliorate the damage) I think we are setting the stage for the following century and a half of Mormon/christian conflict right there . . .

And how about relations between Mormon missionaries and Christian churches? What reactions or defenses have Christian churches adopted, and how have these changed over the years? It seems very strange to have a whole article on this particular subject while scarcely mentioning the LDS missionary program (and the WILD differences between the LDS and RLDS approach to "missionary work", and the resulting major differences in the structure and purposes of the two churches) . . . for instance, have the various approaches to missionary work adopted by the LDS church over the years been in direct or indirect response to attacks on LDS church practices/doctrines launched by various other churches? Have various anti-LDS campaigns had any noticeable effect on LDS conversion rates? Are anti-LDS campaigns by christian churches brought on by LDS missionary activity? (or by INCREASED LDS missionary activity?)

And how about having separate articles or at least separate sections for RLDS/Comm. of Christ vs. Christians, Fundamentalist LDS vs. Christians, etc. And what about covering the RLDS attempts to proseletize LDS and the other way 'round? That could be an interesting counterpoint to Christian's attempts to proselytize LDS (and the other way around) . . .

Again, I don't know what the answer is, what this article is really, really supposed to be about, but I would really, really discourage some people from writing a big article on what they think Christian doctrine is, and other people from writing what they think LDS doctrine is, and then just sticking them together like a couple of neighboring vegetables on a barbecue spit . . . I really don't think that won't get us anywhere interesting in the end . . .

Bhugh 06:16, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think you raise an interesting point. We have n offshoots of Mormonism, each with their own perspective (the RLDS/CoC becoming an increasingly interesting one). There are also y Protestant churches whose views may not be represented here (e.g. Anabaptists do not recognize infant baptism, ergo may not accept other TC baptisms). There's clearly not enough room to handle the permutations and combinations. On the other hand, historical analysis is just as difficult to manage — who is qualified to speak on what time period/belief/social condition, and its implications, and to what degree?

I'm not proposing that we get rid of this article, but I think Bhugh brings up a good point. Sterling 08:48, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, for the most part, with User:Bhugh, especially as to focusing on history as opposed to "what Mormons believe" versus "what traditional Christians believe"--which is a meaningless question because neither group is monolithic. What we can make definite statements about, and what I've been trying to add little-by-little for quite some time, is historical detail about Mormon interactions with mainstream Christianity. We're starting, I think, to have a good framework for early Mormonism; I've also been trying to add some materials about recent ecumenism. Where we are lacking, however, is historical material in between those two historical periods. COGDEN 04:21, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with COGDEN that (in the article as I first read it) the opening section (historical) and the section on ecumenism were moving in the right direction. I also disagree with Cookiecaper (next section above) who thinks that the entire article should be deleted.

Also, the more I think about it, Jan Shipps' "Mormonism: The Story of A New Religious Tradition" is the seminal and most enlightening single work on this general topic. Shipps' book is mentioned in the article, of course. But maybe it should be taken a step further--an "easy" way to approach some of the issues (historical and otherwise) that this article suggests, would be by recapitulating some of Shipps' main arguments (giving credit where credit is due, naturally). The strength of Shipps' work is that it is based on solid scholarship about how new religions develop and how they differentiate themselves from the religious environment they grow out of. And--no inconsequential matter--the approach has the potential to make both Mormons and non-Mormon Christians happy and to shed a lot of interesting light on issues that go far beyond simply a "Mormon vs. Christian debate". Bhugh 02:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reading the article again today, it looks like some major improvements have been happening . . . Bhugh 04:12, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with the persistent, pure relativism on these topics. I disagree with the suggestion that, descriptions of a movement are rendered meaningless by any and every deviation and innovation that comes along. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by persistent, pure relativism?COGDEN 19:47, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I mean, Wikipedia tends to bias everything religious toward relativism as the best or most neutral point of view. This makes it hard to say even the most simple thing, especially about Christianity, without burying it under a pile of petty qualifications. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, I agree that every deviation and innovation doesn't render descriptions meaningless. However, it does make the "traditional Christians believe X, whereas Mormons believe Y" statements inaccurate and incomplete in a way that cannot be remedied without the addition of messy and opinionated caveats that often have little to do with the historical intersection between Mormonism and Christianity.COGDEN 19:47, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, COGDEN. It's just messy. Tom 20:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bhugh, what an interesting review. Almost makes me drool over what could be presented here or somewhere. But Mkmcconn has a good point in that there is 'a conflict' (overarching? current?) that we should try to distill. I think the article reads a lot better today than it did two weeks ago. But I am still anxious to see what results from M's careful and thoughtful effort. The clarion call since the 1830's has been "Beware, my children, of Mormonism." This article should shed some light on that call. Tom 19:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

major deletion

I propose that we delete the entire section, ==Current Trends of Conflict==. I realize that this is a bit drastic, but I do think that I have the beginnings of a reasonable proposal for what should take its place. My userspace thinking page gives some of my rationale. I would appreciate comments there, if you are interested in improving my thinking; or comments here if you are opposed or in favor of the proposal to delete that section. Mkmcconn — 01:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to propose an extreme stand on this: We must remove conjecture and guesswork from these articles. Too many statements are based on "Mormons say this," "Christians say that," and undocumented (or frankly unfounded) propositions. This is about Mormonism and Christianity, not "Mormons" and "Christians." If a statement can be documented and directly cross-referenced, then by all means let's include those statements, and include the cross-reference. I really think this is the only way we're going to settle most of the conversations around content (ie, "Mormonism is," "Joseph Smith said [x] in [y]," "The president of the Evangelical Church of America said [x] in [y]," etc). Sterlingbates 03:48, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, I say proceed. I largely structured the current article, and I am certainly willing to see your restructuring. Sterlingbates, I'd beg you to hang around a bit longer and give your ideas a bit more congealing time. I have the idea that from the outsider perspective, religions are are at least as much about their adherents as about their leaders. So please be slow and careful. Tom 17:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tom, I agree :) I hope more to generate discussion and focus than to create debate. I apologize if my remarks come across too strong; I do feel strongly about getting things right (as I'm sure most others here do as well). I'll perhaps take more time to write down my thoughts. Sterlingbates 04:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Magic?

