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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
There are a few problems with this. It states that following the Word of Wisdom is part of "Cultural" Mormonism. Actually, that's one of Mormonism's doctrines. It is required for temple worship or to be a member in good standing with the Church. I don't know if it might perhpas me practiced more widely in the utah-area than in other places, but it's a doctrine, rather than a cultural thing.
Also, the start says that it is referring mainly to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Cultural section says
It should be more explicitly stated that these fundamentalists do not belong to the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," but rather one of the break-off groups.
Chrieraux 19:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
What is truly amazing about this is that there are a plethora of people (Mormons?) who simply will not allow a POV besides their own to be presented on a neutral page. Are you guys assigned to watch over these pages so no one can dispute your POV, then alternate to change them so you don't violate the "3RV" rule? I've seen a number of changes made, and there must be at least a half-dozen people (Mormons?!) who simply won't allow any alteration of the text, nor will they read any of the discussion. Wow. So much for "neutral" and "unbiased". Try: http://www.citizendium.org - that's where wikipedia creators went after dealing with the likes of ya'll. Tapols ( talk) 02:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The question of classification is way too controversial to be answered in such a flip and unprofessional manner as "nope". If we are to address the question, we need to do so in using NPOV. ex. instead of "Are Mormons Christians", we should have a section something like this:
"Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity"
---Mormons emphatically see themselves as Christians; however this classification is disputed to varying degrees by many theologians. etc. Some Protestant denominations, while disagreeing with tenets of the Church of LDS, believe they are essentially Christian, while others argue that their acceptance of the Book of Mormon etc. (or other reasons etc) place them in a new category altogether. Etc.
(here we could summarize all arguments about the topic and provide info about:
1) the position of Mormon theologians, followers. 2) the position of various Protestant denominations, Roman Catholics etc. 3) the views of most lay Christians/Mormons 4) the politics of categorization. 5) a short list of differences etc. 6) the position of academic experts on Christianity/Mormonism.
I do not have a dog in this fight, but I think the current article is doing a disservice to interested readers. Sincerely, -- Ampersand 05:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that this section is neutral either. It states that Mormans are only "perceived" not to be Christians. Many, if not the majority of prominent Christian theologians do not consider mormanism to fit within the tenets of accepted Christian orthodoxy. Mormans do not believe in salvation by grace, they believe in salvation by works. Furthermore, I have a hard time understanding how anyone who believes that upon meeting the specified criteria, he will become a god of his own world, can be understood to be within what is understood as the historic Christian faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.34.227 ( talk) 03:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is an interesting debate between Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Orson Scott Card, author and commited Mormon. Start at the bottom of the page and work your way up so that "Mormonism is not Christianity" is read first. (That was the order of the debate) http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/mormondebate/ Itsadiel 18:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How dare we make such a bold claim; and, how rude and unChristian! Well, do we make that claim to be mean, or because we have a "bone to pick?" 1 John 4:1 says: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1 Thes 5:21 says: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. So, we are being quite Biblical in comparing Mormon doctrines to see if they align with the Bible. Let's compare Mormonism to the "Eight Essential Fundamentals of Christianity":
1. The Deity of Christ 2. Trinity 3. Bodily Resurrection 4. Salvation by Grace 5. Sufficiency of Scripture 6. Universality of Sin 7. The Atonement 8. The Virgin Birth
So, how many of the eight does Mormonism agree with: ZERO!
We don't make open-ended statements, so here is the evidence to back up our claim that Mormonism doesn't line up with the "Eight Essential Fundamentals of Christianity":
1. Deity of Christ: “Jesus became a God and reached His great state of understanding through consistent effort and continuous obedience to all the Gospel truths and universal laws.” (The Gospel Through The Ages, pg 51)
[Christianity does not believe Jesus was “a God;” Christianity believes Jesus was God: John 1:1.]
2. Trinity: “22. The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22)
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pg 345, 1844)
[Christianity believes in the Trinity – Mormonism believes in three Gods of this world and that there are an untold number of other Gods out there in the cosmos; and, that the Heavenly Father of this world is an exalted man who once lived on another planet in another galaxy far, far away and through eternal progression rose to become a God]
3. Bodily Resurrection: “The plan is simple. Man is in a fallen condition, beset with weaknesses and sin. Means are provided whereby he may rise, and, through the corridors of death and the portals of the resurrection, reach the way of eternal progression. These means are all comprised in obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.” (The Vitality of Mormonism, Ch.19, p.77-p.78, Apostle James E. Talmage)
[Christianity believes man will be resurrected to live eternally with Jesus Christ or to be condemned to Hell. Mormonism believes there is no Hell and man will be resurrected into 3 different Kingdoms of Heaven. Only Mormons can go to the top kingdom, called the Celestial Kingdom, and there they can by “Eternal Progression” become Gods just like the Mormon Heavenly Father of this earth did.]
4. Salvation by Grace: “However, one of the untrue doctrines found in modern Christendom is the concept that man can gain salvation (meaning in the kingdom of God) by grace alone and without obedience. This soul-destroying doctrine has the obvious effect of lessening the determination of an individual to conform to all of the laws and ordinances of the gospel,…” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 670-671, 1958)
[Salvation by grace alone, in Christ alone, through faith alone, is a foundational Christian teaching. Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie in his epic book “Mormon Doctrine” calls the Christian belief an “untrue” and “soul-destroying doctrine.”]
5. Sufficiency of Scripture: “Who, in his right mind, could, for one moment, suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution?” (Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, Orson Pratt, pg 47)
[Christianity believes the Bible is God’s inerrant Word for man. Mormonism believes the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly.” Anytime the Bible disagrees with Mormon Doctrine, it has been mistranslated, and “Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution?”]
6. Universality of sin: “Some may regret that our first parents sinned. This is nonsense. If we had been there, and they had not sinned, we should have sinned. I will not blame Adam or Eve, why? Because it was necessary that sin should enter the world; no man could ever understand the principle of exaltation without its opposite;…” (Journal of Discourses, Vol 10, pg 312, Brigham Young)
[Christianity teaches that all have sinned and in fact have a sin nature. Christianity teaches that the heart of man is wickedly deceitful (Jer 17:9), and all of our righteousness is as “filthy rags” (Isa 64:6), and only through our Savior, the Jesus Christ of the Bible, can we be saved from our sin. Mormonism teaches that Adam and Eve were required to eat of the fruit of the tree and it was not therefore a sin – that man is good and comes to earth to prove himself and earn his right to progress to become a God himself.]
7. The Atonement: “It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol 4, pg 54, Brigham Young)
[Christianity teaches that the blood of Jesus covers all sin (1 John 1:7). Mormonism believes man can commit sins which Jesus’ blood can never remit.]
8. The Virgin Birth: “These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 546-547)
[Christianity believes in the miracle of Christ’s birth (Mt 1:18). Mormonism relegates the conception of Jesus to “same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” Believing that the Mormon Heavenly Father has a body of flesh and bones, it is easy to see how Mormon leaders teach that God had a physical relationship with Mary to produce Jesus.]
So, are we being mean by saying that Mormonism isn’t Christian. No, we are not. Our claim is based on a factual comparison of Mormon doctrines compared to Christian doctrines. We didn’t make this evidence up. This evidence plus volumes of additional evidence to support these Mormon doctrinal positions are available if one simply wants to do the research to find them. Christianity and Mormonism are not the same. Mormonism fails all “8 Essential Fundamentals of Christianity,” yet insists that it really is Christian. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.190.25.201 (
talk) 10:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
All such doctrines have been rejected at one time. The Unitarian churches deny the Trinity. Pelagius denied the universality of sin, the atonement and salvation through grace. Sufficiency of scripture is plain odd, given that the bible took some time of getting written. Marcionite Christians even dumped the entire Old Testament. All of these were or are Christians. You can't just qualify Mormons as non-Christian solely on some criteria that were determined over the centuries. Mormons explicitly claim to be Christian. There is no authority that can deny them that, so they should be listed under Christian religions as a category. Ofcourse it can be said that other Christians don't agree with this. DDSaeger ( talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Unitarians aren't accepted by Orthodox or Protestant churches as a "denomination" either. While having roots connected -- in some fashion -- to traditional Christianity, the belief system is so vastly different as to be something else entirely. So it is with Mormonism. Hence, my ongoing effort to reflect the truth of the connection, which has been repeatedly -- in an organized way -- repudiated by a small army of propagandists clearly bent on promoting a biased, half-true statement regarding that relationship. My note to "Bytebear" on my and his talk pages:
"Isn't it interesting, Byte, that you can make assertions such as "This is primarily due to the fact that adherents to Mormonism claim that the movement is a restoration of the earliest Christian and Judaic doctrines" and yet don't feel the need to support YOUR statements with evidence, except that "we say so." The issue of whether you claim to be Christian isn't an issue in my edits. The FACT is that Orthodox and Protestant churches DO NOT accept that Mormonism is a "denomination," rather that it is a completely different belief system. Mormons do not accept the Trinity as a core belief. It is exactly that CORE that unites Orthodox and Protestant DENOMINATIONS and precisely why they do NOT accept Mormonism as related.
It's not my POV, it is a fact. Whether or not 52% of "Christians" surveyed think so or not is equivalent to saying "52% of Mormons believe Polygamy is OK and should practice it," and then expecting the LDS leadership to say, "OK, fine. We'll do that then." That's not how it works, and you know it. Nor does asserting that "This is primarily due to the fact that adherents to Mormonism claim that the movement is a restoration of the earliest Christian and Judaic doctrines" accurately describe the FACT that traditional Christian churches -- from the LEADERSHIP OF THEM -- do not accept any relationship, spiritually, with the LDS church.
Before you start just deciding that someone is wrong on FACT, consider your own POV and the propaganda you're offering. I have tried to be fair with my statements to reflect FACT, not spun according to an effort to mainstream something that cannot and will not be mainstreamed because of core disagreement.
I am happy to review the other page as you have suggested, however I am really not interested in debating you on it -- simply trying to have the facts reflected in a public forum. The thing that is really dismaying is that there seems to be an organized effort to "protect" the language on a public page that clearly reflects a bias."
Again, whether someone wants to argue "Christian or not" isn't my issue here. What is the issue is making sure that the relationship between traditional Christianity -- e.g. Roman Catholics at least ACCEPT that Methodists, for example, hold the same CORE beliefs, even if they don't agree about who's in charge -- and belief systems that have no such relationships (e.g. Mormonism/Unitarians/Jehovah's Witnesses with RCC, Greek Orthodox, Lutherans, etc.) is reflected accurately. They ARE NOT accepted by the leadership of these traditional churches as related, and they will NEVER be. Let's just say so and be done with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.162.109 ( talk) 01:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ You entirely miss the point. The language of the article should be neutral; by suggesting that the "primary reason" is narrow and untrue. It's a POV statement. Only LDS members would promote such an idea. The "primary reason" for others to reject this assertion is buried, in this language, under the LDS "Restorationist" propaganda. To suggest that Mormonism is a "denomination" is to suggest that there is some common ground. Except for a belief that Jesus is/was an actual person, there simply isn't. Orthodox and Protestant Christianity simply do not and will not accept a "brother" to Jesus in lucifer. That chasm is too much to bridge to suggest there is a relationship other than to acknowledge Jesus. The LDS belief system has not had an "uneasy" relationship with mainstream Christianity "primarily . . . " as is noted, except for the fact that there is NOTHING similar beyond the name of Jesus. Tapols ( talk) 06:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This article should neither be about how Mormonism is viewed by Mormons nor how Mormonism is viewed by Christians. It is about what Mormonism is. And to say that Mormonism is a denomination of Christianity because they believe so is the same as saying Mormonism is unrelated to Christianity because Christians believe so. Agree on a neutral point of view such that it reflects the many views OF Mormonism in the Mormonism article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.185.137 ( talk) 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
User:69.27.11.50 (I assume Matthew Gill) - can you provide a copy of documentation that your religious organization has been registered as such, according to the laws of Great Britain? We need additional verification of the sect aside from your blog (the in the mouth of two or three witnesses thing works on Wikipedia too). Also, can you provide membership statistics? (its not that we don't believe you, its just that there are thousands of people claiming to start a new religion, and ususally more than three months of history can be provided - we just need some verification or official status, and until it is obtained, your group may not qualify as an official church or religious movement).
The section you added would be better placed at Latter_Day_Saint_movement, and will likely be moved their in accordance with Wikipedia Style guidelines, after details you've included are verified. Please do not revert the current changes, as Wikpedia is not for advertisting, and the section as it was written was quite commercial and against wikipedia guidelines (see Wikipedia:NPOV. Continuing to revert back to such a commercial is considered vandalism, and may result in your IP address being blocked. Thanks and happy editing. - Visorstuff 17:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
My edits keep being removed, although my points are legitimate -- the doctrines of the "plurality of gods" and "god/man" are MAJOR sticking points for any serious consideration of Mormonism as Christian. I have provided sources all along -- and the primary source is Joseph Smith. Why won't the Mormon apologists here allow Smith's own words to be quoted? And why won't they allow these issues to be raised? Rossweisse RossweisseSTL ( talk) 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Added: I have added a link to Joseph Smith's sermon on the plurality of gods to support mention of Mormonism's polytheism. Worshipping all the gods in their theology isn't necessary to make them polytheists -- simply acknowledging them will do it. The whole idea of men becoming gods is antithetical to Christianity. (I've also added the Anglican Communion to the list of church types, since we are the "Via Media," or Middle Way, being Catholic -- having the apostolic succession, three orders of clergy, liturgy, etc -- as well as Protestant, and thus sui generis.)
All of the wikipedia pages on Mormonism look like they're part of the Mormon mission effort; this one is just one step above pure propaganda. Maybe it should be a little harder to edit something so controversial. [User: RossweisseSTL]
Today I removed the following new edit:
For this to be acceptable, you need to provide a reference for the statements that Mormons believe and worship many Gods. There may be some clarity needed on definitions. Mormons believe in Theosis, but you will find that theosis is most believed by some of most Orthodox of churches. In addition, Theosis does not create divinity to be worshipped in the LDS sense, LDS believe the Bible when it says we will be coinheritors with Christ. Whereas mainstream Christiantiy attempts to take One God in three persons (the Trinity), LDS take three persons in One God.
