![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
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:
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."
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:
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."
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.)
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".
Floor opened. Sterlingbates 07:58, 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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
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:
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."
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:
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."
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.)
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".
Floor opened. Sterlingbates 07:58, 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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |