Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 23

Exaltation vs theosis

The new edits confuse "exaltation" and "theosis", using ambiguous language rather than clarifying the difference. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the link from Theosis to Exaltation (LDS Church). I'm also unhappy with the ambiguous language explaining the LDS view of exaltation; the same language could be used to explain the orthodox understanding of adoption, glorification, or theosis - but the intended meaning is different. Rather than use terms and explanations that lead to confusion of the two different concepts, shouldn't we prefer terms that make the difference obvious, unless you are suggesting that they are the same? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than speculation as to what is done as a god, I don't see any difference between the two concepts. Maybe I am missing something on the Christian view. Bytebear (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

When you look at the words of Athanasius, Justin Martyr, and many others they are identical if not more explicit than the words of any LDS leader. The difference appears to be one that today's orthodox seek to make different and not one that the patristic fathers made.

In truth, I do not understand the difference attempted to be drawn today by orthodoxy, but the words of the early fathers speak clearly for themselves. I would say, Mark, that you are seeking to draw a difference. I wonder if Athanasius would? I will add back theosis because it compares the two quite well. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the quote from Athanasius that is in the article, Storm Rider? He tries to explain to you how your view is different from his. Don't you think that he would be quite surprised that somehow you managed to interpret his defense of "one in substance" as though he meant the opposite of what he said? Because you believe that the Father and the Son are different beings, he is addressing you when he distinguishes "theosis" from your doctrine. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bytebear, the traditional doctrine of theosis is an implication of the doctrine of the Trinity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why exaltation is even mentioned under the Nature of God section? It does not seem to fit; shouldn't this go down into Plan of Salvation? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't mentioned there, until you changed it. The point being contrasted was that in the sense that LDS teaching allows for multiple deities, "mainstream" Christianity has only one. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That last comment is a cop out. The discussion is how Mormonisms teachings relate to Christian teachings. By evidence, Storm has shown they are remarkably similar. If you disagree, you need to present more than a misleading statement like "LDS teaching allows for multiple deities, "mainstream" Christianity has only one." Bytebear (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark, please read the article on Theosis, it clearly covers the LDS perspective. It is just as valid as the exaltation article. More importantly, it provides a clear comparison between the early orthodox view and the LDS view. I am also aware of how many orthodox Christians read that article and are shocked by what the early father wrote. (Curious, I just went back and saw that you have recently edited this article; unfortunately, your edits were not accurate regarding LDS doctrine and I reverted to the previous wording; please try to be accurate and not use your opinion in what LDS believe)

Byte and Mark I believe it is important to demonstrate not only the similarities, but the differences. The biggest differences is the LDS believe in three separate beings; they may be seen as one, but remain three. Academia has created distinctions within monotheism so that now we have Henotheism, Monolatrism, and a vast array of other distinctions. I think this is an important area to cover and is significant. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bytebear, I wonder what you mean by "cop out"? Do you need to say that?

The section used to be concerning the LDS view that there are multiple beings in the LDS "Godhead". Now it is a section about "exaltation". Storm Rider wondered how exaltation is relevant to what was being compared; and I too wonder what is being compared. There are three different beings in the LDS Godhead. If you see how different this is from the "mainstream" view, make that difference more plain, rather than confusing the two with ambiguous language. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I use the phrase "cop out" because the evidence Storm presents on Theosis is clearly in line with LDS belief. You sidestep that issue by saying Momrons are polytheistic, but Christians are Monotheistic. I think the matter is not so simple. A lot of Mormons would say that Theosis and Exhaultation are perfectly Monotheistic. Why, because we will be "one with God" meaing there is still only one God. Others would take a more henotheistic view, but I think either way, it's semantics more than definition, because we simply do not know what the state of being will mean. But we do know there is only one God. Bytebear (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not a sidestep at all. The fact is that, what the Orthodox mean by theosis is explained by the doctrine of the Trinity. Because the LDS has a different doctrine of God you cannot mean the same thing by "theosis" as is meant by the Trinitarian doctrine. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And the point in that section on the nature of God is that, the LDS mean something different by "one God" - you mean what we would mean by "polytheism" (but pick your own term) - which we should clarify rather than obscure with ambiguous language. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we could get into some of the logical fallacies, but I think that may be the wrong direction. I am thinking of how is something a son of himself? Why create a whole story of having a Son of God, when the world was already more comfortable with the concept of gods coming to earth. Orthodoxy admits the incomprehensible nature of the Trinity, but demands a higher standard of others concepts such as the Godhead. If we are going to go into the differnences, there are many and neither party is without weaknesses. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider, the LDS perspective is a footnote to the article on Theosis. You are distorting the LDS view by aligning or equating it with Orthodox theosis. Surely you can see the difference: please explain the difference, as Athanasius does:

Here we see the contrast between the "One-in-substance" of Father and Son and the mere participation in the Divine Fulness' which, in various measures, is given to His creatures ...

Would you interact with this, please? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your last comment seems to attempt to interact with something, but I don't follow what you're trying to say there, or what you are referring to. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking more closely at what you've begun to say Storm Rider, I wish that you would draw it out a bit more. You're saying that, to speak of the "son of God" implies "two beings", or else God the Son is the Son of Himself, right? The distinction of "persons" is meaningless to you, unless it means "people", two subjects external to one another: is that right? How do you suppose this would be answered by a Trinitarian? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I would say that it is a section and not a footnote; are you attempting to state because the section is short that it is somehow insignificant?

There are distinct similarities between theosis and exaltation. I also think there are distinct differences; functionally I think they are the same, but the process is expressed different between the two.

One of the major differences between the two is exemplified in the statement you provided above; it is the difference between participation in God and eternal progression to unity with God. Within orthodoxy man is a created being that is able, through Christ, to be divinized. It is assumed that God and man have no relationship. Man may participate in God's glory, but there will always be a chasm between God and man.

Within LDS theology man is, at his/her most fundamental basis, an uncreated intelligence, but a created spirit. As created spirits they are children of God; their purpose in being is to become like their Father. This is achieved through Jesus Christ (just as in orthodoxy). Though it is possible to become gods as revealed in the Bible, those beings will always be subordinate to God the Father. This is similar in both orthodoxy and LDS beliefs. It is not correct to think of them as equal to God; that day will never come; both also agree on this.

My last comment provides another avenue that could be explored. Instead of focusing on the solely on the differences between Christian beliefs and LDS; the discussion can be turned around so the LDS then discuss the incongruity of some Christian beliefs. This may be worthwhile, but I still have a degree of discomfort with it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say about the theosis article, that it is about the Trinitarian conception, and Mormonism is intruded irrelevantly because it is not Trinitarianism. The Mormon conception is more properly called "exaltation". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What does orthodoxy believe happens with divinization? What is its purpose? I have never found that missing piece to the puzzle in patristic writings. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Divinization" or "theosis" is the Eastern Orthodox way of saying "salvation". By "eternal life", we mean God Himself; in his Son Jesus Christ, the Father from whom the Son has been given forth for our life, has become our life. The last time I spoke this way, I was accused of being "trite", and everything I said was dismissed as "platitudes". But that isn't how the Scriptures speak.

"For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory." Col 3:3-4

Salvation is not an issue of human potential; it is an issue of faith that God fulfills in Christ what He intended by making man in his image: and the invisible God will be seen in those who are in Christ, as he is seen in Christ who is in God.

"And because of him, you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord." 1Cor 20:29-31

  Do you see the contrast, when compared to the deification of Krishna or the apotheosis of Caesar, and the like? The pagans make the chasm between god and man appear small after all, regardless of how vast they paint it to be; it is not so far that a man might not attain it. One wonders what difference they think there is between god and man, if they pretend that men have no beginning and suppose that by the guidance, gifts and clemency of the gods men may ascend by ambition to become gods after all.