You will also find that many religions would claim that the traditional Christianity is not montheistic. Islam is adamant that Christians believe in more than one God; they find the Trinity to be three persons impossible to equal one God. I am more than willing to further the conversation, but to include this information in the article you need to source the allegations to be in keeping with WP:NOR. Storm Rider (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
(I will begin a new entry so that we don't get too far over). If I understand your proposal correctly, are you suggesting that we simply list the title, provide the link, and delete the text? The motivation being that the full argument agains being Christian is underrepresented while Hinkley's statement provids too much pro information. I am not sure deleting all the text is best. An alternative could be to shorten it to something such as Mormons firmly claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, but most mainline Christian churches believe they are not Christian. I suspect it would work, but it also seems like an invitation to other editors and/or readers to elaborate. Why aren't they Christian, why they are Christian, etc. It may actually be better to delete the section in its entirety. There is already the listing for the subarticle under the "See Also" section. What do you think? Storm Rider (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Mormonism is a term used to describe religious, ideological, and cultural aspects of the various denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement. The term Mormonism is often used to describe the belief systems of those who believe in the Book of Mormon, a "sacred" text which Mormons believe was translated by Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1829 from golden plates, described as the "sacred" writings of the inhabitants of North and South America from approximately 600 BC to 420 AD. In 1830 Smith published the Book of Mormon and restored the Church of Christ, and the faithful were known amongst themselves as Latter Day Saints. Outside the church, church members have come to be called Mormons because of their belief in the Book of Mormon as the restoration of their religion. As the result of a "revelation" in 1838, the name to the Church was officially stated as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".[1] After the death of Joseph Smith, a succession crisis ensued and the church membership was divided among various sects. The largest group accepted Brigham Young as the new prophet-president of the church and followed him West to the Salt Lake Valley in the current state of Utah. However, there was a large faction that did not accept Brigham Young's claim to leadership and remained in the Midwest. The Community of Christ is the largest church that emerged from the Latter Day Saints who did not follow Brigham Young and it also claims to be the original church founded by Joseph Smith, Jr..
Notice how there are quotation marks around sacred and revelation.
Are these necessary? Erik-the-red
I may have got some of this stuff wrong. Please let me know (specifically) what is incorrect. I am doing my best to understand LDS with the information that is available to me. I focus on these particular issues because I find them interesting and they are not in the current article. I find them interesting for various reasons: I find them strange and novel, they are quite different from other related religions (i.e. Christianity), they are intriguing due to their secretiveness, and they are a subject of ongoing controversy due to outsiders misunderstanding and misrepresenting them and due to LDS members' secretiveness regarding them. Please, by all means, correct what is possible to correct as I am certain I am misunderstanding some of this, and have been told I am misunderstanding some of this. Yes, some of it I already know is incorrect and I am simply filling in the blanks (making it as easy to correct as possible) because I do not have all the information.-- 24.57.157.81 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
An initiation ritual LDS members go through is called the "Nauvoo Endowment." This ritual is performed before the LDS member begins his or her missionary work and/or before the LDS member marries and is done at the discretion of a higher priest. The ritual takes place inside the Temple, and is usually performed as a large group of members of identical Priesthood.
The ritual is comprised of religious cleansing and religious instructions and revelations kept secret from lower members. The instruction and revelations imparted depend on the Priesthood level of the group, but the rest of the ritual is the same. Both sexes perform the same ritual, more or less.
LDS members performing the ritual do the following:
In private, they remove their current clothing and dress in a single piece apron, called the "Shield." The apron is plain green and has a fig leaf on it. They proceed into a room called the _______ Room, full of small curtained areas, each with a person called an Officiator (male Officiators for male members, female Officiators for female members). Individually, each member enters one of these areas.
Inside the curtained off portion, the Officiator blesses the member by lightly touching various parts of their body with holy water and consecrated oil. The Officiator provides religious counsel and provides them with a spiritual name. This name is unique to that particular ceremony, not the person. However, due to the secretive nature of the ritual, most members believe, for the duration of the ceremony, that their spiritual name is a unique to them. The members then undress. The Officiator helps them into their Temple Garment, an undergarment which has spiritual symbols on it, which they are told to wear for the rest of their life. The Officiator then dresses them according to sex. Members are dressed all in white. Women wear a white veil, white dress, white sash (a girdle worn as a sash), slip, and pantyhose. Men wear a white hat (resembling a pastry chef's), white pants, collared shirt and tie. Both sexes drape a white sheet over a shoulder and wear white slippers.
After each member has performed this part of the ritual, they gather in another room, called the _______ Room. This room is the Temple theater. Members are seated based on sex: males on the right, females on the left. They receive an introduction from an Officiator, and then watch a re-enactment of the book of Genesis, as interpreted by the LDS church. In contemporary times, the re-enactment is presented as a film on a large movie screen. In the past, however, this part of the ritual was live theater (by various Officiators playing the parts of God, Adam, Eve, etc.).
At different points during the re-enactment, the members are asked to pray and make various oaths, and move their robes from one shoulder to the other. Members are told of sacred religious signs (based on the level of Priesthood they are attaining) they must use in order to get into Heaven once they die, and are instructed to keep these signs secret. The signs are various hand gestures--folding the fingers a certain way--and various handshake grips. Revealing this signs, they are told, is heretical and Satanic. Prior to the 1930s, members had to make a verbal agreement that they be eviscerated (and, thus killed) should they reveal these signs.
After the film and the religious instruction, members then leave the theater and queue up at a curtain to another room, the Celestial Room. Before entering through the curtain, each member is tested on his or her memorization of the previous instruction, including the hand gestures. Members then enter the Celestial Room and the ritual is over.
Upon completion of the ritual, members have attained a higher level of Priesthood.
If two members are getting married, they proceed to the Sealing Room.
IMPORTANT NOTE: (Storm Rider's reply is regarding what I wrote before. I erased it because it was getting messy, and also to temper the negative tone I used initially.) -- 24.57.157.81 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This is going to be a fun ride. You best pull in your minister now, because you are getting way out over your skies on this one. -- Storm Rider (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Section 1.3 the Succession Crisis of this article states that "There is little dispute that Joseph Smith, Jr privately and publicly taught and practiced plural marriage; he certainly alluded to the practice in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132." However section 2 of the article Joseph_Smith,_Jr. is a discussion of the uncertainty and controversy on whether Joseph Smith did teach and practice plural marriage.
I just wanted to point this out so that folks more knowledgeable on the subject can address the inconsistency. 64.105.48.146 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)APF
This group is using wikipedia to promote itself and it is a very small group - see the yahoo discussion group -- Trödel 22:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I read more about the controversy about the Book of Abraham. Very insightful material in the FAIR website. I will make a change in wording. An unsigned user had added the assertion about the Book of Abraham translation, based it would seem on very shallow research. Reiddp
Just be warned - FAIR is a hardcore spin machine run by mormons. While I specifically haven't read their info on the Book of Abraham, i figure it's likely the most spin-oriented article they have. The actual source document Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham from has been found and examined by egyptologists, and not surprisingly turns out to be ancient egyptian funeral texts (which is why Joseph Smith found them in a sarcophagus along with a mummy) For exaple, examine the funeral related images at Sacred Texts with the facimilies in the Book of Abraham, particularly Facimili 2
Alienburrito 00:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
"Momonism is now not only the most reknown religion but the most practiced religion, in the world Mormonism and most of mainstream Christianity[1] have had doctrinal disagreements since the beginning of the Latter Day Saint movement in the 1820s" - Even assuming a full stop after "world", the first part of this is ridiculous: "most reknown"? "most practised"? meaning? reference? -- Hugh7 20:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if Mormonism has any specific view that coule be added to the Ishmael article. -- Aminz 08:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I am very concerned looking through several Morman articles that there is no discusion of criticism or contrversies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.194.79 ( talk) 01:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
Let me remind everyone this is Wikepedia - not a forum for evangelism. I'm sure somebody, somewhere from the LDS church is monitoring this webpage 24/7. Why not, countless non-Mormons access the site everyday. It’s a great opportunity but it's also a violation of the “unbiased” policy of Wikipedia.
The LDS community needs to provide more facts. For instance, you cite a "Great Apostasy" in church history after the Apostolic age. But you fail to mention WHO was involved, HOW it happened or even WHERE it happened. What proof do have - historically that the Gospel of Christ was ever changed or corrupted by this "Apostasy"? It's a romantic idea and reconciles your deepest belief, but it provides little creditability to unbiased researchers accessing the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmirarchi ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
The "Mormon" article is stated to discuss the "usage of the word" and not the faith or the organization. This seems to me a dictionary entry masquerading as an encyclopedia article meaning that it violates Wikipedia policy. Regardless, its content could easily be merged into this article without any confusion to the reader.
Comments?
-- Mcorazao 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Next question: Are you motivated to do it? I'm not particularly an expert on the subject. -- Mcorazao 03:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I HATE when people remove my comments from talk pages. Please see previous version here. Incidentally, when you say you are "moving a discussion" please move all the text of the discussion. People like me like to keep track of what they say in conversations. Historical Wiki and my comments are important to me. Removing them is censorship, and violates wikipedia guidelines. That said, my removed comments may be found [ here] and should be kept for historical purposes in the least. - Visorstuff 23:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This is an unrelated issue to the one above, but I removed some content and so put it under this heading. The text I removed is posted below in case anybody wants to fix it and return to the article:
"In the Judeo-Christian tradition, including in the courts of the land, a testimony presented by two competent witnesses is considered more convincing than the testimony of one, especially if that single witness is testifying in his own cause. The Bible and Book of Mormon set forth the Divine practice of furnishing "two or three witnesses" to important Divine acts.(Deut. 17:1; 2 Cor. 13:1; Ether 5:4) Every religion except that taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has only one witness and that is the religion itself. Latter-day saints have witnesses from each of two widely separated nations for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, one book originating in ancient Israel and one in ancient America, and the two testify of the same God and each other. Those nations produced the Bible and the Book of Mormon, "the stick of Judah" and "stick of Ephraim," which agree in one in testifying that Jesus is the Messiah, the true and livng God of Israel.(Ezekiel 37:15-19; 2 Nephi 3:12; 29:2-14; Isa. 29:11-18; Gen. 48; Jer. 3:18; John 10:16; Acts 10:34-36; Alma 46:24-26; 3 Ne. 10:16, 17; 15:16-24; 16:1-7; 20:22; D&C 3:16; 20:11-12; 42:11-12)[141]"
This radically violates NPOV; it clearly reads like a true believer evangelizing to the reader. If it's going to be in the article, every statement needs to be qualified in order to clarify that this is Mormon belief, rather than God's truth. Frankly, though, it's only vaguely coherent as it's written, so I don't know that it should go back in at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.191.87 ( talk) 03:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Some of the discussions not germane to revising this article have been moved to Mmirachi (talk). Please join us there. Thanks. Mmirarchi 21:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The first section mentions the "golden plates". The first, and many, references on church websites, use the phrase "Gold plates". Would not the term gold plates be better and more historically correct? Gunnerclark 21:38, 21 May 2007 (cst)
The LDS Church's Articles of Faith have been copied wholesale into the article several times, and I have deleted them citing Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. There's no need to copy the Articles of Faith anyway, since all the topics therein are discussed in the LDS Church's article. Moreover, the AofF has never been considered a definitive or complete statement of LDS beliefs: it's sole purpose, from the moment Smith included it in the Wentworth letter, has been to serve as a proselytizing tool, which makes it inappropriate to cite verbatim as if it were the church's creed, even if there were no Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources policy. COGDEN 00:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
On another point, this article goes beyond the LDS Church, and includes cultural Mormonism and fundamentalist Mormonism. People shouldn't be deleting information about these elements of Mormonism. COGDEN 00:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The Articles of Faith are published as part of the Pearl of Great Price - a book included in the LDS Scriptures. How is that not definative? Unless you mean "complete" by the term "definitive"? True, they're only a very very basic summary, but do hit some of the highlights of unique doctrines of the church.
Alienburrito 02:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
If you are christian, dosen't that mean you belive in Christ? If so, aren't mormons Christian? Or am I missing something? If my defintion is correct, then what is traditional christianity? Or when you say "Traditional Christianity" are you refering to the Catholic church? If so, what right have you to say that the Catholic church is the "Traditional" church? How do you know that what Christ established on this earth was the Catholic Church? Or any other Christ centered church? Why can't that church have been the mormon church? Zarahemla resident 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
For example, I was told by a pair of their missionaries that Jesus is our spiritual older brother, a spririt child of God just as everyone is, just that he's the first born. To mainstream Christians, Jesus has always been God from before the beginning of time to beyold the end of time. The beginning/end of time does sound contradictory, but the main idea is that Jesus, being God, exists outside of time and has no beginning or end. Any of you mormons want to elaborate on this point? Alienburrito 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
Hey stormrider -
I started reading Jesus The Christ years ago. Now that I think about it, it's been about 20 years, 1986 or 87. Wow time flies. Admitedly i was in college at the time, and yes, the book WAS dry, but it did interest me enough that i've been meaning to get back to it.
I must say, thought, stormrider, sometimes your choice of terms confuses me. I'm very unclear what you mean by 'a penchant for the mysteries of God'. If you mean I'm interested in the nature of God, or at least various people's ideas on the nature of God, that would be a definate yes. Alienburrito 03:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
The Articles of Faith are the basic fundamentals of the Mormon Church! Why should they not be included in the article? Zarahemla resident 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of problems with the phrase "traditional Christianity" when used in this context. First, it's POV because there is a possible inference that "traditional" is good and "untraditional" is bad. Second, because Mormons are considered Restorationists, there is the strangeness of considering Mormonism a restoration of primitive early Christianity vs. what? "traditional Christianity"?
"Traditional" usually implies "older". If the rest of Christianity is "traditional", what is Mormonism? "modern Christianity"? That would suggest a different claim that what I understand Mormonism to claim.
Some "mainstream" Christians would claim that Mormonism is a new and modern adaptation of "traditional Christianity" because of the addition of new scriptures and new doctrines. But, this is plainly POV and thus unacceptable in Wikipedia.