I'm more than a little surprised to find the first historical background sentence tying Mormonism to Magic and religion. Not being an expert on Joseph Smith's family, it is entirely possible that they practiced and/or believed in magic. However, the premise of magic (from the folk magic page) is this:

The basic mechanism of magical practices is the spell, a spoken or written formula which is used in conjunction with a particular set of ingredients.

Which is nowhere present in Mormonism. Anointing comes as close as anything, but even that has its roots in Christianity, not in magic.

Comments? Sterlingbates 06:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, need to correct the destination of the folk magic link. It rather goes to Magic and Religion (!). Also, in reading the full discussion on magic, the only part of that article that accurately deals with Mormonism is the line:

Closely related to magic is religious ritual, such as prayer. The major difference between magic and ritual is that ritual does not always work, even when it is carried out properly. Rather, the proper performance of a ritual simply increases the likelihood of a desired result coming to pass.

Given that the vast majority of the content on that page has nothing to do with Mormonism (and fails to clarify that), I'm inclined to remove the link in favor of an article that directly discusses any of Mormonism's ties to magic. Sterlingbates 06:59, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The "Magic and religion" page is not what should be meant (I'm inclined to think it's conceived as a subtly anti-Christian article). But, the link doesn't need to have anything to do with Mormonism directly, to be linked. Please do not think that every link on this page needs to be about Mormonism (I don't know for sure, if this isn't what you meant.) Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not every link needs to be about Mormonism per se, but it needs to be relevant. We could link to all sorts of varied articles about things like Wicca, incantation, devil worship, etc, but they wouldn't be relevant. Magic is just as out of place in my opinion (at least this particular article on magic). Sterlingbates 16:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with the current content of the Magic and religion page; however, I think it's the most relevant link. Though magic is almost nonexistent in modern Mormonism (except in a few very small Mormon-Wicca groups), magic was a significant part of the life of Joseph Smith and his family, as well as Oliver Cowdery, and in fact it was a part of life of most of the earliest Mormons, and even most American Christians at the time (up until the mid-1800's). And it did involve spells, seer stones, divining rods, spirits and familiars, etc. This is all well-documented. COGDEN 17:39, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tying magic to their lives isn't the same as tying magic to Mormonism. Keep in mind that Joseph never stated that all doctrines came to him at once; they were built upon as he received inspiration. An individual can practice Buddhist meditation in his or her personal time without actively teaching belief in Buddhism. (That's not to say that aspects of Buddhism wouldn't affect other aspects of that individual's life, but here we're not talking about linking Joseph Smith to magic, we are talking about linking Joseph Smith's teachings to magic.) Sterlingbates 18:39, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you want to clarify that the connection is to Joseph Smith, rather directly to the teachings themselves, that's fine. To an outsider, folk magic appears all as one and the same with looking into a hat to translate golden plates found with seer stones; but if there is a real difference it would be relevant to explain what it is, to avoid misunderstanding. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Which leads to the question, "What is magic and what is religion?" I am personally convinced Magic is the use of supernaturality for non-spiritual (non-Godly) purposes, or it is man-directed supernaturality instead of God-directed. (p.s. No seerstone used to find golden plates.) Tom 20:03, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Not that I'm any sort of expert on Mormon history, but in this case it was sloppy editing to blame: originally something like, "to an outsider, treasure found with seer stones is all the same as..." but I lost the sense of my own sentence when I changed it, and spliced the middle piece to the end. Anyway, I get things wrong; but in this case, it was my own thought that I got jumbled. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:37, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is a lame thread in my opinion. Most of you use folk magic in some form everyday still. When you wear your lucky socks, hit a wall to find the stud to hammer in a nail, flip a coin, or use a hanger to find a water or gas line before digging, using mud to relieve pain on a beesting, talking to a dead relative as if they were there, or even using yoga or other form of meditation - these are all forms of folk magic - or what is known today as "old wives tales." Smith using a divining rod, familiars or putting a "seer stone" in a hat was common and is still today in many places. I disagree with it being a part of this article, as I don't agree with the lead researcher (Quinn) on the topic's theories, methods or conclusions. Is it facinating because we don't use the same forms of magic? Yes. But irrelevant as for the time it was common - and is common today (just in different forms). Does everyday life affect religion? It should. We are placing our standards on them. Take history theory class. Lame thread. Lame conclusions. -Visorstuff 20:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can't say I disagree, V. That's pretty much my POV on it. Tom 21:56, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a good time to identify the target audience. Coming from a broad (though perhaps not very deep) religious background, and having had countless discussions/debates/arguments/etc on religion, I think I have a feel for what other people think when they hear certain words. When the people I know see "magic" or "heresy" associated with religion, they think "cult." These people are educated, by the way — they have degrees, well-paying jobs, and contribute to society. Ask 100 LDS members whether they think "magic" and "heresy" are apt descriptions for their religion and 90 of them will say "no." While you know the historical context of magic and folk magic, I bet the same cannot be said of the majority of society.

The question is whether we're here to educate people on Mormonism, or to educate people on religion in general. If it's the former, use terms they're familiar with that won't engender undue prejudice (unless of course prejudice is the goal). It's perfectly reasonable (and accomplished every day) to both praise and criticize using every-day terms. If it's the latter, we need to double the size of these articles by explaining each the context of each potentially prejudicial term's use.

As the first line in the entire discussion page says, this is a very controversial topic. Let's not fan the flames by introducing overtly controversial ways of saying things. (As I said above, I think that can apply for both apologetics and critics of Mormonism.) Anyway, that's my peace. Sterlingbates 04:38, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would agree in a normal page, but as this particular article is dedicated to discussing the intersection between Mormonism and Christianity, you have to mention the reason why the established sectarian Christian ministers in Smith's neighborhood didn't take him seriously. We tend to judge Joseph Smith's impact by modern standards, as if he had the First Vision and used his seer-stones yesterday. But times change. Today, Smith would have had his own TV show on the Sci-Fi Channel; 50 years ago he would have been locked up in an asylum; 100 years ago he could have charged good money to let the upper-class spiritualists sit in a dark boardroom during his divinations. In the 1840s, Smith was a heretic and a blasphemer. But in the 1820s, visions and crystal balls were just a part of American life. Shouldn't we at least explain that prior to the Book of Mormon, Smith's First Vision, seer-stone activities, and dealings with buried gold plates were dismissed because they represented a form of folk-Christianity that the sectarian revivalists of the time were trying to "correct", and which they did eventually "correct" by the mid-1800s?COGDEN 08:03, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, wikiness has come back to bite me. I'd like to clarify that I'm not against the wholesale mention of magic here (in spite of what I said earlier today). I am against the use of out-of-context articles on magic being tied to Mormonism with, as far as I can see, absolutely no relation at all. (Note that while the article mentions "folk magic" the link actually goes to "Magic and religion," a very different article.) That's pretty much all I have to say on this. Sterlingbates 15:43, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