  In "theosis" the distinction between God and Man is shown to be uncrossable, and uncrossed:

"But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us." 2Cor 4:7

  If God shows in us that he is God, this is our deification: almighty God is brightly shown forth in us. "God will be admired in his saints." There is nothing even conceivably "higher" than that, in all of creation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

From the Lutheran Formula of Concord:[1] "We reject and condemn all the following errors ... 6. That not God Himself, but only the gifts of God, dwell in believers." — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am speaking personally now; one of the weaknesses of of 4th century Christianity is there are no reasons for the resurrection. Why make man have a body in the eternities? Certainly, as you say, the invisible God could make him self known in the Old Testament; what is the purpose of the resurrection. What need did God have to take a body? The eternities are left for those who go to heaven to float about the clouds in eternal bliss. In some circles this would be known as hell; one unending round of spiritually induced ecstasy. There is no purpose, no reason d'etre.

In LDS theology God is completely independent of man. There is no requirement for for man's existence to give God meaning. God's work and his glory is to bring about the eternal life of mankind. There is reason for the resurrection because without a body we are incomplete. It is the reason demons are so desperate to gain a body they will willingly go into the bodies of pigs when cast out. The body glorified is a work of God; a gift that makes man more like Him.

I accused you of platitudes because you take most of them from scripture; seeming to think that is different. Given that we have the same scriptures it seems to evade the question; nothing has been provided that adds to the conversation.

We don't make ourselves God's children; he makes us his children and through Christ we become his heirs. It is unfathomable to me that orthodoxy limits the gift of God by stating He cannot make us like him. What purpose is His creation? Does He need concourses of angel to sing him praises to exist? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Word took a body, not because it is of his nature, but because it is of our nature. He did not come for himself, but for us and for our salvation.

For He became man that we might become divine;
and He revealed Himself through a body
that we might receive an idea of the invisible Father;
and He endured insults from men
that we might inherit incorruption (Athanasius: Contra Genies and De Incarnatione (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971); ¶ 54.

"Although he is incorporeal by nature and Word, yet through the mercy and goodness of his Father he appeared to us in a human body for our salvation" (Athanasius). He did not come to flatter us by joining our corruptible nature to his incorruption, but to save us from corruption.

I quote from the Scriptures in the sense that the tradition of faith quotes from them; you quote from them according to the Mormon understanding - as you also quote from Athanasius, obscuring and in fact reversing what he has argued. The difference stands out starkly this way, as you are able to see yourself. But rather than interact with the difference pointed out, you call them "platitudes"? That's just name calling. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that I quote Athanasius and Athansius speaks for himself. If you wish us to only discuss from scripture, I am more than happy to conform to it. LDS theology is based more on the Bible than the Book of Mormon; the Book of Mormon's purpose is focused on one thing...the convincing of Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ.

You are confusing what is happening; you are not a platitude, but you are using platitudes to describe beliefs. Thats fine, I just find that it does not further understanding between us. There has been no name calling; we are discussing ideas not each other personally.

My recent statements should be focused on the illogical position as to why take a physical body. Surely God was more than capable of accomplishing this same function of saving mankind without taking physical form. There is no answer for this in 4th century Christianity. In addition, there is no answer for the facade of having a son, when thre is no son according to orthodox belief. I am speaking in exaggerated terms to make the positions even more stark. God did nothave a son, but created himself in physical form. This seems to be unnecessary; why call himself a son when it is himself coming to earth.

LDS take the Bible at its word; Jesus is the Son of God. There is nothing confusing about the terms being used and there is no new doctrinal discussion needed to understand that God sacrificed his Son, who willingly accepted the will of the Father, so that we might be saved. The type found in the Old Testament when Abraham was going to sacrifice Issac becomes far more accurate in LDS theology and is only a shadow of itself in orthodoxy. There is no complexity for understanding Christ's words as he hung on the cross, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. In LDS theology it is clear that the Father removed himself in such a way as to leave the Son alone such that he suffered at the end alone.

For LDS the Trinity is not scriptural, but is a creation of man to accomdate the question of the divinity of Christ and monotheism. The fact that we are called joint-heirs with Christ is believed on its face; there is no mincing of the words, no limitation of God. If we are joint-heirs how can anyone limit the meaning; how can God no do what he says. If we want to only speak strictly in scriptural terms it too readily turns argumentative because all Christians use the Bible for their beliefs. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding why the angel of God's own presence was incarnate, I gave you the answer from the 4th century, and you nevertheless say "there is no answer for this in the 4th century". It's one thing to explain how you think that the answer is insufficient, but it's another to say that no answer is given. Furthermore, all you've said is that unless God is a man, you can't explain why he would save man in the manner that he did - I don't know how to respond to that complaint differently than I have.

As before, this time I explained our view, and you call it "illogical"; last time you called it "platitudes". Instead of discussing "logic", you posit a view of God that I'm pretty sure you know is not ours, and then show how this is not yours either.

The same thing is happening when you accuse us of believing, "God did not have a son, but created himself in physical form". Your statement does not interact with who we have said God is: Father, Son and Holy Spirit - and I think you know that. You distort our view, rather than interact with it.

I know that you think that the Trinity is not scriptural. I can't really do anything about what you think - this isn't the place to do that. I'm not trying to prove anything to you, except "this is what we believe" and "this is why". "This is what we believe" in this case came from Athanasius, and "this is why" came from the Scriptures, as they have been understood for millennia. What I'm getting back is bullying, distortion and name-calling: as though you're trying to surprise me by not being persuaded. I would rather know whether you follow what I'm saying, asking for clarification where necessary. I'm fairly confident that this would move the discussion forward. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe you that there is no "complexity for understanding Christ's words as he hung on the cross", if you do not believe that God was in the man Jesus Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. You don't believe that God is of one nature, and Man is of another, and that these two natures are joined in Christ without mingling of natures. Is that right? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, maybe it would be more productive to put that question another way. Before Jesus breathed his last he said (as though he were not simply alone), "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!": Did the Father receive what the Son gave? Therefore he, through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God. You'd admit some complexity there, wouldn't you? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

When I read that last paragraph, I immediately thought of this Book of Mormon Verse [2]. Bytebear (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The book of Mormon seems to refer to Ecclesiastes 12:7. But is this all that you think is being said by Hebrews 9:14? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It was just an observation, not a comment. I think the last comment relates to his comment about taking the cup from him, nevertheless, thy will be done. Jesus had to have faith in God's plan, and with his last breath, he put full faith in God. It also reminds me of the phrase "I put my fate in your hands." The text "spirit" could be literal, or symbolic for faith, fate, hope, etc. Bytebear (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Then let me put it this way. Is the "eternal Spirit" mentioned in Hebrews, the Holy Ghost; or is it the Spirit of Christ; or is it the same as the "spirit" commended into the hands of God; or are all of these different things? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ah, that I can answer. The spirit of Christ in this instance, means his own spirit, and not the Holy Ghost. We also have a spirit dwelling within up that will return to our maker after death. Bytebear (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The gospel says that "he breathed his last", or "gave up the ghost"(KJV). And, we've heard from Storm Rider that the Son was abandoned by the Father, the same Spirit is not in common between them: he suffered alone at the end. Christ has a spirit, and the Spirit has a spirit, and the Father has a spirit: and these three are not the same spirit. On top of that, I thought that "intelligence" is eternal, but "spirit" is created, according to the LDS: so how can the Spirit of Christ be called the "eternal Spirit"? So that, the closer I look, it seems to me that there's some "complexity" to the LDS view of the words of Jesus on the cross. Or, am I just making a muddle of it? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is complex. The spirit of Christ presumably was created at some point from existing "inteligence" material. How or what that material is, who knows? But Joseph Smith explained eternity as being like a ring. A ring has no end, and as such it cannot have a beginning, so maybe it's a paradox, or something unexplainable, but when God creats something that has no end, cannot be destroyed, then it is "eternal" and even though it had a beginning, because it is eternal, and has no end, it has no beginning. Or maybe we take the term "eternal" to mean within our own time frame it is eternal, but there is a frame outside of ours which we cannot comprehend. It is often said that God is outside of time, so to him there is no beginning, so all things in God's frame are eternal, even though we are finite. If God is outside of time, then his creations are eternal. They always were and always are. Similarly, we know that Jesus' body is eternal, and yet it once did not exist, and Jesus was only spirit prior to the virgin birth. Bytebear (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No other idea seems to produce more speculation than "eternity". But what other eternity is there, besides God who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see; the God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all, from whom all things came and for whom we live; for whom and through whom everything exists; 'For in him we live and move and have our being'? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you reconcile all of the scriptures where man testifies that he has seen God? Bytebear (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Son explains him; and this is what men have seen. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait? So when Stephen said he saw Jesus on the right hand of God, it was really just Jesus describing God? And when Moses spoke to God face to face, it was really Jesus just telling Moses what God's face looked like? Bytebear (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

When Jesus says to his disciples, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father", he also says, "How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" Did you suppose that to know God as revealed by God is somehow different than knowing God? Then how can you believe that God is revealed in Christ? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say Mormons would agree with that, but in the case of Stephen, they would say it was a literal vision of the Father and the Son, both together. They simply believe the testimony of Stephen over the scripture that says "No man has seen God at any time" believing it is a mistranslation, incomplete, or that Paul was simply mistaken. Doctrine & Covenants 67:11 says "For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God." This is in perfect harmony with both the idea that the Bible is unclear on that point, and that Stephen's vision was real and literal (as well as the First Vision of Smith). Bytebear (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how any Mormon can really agree considering what you go on to say; but fine, if they think they do. I agree with you, that Mormon doctrine cannot be reconciled with the Bible on this point. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would accept your statement if you also agree that orthodox doctrine does not reconcile with scripture when it comes to Stephen's vision, Moses speaking face to face with God, or when Christ states "why hast thou forsaken me?", or when he said not my will, but thine.

This is what is so disagreeable; your context is absolute that LDS doctrine does not agree with scripture, but you completely overlook all of the scripture that does not support orthodox doctrine. If LDS take the same position, which LDS do, scripture does not support your beliefs. Then what do we do? It is obvious that both sides believe there are significant scriptural differences between beliefs and what actual scripture says. I see no room for arrogance on either side. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That comments by Mark is exactly what Mormons would say about the Christian view (as shown by Storm's comments). How can Christians beieve one verse (two if you count the repeat in the same chapter) that says no man can see God, when there are many more examples of man seeing God. I believe Stephen's testimony over John's sermon. You beliee John over Stephen. In fact that is a big difference between Christian and Mormon thought. Christians have made God impossible to understand, but Mormons believe the bible when it says "This is eternal life, to know God". Mormons have said that one can know God directly, in person. Christians say those testimonies are fantasies, deceptions by Jesus and should not be believed as they were written, at least that is what you seem to be saying here. Interestingly enough, Mormons are practical. They can admit that the Bible or the author may be in error on a single point. You have shown that the traditional position is to add a whole level of theology and justification to attempt to make both Biblical ideas work jive. It's the same when protestants consider all protestants combined as the "one true holy apostolic church", despite the thousands of discrepancies in doctrine, they can somehow justify that each and every one of those ideas so they cannot not mutually exclusive. The plain truth is this. The Bible is contradictory, and Mormons as an Article of Faith accept that. Bytebear (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) Byte, you are going too far for me. I believe the scriptures as a whole without rejecting one part or the other. There is context that is forgotten; taken as a whole I believe the Bible and all scripture are in agreement. If there are errors, they are the fault of man.

Too often adherents focus on just a few scriptures and ignore the rest; entire denominations have been created because of a focus on a single concept. I understand the concept and the need for the doctrine of the Trinity; I also understand how it can be supported by scripture; however, I also realize that there are specific scriptures that contradict it and cause difficulties. I also realize that the same can be said for LDS doctrines. Context and the guidance of the Holy Spirit are what is needed to understand scripture. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I may be going too far for you, and I am certainly going too far for the traditional Christian, but in my personal faith, I have certain concepts that are not mutable, Jesus being divine for example, but I have no problem saying that the phrase "No man has seen God at anytime" is flat out wrong, and that if there is a contextual issue underlying this statement, it is missing from the text. I also have no problem with God or an angel coming down and telling me my ideas on Biblical truths are false. In fact, that is exactly what happened with Joseph Smith. Fortunately he was young and didn't have many concrete ideas. In fact it is a tenant of Mormonism that God chose a boy because if He appeared to the ministers or leaders of religion, they would not believe. Bytebear (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We would say the context of the scripture is not understood. It is impossible to have Moses seeing God face to face and John saying no "man" has seen God. Your clarification above that one quickened by the Spirit may see God is what is missing from John. John is not wrong, but I would say something is missing. If not, scripture becomes something less than it is.

Scripture is misunderstood by man; I believe that to be a given. Simply by looking at the number of denominations (over 32,000 Christian denominations) is evidence enough that a lot of people are interpreting scripture differently. I also concur that the single greatest source of truth is the Spirit.

As an aside, I am not sure what you mean by "tenant" of Mormonism. LDS believe that the Spirit can touch the hearts of all people and that we all need to become as little children to feel that Spirit. Humility is that which leads us to God. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bytebear, we would say that what Stephen saw was God revealed through his Son, by the Holy Spirit (certainly not photons bouncing off the surface of a body, if that's what you mean). Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God other than in this way. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I can accept that, if you can accept that Joseph Smith's First Vision was (or could have been) revealed in the exact same way. Bytebear (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I cannot accept that - for other reasons than you might have in mind; but if I did, you can't really accept what I'm saying without rejecting the anti-trinitarianism of Mormonism. To say that you can is a pretty grand underestimation of the theological significance of the doctrine - as though the difference between us were only semantics or something.

As a minor objection, you are assuming that what Stephen saw is like what Joseph saw - this is your inference. But what Joseph Jr. believed beginning with this vision led him to contradict the word of God, and this developed to the point where he established a religion founded upon himself - and that's what exposes it as a sham. Everything that followed only confirms this. In Islam, for all practical purposes, Muhammad is God to his followers. Comparably, the vision makes Joseph Smith the pillar and foundation of Mormon truth, not the church founded on the Apostles and prophets. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to throw my 2 cents in. Both Stephen and JS, Jr. saw God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. LDS believe that nothing JS, Jr. taught contradicts the "word of God" if the "word of God" is defined as the Bible. However, some of what he taught does contradict Biblical interpretations written years after the death of the original apostles. 74s181 (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand "by the power of the Holy Ghost". Doesn't that imply that the Holy Ghost has a power that the other two don't have? Why do they seem to need the power of the Holy Ghost? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark, I must have missed something; how exactly did Stephen see Jesus on the right hand side of the Father without seeing two separate, individual personages? Is there any other logical way to interpret what Stephen said?

What was the contradiction with the word of God when Joseph saw God the Father and Joseph Smith? I think you misunstand what 74 is saying; the D&C as already stated clarifies that "no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God". Mortal man needs to be quickened by the Spirit in order to see God. Stephen was so quickened or he could not have seen Jesus on the right hand side of God; just as Joseph and Moses also could not have seen God without the same quickening of the Holy Spirit. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephen saw God in the same way that men have ever seen God. The invisible God, a most pure spirit, incorporeal, without body or parts, made himself and his Christ known to Stephen, through his Word by his Spirit. What Stephen saw was the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.

No one has ever seen God in any other way - because God is not flesh. He appeared in this same way to Abraham in Haran. At other times, men have seen God as a pillar of fire and cloud; or in the burning bush; or as three men; or as a voice, a dove and the man Jesus; or as the man with whom Israel wrestled; or as like a man on a throne; etc. The New Testament says about all of this hearing and seeing, that it is always God explaining himself to his people, and not that at any time men have seen the invisible God, who is a spirit. They have seen a revelation, a vision, a word from God.

The issue for which they stoned Stephen concerns the authority of Jesus - that he is the Son of Man, spoken of by Daniel. But, since you import beliefs about God that we don't even imagine, I don't wonder that it raises issues for you that would not even occur to us. It's understandable to me that you would think that here is an example of what you believe. But this is the same belief you show everywhere. You say that Jesus is Jehovah, and the Father is Eloi: starting from the premise that there are at least two gods: the God of the Old Testament, and his Father - how can you conclude otherwise than that where you see Jesus and God you see two deities? But of course, on the premise that there is only one God, and that this God is revealed in and through the Son of Man, logic dictates firmly that you have believed something false. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that I've misunderstood 74s181? I want to know why we need the Holy Ghost - an offspring and creature of his - in order for God to reveal himself, or for God to be omnipresent. Why does God need the Holy Ghost? How did the Holy Ghost come to possess a power that God doesn't have? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) I respond to your last first: Man needs the Spirit; God does not. Now where does it say that God needs it, but man needs it. Your questions seems silly; one could just as easily ask why does God need Jesus to do anything; is He not capable of doing all things? If God were all powerful, why could He not just forgive the original sin? The Godhead, one God, is consists of three that each have their role to play. In this instance the Holy Spirit makes it possible for mortal man to see God and live.