This is why I replaced "traditional" with "mainstream". I'm open to discussing a better term if someone wants to propose one. I just think "mainstream" is superior to "traditional".
I don't think that we can characterize the difference between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity as solely or even primarily Nicene vs. non-Nicene. There are non-Trinitarian churches whose primary difference is the Nicene creed and it Trinitarianism. The Jehovah's Witnesses is one of them. Except for this primary difference, the rest of the doctrinal differences could be ascribed to varying interpretations of Scripture. Well, even non-Trinitarianism can be ascribed to a different interpretation of Scripture but the point I'm making is that non-Trinitarianism is the major sticking point for them.
For Mormons, non-Trinitarianism is not the only major sticking point. The addition of new scriptures to the canon is the other major sticking point. Polygamy is a bit hard to swallow but there are scriptural and historical bases for it and most Mormons don't make such a big deal of it any more anyway. All the rest of the doctrine could probably fall under the category of "varying interpretations of scripture" although the claim that men can become "like Gods" is probably also a sticking point.
In any event, "non-Nicene" is not a good way of characterizing the differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity.
-- Richard 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I would definatly say that "mainstream" would be the right term to use in regard to the Trinitarian view, one of the major disagreements between Mormonism and most of the rest of Christianity. I'd say its apropriate because of the sheer numbers - the last set of numbers I've seen for Christianity in general is
about 2.1billion then
about 13million for the LDS Church, and if i read their stats page right,
about 7 million for Jehovah's Witnesses. Feel free to comment if you think there's more to the term mainstream than just numbers.
Alienburrito 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
Tried to edit "Other" out of the PP - once again confronted with propagandists. Instead, how about "traditional" or "orthodox" as "other" connotes acceptance by both sides of an argument, which clearly isn't the case~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.47.19 ( talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand why a transhumanist would want to have an outlet to attract people to their movement, but it has nothing to do with Mormonism. Further, it is spam. It professes to have nothing to do with any religion; thus it is not Mormonism or anything that could be classified as Mormonism. It is a movement that some, seemingly few, Mormons have joined. I say great, but you can not advertise a private group unaffiliated with Mormonism and parade it like it does have something to do. We do not allow Mormon Rotarians to advertise, or alumni associations, or any other group that has members that are LDS. It is simply not done on WIKI. -- Storm Rider (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I will start a new paragrpah thread given the number of indents.
Yes, Mormonism can be used to describe all groups that have evolved from Joseph Smith; however, most reject the term. It is specifically applicable to the LDS church. The Fundamentalists enjoy using it because they find it aggrandizing to ride on the coat tail of the LDS church. The article itself points this fact out. It is not used by the other significant groups such as the Community of Christ, Bickertonites, etc. What you are looking for is the term Latter Day Saint movement; this is term is equivical in its breadth and ecompasses all churches that descend from the Joseph Smith.
Do you have any references for how many Mormons are Transhumanists? Just curious, but I suspect we are not talking about huge numbers of people. The links are not used for advertising groups, as I said before Mormons come in all types and sizes, but that does not make every club, association, etc. a particular Mormon joins part of Mormonism. I am a bit flummoxed by this insistence that somehow not lising your link on nearly all of the main Mormon related pages is censorship or portrays a lesser form of Mormonism. I still see this as a personal issue.
Please review external links and then let's talk again. Some of the items particularly germane to our conversation are the following:
"Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:
I would still think other editors should comment to ensure that I have not misunderstood policy. Cheers. -- Storm Rider (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I recently have had some conflict with a mormon on another page that I edited, and it got me thinking. I posted this same set of questions and comments on his personal page, but I thought it might be good to post here too. How exactly does an LDS determine what is church doctrine and what is not? I would THINK that a sermon by Joseph Smith would be accepted as an official statement of doctrine or practice. Apparently it's not. Some comments from mormons have indicated they believe that only the Scriptures of the LDS church ( http://scriptures.lds.org) qualify as doctrinal statements or guidelines for practice. Yet at the same time, it appears that the church does teach things that at best are only hinted at in the scriptures. An example of this would be the idea of a Heavenly Mother. THere's a song in the church hymnal about it, Hymn 292 , and several articles at the church website that refer to it, for example Daughters of God from the Nov 1991 Ensign by President Hinckley. There's no references to this idea anywhere in the scriptures that i'm aware of, except perhaps in a very vague way. (And no, I don't plan on getting into the flap i've heard about surrounding this issue. I just want to use it as an example of a belief that is far from being clearly stated in the scriptures).
I've also always been given the impression the church also promotes itself as having prophetic leaders who can speak by inspiration, which solves the problem of people having wildly different views of the Bible because of its lack of clarity on certain things.
So, back to the origional question. How does one determine LDS doctrine? from the LDS Scriptures? From the public statements of the church's prophets? Some of both? Pick and choose the stuff you like from both and ignore the rest? Some other totally different way? Alienburrito 22:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
SESmith - to me, your explanations makes the LDS sound pretty much like Christianity in general. Some christians say the Pope is the final authority, some catholics even reject Vatican 2's approach to practicing the faith. Most baptists would say mostly interpretation is up to the consience of the individual member, many christans are somewhere in between. The LDS say the leaders of the church are prophets - see Gordon Hinckley's profile at Families Forever - I would hope having a prophet around would avoid disagreement about what was doctrine or not. What I don't get I guess is what use is it to have someone that claims to be a prophet if they can't proclaim or clarify doctrine authoritatively. Just seems pretty useless to me. I'm leaning towards the prophet thing being a scam to be honest. Alienburrito 03:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
Interesting points. What i'm pondering now is this. From the reading I've done on the LDS Church, the vast majority of Joseph Smith, Jr's teachings weren't joint statements, they came from him and him alone. There's a handful of revelations published in the Doctrine and Covenants where some of Smith's associates were invovled in receiving the revelation, but the vast majority are solo. Yet it seems that some of Smith's doctrinal teachings are rejected in modern times, which is where I ended up butting heads with a mormon or 2 here. It also seems that the prophet going solo on revealing or clarifying things has gone by the wayside, and I don't get why. Alienburrito 03:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
SESmith - here comes the $64,000 question now, the one I was hoping to get to eventually. Why are some of Smith's stuff cannonized and some not? Have the followers of Joseph Smith just decided they're gonna pick and choose what things they like and don't like? It sure sounds like it from what i've read so far. That definatly puts some dents in the church, the current leaders especially, as something/someone to look to for information on God and salvation. Alienburrito 02:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
Well, at this point, I'll chalk our disagreements on this stuff up to different understandings of what a prophet is. I must admit I expect that a prophet, when he speaks about God, to be teaching doctrine. A prophet's teaching needs to also fit in with previous prophets. Not that a prophet can't teach something that previous prophets haven't taught, but his teaching does need to be consistent with previous prophets. I'll use Jesus as an example. His teaching is very different from those of Moses, but the New Testament cites numerous statements of the Old Testament Prophets to support the idea that his coming and the new approach was part of the plan.
Of course, that does seem pretty simplistic, but then again, in recent years, I've come to the conclusion that most of Chrisianity is irrelevent to my life, partly because of such overly simplistic stuff as above. Alienburrito 01:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
This is just a comment, but isn't 4 references pitifully small for such a large subject, with such varying and controversial content? Can at least a dozen other good sources be found? silvarbullet1 ( talk) 00:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Rather than add to a very old discussion, I am bringing it to the bottom. Please do not respond to the old discussion. Bytebear ( talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
this should not be a part of wikiproject christianity because mormons are not christians-- Charlieh7337 ( talk) 02:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Why does this article not have the tags of cult, 19th century religions, religions founded in the USA, etc? Since Mormonism was ment for white americans should'nt it have a tag for that? There racist dogma about Native Americans and Africans should also be place on highlight. -- Margrave1206 ( talk) 17:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
2 Nephi 5:21-23: "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."
"And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."
"And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done."
"And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey."
In 2 Nephi 30:6, "...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people." [8] I can assure you one thing, that people have been cruel and prejudice for centuries, however no one can say that they made up a religion on the spot out of a magic hat that spouted racism. My point being is that that instead of white washing the part of the Mormons all of this info should be added. Should'nt we have a section about Mormonism and their racist doctrine that is an intricate part of there church? Did the mormons change their doctrine that the Native Americans are the Lamanites and are cursed because they are dark? Store Rider don't candy coat the facts. The article needs work and it needs to show people who read it the facts about Mormonism.-- Margrave1206 ( talk) 19:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You are delightful Margarve; unfortunately, you are ignorant of the LDS church and its origins and not very original in your diatribe. By your comments I would guess you are more familiar with some of the anti-Mormon websites of poorer quality.
This is beginning to look more like troll behavior; let's not feed it anymore! They tend to die when ignored. -- Storm Rider (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you not read what I had on the edit note? There is in fact a reason why it was edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynehart ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The changes I made are in no way a "point of view". Explain to me how a religion with so many disagreements with Christianity's core principles can be called Christian by anyone with a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynehart ( talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a question regarding the intent behind the Mormon practice of polygamy. I have been told, by a former Mormon practitioner, that in the founding days of the belief men who were followers were often attacked and killed by people of other groups (no specifics about who). With widowed wives and fatherless children increasing in number, the decision was made to bring the victims' families into the home of another provider already married, thus an apparent "plural marriage."
This is of course complete hearsay, and I have not been able to confirm the claim. Has anyone else investigated this, or is anyone else interested in the matter? More importantly, has this claim been proven or disproven? I would prefer not to add anything to the article until there is further information. DerekMBarnes ( talk) 02:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, this must be clarified here. Mormonism is regarded as a non-Christian religion by Protestants, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians. This makes up over 98% of all Christendom. Not only is it regarded as non-Christian by nearly 100% of all Christians, but many of it's beliefs are considered blasphemous and heretical by Christianity. The single thing that is used to classify what is a Christian religion and what isn't is the Nicene Creed. This was formed between 325 and 381.
According to the wikipedia article: "The Nicene Creed (pronounced /ˈnaɪsiːn/) is an ecumenical Christian statement of faith accepted in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Communion, and almost all branches of Protestantism, including the Reformed churches, the Presbyterian Church, and the Methodist Church."
While a few things may differ between the different branches of Christianity, ALL agree that it is true and anything that deviates from it is heretical and even blasphemous.
I think Wikipedia needs to conform to traditional Christian definitions of what defines Christians and Christianity. Right now it seems Wikipedia is using very secular definitions that are contrary to Christians and what they believe. This is NOT about who is "right" or who is "wrong". We are NOT saying Mormonism is wrong by not classifying them as Christian. We are simply stating facts about them.
Example... If a Republican politician came forward, and started publically believing in very Democratic/Liberal views, would he still then be considered Republican if the Republican party disowned him?
This is the same thing... There ARE set definitions in Christianity as to what is Christian and what isn't. Those definitions are set forth in the Nicene Creed. Mormonism does not agree with the Nicene Creed, and many of it's beliefs contradict it. It is thus rejected as Christian by Roman Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox etc...
Christianity is not just a very grey area now. You cannot just believe that Jesus is the messiah to be considered Christian. One of the primary things Christians believe and always have is that Jesus is also one part of the Holy Trinity, that he is God. (not a single deity/god as many Mormons believe)
There are many Mormon beliefs that contradict Christian ones that are set forth in the Nicene Creed. Christians believe that the Nicene Creed is one thing that defines Christianity and what Christians believe, so therefore, going by what Christians believe, and what the Nicene Creed says, Mormonism is NOT a Christian faith. It is a religion unto it's own.
Like I said, this is NOT saying whether they are right or wrong. We say Islam is not a Christian faith, even though in it's early days, it espoused very (heretical) Christian and Jewish beliefs. And even though they believe in Jesus, they don't believe in him in exactly the same way as Christians. Therefore, they are not Christian.
It isn't about who is right or wrong, its about putting forth the facts, and showing that they aren't considered Christian by Christianity and it's official definitions. This does NOT mean they are wrong in their beliefs, it just means that they aren't considered to be part of a differing religion. -- KCMODevin ( talk) 15:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I'm perfectly 100% Correct... You guys trying to secularize Christianity and blur the lines between what is Christian and what isn't is a completely new phenomena born of the modern movement which is completely UNCHRISTIAN and is completely contrary to Christianity of the past 2000 years. It DOES NOT matter what a single person regards themself as.
I do not think ANY of you understand the history of Christianity. For the first 1000 years, Christianity had one Church, with 5 main Apostolic Sees in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Each bishop of each Apostolic See was completley equal, however no decision was made without consulting the other bishops. Christian beliefs were clarified and defined ONLY by Ecumenical Councils. The first Ecumenical Council was in 325, however the first Church Council was MUCH earlier, in fact it is written about in the New Testament, it was a council in Jerusalem, attended by bishops as well as the Apostles.
In the New Testament, it was clearly defined as to who is a Christian and who is not. The Apostles and Christ all warned against false doctrines and anti-Christs (which are anyone/anything that replaces or is contrary to Christ). We know for sure that the Apostles, especially Paul wrote against people who considered themselves to be Christians, but taught false doctrines. In the Book of Revelation, Christ spoke against the Nicolaitans: "Nicolaism (also Nicholaism, Nicolationism, or Nicolaitanism) is a Christian heresy whose adherents are called nicolaitans, nicolaitanes, or nicolaites. They are first mentioned (twice) in the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. According to Revelation 2, vv. 6 and 15, they were known in the cities of Ephesus and Pergamos around AD 99. The church at Ephesus is commended for "hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate" and the church in Pergamos is blamed for "having them who hold their [the Nicolaitans'] doctrines". There is no other first-hand evidence to give us certainty about the nature of this sect." From the New Testament, we know that heretics are NOT Christians and are even spoken against and rebuked by Christ and the Apostles.
You must realize that Christianity has set definitions, and for 1600 years, those definitions have been set forth in the Nicene Creed. Anyone that doesn't believe in the doctrines set forth in the Nicene Creed are therefore not Christians. You CANNOT believe anything you want as a Christian just because you believe in Christ as the messiah. You MUST believe certain things to be considered a Christian, and it's been like this ever since the days of the Apostles.