COGDEN - I disagree with portions of your statement - this part of the discussion is irrelevant. No serious scholar takes that particular research on folk-magic seriously, in my opinion. Who besides Quinn (who is a qualified and serious researcher of Mormonism) cites folk magic as a target of the ministers of the day? Even the Tanner's don't go there (which should say something). They reference it, but in the way I suggested. There is not the research out there that supports it. This is the problem I have with Quinn. He is not peer supported, and UNTIL he can be taken seriously by his peers, the research will be dismissed as invalid. The topic of magic is therefore not needed and should be removed. It is irrelevant to most comparisons of Mormonism and Christianity, which is what this article is about. I agree with Sterlingbates that most who read will never understand the difference because they don't read. Not that they are uneducated, but rather they are un-contexted. Because they don't read the primary sources or the reliable, trusted and proven secondary sources for context, they'll be misled by the topic. Let' finally put this in it's own article about Folk magic in the 1800s where it belongs and include the topic from a religous, non-Mormon POV. Lets stick with mainstream history and leave of the fringe research-Visorstuff 22:18, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think magic it's irrelevant here, and should at least be mentioned in passing, if for no other reason than because Joseph Smith mentions it in his own 1838 history, and implies it was one of the reasons for his persecution. I think it's also important in order to give context and corroboration to Smith's description in 1838 of how his Methodist minister treated his visions with contempt. The minister's first reaction was that visions and revelations aren't from God, but rather are satanic. Why? because that's how he viewed folk magic. I don't think a Methodist minister in 2004 would have the same reaction. Therefore, telling the story without the folk-magic context makes Smith's story seem less credible to modern ears.

A note on Quinn, who wrote the treatise on the issue of Mormonism and folk magic: Quinn is very peer-supported and he's even got awards from historical societies for his work on early Mormon folk magic; he's just not FARMS-supported. Even some of the critical FARMS people have admitted that Quinn is viewed as a "god" among non-apologetic and secular Mormon historians. We have to be careful not to confuse FARMS-support with peer-support in general. COGDEN 17:42, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Good points, COGDEN. Well expressed. Let's apply them, but not go overboard. Our piecemeal nibbles at your reworking of my earlier introduction have resulted in a yucky piece of writing in section 1.1. Let's see if we can fix it suitably. Tom 19:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

COGDEN, I disagree. The story has relevance and is contextually sound even without the telling about folk magic (by the way, I don't recall Smith using those words in his history, so should we?). He simply wasn't believed my ministers of other faiths. He still isn't today - and not because he practised folk magic. Yes, his skills with divination were later assigned by ministers to have been acquired by the devil, but it has no place in this article. Perhaps in the First Vision article, but not here.

Second, I am curious about true "peer support" on about Quinn's work on folk magic - support doesn't mean awards or acoolates by researchers saying that is nice work, but it means that more historical scientists can verify his findings are unbias. I don't recall any on that nor his hierachy abstracts (drawing loose conclusions as to the cause Samuel's death, etc.). His work declined in credibility since his departure as a BYU employee. I have nothing against the man, however, a number of Mormon (not FARMS) scholars (both Mormon and non-Mormon) have expressed concern on his research methods. Although he provides good ideas for future research (which no one really will do as it can't be well-supported), he allows his conclusions to determine what fits into his research. Actually, that is a problem most lay Mormon apologists have as well - they take a one-line sound bite from some ancient document and say, "see... this must be evidence," when in fact it may by or may not be. Even Wesley has alluded to conversations he's had with Mormons about Arianism and other heretical sects that Mormons use to support their conclusions. Without peer-published support for the specified work, the rest is conjecture. Accolades and awards are nice, but support from peers and additional research on the subject is meat.

An example is the story of an archaelologist that comes into a Hilton Hotel a thousand years from now and shows his people that each room was a ceremonial temple, progressing from the large outer room to the inner sanctum of the porcelin god. Historians simply should not put their world view on a hsitorical event. They cannot determine what the conclusion will be and only use certain bits of evidence that support it, without sharing the evidence that does not support. It is too bias, as is Quinn's work. Since I referenced Samuel's death above, most doctors would argue that Samuel's death was caused by a simple medical issue, not poison, although some symptoms are the same, but in that partuclar work, Quinn never mentions it does he?

I try not to base any of my work on solely one source, and try to get a balanced historical perspective from multiple sources. Nearly all of your references to folk magic that you've included in these articles come from only one source - that of Mr. Quinn. Please use more than one source to support your conclusions as well and I let it go a bit easier. This has been the point of contention by multiple editors on this Wiki to your work - cite multiple sources, you tend to rely too heavily on just a few fringe Mormonism historians. I don't use much information from FARMS, FAIR, Peterson, Sorenson or Nibley for my work, but try to branch out to reliable published work from multiple universities and authors and particularly primary sources. Why? You have to have more than one reliable source, or you are seen as not credible.

As for FARMS, I don't recall them addressing much of Quinn's work either, just a piece here and there. No support or non-support. Why were they dragged into this? I can't say I'm a huge fan either way.

I'm not trying to be rude with all these comments, just honest. Hope it is not taken as an insult or as an offense. -Visorstuff 23:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am not nearly as knowledgeable on this subject as you two, COGDEN and V. My personal opinion is that the current article is worse off for the addition of the magic material, but I will let the two of you figure that out, since I have a conflict of interest, being the author of the previous intro. If I had my way, we would remove Historical background->Conflicts between early Mormonism and traditional Christianity and revert the opening paragraphs to the 09:59, 17 Jun 2004 version and go from there again in improving it. Tom

I'm not adamantly committed to including a detailed analysis of the folk magic vs. sectarian angle in this particular article. I think it ought to be mentioned if any analysis is made of Christian hostility toward Mormonism between 1820-1830. However, we could just as easily paint with a broad brush and start the analysis at 1830 with the publication of the Book of Mormon. But I don't think we should say anything about pre-1830 hostilities without mentioning the folk magic angle. No other historical material we have about Christian vs. Mormonism hostilities before 1830 is any less sketchy or inferential than what we know about folk magic in the Smith family and how that magic would have been perceived by sectarian Christians of the time.