And your first last: We would say the same thing. How can you do otherwise then twist the simple meaning of scripture; if you did not you would readily see the error of your beliefs. The doctrine of the trinity is a man-made doctrine voted upon by men that claimed no revelation from God, but actually voted on what is right. God has never worked with man in such a way; when the Lord works he has always used his prophets; both before and after Christ. You have a form of godliness, but deny the truths of scripture. Logic dictates firmly that you have to twist scripture otherwise you would have long ago attempted to reform the church or leave it utterly. As John Wesley said, the works of the Spirit stopped after the first few hundred years; there is no greater evidence of apostasy than when the working of the Spirit stop. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If it sounds silly to you, imagine how it sounds to me. I've been told before that God is only omnipresent by the power of the Holy Ghost. You've told me before that the Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit, not of flesh - otherwise he could not indwell us. And I've also been told that the Holy Ghost cannot be in two places at once; so that it is not the Holy Ghost that indwells us, but the Spirit of God - a different thing. Now I'm told by 74s181 that God is revealed "by the power of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit". Is this "Holy Spirit" the same as "the Holy Ghost"? Or is it different than "the spirit of God"? Is "the Spirit of the Father" different that the Holy Ghost? Is the Holy Spirit the Holy Ghost himself, or is it the Spirit of the Holy Ghost? What is your theory? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My view of silliness is that Christians, all Christians Mormon and orthodoxy alike, do not see the fallacy of each others arguments. I am not saying I do not believe there is truth, quite the contrary, I believe there are absolute truths; however, we find those truths by studying the scriptures ans seeking the guidance of the Spirit. When we exchange ideas here we need to make sure we preface our conversation with I, we, they believe... When we begin to talk in absolutes then the conversation too easily spins out of control, feelings are hurt, emotion rules the day, and exchange of ideas ends.

Gospel topics too easily are misinterpreted. Let me address the Holy Spirit. LDS believe the Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, Paraclete, Revelator, Spirit of Truth and all other names that address the third member of the Godhead, is a personage of Spirit. LDS believe as a Spirit being he can be found in a single place, but his power and influence can be felt everywhere at one time. There may be times, I suppose, when the actual Spirit of God may touch the hearts of men, but I believe that the role of the Holy Spirit is to be the messenger of God and the Son, their Testator, and it is He that interacts with man.

I would say there was a miscommunication regarding Spirit of God and Holy Spirit that you stated above. It is the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit that indwells mankind. It is not the Spirit of God; I would say however, the Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord are also synonyms for Holy Spirit. Does this answer your question? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Since we believe that the Holy Spirit is God from God who is pure spirit, we think of the Holy Spirit as the one who interprets from God the revelation from God - who from God communicates the mind of God. So, it's hard for me to understand what you think the Holy Spirit is, and what makes him the Paraclete, the Revelator, the Spirit of Truth - why does the Father "need" him? Is the Father just spreading the work around? Is the Spirit equipped in a way that the Father or the Son is not? Could the Father do what the Spirit does, but he chooses rather to have someone else do it? I'm sure these sound like childish questions to you, but if so it's only because I'm so inexperienced in thinking in terms of multiple gods that I need help penetrating to the reasonableness of it.

I'm not making an "argument", although I'm trying not to make a secret of my incredulity: what I'm asking for is the sense that this makes to you, the reasonableness of it from your point of view. You say that God the Father, the spirit of the Father, the mind of God, the Word and revelation of the Father, the light of Christ, the hand of God, the brightness of God's glory, the Spirit, the interpretation of the Word and the life-giving breath of God, etc. are not just distinctions, but rather refer to various separate parts and powers of three separate beings. When you do that to what I'm accustomed to thinking of together and as containing one another, it raises questions like this. I'll let it rest, if you'd rather. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Father doesn't "need" the Holy Ghost in order to appear. LDS believe that the Holy Ghost acts to protect or shield mortal tabernacles from the Glory of God, otherwise, they would wither in his presence. Mark, your question about why LDS believe the Father "needs" the Son or the Holy Ghost looks like an attempt to prove that LDS believe in a God that is less than omnipotent. From the LDS perspective, this is essentially the same question as "Can God make a rock so big that He Himself cannot move it?" Is that what you meant to ask? 74s181 (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No. What I mean to ask is what the implications are of three, instead of one. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your statement "God... made himself and his Christ known to Stephen, through his Word by his Spirit" is the same as my statement "Both Stephen and JS, Jr. saw God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit." The only difference is that in your theology, "God", "Christ", "Word", "his Spirit" are all the same being, while in LDS theology, "God" "Jesus Christ", "Holy Ghost" are separate beings who are one in purpose. I could apply the "three-in-one" doctrine and restate what you said this way: "God made himself known to Stephen", is that a correct interpretation of your statement? I ask, because that is not what Stephen said. 74s181 (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

When you say "The only difference", if you really meant it, this would scream to me that you don't care.

The three of you seem to want to change the subject of the vision and say - aha! Stephen saw two people, not one. But that's not what the vision is about. The vision given to Stephen was concerning the exaltation of Christ - a man like us - so that our human nature has been exalted to obtain all authority in heaven and on earth: the promised everlasting kingdom has been inaugurated in him that was crucified, and he is both Lord and Christ. For that, he was stoned to death. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never asked why God needs the Holy Spirit and vice versa. In LDS theology we are told that the Godhead consists of three, but not why there is a need for three. They each have a role to play. For me personally I can more logically understand the need for a separate Jesus, Son of God, but when it comes to the Holy Spirit, the 2nd Comforter, and the why of a third member of the Godhead, I cannot offer an insight.

The orthodox tradition assigns roles to the different members of the Trinity, but then makes them one. For me it is illogical to go the extreme to present one as three, when it would have been easier for God to say I am God. There would have been no need for the pretense of the mortal experience. He certainly would not need to gain the experience. This condescension is appears so unnecessary. This whole mortal existence becomes unnecessary and a cruel hoax. Why do so many have to suffer such overwhelming trials and tribulations if mortality was not for some grand purpose; this purpose is where orthodoxy remains mute. I digress.

Religion can appear illogical to those who do not believe; but when the Spirit testifies of truth it is made clear and one's mind and heart come to a knowledge of those things not seen, but true. LDS can offer no answer as to why there are three or why they explain themselves as one godhead as the Bible calls it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  The orthodox tradition begins with the Jewish Scriptures, and "The Lord your God is one". It begins with the Lord alone, and man who is flesh made in the image of Him who is spirit. From the beginning, we see that God made and upholds all things by the Word that proceeds from him, and orders all things according to the Spirit within him. From the start, God is shown to be the only good and life of all that he brought into being, so that the meaning of all existence is in him, its source and governor - and he is seen both able and willing to communicate the life that begins in him to the creatures that he brought into being. From the scriptures, from the beginning, we know of God, his presence and power, and his spirit: the world has never known any other God.

  For the sake of the world, this God made himself known by his creating Word that is within him, this promise spoken of by the prophets was formed in the flesh in the womb of the virgin, by the power of God's own Spirit sent from God. This holy Son, this eternal revelation joined to human likeness, did not appear for himself or to improve or to change his nature at all, but for us and for our salvation who are made in need of him in order to live in communion with God - we who owe all things to him but are alienated from him by sin, by pride, fear and death. This incarnate Word had no "need" of this "experience" for himself, but such as you and I have need of him: and for such as you he was subject as you are subject, not for himself but to save such as you, to be raised with him by the Spirit.