This is a time of great tolerance and of attempts to not offend anyone. However this is a great phenomena. Before recent times, people knew who were Christians and who weren't. Heretics may have considered themselves to be Christian, but in fact, they were not Christians, but rather heretics.
Like I said, saying Mormons aren't Christians is not the same as saying they are wrong, it is simply stating a fact. Secular authorities have no right and no ability to define what is Christianity and what isn't. The definitions for Christianity have been CLEAR CUT for a very long time. Only when modernists and secular people have stepped in has the boundaries and definitions tried to be blurred. -- KCMODevin ( talk) 22:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I edited the article to present BOTH points of view. Originally it had primarily the Mormon POV on the issue. I edited it so it can present the Mormon POV and the POV of Christians on the issue.
"Mormonism sees itself as a restorationist Christian religion. [9] [2] Thus, Mormons regard themselves as Christians, however this differs from the view of other Christian faiths in the world.
Mormons do not adhere to the official Christian statement of faith, the Nicene Creed formed in the 4th Century A.D. Because of this, they are considered a non-Christian faith by many Christians. The traditional/mainstream Christian branches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and most branches of Protestantism do not regard Mormonism as a Christian faith, but rather a unique faith unto it's own. However some Christians regard Mormonism as simply a restoration of ancient Christian heresies such as Arianism, Nestorianism, Gnosticism etc..."
It is NOT fair to Christians to quote a Mormon website and call that true. Instead, we need to present BOTH points of view on the issues. -- KCMODevin ( talk) 22:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
YOU CANNOT CITE AN LDS WEBSITE AS FACT!!! YOU HAVE TO PRESENT BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE!! I couldn't care less if it's been discussed before. As the article was, it certainly was NOT NPOV and was extremely bias towards the LDS and Mormons. It cited LDS.org for the so-called "fact" that it's a restorationist Christian religion. However, you completely DOWNPLAY the fact that because they do not adhere to the Nicene Creed, that the mainstream Christian denominations see it as heretical if not completely non-Christian. You CANNOT present ONLY the LDS view on this issue... -- KCMODevin ( talk) 23:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I would be happy with the article saying just:
Mormonism sees itself as a restorationist Christian religion. [10] [3] Thus, Mormons regard themselves as Christians.
However, traditional Christian faiths, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and most branches of Protestantism either regard Mormonism as a non-Christian faith and/or as heretical Christianity.
I don't see what is so wrong and bias about this? -- KCMODevin ( talk) 00:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The Nicene Creed rejection is not downplayed, it is covered fairly thoroughly in the article. And yes, one can cite the LDS website as fact vis-à-vis what the Mormons believe. -- TrustTruth ( talk) 00:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
KCMO, I take it then that you would think it appropriate to also list the Roman Catholicism is viewed as a cult in its article because many Protestant churches believe that to a fact. Of course it would not be appropriate; just as it is not appropriate to create a definition of Christianity that only suites Trinitarians. The doctrine of the Trinity is not greater than the doctrine of Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, bled in the garden, was crucified, rose the third day, returned to the Father and will return again one day. He is the only path to return to the Father. Jesus testified of his divinity and his saving grace just as the ancient apostles did. Followers and belief in Jesus in the fashion define Christian and not the teachings of man 325 years after the resurrection of Jesus.
What you are confusing is the teaching of the Catholic Church and those churches who splintered from them that retained the teaching. Sometimes we call it the historic Christian churches; I prefer to just call it orthodoxy. Regardless, orthodoxy does not own the term and discipleship is not determined by their teachings. It is fine that you believe it and have that POV, but it is acceptable on Wikipedia to demand that all Christian churches meet your standard. More importantly, it is not appropriate to rewrite history so that your POV is protected. Christianity has never had a unity of the faith or of teachings. -- Storm Rider (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
-Storm Rider, I am not confusing it. I do not believe the Roman Catholic Church to be the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Rather, I believe that to be the Eastern Orthodox Church. But I do not let that effect my views on Roman Catholicism as a Christian faith.
Christianity has never had a unity of the faith or of teachings.
My friend, you REALLY need to learn your history. In the Acts of the Apostles, a council was called in Jerusalem by bishops and the Apostles to settle a dispute in the Church. This was the first official council. Eventually in 325, the next official council was called in Nicaea by Constantine. It was attended by hundreds of bishops, and by the heads of the Apostolic Sees around the empire. The decisions of this council, and the following six were accepted by all Christians. Those Christians that refused to accept them were considered to be heretics and were not allowed to partake of the Eucharist in the Liturgical services of ANY Christian Church. The early Christian Church had hierarchy and there was most certainly unity and contact between all Churches. Christians may have believed heretical teachings out of general lack of knowledge of theology. But those who believe them and know the true teachings of the Church are heretics.
When I say "The Church", I'm referring to the One Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church. Originally, the Church had five main Apostolic Sees (founded by the Apostles), Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. NONE of these Patriarchs had authority over the other, and all were equal. They could not interfer in each other's jurisdictions, and doctrines/canons could not be formed without the unity of all of them in a Council.
So to say there was never a unity of faith is completely untrue. We KNOW there was unity in the Early Church... The only difference in opinion comes at the Great Schism when conflict between the Church of Rome and the four other Churches became too great and they split. Protestants believe since then, all five churches have strayed from Christianity. Catholics believe they were right and the Eastern Orthodox (the five other churches) are wrong, and the Eastern Orthodox believe that they have preserved the Apostolic Tradition and see the Catholics as straying from tradition.
This comes to Mormonism. Mormons (from what i've read on Mormon sites and literature) see mainstream Christianity as straying from original Christianity almost from day one. They believe Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox all are wrong and strayed away. They believe they are restoring original Christianity and they do not even accept the Nicene Creed (which all mainstream/traditional Christians accept).
On this article, we NEED to clarify that the Mormons view themselves as a Christian religion. However that Christian religions do not see them as Christian, but rather a heretical faith. Especially because it is not only the Nicene Creed that the Mormons differ from Christians on.
The article NEEDS to state this plainly in the beginning of the article. Many people do not go through an article and read everything. Many just read the beginning of the article to get an idea about the subject in the article. This is why it's important to clarify/summarize it in the beginning and make sure there is a NPOV stated early on.
Here is what the article ought to say:
Mormonism believes itself to be a restorationist Christian religion. [11] [4] Thus, Mormons regard themselves as Christians.
However, traditional Christian faiths, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and most branches of Protestantism regard Mormonism as being heretical.
-- KCMODevin ( talk) 02:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What the hell is wrong with saying "Mormonism believes itself to be a restorationist Christian Religion?" -- KCMODevin ( talk) 02:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
CAN WE GET A NON-MORMON IN ON THIS DISCUSSION? -- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
So secular non-Christian "officials" now decide what is Christian and what isn't? When the hell did that begin? -- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Around the time the Royals became universally recognized as a great team, in other words never. It's about a consensus of opinion among observers, not about appearing before some group of "officials" and being granted the Christianity designation. You may not agree with it, but that's your opinion. Here we're striving for a neutral view. -- TrustTruth ( talk) 03:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
HOW THE HELL IS IT NEUTRAL WHEN YOU CITE LDS.ORG???!!! IT ISN"T NEUTRAL!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE CITING A MORMON WEBSITE, NOT A SECULAR/NEUTRAL WEBSITE!!!!!!!!!!!! -- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
LISTEN, if you are going to cite LDS.org... Then you HAD BETTER cite other Christian sources showing the opposing opinion. -- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Listen... Go to the
Roman Catholic and
Eastern Orthodox articles...
Eastern Orthodox:
"It is considered by its adherents to be the very same Church established by Christ and his Apostles."
Roman Catholic:
"The Catholic Church maintains that it is the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" founded by Jesus"
This is the SAME thing... Mormons regard themselves as Christians is the more correct (and NPOV) way of saying it rather than saying Mormons are Christian.-- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edit is MUCH better and thank you for adding non-LDS references... However I still have a problem with the sentence: "Mormonism is a restorationist Christian religion" Like I pointed out above, it's the same thing as the two statements in the Catholic and Orthodox articles. To be more correct and to provide it as a NPOV, we should say that: "Mormonism sees itself as a restorationist Christian religion" It would be best and would be neutral. Like I pointed out above... The statements in the Catholic and Orthodox articles do not say that one (or the other) is the original Church, but rather that they believe themselves to be the original Church. -- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
You must keep in mind... In the Orthodox/Catholic articles, you could possibly cite secular sources that cite the Catholic church as being the original church, and cite secular sources that say the Orthodox church is the original church. It mostly depends on where you are geographically. Western sources may not cite Islam as having origins in heretical Christianity, while some Eastern secular sources may say Islam was indeed influenced and some of it's beliefs originated from heretical Christianity.
Same here, some secular sources will cite Mormonism as Christian, and some will cite it as non-Christian.
So the best thing is to simply say, that they believe that they are Christian.-- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Would it be proper to say that: Mormonism is a restorationist non-Trinitarian Christian religion?-- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, I'm fine with your edit as long as the statement about those denominations regarding the church as heretical and the non-trinitarian clarification can remain.-- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
IMO it matters because it isn't proper to ignore the differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. Without clarification, people reading the article (or rather, skimming over it, as many don't read the whole thing) might assume that Mormonism is considered completley Christian and considered to be ok by other Christians. With the clarification, they know that Mormonism is considered Christian by some, however that position is contested by a large number of Christians out there. Ignoring 97% of the world's Christians just isn't acceptable IMO, even if it is in the spirit of "tolerance".-- KCMODevin ( talk) 15:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The Jehovah's Witness article has this in the opening paragraph of the article:
Identification of the religion as Christian is disputed due to rejection of the Trinity, which most Christian religions regard as a fundamental doctrine.
Maybe we could add a reference or note that clarifies "Christian religions" as being the denominations listed in the paragraph on this page.
Mormonism is a restorationist [5] [6] nontrinitarian Christian religion. [7] However, given its stance on the Trinity, traditional Christian denominations such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and most branches of Protestantism consider the Mormon church heretical.
Mormonism is a restorationist [8] [9] nontrinitarian Christian religion. [10] Identification of the religion as Christian is disputed due to rejection of the Trinity, which most Christian religions regard as a fundamental doctrine. [11]
Just wondering if this would be more proper considering how it also appears on the JW's article -- KCMODevin ( talk) 15:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Your analogy is NOT the same as what we are discussing here. Christianity doesn't consider itself to be a Muslim faith. Therefore, it doesn't need to be stated that Muslims don't agree with Christianity being a part of Islam since Christianity doesn't make the claim to be Muslim. The same here, Mormons are claiming to be Christian, however the traditional and mainstream Christian faiths dispute this. Therefore, it HAS to be stated. Christians don't claim to be Muslim, therefore, there is no reason to state that Muslims do not agree with Christianity. -- KCMODevin ( talk) 00:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Bart Ehrmen was a Christian, and in fact an evangelical I think. He believed that Scripture was infallible, and was totally inspired by God without any errors. A common misconception among Christians who aren't aware of the truth. As he read scripture and researched it's history, his research came into conflict with his beliefs, he came to the conclusion that scripture is not valid whatsoever and was entirely written by man. Thus he rejected Christianity and ceased to be a Christian (by his own admission).
A podcast by Dr. Jeannie Constantinou called "Search the Scriptures" has been doing a LONG series on scripture, it's origins, etc... She specifically speaks about Bart Ehrman and his writing. We KNOW that scripture was written, edited and changed by man. The Holy Spirit did not overtake the human beings writing it, and there are errors, but they are not a big deal. In fact, many of the additions are wonderful, and we need to bless the editors for adding. Originally, the stories in scripture were transferred orally and were not written down. Much of the epistles are letters to various churches by the Apostles and were not initially scripture. And even the Apostles did not write many of the letters themselves, but rather had their disciples or followers write for them.
Men did get together and formed the Creed in several councils. Just as men gathered in Jerusalem and made the decisions they made there. The Apostles and Disciples were ALL men, and all had faults and made errors. That is completely acceptable. But that does not mean their decisions were not guided by the Holy Spirit.
You are just NOT understanding what I've been arguing here. Mormonism initially was considered non-Christian by everyone. Eventually, as they've become less and less strict and less like original Mormonism, they've desired to be considered Christian by everyone. However, their rejection of BASIC Christian beliefs is what separates them.
Baptists considering Catholicism to be a cult is not important, because Baptists are one small portion of Christianity. Here we are talking about the VAST MAJORITY of Christians. If you want to include non-trinitarians in that number, then the number of Christians who do not accept Mormonism as Christian is indeed still above 90%, therefore it is valid and important to include it in the article.
Like I said before, what makes you all so important that you deserve to be considered Christians without dispute while the
Jehovah's Witness article clearly states that their status as Christians is disputed by the majority of Christians? What makes YOU more special than them? Answer that...--
KCMODevin (
talk) 16:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Seeing how many sections in the talk page redundantly argue (in some cases uncivilly) whether Mormons are Christians and should or should not be described as such in this article, I have decided to contribute my thoughts to the matter. If this starts another half-page of cyclical dispute with no real resolution, let it be on my head.
This is what Wikipedia says about about Christianity as a whole:
"Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament. Its followers, known as Christians, believe that Jesus is the begotten Son of God and the Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament (the part of scripture common to Christianity and Judaism). To Christians, Jesus Christ is a teacher, the model of a virtuous life, the revealer of God, and most importantly the saviour of humanity who suffered, died, and was resurrected to bring about salvation from sin. Christians maintain that Jesus ascended into heaven, and most denominations teach that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead, granting everlasting life to his followers."
Any religious group which holds these beliefs may therefore be defined as Christian, including Mormonism. This is a neutral, academic definition, and as an open agnostic it is the standard I intend to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekMBarnes ( talk • contribs) 06:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Ahem... The name of the church is The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. Raekuul 12:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raekuul ( talk • contribs)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessdaymonth=
, |month=
, |accessyear=
, |accessmonthday=
, and |coauthors=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessdaymonth=
, |month=
, |accessyear=
, |accessmonthday=
, and |coauthors=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessdaymonth=
, |month=
, |accessyear=
, |accessmonthday=
, and |coauthors=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessdaymonth=
, |month=
, |accessyear=
, |accessmonthday=
, and |coauthors=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
There are a few problems with this. It states that following the Word of Wisdom is part of "Cultural" Mormonism. Actually, that's one of Mormonism's doctrines. It is required for temple worship or to be a member in good standing with the Church. I don't know if it might perhpas me practiced more widely in the utah-area than in other places, but it's a doctrine, rather than a cultural thing.