I understand where you're coming from, in disliking historical inference; but without inference we wouldn't have much history. And I don't think it's correct to characterize Quinn as a fringe historian--maybe a cutting-edge Mormon historian and a revisionist whose work is both deductive and inferential, but his work has been remarkably well-taken and is frequently cited. He does tend to make holistic inferences from the available historical sources; however, he's pretty careful to explain the rationale for those inferences, and is good about citing original source material. Moreover, in the particular area of early Mormon folk magic, there is probably nobody more prepared or qualified to make these inferences, and his inferences are more plausible than anybody else has come up with thus far (I'm not saying I agree with them all, just that nobody at FARMS has come up with a rational alternative theory yet that a non-believer/non-disbeliever would find plausible). He did much of his research while he was still at BYU; but I don't think the fact he resigned from BYU makes him any less credible. If he were still working at BYU, I'd always be wondering in the back of my mind whether he was self-censoring or moderating his work to keep his job. COGDEN 21:29, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Somebody has done very good recent work with the section that mentions magic. It now reads well and is useful. It may have a future. Good work, guys. Tom 19:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem with making a declaration that Smith did or did not use 'magic' or to refer to his actions as such is that we would appear to be taking sides in the debate which has been raging since Smith first told his Minister about the First Vision. It would perhaps be prudent to simply provide both sides of the debate in a seperate article, than link to the appropriate articles from there.

More discussion of changes

Here's a few excerpts from the article that I'd like to visit:

1. "Smith's earliest religious experiences, which involved heavenly visions and visitations, the use of seer stones to obtain obscure knowledge and to locate buried treasure, were not uncommon where Smith lived, and the fashionably elite Protestant clergy of the area were not impressed by Smith's early visions and divinations, but neither were they likely surprised or alarmed"

There are a couple problems with the above. First, whether seer stones were used by others to obtain obscure knowledge particularly "where Smith lived." (I'll explain why I think that's important later.) Second, whether Joseph used "the" seer stones (Urim and Thummim) to locate buried treasure, and whether such efforts were religious experiences (to him they were not). (To my knowledge his treasure hunting efforts were limited to the time prior to obtaining the Urim and Thummim.) Third, whether the "fashionably elite Protestant clergy" (whatever that means, which probably needs changing) were not impressed by the early visions and divinations (and subsequently not surprised or alarmed). This claim should either a) be removed for its lack of verifiability, or b) be augmented by the remarks that Joseph himself makes as a first-hand witness.

I honestly don't have a recommended alternative. The entire paragraph is fairly ripe for discussion in my opinion. Just to recap:

a. Whether the use of seer stones was restricted to Joseph's residential area.

b. Whether treasure hunting was a religious experience for him.

c. i. Whether the term "fashionably elite" is remotely relevant to the article.

c. ii. Joseph's own recount of clergy response should be included at the very least.

First, the use of seer stones were not restricted to Smith's residential area. Folk magic was apparently a pretty widespread American phenomenon. Second, I don't think there is evidence to suggest that Joseph Smith made a distinction between secular use of magic and religious use of magic. Most of the time, divination was just a business concern for the Smith family. The would locate wells, hidden treasure, and lost object with divining rods or seer stones. But that doesn't mean it was secular. The distinction between secular magic and religious magic is mainly a distinction created by 20th Century Christians who wanted to practice magic without feeling like a "devil-worshipper". Joseph Smith, on the other hand, apparently made no such distinction between magic and Christianity. Sometimes he used his seer stones to locate hidden or lost items for pay; sometimes he used his seer stones to determine the will of the Christian God, or to communicate with angels or translate Christian scripture.COGDEN 20:36, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Second, Smith's own account of being ridiculed by a Methodist minister is important because it corroborates other historical sources that show that the sectarian revivalists such as that Minister would have initially (until he published the Book of Mormon) viewed Smith as just another poor deluded soul who had been "taken-in" by folk magic, which they opposed. The reason why a Methodist minister would be so opposed to the idea of modern visions (much more so than a modern Methodist minister would be) was because he'd probably had the same type of discussion with many other of his new converts who similarly claimed to have had visions or other experiences with folk magic, and it was the minister's job to "correct" the error of their ways.COGDEN 20:36, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2. "the Burned-over district of western New York where Joseph Smith, Jr. was raised" is facially inaccurate. Joseph spent the first ten years of his life in Vermont, with only four years in New York prior to the First Vision. I suggest the following rewording of the second half of the entire sentence:

"that campaign also took place in the Burned-over district of western New York where Joseph Smith, Jr. had lived for four years."

You can make changes like this without discussion; an edit note explanation is sufficient. Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

3. "Nevertheless, Mormon extrapolations regarding Jesus are in many ways more similar to the earliest Christian heresies." A rather strong claim <grin>, and I don't mind keeping it in, but it should be on the following conditions: 1. "earliest" be quantified to a given year, and "Christian" quanitified to a sect of the time. 2. We add the following text from Hugh Nibley's "The World and the Prophets," which tells of a time when current generally-accepted Christian beliefs were heresies:

"Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Trallians: 'There are some Christ-betrayers... They introduce God as being unknown.' And to the Smyrnaens he says: 'Do ye, therefore, mark those who preach other doctrines, how they affirm that the Father of Christ cannot be known." (page 55)

"The great crime of the heretics in general, according to the Apostolic Constitutions, is 'that they blaspheme God by saying that he is unknowable and not the Father of Christ...but is indescribable, unutterable, unnamable, self-begotten...'" (page 55)