  From my perspective, you do not believe in God who lives in God with God. Instead you speak of three separate gods who live in the sky - or are there more before them: do we really know? In this way, you explode all this single work of the gift of God's own life. You try to conceptually divide the one life and power into independent parts, individual agents acting separately from out of themselves, each doing different work by themselves, glued together by "unity of purpose". They are like the gods of Olympus and the rest of the Gentiles; except so much at peace that they are called "one" - a name, not a number. Regardless, as with the pagan pantheons, I can't tell whether you're sure of where their beginning was, or what belongs to whom, or how their alliance started, or whether powers can be attributed to three when it is only evident in one, and so on. What I know is that, when you avoid talking about what is different, and speak as though we were the same, you have more to contribute and less to explain. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"The orthodox tradition begins with the Jewish Scriptures..." This is the tradition that prophesied of the Messiah, but rejected him. Why? Because "The Lord your God is one", and so the Jews chose strict monotheism over the Truth of the Messiah. The New Testament prophesied a "falling away first", and a "restitution of all things", and again, many of the new "orthodox tradition" insist on choosing neo-monotheism (Trinity) over Truth. 74s181 (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"...man who is flesh made in the image of Him who is spirit" "This holy Son, this eternal revelation joined to human likeness..." Wait a minute, according to MC tradition God is formless and invisible and had no bodily manifestation until Jesus Christ was born. So, who was made in the image of whom? "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." 74s181 (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"...this God... his creating Word... by the power of God's own Spirit sent from God." "...you do not believe in God who lives in God with God." Well, that much is true. Please don't be offended, but when you talk about God like this it sounds like a careful formulation and that only adds to the mystery. 74s181 (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"...glued together by "unity of purpose" Actually, Mark, from the LDS perspective it is the Trinity that is 'glued together'. I think we should stop this particular discussion, MC believe in the Trinity, LDS believe in the Godhead. I don't have any more questions about the Trinity, I don't think I can understand it, and I fear that is the whole point. 74s181 (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The humanity and the deity, which are together in Christ, are not the same thing.

"Sounds like a careful formulation" - like this is a bad thing? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

But, I'm not trying, here, to get you to believe this or to fit it into your Mormon understanding, 74s181. I'm trying to eliminate misunderstandings of it, and to gain insight into your understanding - as I assume you're doing for me. It began with you using the terminology "by the power of the Holy Spirit". I wanted to understand, since you can't mean as we do that the Holy Spirit is the power that proceeds from the Father himself, if you meant that the Holy Ghost has a power that the Father doesn't have, or if this power is something given to the Holy Ghost by the Father, or something else. I'm sorry that I was so clumsy in probing in that direction.

I will stop, since you don't see any profit for the article in this. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  74s181, you made an interesting comment, in reaction to my description of Christ as "the eternal revelation joined to human likeness". To the idea that God is "revealed" in human form, becoming "like" man - I think I see your point, when you asked, "who is made in the likeness of whom?". We say that Jesus Christ's human nature is joined to the invisible nature of the Word in one person, so that his human nature truly reveals God as man was made to do; but you understood us to be saying that the invisible Word was changed from invisible to visible. Is that right?

My meaning was much simpler, it is hard for me to understand how God, who you say is formless, created man in his own image, but I see the answer to that in "the invisible nature of the Word", I assume this means that God has a form, and we resemble it, but it is invisible. But your comment inspired another interesting question. "...as man was made to do...", is this a reference to the fall? That is, are you saying that Adam was closer to God before the fall, that Jesus Christ as 'man' was what Adam was meant to be and could have become had he not fallen? What about children? The LDS position is that Adam and Eve couldn't have children prior to the fall, what is the MC position? 74s181 (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  That led me to wonder: Would you apply to God what Paul says with regard to Man: "But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual." [3] Does Mormon doctrine apply this to God? Or, is it a common Mormon opinion? If this were interpreted as a "rule" or "law of nature", it would follow from the premise that God is a Man, that before he could be "spiritual" (exalted), it was necessary for him to be "natural" - is this verse used as proof of that? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever heard any LDS use this particular scripture in the way you have described. However, it is interesing that you would quote this particular scripture. The footnote in the LDS edition of the Bible has cross references to two different Doctrine and Covenants passages. First is D&C 29:32, "First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work—", connecting the idea of spiritual and temporal with the "first shall be last, and last shall be first", and illustrating (I think) the progression from spirit to mortal body, and then from carnally-minded man to spiritually-minded man. Second is D&C 128:13-14 where JS, Jr. uses Paul's words to illustrate the sealing power, or IOW the power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven, in connection with the ordinance of baptism for the dead. Section 128 is one of the few sections where JS, Jr. speaks in his own voice rather than revealing the words of God. The contrast is pretty amazing, some things are very matter-of-fact, others are almost impenetrably deep. 74s181 (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to add a few general comments concerning the above. Going to the topic of this section, comparing / contrasting 'exaltation' with 'theosis': if both are aiming at becoming 'like' or 'one with' God, they may seem to use similar language. Yet when there are very different beliefs about the nature of the God we're becoming like, the goals are actually not the same; the process is different too, if you think you're repeating a process that God the Father Himself went through.

I agree with Storm Rider that Bible verses alone can and have been used to argue all kinds of different things. I share Mark's frustration, in that Athanasius clearly laid out the reasons and necessity for Christ's physical incarnation, death and resurrection when he wrote On the Incarnation. You can't say that the fourth century fathers didn't try to address the issue, though you're welcome to say they didn't do so adequately.

Regarding how people could "see God;" Gregory Palamas addressed this question by saying we could see God in His energies, but not in His essence, and went to great lengths to distinguish between the two. In this way God is both fully imminent and utterly transcendant. It seems to me that the LDS conception of God errs by sacrificing God's transcendance.

Wesley (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If I understand what you mean by transcendence and immanence, I think that the opposite is true. That is, LDS believe that the "transcendance" of the Father is so great that mortal life cannot endure His "immanent" presence without the protection of the Holy Ghost, and for this reason, He is rarely "immanent" in this phase of our existence. 74s181 (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You aren't talking about transcendence in the same sense at all, here. The LDS denies the transcendence of God, when you say that he is subject to the "laws of nature", when you say that he was once as we are and has become exalted, that he is confined to one place at a time, etc. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion and politics

The Religion and politics section seems to me to say nothing. It states the LDS view as though it were in contrast to something. But what? Furthermore, there's plenty of mingling of "church and state" in the history of the LDS, and the statement as written seems to suggest that this is a contradiction of something basic to Mormonism - which is historically preposterous. If what's intended here is to clarify that the LDS is no longer what the rest of us would call theocratic, as it once was - that is, it longer has its own militia, no longer seeks to wield or even influence the government in its favor, no longer envisions an earthly kingdom of Zion - then that's what it should say, if that's the case. For the MC view in that section: what is envisioned, to make that statement verifiable? Who is it speaking for? What is the purpose of this section? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Condolences

My sympathies are with my Mormon colleagues, after the death of President Hinckley yesterday (1/27/2007). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I thank you. To members of The Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, Gordon B. Hinckley was a prophet of God. But I think that even among non-LDS he will be remembered as a great man who served God and his fellow men to the best of his ability to the last day of his long mortal life. 74s181 (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A Proposal

We are, as usual, getting into confrontation mode. As a way of getting out of this can I propose a simple experiment, for a period of time. Those editors who have an affiliation with the LDS refrain from editing the sections describing the rest of Christianity. Those editors with an affiliation with any other church refrain from editing the sections describing LDS. I think that would cut down on some of the arguments. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is in fact the mode in which we have been operating as a general rule, for most of the life of this article. Are you making an insinuation about my "affiliation"? I ask, because it is with me that you are having problems of "confrontation". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear issue, part III

For background and previous discussion, please see: Nuclear issue and Nuclear Issue part II.

I'm hoping to find a central theme for the Mormonism and Christianity article. By "nuclear", I mean central, as in, at the core of belief, and atomic, as in, both indivisible and explosive.

I've been away for a bit, but I've read thru the discussions and changes since I was here last. I had another idea for the nuclear issue, I've been thinking about it for a while, and I've seen several things in the discussions that make me think it may be a good idea, including the most recent comments.