Also, the start says that it is referring mainly to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Cultural section says
It should be more explicitly stated that these fundamentalists do not belong to the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," but rather one of the break-off groups.
Chrieraux 19:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
What is truly amazing about this is that there are a plethora of people (Mormons?) who simply will not allow a POV besides their own to be presented on a neutral page. Are you guys assigned to watch over these pages so no one can dispute your POV, then alternate to change them so you don't violate the "3RV" rule? I've seen a number of changes made, and there must be at least a half-dozen people (Mormons?!) who simply won't allow any alteration of the text, nor will they read any of the discussion. Wow. So much for "neutral" and "unbiased". Try: http://www.citizendium.org - that's where wikipedia creators went after dealing with the likes of ya'll. Tapols ( talk) 02:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The question of classification is way too controversial to be answered in such a flip and unprofessional manner as "nope". If we are to address the question, we need to do so in using NPOV. ex. instead of "Are Mormons Christians", we should have a section something like this:
"Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity"
---Mormons emphatically see themselves as Christians; however this classification is disputed to varying degrees by many theologians. etc. Some Protestant denominations, while disagreeing with tenets of the Church of LDS, believe they are essentially Christian, while others argue that their acceptance of the Book of Mormon etc. (or other reasons etc) place them in a new category altogether. Etc.
(here we could summarize all arguments about the topic and provide info about:
1) the position of Mormon theologians, followers. 2) the position of various Protestant denominations, Roman Catholics etc. 3) the views of most lay Christians/Mormons 4) the politics of categorization. 5) a short list of differences etc. 6) the position of academic experts on Christianity/Mormonism.
I do not have a dog in this fight, but I think the current article is doing a disservice to interested readers. Sincerely, -- Ampersand 05:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that this section is neutral either. It states that Mormans are only "perceived" not to be Christians. Many, if not the majority of prominent Christian theologians do not consider mormanism to fit within the tenets of accepted Christian orthodoxy. Mormans do not believe in salvation by grace, they believe in salvation by works. Furthermore, I have a hard time understanding how anyone who believes that upon meeting the specified criteria, he will become a god of his own world, can be understood to be within what is understood as the historic Christian faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.34.227 ( talk) 03:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is an interesting debate between Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Orson Scott Card, author and commited Mormon. Start at the bottom of the page and work your way up so that "Mormonism is not Christianity" is read first. (That was the order of the debate) http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/mormondebate/ Itsadiel 18:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How dare we make such a bold claim; and, how rude and unChristian! Well, do we make that claim to be mean, or because we have a "bone to pick?" 1 John 4:1 says: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1 Thes 5:21 says: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. So, we are being quite Biblical in comparing Mormon doctrines to see if they align with the Bible. Let's compare Mormonism to the "Eight Essential Fundamentals of Christianity":
1. The Deity of Christ 2. Trinity 3. Bodily Resurrection 4. Salvation by Grace 5. Sufficiency of Scripture 6. Universality of Sin 7. The Atonement 8. The Virgin Birth
So, how many of the eight does Mormonism agree with: ZERO!
We don't make open-ended statements, so here is the evidence to back up our claim that Mormonism doesn't line up with the "Eight Essential Fundamentals of Christianity":
1. Deity of Christ: “Jesus became a God and reached His great state of understanding through consistent effort and continuous obedience to all the Gospel truths and universal laws.” (The Gospel Through The Ages, pg 51)
[Christianity does not believe Jesus was “a God;” Christianity believes Jesus was God: John 1:1.]
2. Trinity: “22. The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22)
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pg 345, 1844)
[Christianity believes in the Trinity – Mormonism believes in three Gods of this world and that there are an untold number of other Gods out there in the cosmos; and, that the Heavenly Father of this world is an exalted man who once lived on another planet in another galaxy far, far away and through eternal progression rose to become a God]
3. Bodily Resurrection: “The plan is simple. Man is in a fallen condition, beset with weaknesses and sin. Means are provided whereby he may rise, and, through the corridors of death and the portals of the resurrection, reach the way of eternal progression. These means are all comprised in obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.” (The Vitality of Mormonism, Ch.19, p.77-p.78, Apostle James E. Talmage)
[Christianity believes man will be resurrected to live eternally with Jesus Christ or to be condemned to Hell. Mormonism believes there is no Hell and man will be resurrected into 3 different Kingdoms of Heaven. Only Mormons can go to the top kingdom, called the Celestial Kingdom, and there they can by “Eternal Progression” become Gods just like the Mormon Heavenly Father of this earth did.]
4. Salvation by Grace: “However, one of the untrue doctrines found in modern Christendom is the concept that man can gain salvation (meaning in the kingdom of God) by grace alone and without obedience. This soul-destroying doctrine has the obvious effect of lessening the determination of an individual to conform to all of the laws and ordinances of the gospel,…” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 670-671, 1958)
[Salvation by grace alone, in Christ alone, through faith alone, is a foundational Christian teaching. Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie in his epic book “Mormon Doctrine” calls the Christian belief an “untrue” and “soul-destroying doctrine.”]
5. Sufficiency of Scripture: “Who, in his right mind, could, for one moment, suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution?” (Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, Orson Pratt, pg 47)
[Christianity believes the Bible is God’s inerrant Word for man. Mormonism believes the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly.” Anytime the Bible disagrees with Mormon Doctrine, it has been mistranslated, and “Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution?”]
6. Universality of sin: “Some may regret that our first parents sinned. This is nonsense. If we had been there, and they had not sinned, we should have sinned. I will not blame Adam or Eve, why? Because it was necessary that sin should enter the world; no man could ever understand the principle of exaltation without its opposite;…” (Journal of Discourses, Vol 10, pg 312, Brigham Young)
[Christianity teaches that all have sinned and in fact have a sin nature. Christianity teaches that the heart of man is wickedly deceitful (Jer 17:9), and all of our righteousness is as “filthy rags” (Isa 64:6), and only through our Savior, the Jesus Christ of the Bible, can we be saved from our sin. Mormonism teaches that Adam and Eve were required to eat of the fruit of the tree and it was not therefore a sin – that man is good and comes to earth to prove himself and earn his right to progress to become a God himself.]
7. The Atonement: “It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol 4, pg 54, Brigham Young)
[Christianity teaches that the blood of Jesus covers all sin (1 John 1:7). Mormonism believes man can commit sins which Jesus’ blood can never remit.]
8. The Virgin Birth: “These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 546-547)
[Christianity believes in the miracle of Christ’s birth (Mt 1:18). Mormonism relegates the conception of Jesus to “same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” Believing that the Mormon Heavenly Father has a body of flesh and bones, it is easy to see how Mormon leaders teach that God had a physical relationship with Mary to produce Jesus.]
So, are we being mean by saying that Mormonism isn’t Christian. No, we are not. Our claim is based on a factual comparison of Mormon doctrines compared to Christian doctrines. We didn’t make this evidence up. This evidence plus volumes of additional evidence to support these Mormon doctrinal positions are available if one simply wants to do the research to find them. Christianity and Mormonism are not the same. Mormonism fails all “8 Essential Fundamentals of Christianity,” yet insists that it really is Christian. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.190.25.201 (
talk) 10:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
All such doctrines have been rejected at one time. The Unitarian churches deny the Trinity. Pelagius denied the universality of sin, the atonement and salvation through grace. Sufficiency of scripture is plain odd, given that the bible took some time of getting written. Marcionite Christians even dumped the entire Old Testament. All of these were or are Christians. You can't just qualify Mormons as non-Christian solely on some criteria that were determined over the centuries. Mormons explicitly claim to be Christian. There is no authority that can deny them that, so they should be listed under Christian religions as a category. Ofcourse it can be said that other Christians don't agree with this. DDSaeger ( talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Unitarians aren't accepted by Orthodox or Protestant churches as a "denomination" either. While having roots connected -- in some fashion -- to traditional Christianity, the belief system is so vastly different as to be something else entirely. So it is with Mormonism. Hence, my ongoing effort to reflect the truth of the connection, which has been repeatedly -- in an organized way -- repudiated by a small army of propagandists clearly bent on promoting a biased, half-true statement regarding that relationship. My note to "Bytebear" on my and his talk pages:
"Isn't it interesting, Byte, that you can make assertions such as "This is primarily due to the fact that adherents to Mormonism claim that the movement is a restoration of the earliest Christian and Judaic doctrines" and yet don't feel the need to support YOUR statements with evidence, except that "we say so." The issue of whether you claim to be Christian isn't an issue in my edits. The FACT is that Orthodox and Protestant churches DO NOT accept that Mormonism is a "denomination," rather that it is a completely different belief system. Mormons do not accept the Trinity as a core belief. It is exactly that CORE that unites Orthodox and Protestant DENOMINATIONS and precisely why they do NOT accept Mormonism as related.
It's not my POV, it is a fact. Whether or not 52% of "Christians" surveyed think so or not is equivalent to saying "52% of Mormons believe Polygamy is OK and should practice it," and then expecting the LDS leadership to say, "OK, fine. We'll do that then." That's not how it works, and you know it. Nor does asserting that "This is primarily due to the fact that adherents to Mormonism claim that the movement is a restoration of the earliest Christian and Judaic doctrines" accurately describe the FACT that traditional Christian churches -- from the LEADERSHIP OF THEM -- do not accept any relationship, spiritually, with the LDS church.
Before you start just deciding that someone is wrong on FACT, consider your own POV and the propaganda you're offering. I have tried to be fair with my statements to reflect FACT, not spun according to an effort to mainstream something that cannot and will not be mainstreamed because of core disagreement.
I am happy to review the other page as you have suggested, however I am really not interested in debating you on it -- simply trying to have the facts reflected in a public forum. The thing that is really dismaying is that there seems to be an organized effort to "protect" the language on a public page that clearly reflects a bias."
Again, whether someone wants to argue "Christian or not" isn't my issue here. What is the issue is making sure that the relationship between traditional Christianity -- e.g. Roman Catholics at least ACCEPT that Methodists, for example, hold the same CORE beliefs, even if they don't agree about who's in charge -- and belief systems that have no such relationships (e.g. Mormonism/Unitarians/Jehovah's Witnesses with RCC, Greek Orthodox, Lutherans, etc.) is reflected accurately. They ARE NOT accepted by the leadership of these traditional churches as related, and they will NEVER be. Let's just say so and be done with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.162.109 ( talk) 01:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ You entirely miss the point. The language of the article should be neutral; by suggesting that the "primary reason" is narrow and untrue. It's a POV statement. Only LDS members would promote such an idea. The "primary reason" for others to reject this assertion is buried, in this language, under the LDS "Restorationist" propaganda. To suggest that Mormonism is a "denomination" is to suggest that there is some common ground. Except for a belief that Jesus is/was an actual person, there simply isn't. Orthodox and Protestant Christianity simply do not and will not accept a "brother" to Jesus in lucifer. That chasm is too much to bridge to suggest there is a relationship other than to acknowledge Jesus. The LDS belief system has not had an "uneasy" relationship with mainstream Christianity "primarily . . . " as is noted, except for the fact that there is NOTHING similar beyond the name of Jesus. Tapols ( talk) 06:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This article should neither be about how Mormonism is viewed by Mormons nor how Mormonism is viewed by Christians. It is about what Mormonism is. And to say that Mormonism is a denomination of Christianity because they believe so is the same as saying Mormonism is unrelated to Christianity because Christians believe so. Agree on a neutral point of view such that it reflects the many views OF Mormonism in the Mormonism article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.185.137 ( talk) 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
User:69.27.11.50 (I assume Matthew Gill) - can you provide a copy of documentation that your religious organization has been registered as such, according to the laws of Great Britain? We need additional verification of the sect aside from your blog (the in the mouth of two or three witnesses thing works on Wikipedia too). Also, can you provide membership statistics? (its not that we don't believe you, its just that there are thousands of people claiming to start a new religion, and ususally more than three months of history can be provided - we just need some verification or official status, and until it is obtained, your group may not qualify as an official church or religious movement).
The section you added would be better placed at Latter_Day_Saint_movement, and will likely be moved their in accordance with Wikipedia Style guidelines, after details you've included are verified. Please do not revert the current changes, as Wikpedia is not for advertisting, and the section as it was written was quite commercial and against wikipedia guidelines (see Wikipedia:NPOV. Continuing to revert back to such a commercial is considered vandalism, and may result in your IP address being blocked. Thanks and happy editing. - Visorstuff 17:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
My edits keep being removed, although my points are legitimate -- the doctrines of the "plurality of gods" and "god/man" are MAJOR sticking points for any serious consideration of Mormonism as Christian. I have provided sources all along -- and the primary source is Joseph Smith. Why won't the Mormon apologists here allow Smith's own words to be quoted? And why won't they allow these issues to be raised? Rossweisse RossweisseSTL ( talk) 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Added: I have added a link to Joseph Smith's sermon on the plurality of gods to support mention of Mormonism's polytheism. Worshipping all the gods in their theology isn't necessary to make them polytheists -- simply acknowledging them will do it. The whole idea of men becoming gods is antithetical to Christianity. (I've also added the Anglican Communion to the list of church types, since we are the "Via Media," or Middle Way, being Catholic -- having the apostolic succession, three orders of clergy, liturgy, etc -- as well as Protestant, and thus sui generis.)
All of the wikipedia pages on Mormonism look like they're part of the Mormon mission effort; this one is just one step above pure propaganda. Maybe it should be a little harder to edit something so controversial. [User: RossweisseSTL]
Today I removed the following new edit:
For this to be acceptable, you need to provide a reference for the statements that Mormons believe and worship many Gods. There may be some clarity needed on definitions. Mormons believe in Theosis, but you will find that theosis is most believed by some of most Orthodox of churches. In addition, Theosis does not create divinity to be worshipped in the LDS sense, LDS believe the Bible when it says we will be coinheritors with Christ. Whereas mainstream Christiantiy attempts to take One God in three persons (the Trinity), LDS take three persons in One God.