These paragraphs are not self-explanatory to me. What do you think that they are saying? Do you think that these are describing a belief as heresy, that is now considered orthodox? Even if this were true (and it is not), what is its relevance except as a piece of Mormon apologetics? Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The paragraphs do describe a time when a triune/unknown/all-in-one God was heresy. (Granted, heresy can probably be focused down to a given group at a given time, since any given belief is heresy to at least one other group. If this is the case, however, then the entire statement on which #3 is based should be removed.) The reason for including it is to offset the anti-Mormon statement that Mormonism teaches "the earliest Christian heresies." Sterlingbates 16:24, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That isn't how they read to me, at all. It is still a heresy to say that the Father cannot be known: and it is a complete denial of the Christian faith, because it is for the very purpose of making the Father known that Christ came. And anyway, unless it is your intention to make the page into a forum for carrying on the debate (as opposed to reporting on it), this line of argument is counter-productive. Mkmcconn (Talk) \

Furthermore, what you are calling an "anti-Mormon" statement, was written by a Mormon editor; and it doesn't strike me as prejudicial to the Mormon case. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:56, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(My reply to this is pretty moot it seems, since most of the content discussed here is being replaced with newer content. Basically my point was to make sure that keeping it in is A Good Thing(tm). Regardless of the POV of the author of the statement, I believe it needs to be removed.) Sterlingbates 17:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's very easy to find quotations from Ignatius that show he believed that God the Father and God the Son are one God. For a time period, I would compare the Mormons to some of the Gnostic beliefs cataloged by Irenaeus in Against Heresies. For that matter, Mormons seem to think the god who created or begot God the Father is unknown, do they not? Wesley 17:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, Mormonism teaches that God's own Father or Creator is just as knowable as our own, but that our God is the "final authority," so to speak, as far as we are concerned. Sterlingbates 17:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The trinitarian answer is that "no one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who intimately knows the Father, has explained him". That is, the Father is only known, and has ever only been known, through his eternal word, the Son. No one knows the Father, except the one to whom the Son reveals him. But if he reveals him, the Father is knowable and known indeed.

The "earliest" heresies in view, are probably various types of ecclectic Christianities, which merge Christianity with pagan and speculative notions, often called "mystery religions", or less descriptively, "gnosticism". Ideas such as the eternality of matter, the finite deity of God, finite deity of Christ, salvation conceived in terms of an optimistic view of human potential, tri-theism or henotheism, denial of the authority of (catholic) bishops, apocryphal scriptures and esoteric teachings, belief in the necessity of progressive revelation to provide for the unity and guidance of the church, etc., were all ideas that were criticized by the catholics as early as the second century. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

4. "Mormon followers of Brigham Young generally believe in Young's doctrine that Jesus was "born" into a "spirit body", like the rest of humanity, and remained in that state until his Incarnation."

The word incarnation doesn't fit the context of the sentence, and I'd prefer to discuss Mormonism here. I recommend we change that to say:

"The branch of Mormonism lead by Brigham Young teaches that Jesus was "born" into a "spirit body," like the rest of humanity, and remained in that state until his mortal birth."

I have no problem with this change, though it seems to show Mormonism as comparable to Arianism's credo that 'there was a time when Jesus was not' (i.e. did not exist), with the difference that Mormonism seems to think that everyone always existed (?). Wesley 17:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The form of our existence, as taught by Mormonism, is not a constant. Initially everybody began as pure intelligence, with no spirit body. Whether there was a prior existence to that I don't believe Mormonism says. We progress from there to a spirit body, then to a combined spirit/flesh body. The basis for this is that everything is matter ("there is no such thing as immaterial matter"), including intelligence, and since matter cannot be created nor destroyed we have essentially always existed. Sterlingbates 17:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, you are citing speculation "as taught by Mormonism." Orson Pratt was the first to push the idea that un-embodied spirits were "intelligence" based on his interpretation of a statement in the D&C. Roberts taught that un-embodied spirits were particles of light and truth. Young, Taylor and others disagreed on the precise meaning and never taught as doctrine statements supporting. Later Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee both taught that any statements on the topic were speculative and not supported by current revelation. There are two main camps here. To read more on the subject, see Brent Top's work on the Pre-motal Existence (The Life Before: How Our Premortal Existance Affects Our Mortal Life, ISBN 0884946746). -Visorstuff

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on "Intelligences" here is a useful, brief summary of that topic. —B|Talk 02:42, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But Mkmcconn has recently said a problem with the article is it speaks too much Mormonese. Incarnation is a more mainstream term. Tom 17:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems my initial understanding of "incarnation" had additional connotations. After consulting the dictionary I agree that it's OK. Sterlingbates 17:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If it's more precise to say something else, then I would prefer that alternative language. But the distinction isn't clear to me. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

5. "He claimed to have received revelation only after asking questions about a subject, pondering, and praying to God for an answer. As Smith's teachings evolved, his later teachings painted a strikingly different picture of the Father and the Son with physical celestial bodies, being one in purpose together with the Holy Spirit."

I think the first sentence is out of place (read it in context to see my meaning). I'd like to clarify the second sentence; it could be understood that Smith's teaching's regarding the Godhead changed rather than expanded. I'd like to reword as follows:

"As Smith's teachings about God expanded they gradually painted a strikingly different picture of the Father and the Son than that of other churches, with each possessing a physical, purified body, being one in purpose with the Holy Ghost."

(As a side note, the phrase "especially in the region of the country where Mormonism originated" in the sentences prior to that is, IMHO, equally unnecessary.)

Sure. Wesley 17:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

6. (Last one) "Some Latter Day Saint churches such as the Community of Christ" should probably read "Some Mormon-based churches such as the Community of Christ".

I'm not certain what the difference is here. What difference would this change make? Wesley 17:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Mormon-based" is POV, I think. Latter Day Saint fits the naming conventions of the Wikipedia. See Latter Day Saint Movement. Tom 17:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are all Mormon-based churches that have retracted certain beliefs categorized as Latter Day Saint? Sterlingbates 17:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Floor opened. Sterlingbates 07:58, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

These questions you pose are important in that they help you personally acquaint with the article constraints and Wikipedia needs to the point that you can help with the large-scale changes Mkmcconn is contemplating. In the bigger scheme, these sentences will probably eventually go away. But discussing them is still helpful for us all. Tom 17:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll wait for Mkmcconn to merge his changes in. Any idea of a timeline for that? Sterlingbates 17:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet, how to proceed; so, there isn't any timeline. My first inclination is to delete the section detailing Mormon doctrines. But, without a clear plan for what should take its place, it seems inevitable that it will simply come back and the work put into that section will have to be duplicated. If you are interested in helping me think this through, I'd be grateful for your input; but I apologize ahead of time for how vague and undirective my present state of thiniking is. See User:Mkmcconn/Scratchpad, and the discussion attached. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC).