So, here's the third try. I say that the nuclear issue, the thing that offends other Christians and causes them to reject Mormons as Christians is the Mormon belief in a general apostasy.

That is, Mormons believe that there was a general apostasy, they believe that a restoration was necessary and in fact occurred. 'Other' or mainstream Christians believe that although some church leaders made mistakes there was no general apostasy. The exception, of course, being the other restoration churches, however, many or most of them have become indistinguishable from the mainstream other than a small footnote in their history.

From a strictly logical perspective, if no general apostasy occurred then a restoration was not necessary. Many of the argments advanced by Mark assume continuity of Christ's church on the earth as a basic premise, in fact, I think some of the arguments have been someone circular in this regard. In other words, the post-primitive church interpreted certain Bible passages to mean that Christ promised that a general apostasy would never occur, this interpretation is buried so far in the past as to be considered equal to scripture, therefore, there has not been and cannot be a general apostacy.

The flip side is not as certain. That is, even if a general apostasy occurred, it doesn't necessarily follow that Mormonism in general or TCoJCoLdS in particular represents the restoration of the original true church, although that is what LDS believe.

Anyway, what do you think? Speaking as LDS, I feel fairly confident in saying that it is this belief in a general apostasy that leads LDS to proselyte equally among both non-Christians and non-Mormon Christians.

Is acceptance or rejection of a general apostasy the nuclear issue? Is it the thing that unites Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, traditional Protestants, Evangelicals, etc. into one group that rejects Mormonism as a Christian religion? 74s181 (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Catholics and other trinitarians don't all think exactly the same about this, obviously. But, if the rest of us think that the Roman Catholic Church has departed in some ways from that which belongs to Christ, or has added things that belong to paganism, Mormonism is that much a farther departure, and its additions are all that much more egregious. Conversely, the Catholics believe that they have grounds for accusing the Protestants of teaching that Christ abandoned his church; but whereas Protestants arrange arguments against the charge, it is Mormonism's boast. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Like Mark said, some Protestant groups also believe there was a Great Apostasy, with the restoration happening with the Protestant Reformation or later whenever their denomination came along. If the question is what's the one thing most objectionable about Mormonism, it seems like a toss-up between the great apostasy and the LDS views of Jesus. Speaking personally, the first threatens my belief system and tradition, while the second seems to... misconstrue the nature of God Himself. Wesley (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please correct me if my statement about Catholic or Protestant belief are wrong.

Catholics don't believe in a general apostasy, they believe that the authority of the Pope can be traced thru an uninterupted chain back to Peter, and Jesus Christ. They believe that in the distant past some mistakes were made by some leaders, a group of believers pointed out the mistakes, but then compounded the error by leaving the true church before the church had a chance to correct the errors. However, the modern Roman Catholic church doesn't condemn Protestants to hell. 74s181 (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Protestants don't believe in a general apostasy, they believe that in the distant past the Catholic church leadership became corrupt. They decided that the doctrine of Papal authority was false, had always been false, no 'priesthood' authority was needed, and so they took what they considered to be true doctrines and left what they considered to be false doctrines behind. However, most modern Protestants don't condemn Catholics to hell. 74s181 (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Catholics and Protestants agree that there were mistakes made, but nothing crucial to salvation was 'lost', while Mormons insist that not only was it lost, it has now been restored. 74s181 (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Either there was something that could be lost, or there wasn't. If there was something that could be lost, it was either lost or it wasn't. If it was lost, then there was no way for man to 'reform' it back into existence, it would have to be restored by a loving God, as He had done many times in the past. 74s181 (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Mormons believe that Jesus Christ gave Peter real priesthood authority that was an essential part of God's true church, and that this authority was lost in a general apostasy and later restored by God thru the prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. Protestants and Catholics unitedly reject this assertion and condemn Mormons to hell. 74s181 (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If there was no general apostasy, then JS, Jr. cannot be a true prophet. If there was a general apostasy, and if JS, Jr. was a false prophet, then all Christian churches on the earth today are false, mere shadows of Jesus Christ's true church. 74s181 (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this sounds repetitious, but I really think this is it. I think that the question of a general apostasy is THE nuclear issue. I think it is the most unambiguous, clearest, easiest to explain and understand issue that unites Protestants and Catholics as "Mainstream Christians" against Mormons. 74s181 (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I also understand that some protestants feel that the Pope is essentially one of many "Bishops" within the entire umbrella of "catholocism" (little-c), and as such, are part of catholicism (i.e. the one true church), but not part of the Catholic church. Bytebear (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

According to history, the Catholic Church is Christianity that was the way it was in antiquity and in the Middle Ages. One cannot pull Catholicism from the Catholic Church they are one and the same. Protestants left the Church to found their own churches, remember Henry VIII wanted to marry another own, etc?--Margrave1206 (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If there was no general apostasy, then JS, Jr. cannot be a true prophet. If there was a general apostasy, and if JS, Jr. was a false prophet, then all Christian churches on the earth today are false, mere shadows of Jesus Christ's true church.

Yes, but there are other possibilities. Perhaps there was a general apostasy, and JS, Jr. was a true prophet, but the true spiritual banner carriers of that restored revelation today is one of the five or six other denominations that split off from the church he founded. (Legitimacy isn't based on size or number of believers, right?) Or there was a general apostasy, and JS Jr. was also a false prophet, but some other person is the true prophet come to restore the church; perhaps Mary Baker Eddy, or Ron Hubbard, or someone else.

Yes, the general apostasy is a key distinction between Mormons and "Mainstream Christians." But the more I think about it, the more I think it is secondary to differences concerning the nature of God, as expressed in the Nicene Creed and similar later creeds. This is a clear, concise description of essential church teachings, which is accepted by Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians (though only the first maintains the 381 AD version), but which Mormons reject as being a mere product of an apostate church, already lacking priestly authority. Among other differences, the creed professes to believe in "one holy, catholic and apostolic church," which further suggests to me that the Mormon rejection of the historic church is just one of several important departures it makes from the Nicene Creed. The other departures, concerning the nature and work of God himself, I think are even more central than disagreements about whether the church was apostate. But perhaps from your perspective the Nicene Creed is less important, since it's belief in the Apostasy that would lead you to dismiss it. Wesley (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a complete list of possibilities would include "JS, Jr. was a true prophet, but TCoJCoLdS is not the successor church", but that discussion belongs in Succession crisis, not here. I don't think that we need to discuss Mary Baker Eddy or L. Ron Hubbard here, the title of the article is Mormonism and Christianity, not The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions. 74s181 (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the nature of God as the nuclear issue is that MC churches are not completely united in their interpretation of the Trinity doctrine. Also, once you go beyond "God has a body of flesh and bone" there is some disagreement over what is official doctrine and what is speculation, even among LDS, as we've seen here. We discussed the idea of focusing on the nature of God in Nuclear issue part II, but the discussion moved in the direction of continuous revelation vs continuous tradition. 74s181 (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the acceptance or rejection of a general and complete apostasy was a good way to describe the first cause of the difference between "Mormonism" and "MC". Apostasy could be briefly defined. The LDS and MC perspectives of the New Testament prophecies concerning apostasy could be presented. Then, significant doctrinal differences could be presented as examples of apostasy. For example, LDS consider the MC Trinity doctrine as an example of the general and complete apostasy, while MC consider the LDS doctrine of the Godhead as an example of individual apostasy. And so on with other significant doctrinal differences. 74s181 (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In what way are Trinitarians "not completely united in their interpretation of the Trinity doctrine", as far as it would contrast with Mormonism? What differences do you have in mind, and how are they relevant to this article? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark, my personal opinion is that there are no significant differences between MC churches on the Trinity doctrine when compared to the LDS view of God. I thought it was you who said that MC churches were not completely unified in their interpretation / definition of the Trinity. That is, I thought you said that they all agree that the Trinity doctrine is true, but they disagree about some specific details. According to the last paragraph in the Trinity article in the Formulation of the Doctrine section:

Even now, ecumenical dialogue between...(various MC groups) seeks an expression of Trinitarian and Christological doctrine which will overcome the extremely subtle differences that have largely contributed to dividing them into separate communities.