You will also find that many religions would claim that the traditional Christianity is not montheistic. Islam is adamant that Christians believe in more than one God; they find the Trinity to be three persons impossible to equal one God. I am more than willing to further the conversation, but to include this information in the article you need to source the allegations to be in keeping with WP:NOR. Storm Rider (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
(I will begin a new entry so that we don't get too far over). If I understand your proposal correctly, are you suggesting that we simply list the title, provide the link, and delete the text? The motivation being that the full argument agains being Christian is underrepresented while Hinkley's statement provids too much pro information. I am not sure deleting all the text is best. An alternative could be to shorten it to something such as Mormons firmly claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, but most mainline Christian churches believe they are not Christian. I suspect it would work, but it also seems like an invitation to other editors and/or readers to elaborate. Why aren't they Christian, why they are Christian, etc. It may actually be better to delete the section in its entirety. There is already the listing for the subarticle under the "See Also" section. What do you think? Storm Rider (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Mormonism is a term used to describe religious, ideological, and cultural aspects of the various denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement. The term Mormonism is often used to describe the belief systems of those who believe in the Book of Mormon, a "sacred" text which Mormons believe was translated by Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1829 from golden plates, described as the "sacred" writings of the inhabitants of North and South America from approximately 600 BC to 420 AD. In 1830 Smith published the Book of Mormon and restored the Church of Christ, and the faithful were known amongst themselves as Latter Day Saints. Outside the church, church members have come to be called Mormons because of their belief in the Book of Mormon as the restoration of their religion. As the result of a "revelation" in 1838, the name to the Church was officially stated as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".[1] After the death of Joseph Smith, a succession crisis ensued and the church membership was divided among various sects. The largest group accepted Brigham Young as the new prophet-president of the church and followed him West to the Salt Lake Valley in the current state of Utah. However, there was a large faction that did not accept Brigham Young's claim to leadership and remained in the Midwest. The Community of Christ is the largest church that emerged from the Latter Day Saints who did not follow Brigham Young and it also claims to be the original church founded by Joseph Smith, Jr..
Notice how there are quotation marks around sacred and revelation.
Are these necessary? Erik-the-red
I may have got some of this stuff wrong. Please let me know (specifically) what is incorrect. I am doing my best to understand LDS with the information that is available to me. I focus on these particular issues because I find them interesting and they are not in the current article. I find them interesting for various reasons: I find them strange and novel, they are quite different from other related religions (i.e. Christianity), they are intriguing due to their secretiveness, and they are a subject of ongoing controversy due to outsiders misunderstanding and misrepresenting them and due to LDS members' secretiveness regarding them. Please, by all means, correct what is possible to correct as I am certain I am misunderstanding some of this, and have been told I am misunderstanding some of this. Yes, some of it I already know is incorrect and I am simply filling in the blanks (making it as easy to correct as possible) because I do not have all the information.-- 24.57.157.81 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
An initiation ritual LDS members go through is called the "Nauvoo Endowment." This ritual is performed before the LDS member begins his or her missionary work and/or before the LDS member marries and is done at the discretion of a higher priest. The ritual takes place inside the Temple, and is usually performed as a large group of members of identical Priesthood.
The ritual is comprised of religious cleansing and religious instructions and revelations kept secret from lower members. The instruction and revelations imparted depend on the Priesthood level of the group, but the rest of the ritual is the same. Both sexes perform the same ritual, more or less.
LDS members performing the ritual do the following:
In private, they remove their current clothing and dress in a single piece apron, called the "Shield." The apron is plain green and has a fig leaf on it. They proceed into a room called the _______ Room, full of small curtained areas, each with a person called an Officiator (male Officiators for male members, female Officiators for female members). Individually, each member enters one of these areas.
Inside the curtained off portion, the Officiator blesses the member by lightly touching various parts of their body with holy water and consecrated oil. The Officiator provides religious counsel and provides them with a spiritual name. This name is unique to that particular ceremony, not the person. However, due to the secretive nature of the ritual, most members believe, for the duration of the ceremony, that their spiritual name is a unique to them. The members then undress. The Officiator helps them into their Temple Garment, an undergarment which has spiritual symbols on it, which they are told to wear for the rest of their life. The Officiator then dresses them according to sex. Members are dressed all in white. Women wear a white veil, white dress, white sash (a girdle worn as a sash), slip, and pantyhose. Men wear a white hat (resembling a pastry chef's), white pants, collared shirt and tie. Both sexes drape a white sheet over a shoulder and wear white slippers.
After each member has performed this part of the ritual, they gather in another room, called the _______ Room. This room is the Temple theater. Members are seated based on sex: males on the right, females on the left. They receive an introduction from an Officiator, and then watch a re-enactment of the book of Genesis, as interpreted by the LDS church. In contemporary times, the re-enactment is presented as a film on a large movie screen. In the past, however, this part of the ritual was live theater (by various Officiators playing the parts of God, Adam, Eve, etc.).
At different points during the re-enactment, the members are asked to pray and make various oaths, and move their robes from one shoulder to the other. Members are told of sacred religious signs (based on the level of Priesthood they are attaining) they must use in order to get into Heaven once they die, and are instructed to keep these signs secret. The signs are various hand gestures--folding the fingers a certain way--and various handshake grips. Revealing this signs, they are told, is heretical and Satanic. Prior to the 1930s, members had to make a verbal agreement that they be eviscerated (and, thus killed) should they reveal these signs.
After the film and the religious instruction, members then leave the theater and queue up at a curtain to another room, the Celestial Room. Before entering through the curtain, each member is tested on his or her memorization of the previous instruction, including the hand gestures. Members then enter the Celestial Room and the ritual is over.
Upon completion of the ritual, members have attained a higher level of Priesthood.
If two members are getting married, they proceed to the Sealing Room.
IMPORTANT NOTE: (Storm Rider's reply is regarding what I wrote before. I erased it because it was getting messy, and also to temper the negative tone I used initially.) -- 24.57.157.81 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This is going to be a fun ride. You best pull in your minister now, because you are getting way out over your skies on this one. -- Storm Rider (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Section 1.3 the Succession Crisis of this article states that "There is little dispute that Joseph Smith, Jr privately and publicly taught and practiced plural marriage; he certainly alluded to the practice in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132." However section 2 of the article Joseph_Smith,_Jr. is a discussion of the uncertainty and controversy on whether Joseph Smith did teach and practice plural marriage.
I just wanted to point this out so that folks more knowledgeable on the subject can address the inconsistency. 64.105.48.146 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)APF
This group is using wikipedia to promote itself and it is a very small group - see the yahoo discussion group -- Trödel 22:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I read more about the controversy about the Book of Abraham. Very insightful material in the FAIR website. I will make a change in wording. An unsigned user had added the assertion about the Book of Abraham translation, based it would seem on very shallow research. Reiddp
Just be warned - FAIR is a hardcore spin machine run by mormons. While I specifically haven't read their info on the Book of Abraham, i figure it's likely the most spin-oriented article they have. The actual source document Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham from has been found and examined by egyptologists, and not surprisingly turns out to be ancient egyptian funeral texts (which is why Joseph Smith found them in a sarcophagus along with a mummy) For exaple, examine the funeral related images at Sacred Texts with the facimilies in the Book of Abraham, particularly Facimili 2
Alienburrito 00:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
"Momonism is now not only the most reknown religion but the most practiced religion, in the world Mormonism and most of mainstream Christianity[1] have had doctrinal disagreements since the beginning of the Latter Day Saint movement in the 1820s" - Even assuming a full stop after "world", the first part of this is ridiculous: "most reknown"? "most practised"? meaning? reference? -- Hugh7 20:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if Mormonism has any specific view that coule be added to the Ishmael article. -- Aminz 08:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I am very concerned looking through several Morman articles that there is no discusion of criticism or contrversies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.194.79 ( talk) 01:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
Let me remind everyone this is Wikepedia - not a forum for evangelism. I'm sure somebody, somewhere from the LDS church is monitoring this webpage 24/7. Why not, countless non-Mormons access the site everyday. It’s a great opportunity but it's also a violation of the “unbiased” policy of Wikipedia.
The LDS community needs to provide more facts. For instance, you cite a "Great Apostasy" in church history after the Apostolic age. But you fail to mention WHO was involved, HOW it happened or even WHERE it happened. What proof do have - historically that the Gospel of Christ was ever changed or corrupted by this "Apostasy"? It's a romantic idea and reconciles your deepest belief, but it provides little creditability to unbiased researchers accessing the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmirarchi ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
The "Mormon" article is stated to discuss the "usage of the word" and not the faith or the organization. This seems to me a dictionary entry masquerading as an encyclopedia article meaning that it violates Wikipedia policy. Regardless, its content could easily be merged into this article without any confusion to the reader.
Comments?
-- Mcorazao 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Next question: Are you motivated to do it? I'm not particularly an expert on the subject. -- Mcorazao 03:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I HATE when people remove my comments from talk pages. Please see previous version here. Incidentally, when you say you are "moving a discussion" please move all the text of the discussion. People like me like to keep track of what they say in conversations. Historical Wiki and my comments are important to me. Removing them is censorship, and violates wikipedia guidelines. That said, my removed comments may be found [ here] and should be kept for historical purposes in the least. - Visorstuff 23:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This is an unrelated issue to the one above, but I removed some content and so put it under this heading. The text I removed is posted below in case anybody wants to fix it and return to the article:
"In the Judeo-Christian tradition, including in the courts of the land, a testimony presented by two competent witnesses is considered more convincing than the testimony of one, especially if that single witness is testifying in his own cause. The Bible and Book of Mormon set forth the Divine practice of furnishing "two or three witnesses" to important Divine acts.(Deut. 17:1; 2 Cor. 13:1; Ether 5:4) Every religion except that taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has only one witness and that is the religion itself. Latter-day saints have witnesses from each of two widely separated nations for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, one book originating in ancient Israel and one in ancient America, and the two testify of the same God and each other. Those nations produced the Bible and the Book of Mormon, "the stick of Judah" and "stick of Ephraim," which agree in one in testifying that Jesus is the Messiah, the true and livng God of Israel.(Ezekiel 37:15-19; 2 Nephi 3:12; 29:2-14; Isa. 29:11-18; Gen. 48; Jer. 3:18; John 10:16; Acts 10:34-36; Alma 46:24-26; 3 Ne. 10:16, 17; 15:16-24; 16:1-7; 20:22; D&C 3:16; 20:11-12; 42:11-12)[141]"
This radically violates NPOV; it clearly reads like a true believer evangelizing to the reader. If it's going to be in the article, every statement needs to be qualified in order to clarify that this is Mormon belief, rather than God's truth. Frankly, though, it's only vaguely coherent as it's written, so I don't know that it should go back in at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.191.87 ( talk) 03:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Some of the discussions not germane to revising this article have been moved to Mmirachi (talk). Please join us there. Thanks. Mmirarchi 21:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The first section mentions the "golden plates". The first, and many, references on church websites, use the phrase "Gold plates". Would not the term gold plates be better and more historically correct? Gunnerclark 21:38, 21 May 2007 (cst)
The LDS Church's Articles of Faith have been copied wholesale into the article several times, and I have deleted them citing Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. There's no need to copy the Articles of Faith anyway, since all the topics therein are discussed in the LDS Church's article. Moreover, the AofF has never been considered a definitive or complete statement of LDS beliefs: it's sole purpose, from the moment Smith included it in the Wentworth letter, has been to serve as a proselytizing tool, which makes it inappropriate to cite verbatim as if it were the church's creed, even if there were no Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources policy. COGDEN 00:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
On another point, this article goes beyond the LDS Church, and includes cultural Mormonism and fundamentalist Mormonism. People shouldn't be deleting information about these elements of Mormonism. COGDEN 00:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The Articles of Faith are published as part of the Pearl of Great Price - a book included in the LDS Scriptures. How is that not definative? Unless you mean "complete" by the term "definitive"? True, they're only a very very basic summary, but do hit some of the highlights of unique doctrines of the church.
Alienburrito 02:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
If you are christian, dosen't that mean you belive in Christ? If so, aren't mormons Christian? Or am I missing something? If my defintion is correct, then what is traditional christianity? Or when you say "Traditional Christianity" are you refering to the Catholic church? If so, what right have you to say that the Catholic church is the "Traditional" church? How do you know that what Christ established on this earth was the Catholic Church? Or any other Christ centered church? Why can't that church have been the mormon church? Zarahemla resident 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
For example, I was told by a pair of their missionaries that Jesus is our spiritual older brother, a spririt child of God just as everyone is, just that he's the first born. To mainstream Christians, Jesus has always been God from before the beginning of time to beyold the end of time. The beginning/end of time does sound contradictory, but the main idea is that Jesus, being God, exists outside of time and has no beginning or end. Any of you mormons want to elaborate on this point? Alienburrito 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
Hey stormrider -
I started reading Jesus The Christ years ago. Now that I think about it, it's been about 20 years, 1986 or 87. Wow time flies. Admitedly i was in college at the time, and yes, the book WAS dry, but it did interest me enough that i've been meaning to get back to it.
I must say, thought, stormrider, sometimes your choice of terms confuses me. I'm very unclear what you mean by 'a penchant for the mysteries of God'. If you mean I'm interested in the nature of God, or at least various people's ideas on the nature of God, that would be a definate yes. Alienburrito 03:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
The Articles of Faith are the basic fundamentals of the Mormon Church! Why should they not be included in the article? Zarahemla resident 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of problems with the phrase "traditional Christianity" when used in this context. First, it's POV because there is a possible inference that "traditional" is good and "untraditional" is bad. Second, because Mormons are considered Restorationists, there is the strangeness of considering Mormonism a restoration of primitive early Christianity vs. what? "traditional Christianity"?
"Traditional" usually implies "older". If the rest of Christianity is "traditional", what is Mormonism? "modern Christianity"? That would suggest a different claim that what I understand Mormonism to claim.
Some "mainstream" Christians would claim that Mormonism is a new and modern adaptation of "traditional Christianity" because of the addition of new scriptures and new doctrines. But, this is plainly POV and thus unacceptable in Wikipedia.