Ditto. Don't hold your breath. It is a monumental task. As you can tell this is a very difficult subject to write on. What you can do is read User:Mkmcconn's userspace thinking page and help him focus on a direction for the article. It also might help for you to visit the List of Articles about Mormonism and read what has been written at Wikipedia on Mormon, Book of Mormon, Mormonism, Later Day Saint Movement, and other general Mormon subjects. Keeping everything coherent, consistent, NPOV, accurate, and maintainable is quite a task, which is why your contributions are so valuable. You may also want to contribute any special knowledge you have to more specialized Mormonism-related pages, such as Reformed Egyptian, Golden Plates, etc. More info is needed on the Three Witnesses (in the Golden Plates article, I think). Tom 18:11, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Er, I just made several bold changes. Let that be an example to you, Sterlingbates. Be bold! (Now watch me get reverted.)  :-) Tom 03:50, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

A Different Salvation

I don't think this section comes close. Instead of discussing the differences in salvation, it focuses on how to attain salvation, essentially rehashing the old faith vs. works argument. It also focuses on Calvinism, which is a subset of Protestantism, and wholly ignores the differences with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I think the real difference is in what the final result looks like in Mormonism: becoming like God to the extent that we are each equal to God in His divine attributes, including the power to create new worlds, populate them with people, and eventually exalt them into new gods as well. I base this mainly on the LDS section of the Theosis article, btw; if what I just said isn't representative of the LDS church, perhaps that section needs revision so it doesn't mislead the uninformed, like myself. Wesley \

I would edit it, but it looks more like it needs a complete rewrite, and wanted to discuss that here first. Wesley 17:12, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, that's a very bad part of the article that needs to be fixed. I know that we must do some of this comparing back and forth, but it is hard to do it productively. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:38, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A Different Jesus

I'm sorry I had to remove this from the article, Wesley. "Simply put, Mormons believe Jesus was first just a man and then became a god like God the Father, whereas traditional Christians believe Jesus was God who later became a man while still remaining God." I appreciate your sticking with this, and I think you are pretty much on track with your statement of Theosis in Mormonism above, but in this area, we probably need to talk further. Mormonism has God the Son creating the heavens and the earth, volunteering to be the Savior, incarnating as the Son of God, doing the will of the Father, then resuming his heavenly throne at the right hand of the father. I think it helps to remember that it would be very rarely reasonable to call Mormonism unbiblical, but very often reasonable to call it extra-biblical. So if the bible obviously teaches that Jesus of Nazareth claimed that "before Abraham was, I AM", Mormons believe that. If you take more of that approach and perspective, I think describing Mormonism gets easier. Tom 20:41, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Correct. Jesus was God prior to his incarnation. -Visorstuff 23:52, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to correct my misunderstandings. Ok, Jesus was God prior to his incarnation. Was he the same as God the Father or a different God, and if the same, in what sense? Also, was Jesus in any way a man before he was God? Was God the Father a man before He was God? Based on past responses, I expect the answers to most of these to be "yes, but we don't think these areas are very important and don't spend much time talking about them." I believe that Mormons think they are biblical, but I also think that they employ very different definitions for some words, such as "eternal" and "supreme", so much so that I can't take such things for granted. Plus of course there are passages that we just plain interpret differently. Wesley 04:02, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To your questions, 1- he was the same as God the Father prior to his birth in authority, but the Father "presides" over all that is done. Not the same person, but same in authority and status. Most Mormons will say that you have to be an exalted man to be a god, but this was not the case with Christ. He was God prior to his being a man. Again, the easiest way to understand this is to think of God as an office, like a patriarch or a bishop. In this sense there are many bishops in orthodoxy who have equal authority, but only one who presides over certain groups. 2-Christ was not a "man" prior to his becoming God, however, he was a spirit child of Elohiem. 3- Yes, the father is an exalted man. Whatever that means. Any conjecture to understand what that means is pure speculation. You, the majority of Mormons and everyone else surmises that that means he lived on an earth, and that exalted men may create their own worlds, etc., which may be true, however, it is not stated as doctrine. We simply don't know. It's not that they aren't important (which is relative), it's that there are no solid answers. And yes we agree we understand certain terms much differently than you. Regardless, it is still biblical as it is based on bible teachings. You feel they are incorrect teachings, but by definition, is still bible-based. -Visorstuff 13:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So God the Father is an exalted man, but Jesus is not an exalted man? But both are Gods, just as there can be multiple bishops... this seems to suggest polytheism. Traditional Christianity avoids polytheism through the doctrine of the Trinity; how does Mormonism? As far as being Bible-based, that by itself means relatively little, though it might mean more to Protestants who embrace sola scriptura. Arianism was Bible-based, as were many other heresies. They all misused the scriptures, were all contrary to the faith that Christ gave to the Apostles, which they gave to the Church and which the Church has kept. There is no historical evidence of a Great Apostasy. More to the point of this article, you cannot claim agreement where the agreement is only in the words used, and not in the meaning behind the words. Wesley 16:41, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wesley, you and I and others have been over this over and over with you. I don't think you are even trying to understand this anymore - it's like splitting hairs with you. 1- Jesus NOW is an exalted man - he lived, died, was resurrected and enjoys Eternal life. But he didn't have to be an exalted man to become a god. 2- The doctrine of the Godhead as very similar to the doctrine of the trinity, if you will, to "avoid" polytheism - as you say. We worship God the Father through his Son Jesus Christ. In the catholic Church all bishops are equal, but only one presides - and he is the pope - only one of those. Only one God the Father, although Christ and the Holy Ghost are also God. I agree with that bible-based means very little - so why did you bring it up in the first place? I also agree that many non-Latter Day Saint churches consider Mormons heretical. Many Catholics consider Anglicans heretical. What's the point? In addition, you can't say that Arianism "misused" scripture and was "contrary to the faith" (although I agree with that point) as you weren't around when the apostles were, and the historical documents we have is based on oral tradition and could have been altered by the time they were recorded (see Q Document). You were not there, you cannot know for certain. I believe there is historical "evidence" of a great apostacy - but I don't believe there is historical proof. There is a difference. To the final point - who is claiming agreement in this article? We merely point out similarities and differences. We realize that we have more precise meanings for words used than most of the rest of Christianity, and that those connotations are much different, yet similar, to your doctrines. I'm sick of seeing explanations of this sort to you time and time again you that you refuse to understand. Can you ever see similarities to Mormonism and Orthodoxy? My guess is that the hairs are too wide for you to step over. Not trying to be rude - it's just the same arguments with you over and over and over again. Most people see the similarities. You are educated - can't you see it too? -Visorstuff 18:47, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt in a conversation I've only followed partially as an observer. I wanted to say a couple of things. One is that I admire the ability all of the people here have had to have productive dialogue while disagreeing -- in fact, I've pointed this page out to others here as an example of the wiki process at work in one of its best forms. I detect frustration here, and I hope you both can find ways to prevent it becoming any more than that, because frankly I admire both of you, and you're one of the biggest reasons why I still believe this place can work. And I also wanted to step in as a Christian (whose theology is probably best described as Anglican, although I'm a bit more conservative than most Anglicans) to share my perspective. Visor, of course I can see, as a Christian, many elements of Mormonism that appear similar to my faith in practice. However, in my conversations with Mormons over the years (all of them pleasant, I must say), it's obvious to me that, in any discussion of the possible differences between our faith, Mormons seek (naturally) to minimize differences and to treat the importance of any differences as minor, while Christians seek (naturally, also, I think) to maximize differences and to treat the importance of any differences as major. To me, for example, God cannot be an "exalted man" according to the Scriptures, whereas you see that as a minor point and a mystery of your faith. I'm not saying you're wrong to respond in that way -- just that I think, to some extent, Wesley's behavior here (and yours) are what is to be expected. Our goal, I think, needs to be a way of describing the differences and similarities such that both sides can grudgingly admit them to be essentially fair, while acknowledging that any good compromise will leave both sides feeling that some important aspects aren't covered properly. That's the nature of consensus and NPOV, I think. You'll never convince Wesley and I (I suspect, anyway) that Mormonism is a branch of Christianity. We'll never convince you (I also suspect) that Mormonism is unbiblical. The best we can hope to do is to try for understanding one another: I've been impressed that both sides have striven for this, and I hope you can both continue to do the almost superhuman job you've been doing. Sorry for intruding, and I'll go now, but I thought my opinion might be worth glancing at. If I've been offensive (and truly, it is my desire to avoid that completely), please let me know so that I can apologize. Thank you, Jwrosenzweig 19:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Instead of "minimize differences", I perceive that it would be better to say that Mormons are quick to argue that the differences (although real and important) are not costly in the way that we suppose that they are. They argue, they are not sacrificing faith in Scripture, by believing in other Scripture, or in believing that precious truths have been lost which formerly were written. They are not sacrificing the majesty of God, his excellence and perfection, by believing that God was once as we are, and that they are on a course toward becoming like him. They do not deny grace, in believing that because Christ paid for the debt to Heavenly Father on account of sins, they have become indebted to Christ. And so on. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As usual, Mkmcconn is far better at stating things precisely, fairly, and elegantly than I am. I knew I was typing too quickly and speaking to generally -- what he has written is very much what I believe to be the case. I'm sorry for any confusion caused by my initial statement. Jwrosenzweig 20:38, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to be frustrated. It just seems like the same discussions are brought up again and again for more than a year now. Perhaps Wesley is right below and more articles should result out of this page. Definitely showing the differences between the similarities in doctrine is the purpose of the page. I hope I haven't come off as condescending or rude, but sometimes we feel that we should just link to earlier discussions to "points" that are trying to be made. My point is lets get to fixing the specific issues in the article, not rehash old arguments. Mkmcconn - well said. I do agree with the statement above - in a similar way, Mormons feel there is more to Christianity in a similar way that Christians believe there is more to Judaism than they believe. It is not that they are wrong, but do not have the "fulness of the gospel." Your comment above was very well stated. -Visorstuff 21:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig, I think you hit the nail on the head. Thank you. One of the most helpful things in these discussions is to focus on how to present things (and viewpoints) accurately in the article, and not try to convince each other or score debating points here in the Talk pages. The latter is certainly a temptation I face, and I've probably given in to it more than I should.