Anyway, I thought this was why you didn't like the Trinity / Godhead comparison as the nuclear issue. 74s181 (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the "nuclear issue" approach. I don't like trying to decide which issue is more important than the others. As far as I'm concerned, it's not possible for Mormons and "mainstream" Christians to understand one another when Mormons mean by God something other than the Trinity. But this issue is subordinate in a practical sense, to the idea that Joseph Jr is a prophet and apostle. And the implications of that claim are rather meaningless apart from his accusations against the Church. And what really makes the difference is additional scripture and the power to continuously re-define doctrine. And anyway, for many Mormons, what really matters is that their entire family is Mormon; or they've given years of their life to defending the claims of the church; or deep down what they really admire is the wealth; or something else.

So, I think as a matter of faith, that everything concerns the knowledge of God, and Mormonism's suppression of the knowledge of God. But on a more superficial level, I don't think that we can say in a neutral way that this is "the nuclear issue". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You do point out that the doctrine of the Trinity is often central to issues of separation or union among Trinitarian Christians. But that's only indirectly relevant to the comparison with the LDS. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And of course, it's relevant to the comparison that the LDS is anti-Trinitarian. But is that the most important thing, to the LDS? Is the "restoration" of the priesthood and Temple the most important thing to the "mainstream"? What's important, what's "nuclear", is going to differ according to the differences in belief. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, I think I understand that you don't think we can agree on one single issue as the most significant or 'nuclear'. You said:

...it's not possible for Mormons and "mainstream" Christians to understand one another when Mormons mean by God something other than the Trinity. But this issue is subordinate in a practical sense, to the idea that Joseph Jr is a prophet and apostle."

I think I understand this, some of the other things you said I don't quite understand, so I'll focus on this statement. I think there is a possibility for a clear symmetrical comparison here.

MC believe that LDS are in apostasy from true Christianity and that their rejection of the Trinity doctrine is evidence of this, while LDS believe that MC are in apostasy from primitive Christianity, and that their Trinity doctrine is evidence of this.

Is this an accurate statement? 74s181 (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's accurate - but doesn't the article already say this in the introduction? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, in about 550 words (700 if you count the asymmetrical comparison footnote), that is what the lead says. The lead also talks about authority and closed vs open canon. 74s181 (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Overview comparison" section is a more concise statement of the apostasy issue. It doesn't say anything about the Trinity / Godhead issue, but I think we all agree this could be positioned as an example of apostasy. In the LDS view, the MC misunderstanding of the nature of God is a result of the apostasy, which is the result of the loss of continuous revelation, which is the result of the loss of prieshood authority. Unfortunately, this isn't as easily understood as the difference between the MC Trinity and LDS Godhead doctrines. 74s181 (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But maybe it is easy to explain. LDS believe in this timeline:

OT prophets -> Jesus Christ -> Original apostles & primitive Christianity -> Death of original apostles / loss of priesthood authority / end of continuous revelation -> corruption of doctrine -> Trinity & other doctrines of men -> schisms / reformation -> modern MC.

Is there an MC consensus on how the LDS came to be? Could it be described in a similar manner? 74s181 (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ordained?

Mark, I'll address this to you, but this is really a question for any MC participating in this discussion. 74s181 (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Earlier, Mark said he was "an ordained elder in a conservative evangelical church". I sincerely want to understand what this means. That is, when LDS say "ordained", they mean a priesthood ordinance where one who holds the priesthood and has proper authority lays hands upon the head of another and ordains him to a priesthood office. I suspect that when a Roman Catholic talks about someone being ordained they mean something similar, although I suspect that Roman Catholics do it with a lot more ceremony than LDS. 74s181 (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So back to Mark's statement, he says he is an ordained Elder. I'm not sure, but I think that "Elder" is a "lay" calling within most Protestant churches, that is, an "ordained Elder" is not a minister, right? Even so, what happened to Mark when he was ordained? What did he have afterwards that he didn't have before? 74s181 (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

But my real question is about Protestant ministers. I assume they are ordained, how is this done, is there laying on of hands? Who decides that someone should be ordained? Who does it? What does it mean? I thought that Protestants believed in the priesthood of all believers, what is it that an ordained minister has that an ordinary believer does not have, other than a degree in religious studies? 74s181 (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll let Mark answer about his case, but practice varies within Protestant churches. Some 'ordain' in much the same way that the Catholic church ordains. Anglicans are an example. In these cases an 'ordained' minister is usually for life; once you are a 'priest' you are always one. In some Protestant churches leaders are not ordained; the word is not used, and the meaning is different since it is essentially an appointment to a particular job; you are a 'pastor' only while you are doing the job of a pastor. In those cases the church leaders are not usually called 'priests', for exactly the reasons you give. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As a quick historical note, the word "priest" is derived from the word "presbyter", which comes in turn from the Greek word for "elder" as used in the New Testament. So in Orthodoxy (and I presume Roman Catholicism), priest, presbyter and elder are all interchangable terms. Since you asked, I'm not ordained, but I am a "tonsured reader," which means I've been blessed by my bishop to read the epistle and certain other parts of the service within my local parish. (There was a "laying on of hands" via the Gospel, and a haircut.) It's sometimes considered "minor clergy", and is the first step towards ordination, although one can also remain a reader for life. Wesley (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy

At the risk of opening a huge can of worms, why is there nothing on polygamy in this article? Historically it has been a big difference between Mormonism and Christianity, and as I understand it there are differences in belief even now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The article used to have a great deal of history of relations between Mormons and MC, including some discussion of plural marriage. I think the history was removed because it was duplicated in the various history articles. The current article focuses on current practice of "Mormons", this term is generally associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which hasn't performed plural marriages for 100 years, and today, excommunicates any members who participate in any sexual relationship outside of marriage between one man and one woman.

Do MC consider plural marriage to be unChristian? I guess people are still confused about this, many people still ask questions about it. If you wanted to have something in ther article on plural marriage as a past difference, that would be fine, as long as it is clear the current church policy doesn't permit it. 74s181 (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that MC consider valid marriage to be between one man and one woman, despite isolated examples of other types being performed here and there. As this doesn't seem to be a major difference at the present time, and even if it were, it would be a difference of practice that would in my opinion pale in comparison to issues like beliefs about God or whether there was a "Great Apostasy." Wesley (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias Article

I find this article to be bias. Why does this article not address the doctrine of the Mormons and the vastly difference between Christianity? 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." Is'nt it true that Native Americans and Africans are loathsome and cured according to Mormon doctrine? What I do not understand is why most of these articles are allowed to be so bias. --Margrave1206 (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It is because you are a single issue of interest; it skews your perspective badly. Your understanding of LDS doctrine and history is lacking as has already been pointed out. It has also been noted that your behavior elsewhere appearsto be troll-like in nature. The topic of this article is Mormonism and Christianity. It's objective is comparative religion in nature, it is not an anti-Mormon website, which seems to be your objective. No need to point out the other articles that address your specific issues again. Your refusal to pursue those articles again seems to support your objective is to casue argument and mischief rather than improve articles. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Margrave gave a skewed perspective, but he has a good point. This article is largely a presentation of the LDS point of view, omitting many things that LDS find unconformatable and frequently giving an inaccurate picture of the non-LDS perspective. This is evidenced by the 'factual accuracy' note at the top that has now been present for many years. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The "factual accuracy" note at the top has been present because the user who put it there a few months ago took a wikibreak, and no one has been interested in taking it away. The article is about a controversy. The constant complaint has been that it does not adopt an anti-LDS argument, it does not make the LDS look as ridiculous as it should. Instead, it simply describes what Mainstream Christianity is, and shows how the LDS is different from that. The complaint seems to boil down to the article being too neutral in its approach. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the article is marked as biased because it's biased. No-one wants to take it away because it's still applicable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What's so controversial here? Anyone who read and understood Dean Swift would see the irony here. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed inaccurate statement

I removed the following which is very inaccurate. I add it here so it is preserved. "The Latter Day Saints and Trinitarians teach that the authority of Christ for salvation is mediated through the church. "

The actual state of affairs is that while Catholics and some related groups believe as described, Protestants largely do not. Partly that is because they do not associate 'the church' with any earthly organisation, and so even if the statement were true it would be misleading, but also they strongly and as a matter of principle believe that the believer can come to Christ and be saved without any input from the church. The church may have a useful part to play, and is exhorted to play that part, but is not absolutely necessary. One can absolutely continue to be a Christian apart from the church (though it is not recommended). The references quoted do not back up the strong statement given here; being "the hands of Christ" does not necessarily mean you get to "mediate salvation".