This is why I replaced "traditional" with "mainstream". I'm open to discussing a better term if someone wants to propose one. I just think "mainstream" is superior to "traditional".
I don't think that we can characterize the difference between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity as solely or even primarily Nicene vs. non-Nicene. There are non-Trinitarian churches whose primary difference is the Nicene creed and it Trinitarianism. The Jehovah's Witnesses is one of them. Except for this primary difference, the rest of the doctrinal differences could be ascribed to varying interpretations of Scripture. Well, even non-Trinitarianism can be ascribed to a different interpretation of Scripture but the point I'm making is that non-Trinitarianism is the major sticking point for them.
For Mormons, non-Trinitarianism is not the only major sticking point. The addition of new scriptures to the canon is the other major sticking point. Polygamy is a bit hard to swallow but there are scriptural and historical bases for it and most Mormons don't make such a big deal of it any more anyway. All the rest of the doctrine could probably fall under the category of "varying interpretations of scripture" although the claim that men can become "like Gods" is probably also a sticking point.
In any event, "non-Nicene" is not a good way of characterizing the differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity.
-- Richard 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I would definatly say that "mainstream" would be the right term to use in regard to the Trinitarian view, one of the major disagreements between Mormonism and most of the rest of Christianity. I'd say its apropriate because of the sheer numbers - the last set of numbers I've seen for Christianity in general is
about 2.1billion then
about 13million for the LDS Church, and if i read their stats page right,
about 7 million for Jehovah's Witnesses. Feel free to comment if you think there's more to the term mainstream than just numbers.
Alienburrito 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
Tried to edit "Other" out of the PP - once again confronted with propagandists. Instead, how about "traditional" or "orthodox" as "other" connotes acceptance by both sides of an argument, which clearly isn't the case~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.47.19 ( talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand why a transhumanist would want to have an outlet to attract people to their movement, but it has nothing to do with Mormonism. Further, it is spam. It professes to have nothing to do with any religion; thus it is not Mormonism or anything that could be classified as Mormonism. It is a movement that some, seemingly few, Mormons have joined. I say great, but you can not advertise a private group unaffiliated with Mormonism and parade it like it does have something to do. We do not allow Mormon Rotarians to advertise, or alumni associations, or any other group that has members that are LDS. It is simply not done on WIKI. -- Storm Rider (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I will start a new paragrpah thread given the number of indents.
Yes, Mormonism can be used to describe all groups that have evolved from Joseph Smith; however, most reject the term. It is specifically applicable to the LDS church. The Fundamentalists enjoy using it because they find it aggrandizing to ride on the coat tail of the LDS church. The article itself points this fact out. It is not used by the other significant groups such as the Community of Christ, Bickertonites, etc. What you are looking for is the term Latter Day Saint movement; this is term is equivical in its breadth and ecompasses all churches that descend from the Joseph Smith.
Do you have any references for how many Mormons are Transhumanists? Just curious, but I suspect we are not talking about huge numbers of people. The links are not used for advertising groups, as I said before Mormons come in all types and sizes, but that does not make every club, association, etc. a particular Mormon joins part of Mormonism. I am a bit flummoxed by this insistence that somehow not lising your link on nearly all of the main Mormon related pages is censorship or portrays a lesser form of Mormonism. I still see this as a personal issue.
Please review external links and then let's talk again. Some of the items particularly germane to our conversation are the following:
"Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:
I would still think other editors should comment to ensure that I have not misunderstood policy. Cheers. -- Storm Rider (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I recently have had some conflict with a mormon on another page that I edited, and it got me thinking. I posted this same set of questions and comments on his personal page, but I thought it might be good to post here too. How exactly does an LDS determine what is church doctrine and what is not? I would THINK that a sermon by Joseph Smith would be accepted as an official statement of doctrine or practice. Apparently it's not. Some comments from mormons have indicated they believe that only the Scriptures of the LDS church ( http://scriptures.lds.org) qualify as doctrinal statements or guidelines for practice. Yet at the same time, it appears that the church does teach things that at best are only hinted at in the scriptures. An example of this would be the idea of a Heavenly Mother. THere's a song in the church hymnal about it, Hymn 292 , and several articles at the church website that refer to it, for example Daughters of God from the Nov 1991 Ensign by President Hinckley. There's no references to this idea anywhere in the scriptures that i'm aware of, except perhaps in a very vague way. (And no, I don't plan on getting into the flap i've heard about surrounding this issue. I just want to use it as an example of a belief that is far from being clearly stated in the scriptures).
I've also always been given the impression the church also promotes itself as having prophetic leaders who can speak by inspiration, which solves the problem of people having wildly different views of the Bible because of its lack of clarity on certain things.
So, back to the origional question. How does one determine LDS doctrine? from the LDS Scriptures? From the public statements of the church's prophets? Some of both? Pick and choose the stuff you like from both and ignore the rest? Some other totally different way? Alienburrito 22:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
SESmith - to me, your explanations makes the LDS sound pretty much like Christianity in general. Some christians say the Pope is the final authority, some catholics even reject Vatican 2's approach to practicing the faith. Most baptists would say mostly interpretation is up to the consience of the individual member, many christans are somewhere in between. The LDS say the leaders of the church are prophets - see Gordon Hinckley's profile at Families Forever - I would hope having a prophet around would avoid disagreement about what was doctrine or not. What I don't get I guess is what use is it to have someone that claims to be a prophet if they can't proclaim or clarify doctrine authoritatively. Just seems pretty useless to me. I'm leaning towards the prophet thing being a scam to be honest. Alienburrito 03:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
Interesting points. What i'm pondering now is this. From the reading I've done on the LDS Church, the vast majority of Joseph Smith, Jr's teachings weren't joint statements, they came from him and him alone. There's a handful of revelations published in the Doctrine and Covenants where some of Smith's associates were invovled in receiving the revelation, but the vast majority are solo. Yet it seems that some of Smith's doctrinal teachings are rejected in modern times, which is where I ended up butting heads with a mormon or 2 here. It also seems that the prophet going solo on revealing or clarifying things has gone by the wayside, and I don't get why. Alienburrito 03:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
SESmith - here comes the $64,000 question now, the one I was hoping to get to eventually. Why are some of Smith's stuff cannonized and some not? Have the followers of Joseph Smith just decided they're gonna pick and choose what things they like and don't like? It sure sounds like it from what i've read so far. That definatly puts some dents in the church, the current leaders especially, as something/someone to look to for information on God and salvation. Alienburrito 02:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
Well, at this point, I'll chalk our disagreements on this stuff up to different understandings of what a prophet is. I must admit I expect that a prophet, when he speaks about God, to be teaching doctrine. A prophet's teaching needs to also fit in with previous prophets. Not that a prophet can't teach something that previous prophets haven't taught, but his teaching does need to be consistent with previous prophets. I'll use Jesus as an example. His teaching is very different from those of Moses, but the New Testament cites numerous statements of the Old Testament Prophets to support the idea that his coming and the new approach was part of the plan.
Of course, that does seem pretty simplistic, but then again, in recent years, I've come to the conclusion that most of Chrisianity is irrelevent to my life, partly because of such overly simplistic stuff as above. Alienburrito 01:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito
This is just a comment, but isn't 4 references pitifully small for such a large subject, with such varying and controversial content? Can at least a dozen other good sources be found? silvarbullet1 ( talk) 00:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Rather than add to a very old discussion, I am bringing it to the bottom. Please do not respond to the old discussion. Bytebear ( talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
this should not be a part of wikiproject christianity because mormons are not christians-- Charlieh7337 ( talk) 02:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Why does this article not have the tags of cult, 19th century religions, religions founded in the USA, etc? Since Mormonism was ment for white americans should'nt it have a tag for that? There racist dogma about Native Americans and Africans should also be place on highlight. -- Margrave1206 ( talk) 17:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
2 Nephi 5:21-23: "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."
"And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."
"And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done."
"And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey."
In 2 Nephi 30:6, "...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people." [8] I can assure you one thing, that people have been cruel and prejudice for centuries, however no one can say that they made up a religion on the spot out of a magic hat that spouted racism. My point being is that that instead of white washing the part of the Mormons all of this info should be added. Should'nt we have a section about Mormonism and their racist doctrine that is an intricate part of there church? Did the mormons change their doctrine that the Native Americans are the Lamanites and are cursed because they are dark? Store Rider don't candy coat the facts. The article needs work and it needs to show people who read it the facts about Mormonism.-- Margrave1206 ( talk) 19:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You are delightful Margarve; unfortunately, you are ignorant of the LDS church and its origins and not very original in your diatribe. By your comments I would guess you are more familiar with some of the anti-Mormon websites of poorer quality.
This is beginning to look more like troll behavior; let's not feed it anymore! They tend to die when ignored. -- Storm Rider (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you not read what I had on the edit note? There is in fact a reason why it was edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynehart ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The changes I made are in no way a "point of view". Explain to me how a religion with so many disagreements with Christianity's core principles can be called Christian by anyone with a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynehart ( talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a question regarding the intent behind the Mormon practice of polygamy. I have been told, by a former Mormon practitioner, that in the founding days of the belief men who were followers were often attacked and killed by people of other groups (no specifics about who). With widowed wives and fatherless children increasing in number, the decision was made to bring the victims' families into the home of another provider already married, thus an apparent "plural marriage."
This is of course complete hearsay, and I have not been able to confirm the claim. Has anyone else investigated this, or is anyone else interested in the matter? More importantly, has this claim been proven or disproven? I would prefer not to add anything to the article until there is further information. DerekMBarnes ( talk) 02:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, this must be clarified here. Mormonism is regarded as a non-Christian religion by Protestants, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians. This makes up over 98% of all Christendom. Not only is it regarded as non-Christian by nearly 100% of all Christians, but many of it's beliefs are considered blasphemous and heretical by Christianity. The single thing that is used to classify what is a Christian religion and what isn't is the Nicene Creed. This was formed between 325 and 381.
According to the wikipedia article: "The Nicene Creed (pronounced /ˈnaɪsiːn/) is an ecumenical Christian statement of faith accepted in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Communion, and almost all branches of Protestantism, including the Reformed churches, the Presbyterian Church, and the Methodist Church."
While a few things may differ between the different branches of Christianity, ALL agree that it is true and anything that deviates from it is heretical and even blasphemous.
I think Wikipedia needs to conform to traditional Christian definitions of what defines Christians and Christianity. Right now it seems Wikipedia is using very secular definitions that are contrary to Christians and what they believe. This is NOT about who is "right" or who is "wrong". We are NOT saying Mormonism is wrong by not classifying them as Christian. We are simply stating facts about them.
Example... If a Republican politician came forward, and started publically believing in very Democratic/Liberal views, would he still then be considered Republican if the Republican party disowned him?
This is the same thing... There ARE set definitions in Christianity as to what is Christian and what isn't. Those definitions are set forth in the Nicene Creed. Mormonism does not agree with the Nicene Creed, and many of it's beliefs contradict it. It is thus rejected as Christian by Roman Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox etc...
Christianity is not just a very grey area now. You cannot just believe that Jesus is the messiah to be considered Christian. One of the primary things Christians believe and always have is that Jesus is also one part of the Holy Trinity, that he is God. (not a single deity/god as many Mormons believe)
There are many Mormon beliefs that contradict Christian ones that are set forth in the Nicene Creed. Christians believe that the Nicene Creed is one thing that defines Christianity and what Christians believe, so therefore, going by what Christians believe, and what the Nicene Creed says, Mormonism is NOT a Christian faith. It is a religion unto it's own.
Like I said, this is NOT saying whether they are right or wrong. We say Islam is not a Christian faith, even though in it's early days, it espoused very (heretical) Christian and Jewish beliefs. And even though they believe in Jesus, they don't believe in him in exactly the same way as Christians. Therefore, they are not Christian.
It isn't about who is right or wrong, its about putting forth the facts, and showing that they aren't considered Christian by Christianity and it's official definitions. This does NOT mean they are wrong in their beliefs, it just means that they aren't considered to be part of a differing religion. -- KCMODevin ( talk) 15:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I'm perfectly 100% Correct... You guys trying to secularize Christianity and blur the lines between what is Christian and what isn't is a completely new phenomena born of the modern movement which is completely UNCHRISTIAN and is completely contrary to Christianity of the past 2000 years. It DOES NOT matter what a single person regards themself as.
I do not think ANY of you understand the history of Christianity. For the first 1000 years, Christianity had one Church, with 5 main Apostolic Sees in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Each bishop of each Apostolic See was completley equal, however no decision was made without consulting the other bishops. Christian beliefs were clarified and defined ONLY by Ecumenical Councils. The first Ecumenical Council was in 325, however the first Church Council was MUCH earlier, in fact it is written about in the New Testament, it was a council in Jerusalem, attended by bishops as well as the Apostles.
In the New Testament, it was clearly defined as to who is a Christian and who is not. The Apostles and Christ all warned against false doctrines and anti-Christs (which are anyone/anything that replaces or is contrary to Christ). We know for sure that the Apostles, especially Paul wrote against people who considered themselves to be Christians, but taught false doctrines. In the Book of Revelation, Christ spoke against the Nicolaitans: "Nicolaism (also Nicholaism, Nicolationism, or Nicolaitanism) is a Christian heresy whose adherents are called nicolaitans, nicolaitanes, or nicolaites. They are first mentioned (twice) in the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. According to Revelation 2, vv. 6 and 15, they were known in the cities of Ephesus and Pergamos around AD 99. The church at Ephesus is commended for "hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate" and the church in Pergamos is blamed for "having them who hold their [the Nicolaitans'] doctrines". There is no other first-hand evidence to give us certainty about the nature of this sect." From the New Testament, we know that heretics are NOT Christians and are even spoken against and rebuked by Christ and the Apostles.
You must realize that Christianity has set definitions, and for 1600 years, those definitions have been set forth in the Nicene Creed. Anyone that doesn't believe in the doctrines set forth in the Nicene Creed are therefore not Christians. You CANNOT believe anything you want as a Christian just because you believe in Christ as the messiah. You MUST believe certain things to be considered a Christian, and it's been like this ever since the days of the Apostles.