Having said that... Visorstuff, I didn't bring up the "biblicalness" of Mormonism; you did in the first paragraph of this section: "I think it helps to remember that it would be very rarely reasonable to call Mormonism unbiblical, but very often reasonable to call it extra-biblical." As long as the article doesn't call Mormons "unbiblical" (does it?) I don't think this is a real issue.

My apologies - forgot Hawstom wrote that in the first paragraph of the section. No issue here. -Visorstuff 21:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And no, I admit I'm not trying to understand Mormonism per se; forgive me, but it strikes me as a bunch of nonsense that can't be properly understood without being immersed in it. I'm sure the same can be said of my own faith and theology by Mormons and atheists alike. What I am trying to do is identify the very real differences between Mormonism and Christianity, for the purposes of this article. You call this hair splitting, and I won't especially argue, except to add that these hair have always mattered to traditional Christianity. As the filioque clause article points out, the split between orthodoxy and Arianism in the fourth century was literally over a single iota. It seems to me that you keep trying to claim agreement wherever the same words are used (things like "Like traditional Christianity, Mormonism believes..."). This is personally frustrating and seems dishonest when Mormonism is merely using the same or nearly the same language to mean something very different. Maybe the real point of 'disagreement' is the extent of these similarities. As for the differences between other various denominations, perhaps those are articles waiting to be written. Wesley 20:16, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wesley, I'm sorry you feel it is a bunch of nonsense. Any religion can be best understood by those who live it. It is that case with any religion, as you stated. I agree that we should focus on the relationship of Mormonism and/within Christianity and show how the similarities we speak of are both similar and different - and show both sides. I would love that.

I'm sorry that some things seem "dishonest" to you - what Mormons believe and what the Church teaches are two very different things. A "Traditional Christian" example of this is pre-mortal existence. While it is denounced by the vast majority of denominations as false doctrine, nearly every mother states that her baby came to her from heaven and/or God's presence. There are at least three poems I can think of that state this. In this way the doctrine (correct or not) is believed by these people (at least partially), but not by their religious denomination. In a similar way, Mormons believe things that are not revealed, but are speculative. This is human nature. So the contradictory nature of some of my edits is not apologetic in all cases, but doctrinal corrections to what is actually taught as doctrine by the church. The rest is speculation. Hope this helps -Visorstuff 21:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tom here. Like Jwr, I am very impressed by this discussion. It is not digressing. It keeps trying to be respectful, and it is obvious the participants respect each other. I am very impressed by Mkmcconn's scratchpad effort. In talking and thinking about this in the past days and weeks, a few things about Mormonism and Traditional Christianity have crystallized for me. Here are some thoughts I'd like to try out for agreement, maybe even a new structure and direction for the article.

• Interreligious/intersectarian fights are a dime a dozen. What makes the M&TC fight interesting and different is that in large part they are fighting over the rights to the name of their God. Mormonism from its start was a self-declared break from traditional Christianity, but purported to be a more true form of Christianity. Early Mormons called themselves simply the Church of Christ, and all Mormons have always organized in churches "of Christ". If it weren't for their central focus on Jesus Christ, Mormons might have early on, or might eventually either self-designate or be de facto designated as a separate new religion, much as Christianity itself grew from a sect of Judaism into a new religion. And if a designation were to be coined that accurately captured Mormonism's devotion to Jesus Christ, the new so-name religion might readily renounce all ties with Christianity. But without a suitable alternate name, Mormons and traditional Christians find themselves scrapping for ownership of the name of their Lord. This creates the special dynamic of the modern relationship between M and TC.
• The difference between M and TC is at least as real to traditional Christians as it is to Mormons, and its core lies in the fundamental understanding of the nature of God, humans, and other beings. To TC, God is God, humans are humans, angels are angels, and devils are devils. To use a technical term, all are ontologically different. But to Mormons, God, humans, angels, and devils are all of the same lineage or family, and are only different in their history, position, quality, state, and authority. (I propose it may not be smart to explain this further in the article, though in Mormonism it means Godhood is a natural desitiny for humans, angels are or were or will be humans or Gods, and devils once were in potential Gods.) This difference in the conception of who is who causes M and TC to conceptualize (or model internally) differently the meaning of such Christian importants as salvation, atonement, and faith.
• To both M and TC, their differences are important. But they are more important to TC for the following reasons.
  • First, the genesis of Mormonism was with a vision in which God told Joseph Smith that the creeds of TC were "an abomination in my sight" and "their professors [adherents] were all corrupt". Consequently, Mormonism has always placed much less emphasis than TC on precise professions of faith and theological definitions.
  • Second, the failure to find a suitable way for Mormonism to make a clean break from TC due to mutual allegiance to the name of Christ leaves TC--by far the bigger and older, and thus immune to suggestions they abandon the name Christianity--at times with no option other than to show Mormonism is an entirely different brand of Christianity by alleging that "Mormons are not Christians".
  • Third, in token of the ideal of unity mentioned in the Bible ("one Lord, One faith, one baptism"), the Nicene Creed ("one holy, catholic church"), and the hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers" ("one in faith and doctrine"), many TC are desirous to shed any sectarian label in favor of being called simply "Christian". This leaves them no alternative but to label non-communing branches such as Mormonism as "non-Christian" to distinguish them from communing branches that accept the Nicene Creed (to name one example). Tom 19:20, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More modest deletion

After talking about this for some time, and thinking through this article repeatedly, I want to modify my deletion proposal, and eliminate the section on "Current Trends Conflict - Traditional Christian view". It can be re-written, but I think that it should start from scratch; and in the meantime I think that the article as a whole will be strengthened if this section is eliminated entirely for the time-being. I plan to do this today, if there is no objection (so speak up, if you disapprove). Mkmcconn (Talk) 23:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agree - do it, but save it as an archive talk page, if you would - there are some nuggets that are good to keep in the article, and I think we can read through the context of why it failed on the archive page better. -Visorstuff 23:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. I put it on its own archive page. Next, I'll get to work on what should take its place. Mkmcconn (Talk) 01:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Traditional view -- rewrite

I started a rewrite of the traditional view of the differences, beginning with the Church; and, I moved the section on "ecumenism" to the end to serve as a summary of the present state of the conflict. I also fiddled with what I considered an unnecessary subdivision of the Mormon view, separating the practices from the beliefs in what I thought to be a somewhat artificial way. Let me have a good accounting of the health of your toes, after all this stomping around! Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm still watching in amazement. M is doing a very good job of writing this. I'm not sure in the final analysis there needs to be a separation of TC view and Mormon view, though perhaps so. I think TC view should include the proposals I made above on the Trinity and salvation. Tom 19:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that it's helpful to keep the views separate. This way, the list of Mormon distinctives can grow to be as long as Mormons think it should be; and I won't be tempted to keep trying to make it shorter or to counter their claims with arguments disproving them. From the other side, it comes down to a very small number of central issues, from which all the rest follows. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:56, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Argumentative style - not preferred

Sterlingbates, reading through this article, you should notice that Mormonism is allowed to present an accurate picture of itself without being required to argue off an opposing view. For this to work, you must allow the same courtesy to the other side. Please do not insert debate into the explanation of views. Mkmcconn (Talk) 03:13, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My apologies, Mk, I hadn't read the titles closely enough to recognize that those were your sections. I thought they were starters for point-by-point discussion. Sterling 07:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, if in describing Evangelicalism (for example), Mormonism is described falsely (as distinct from unfavorably), that needs to be fixed. Mkmcconn (Talk) 10:08, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Aren't you still saying too much? Couldn't we cut this article way down in size by saying Mormonism is non-trinitarian and conceptualizes God as ontologically the same as angels, humans, and devils? And that based on that different foundation, TCs are careful about assuming common ground in anything Mormons explain? Tom 00:13, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

One topic or distinction I think should be added is the nature of salvation, namely what we need to be saved from and what goal we hope to achieve, from both LDS and traditional perspectives. This could be either instead of or in addition to the current section on Salvation near the end. I would even say instead of, because it distinguishes Mormonism from pretty much all other Christian groups and not just from evangelicals. Wesley 04:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer that, too. At the same time, it's probably important to note that most books and articles distinguishing Mormonism from Christianity are written from the Evangelical point of view. Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)