This is a time of great tolerance and of attempts to not offend anyone. However this is a great phenomena. Before recent times, people knew who were Christians and who weren't. Heretics may have considered themselves to be Christian, but in fact, they were not Christians, but rather heretics.
Like I said, saying Mormons aren't Christians is not the same as saying they are wrong, it is simply stating a fact. Secular authorities have no right and no ability to define what is Christianity and what isn't. The definitions for Christianity have been CLEAR CUT for a very long time. Only when modernists and secular people have stepped in has the boundaries and definitions tried to be blurred. -- KCMODevin ( talk) 22:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I edited the article to present BOTH points of view. Originally it had primarily the Mormon POV on the issue. I edited it so it can present the Mormon POV and the POV of Christians on the issue.
"Mormonism sees itself as a restorationist Christian religion. [9] [2] Thus, Mormons regard themselves as Christians, however this differs from the view of other Christian faiths in the world.
Mormons do not adhere to the official Christian statement of faith, the Nicene Creed formed in the 4th Century A.D. Because of this, they are considered a non-Christian faith by many Christians. The traditional/mainstream Christian branches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and most branches of Protestantism do not regard Mormonism as a Christian faith, but rather a unique faith unto it's own. However some Christians regard Mormonism as simply a restoration of ancient Christian heresies such as Arianism, Nestorianism, Gnosticism etc..."
It is NOT fair to Christians to quote a Mormon website and call that true. Instead, we need to present BOTH points of view on the issues. -- KCMODevin ( talk) 22:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
YOU CANNOT CITE AN LDS WEBSITE AS FACT!!! YOU HAVE TO PRESENT BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE!! I couldn't care less if it's been discussed before. As the article was, it certainly was NOT NPOV and was extremely bias towards the LDS and Mormons. It cited LDS.org for the so-called "fact" that it's a restorationist Christian religion. However, you completely DOWNPLAY the fact that because they do not adhere to the Nicene Creed, that the mainstream Christian denominations see it as heretical if not completely non-Christian. You CANNOT present ONLY the LDS view on this issue... -- KCMODevin ( talk) 23:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I would be happy with the article saying just:
Mormonism sees itself as a restorationist Christian religion. [10] [3] Thus, Mormons regard themselves as Christians.
However, traditional Christian faiths, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and most branches of Protestantism either regard Mormonism as a non-Christian faith and/or as heretical Christianity.
I don't see what is so wrong and bias about this? -- KCMODevin ( talk) 00:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The Nicene Creed rejection is not downplayed, it is covered fairly thoroughly in the article. And yes, one can cite the LDS website as fact vis-à-vis what the Mormons believe. -- TrustTruth ( talk) 00:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
KCMO, I take it then that you would think it appropriate to also list the Roman Catholicism is viewed as a cult in its article because many Protestant churches believe that to a fact. Of course it would not be appropriate; just as it is not appropriate to create a definition of Christianity that only suites Trinitarians. The doctrine of the Trinity is not greater than the doctrine of Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, bled in the garden, was crucified, rose the third day, returned to the Father and will return again one day. He is the only path to return to the Father. Jesus testified of his divinity and his saving grace just as the ancient apostles did. Followers and belief in Jesus in the fashion define Christian and not the teachings of man 325 years after the resurrection of Jesus.
What you are confusing is the teaching of the Catholic Church and those churches who splintered from them that retained the teaching. Sometimes we call it the historic Christian churches; I prefer to just call it orthodoxy. Regardless, orthodoxy does not own the term and discipleship is not determined by their teachings. It is fine that you believe it and have that POV, but it is acceptable on Wikipedia to demand that all Christian churches meet your standard. More importantly, it is not appropriate to rewrite history so that your POV is protected. Christianity has never had a unity of the faith or of teachings. -- Storm Rider (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
-Storm Rider, I am not confusing it. I do not believe the Roman Catholic Church to be the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Rather, I believe that to be the Eastern Orthodox Church. But I do not let that effect my views on Roman Catholicism as a Christian faith.
Christianity has never had a unity of the faith or of teachings.
My friend, you REALLY need to learn your history. In the Acts of the Apostles, a council was called in Jerusalem by bishops and the Apostles to settle a dispute in the Church. This was the first official council. Eventually in 325, the next official council was called in Nicaea by Constantine. It was attended by hundreds of bishops, and by the heads of the Apostolic Sees around the empire. The decisions of this council, and the following six were accepted by all Christians. Those Christians that refused to accept them were considered to be heretics and were not allowed to partake of the Eucharist in the Liturgical services of ANY Christian Church. The early Christian Church had hierarchy and there was most certainly unity and contact between all Churches. Christians may have believed heretical teachings out of general lack of knowledge of theology. But those who believe them and know the true teachings of the Church are heretics.
When I say "The Church", I'm referring to the One Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church. Originally, the Church had five main Apostolic Sees (founded by the Apostles), Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. NONE of these Patriarchs had authority over the other, and all were equal. They could not interfer in each other's jurisdictions, and doctrines/canons could not be formed without the unity of all of them in a Council.
So to say there was never a unity of faith is completely untrue. We KNOW there was unity in the Early Church... The only difference in opinion comes at the Great Schism when conflict between the Church of Rome and the four other Churches became too great and they split. Protestants believe since then, all five churches have strayed from Christianity. Catholics believe they were right and the Eastern Orthodox (the five other churches) are wrong, and the Eastern Orthodox believe that they have preserved the Apostolic Tradition and see the Catholics as straying from tradition.
This comes to Mormonism. Mormons (from what i've read on Mormon sites and literature) see mainstream Christianity as straying from original Christianity almost from day one. They believe Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox all are wrong and strayed away. They believe they are restoring original Christianity and they do not even accept the Nicene Creed (which all mainstream/traditional Christians accept).
On this article, we NEED to clarify that the Mormons view themselves as a Christian religion. However that Christian religions do not see them as Christian, but rather a heretical faith. Especially because it is not only the Nicene Creed that the Mormons differ from Christians on.
The article NEEDS to state this plainly in the beginning of the article. Many people do not go through an article and read everything. Many just read the beginning of the article to get an idea about the subject in the article. This is why it's important to clarify/summarize it in the beginning and make sure there is a NPOV stated early on.
Here is what the article ought to say:
Mormonism believes itself to be a restorationist Christian religion. [11] [4] Thus, Mormons regard themselves as Christians.
However, traditional Christian faiths, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and most branches of Protestantism regard Mormonism as being heretical.
-- KCMODevin ( talk) 02:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What the hell is wrong with saying "Mormonism believes itself to be a restorationist Christian Religion?" -- KCMODevin ( talk) 02:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
CAN WE GET A NON-MORMON IN ON THIS DISCUSSION? -- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
So secular non-Christian "officials" now decide what is Christian and what isn't? When the hell did that begin? -- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Around the time the Royals became universally recognized as a great team, in other words never. It's about a consensus of opinion among observers, not about appearing before some group of "officials" and being granted the Christianity designation. You may not agree with it, but that's your opinion. Here we're striving for a neutral view. -- TrustTruth ( talk) 03:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
HOW THE HELL IS IT NEUTRAL WHEN YOU CITE LDS.ORG???!!! IT ISN"T NEUTRAL!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE CITING A MORMON WEBSITE, NOT A SECULAR/NEUTRAL WEBSITE!!!!!!!!!!!! -- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
LISTEN, if you are going to cite LDS.org... Then you HAD BETTER cite other Christian sources showing the opposing opinion. -- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Listen... Go to the
Roman Catholic and
Eastern Orthodox articles...
Eastern Orthodox:
"It is considered by its adherents to be the very same Church established by Christ and his Apostles."
Roman Catholic:
"The Catholic Church maintains that it is the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" founded by Jesus"
This is the SAME thing... Mormons regard themselves as Christians is the more correct (and NPOV) way of saying it rather than saying Mormons are Christian.-- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edit is MUCH better and thank you for adding non-LDS references... However I still have a problem with the sentence: "Mormonism is a restorationist Christian religion" Like I pointed out above, it's the same thing as the two statements in the Catholic and Orthodox articles. To be more correct and to provide it as a NPOV, we should say that: "Mormonism sees itself as a restorationist Christian religion" It would be best and would be neutral. Like I pointed out above... The statements in the Catholic and Orthodox articles do not say that one (or the other) is the original Church, but rather that they believe themselves to be the original Church. -- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
You must keep in mind... In the Orthodox/Catholic articles, you could possibly cite secular sources that cite the Catholic church as being the original church, and cite secular sources that say the Orthodox church is the original church. It mostly depends on where you are geographically. Western sources may not cite Islam as having origins in heretical Christianity, while some Eastern secular sources may say Islam was indeed influenced and some of it's beliefs originated from heretical Christianity.
Same here, some secular sources will cite Mormonism as Christian, and some will cite it as non-Christian.
So the best thing is to simply say, that they believe that they are Christian.-- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Would it be proper to say that: Mormonism is a restorationist non-Trinitarian Christian religion?-- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, I'm fine with your edit as long as the statement about those denominations regarding the church as heretical and the non-trinitarian clarification can remain.-- KCMODevin ( talk) 03:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
IMO it matters because it isn't proper to ignore the differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. Without clarification, people reading the article (or rather, skimming over it, as many don't read the whole thing) might assume that Mormonism is considered completley Christian and considered to be ok by other Christians. With the clarification, they know that Mormonism is considered Christian by some, however that position is contested by a large number of Christians out there. Ignoring 97% of the world's Christians just isn't acceptable IMO, even if it is in the spirit of "tolerance".-- KCMODevin ( talk) 15:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The Jehovah's Witness article has this in the opening paragraph of the article:
Identification of the religion as Christian is disputed due to rejection of the Trinity, which most Christian religions regard as a fundamental doctrine.
Maybe we could add a reference or note that clarifies "Christian religions" as being the denominations listed in the paragraph on this page.
Mormonism is a restorationist [5] [6] nontrinitarian Christian religion. [7] However, given its stance on the Trinity, traditional Christian denominations such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and most branches of Protestantism consider the Mormon church heretical.
Mormonism is a restorationist [8] [9] nontrinitarian Christian religion. [10] Identification of the religion as Christian is disputed due to rejection of the Trinity, which most Christian religions regard as a fundamental doctrine. [11]
Just wondering if this would be more proper considering how it also appears on the JW's article -- KCMODevin ( talk) 15:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Your analogy is NOT the same as what we are discussing here. Christianity doesn't consider itself to be a Muslim faith. Therefore, it doesn't need to be stated that Muslims don't agree with Christianity being a part of Islam since Christianity doesn't make the claim to be Muslim. The same here, Mormons are claiming to be Christian, however the traditional and mainstream Christian faiths dispute this. Therefore, it HAS to be stated. Christians don't claim to be Muslim, therefore, there is no reason to state that Muslims do not agree with Christianity. -- KCMODevin ( talk) 00:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Bart Ehrmen was a Christian, and in fact an evangelical I think. He believed that Scripture was infallible, and was totally inspired by God without any errors. A common misconception among Christians who aren't aware of the truth. As he read scripture and researched it's history, his research came into conflict with his beliefs, he came to the conclusion that scripture is not valid whatsoever and was entirely written by man. Thus he rejected Christianity and ceased to be a Christian (by his own admission).
A podcast by Dr. Jeannie Constantinou called "Search the Scriptures" has been doing a LONG series on scripture, it's origins, etc... She specifically speaks about Bart Ehrman and his writing. We KNOW that scripture was written, edited and changed by man. The Holy Spirit did not overtake the human beings writing it, and there are errors, but they are not a big deal. In fact, many of the additions are wonderful, and we need to bless the editors for adding. Originally, the stories in scripture were transferred orally and were not written down. Much of the epistles are letters to various churches by the Apostles and were not initially scripture. And even the Apostles did not write many of the letters themselves, but rather had their disciples or followers write for them.
Men did get together and formed the Creed in several councils. Just as men gathered in Jerusalem and made the decisions they made there. The Apostles and Disciples were ALL men, and all had faults and made errors. That is completely acceptable. But that does not mean their decisions were not guided by the Holy Spirit.
You are just NOT understanding what I've been arguing here. Mormonism initially was considered non-Christian by everyone. Eventually, as they've become less and less strict and less like original Mormonism, they've desired to be considered Christian by everyone. However, their rejection of BASIC Christian beliefs is what separates them.
Baptists considering Catholicism to be a cult is not important, because Baptists are one small portion of Christianity. Here we are talking about the VAST MAJORITY of Christians. If you want to include non-trinitarians in that number, then the number of Christians who do not accept Mormonism as Christian is indeed still above 90%, therefore it is valid and important to include it in the article.
Like I said before, what makes you all so important that you deserve to be considered Christians without dispute while the
Jehovah's Witness article clearly states that their status as Christians is disputed by the majority of Christians? What makes YOU more special than them? Answer that...--
KCMODevin (
talk) 16:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Seeing how many sections in the talk page redundantly argue (in some cases uncivilly) whether Mormons are Christians and should or should not be described as such in this article, I have decided to contribute my thoughts to the matter. If this starts another half-page of cyclical dispute with no real resolution, let it be on my head.
This is what Wikipedia says about about Christianity as a whole:
"Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament. Its followers, known as Christians, believe that Jesus is the begotten Son of God and the Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament (the part of scripture common to Christianity and Judaism). To Christians, Jesus Christ is a teacher, the model of a virtuous life, the revealer of God, and most importantly the saviour of humanity who suffered, died, and was resurrected to bring about salvation from sin. Christians maintain that Jesus ascended into heaven, and most denominations teach that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead, granting everlasting life to his followers."
Any religious group which holds these beliefs may therefore be defined as Christian, including Mormonism. This is a neutral, academic definition, and as an open agnostic it is the standard I intend to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekMBarnes ( talk • contribs) 06:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Ahem... The name of the church is The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. Raekuul 12:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raekuul ( talk • contribs)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessdaymonth=
, |month=
, |accessyear=
, |accessmonthday=
, and |coauthors=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessdaymonth=
, |month=
, |accessyear=
, |accessmonthday=
, and |coauthors=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessdaymonth=
, |month=
, |accessyear=
, |accessmonthday=
, and |coauthors=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessdaymonth=
, |month=
, |accessyear=
, |accessmonthday=
, and |coauthors=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)