I understand that LDS teaches that other churches believe this, and that it is crucial to LDS belief, but please don't assume that everyone shares that view. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does the LDS teach this? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some references to back up what I wrote above: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8][9] [10] (go down to where he talks about Luther - the second occurrence of the word "mediated") [11]

OK, that's enough for now. I have more that I will post eventually. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The title is Christianity and the statement supports the majority view. Protestants are the minority. We dicussed the difficulty of attempting to describe Christianity as one entity and realize it is anything but a single group. With over 34,000 denominations it is demonstrably anything but a monolithic organization. Though the LDS position agrees with the Catholic and Orthodox position, by number it is the majority position. It should stay in teh article and should be qualified that Protestants disagree with the orthodox position. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Protestants are not the minority by much, and surely we have the capacity to describe the two leading lines of thought on this matter? The sections on "Mainstream Christianity" are already considerably shorter than the section on the LDS view (why is this always true?) and can take some expansion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What does "not by much" mean? Anyway, the view that you are espousing is not representative of "Protestantism" as such, but of a stream of individualistic piety.

Besides, it's one thing to cite things, and another thing to interpret what is cited and to fairly represent what it says:

• mis-cited: "a separate structure of the clergy" is not the same thing as "the church": Southern Baptists. It does not say that the church does not serve a mediatorial role to the world, but that the clergy of the church is not a mediator to the believer.
• mis-cited: Your relation to God is not mediated by priests or saints is not the same thing as "the church": The Anglican view. This does not say that the church does not mediate salvation to the world, but that priests and saints do not mediate salvation to the church.
• mis-cited: salvation that was not mediated through priestly hierarchy - the "American" or "Democratic" view: Does not say that the church does not mediate salvation to the world, but that a priestly hierarchy does not mediate salvation to believers, the church.

And so on. I haven't looked through all that you've cited, but from this sampling it's evident that either you've misunderstood the statement that you've removed, or you've misunderstood the sources that you are citing. I'm not denying that some believe that salvation in Christ is a "walk in the garden alone". Obviously, there are some - perhaps yourself included. But this is not representative of Protestantism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you have seemingly discredited three of the dozen references I produced is irrelevant, as there is a distinct lack of references saying that in Protestantism salvation is mediated through the church. Besides, I have many more references where those came from. Can I suggest you find a knowledgeable Evangelical Protestant and talk to them? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's irrelevant, then what is relevant? I am confused by this entire discussion, and now you're stooping to personal attack. Did you know that you are talking at an ordained elder in a conservative evangelical church? Is it doing you any good to talk to me? I have cited for you from Calvin and Luther, I have quoted for you from confessional documents of Lutherans, Reformed and Anabaptists and regardless of this, you recognize only the radically liberal, individualist view as being "Evangelical Protestant". I've explained for you what I mean, and I've supported what I've said with verifiably relevant sources. Please interact with what I'm saying, instead of pushing a POV. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You have removed a statement together with cited references that explain its meaning and demonstrate its authority. I'll grant you that not every person reading that statement would agree with it. The fact that you don't agree is proof enough of that. But the citations showed the span of views that it represented - which is very wide indeed; and yet you call it "very inaccurate". That's no good, DJ Clayworth. I also disagree with you that the article is biased in favor of the LDS. As I read it, it makes the LDS look ridiculous. But, that may be because my beliefs are not grounded in proving their claims false. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement should stay in the article; there is no problem qualifying it, DJ, with a statement that you find acceptable; however, it is the majority opinion of Christianity. Mark, you have accurately understood some of DJ's motivations. Regardless, his contributions will help the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason I think the statement should go is that once it's qualified it stops being a statement of common ground. To qualify it properly you would have to describe the different theologies of the church, which we do elsewhere. Let's just let those descriptions stand. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You compare the LDS with the fringes and exceptions. That's undue weight. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me put this in a way so that neither you nor anyone that you are citing should have any desire to object. How many of the books of the New Testament were written by authors outside of the church? Which books of the Bible were penned by Jesus, and not by members of the church? Paul says that salvation is by faith - that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God: where does he say that "hearing" is not by the preaching of the church? Paul says that there is one faith, and one baptism: which baptism is that, to which membership in the church is irrelevant? Christ speaks to those who gather to him privately with the disciples, in Mark 4, that "to you it is given to receive the hidden things of the kingdom of God, but to those outside everything is in parables" - who in the world receives the kingdom of God, if they remain "outside"? You and the authors you quote are concerned about compromising the mediation of Christ. They speak of "ecclesiastical organizations" and "hierachies", and a couple of these even call these things "the church", per se. But as I've pointed out before, this idea that salvation brings us into a relation of isolated sufficiency unto onesself is not taught by any of the traditions from which these people are writing - if they go so far as you have gone. One of your sources, writing for the Trinity Foundation, even seems to think that Christianity is nothing more than a premise, an abstract proposition to be accepted, as though the individual's reasoning mind is all that matters (although self-contradictorily, he requires submission to the apostolic Scriptures). And in fact, that particular author is actually asserting this statement against the tradition from which he intends to write: that's the purpose of his article, to call this tradition into question. But this is a wide departure from the Christianity of Calvin or Luther, or even of Menno, as it is represented in their cited doctrinal statements (as distinguished from the odd or over-stated opinion here or there). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark. Firstly your rewrite of this section seemed to obfuscate rather than clarify. But much more signficantly it removed some important paragraphs. It removed the paragraph about how doctrine is established and it removed the paragraph pointing out that Evangelical Protestants don't believe that salvation is mediated through the church. I'm going to assume that was accidental, but please be more careful in the future.

One of the things that you need to understand is that there is a wide variety of practice and belief within Christianity regarding the place of the church. We need to capture this variety. You've done a lot of scripture quoting above, that the fact that you interpret scripture to mean something doesn't mean that all churches interpret it that way. You need to examine statements about what churches actually believe, not what you think they should believe. If you want to look at scripture regarding mediation of salvation, try 1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".

Why should it matter that one of the references I gave was from someone on the fringes of orthodoxy. Even if that were somehow a problem (and are LDS members really going to argue that those outside traditional Christian belief aren't really Christians?) then the rest of the references back up my point. And there are plenty more references where that came from.

I understand that LDS teaching is that other churches consider salvation mediated through the church, but it is not true for all and we need to reflect that.

Can I suggest that you make small changes to this article rather than wholesale rewriting of sections? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Not true for all" is irrelevant. We need to reflect what is representative, typical, verifiable. That is what is accomplished by the cited confessional documents. Give me an example of where the LDS teaches that "other churches consider salvation mediated through the church": where is this an LDS doctrine? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only not true for all, but not true for a significant minority. We have, as a said above, enough space in this article to deal with the two or three major views on this issue that exist within Christianity. My remark about LDS teaching was based on personal conversations (which is why I put it on a talk page, not in the article). If I'm wrong on the subject I apologise. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea that by "the church" is meant something other than an earthly organization, a people to whom is gathered those who are being saved, is not in the new Testament, and it is not in any confessional document, and it is not typical. Some who represented this view in those whom you cited (Tillich and the writer for the Trinity Foundation). Some of your sources espoused the radical individualism that you have been attributing to to "most Protestants"; but their opinion is in conflict with the tradition within which they are writing, as can be seen by the confessional statements of their traditions. You have documented their opinion; but you have not shown (and can't show) that these radical statements are representative of "most Protestants" or "many evangelicals", as you keep saying. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark, some specific criticisms of what you wrote. Catholicism does not emphasise the priesthood of the bishop. It emphasises the priesthood of the priest. It is typically the priest who gathers the faithful to him, and who presides at communion; a bishop is only an occasional visitor to most churches.

While there is an emphasis in Catholicism of the "offering up a living sacrifice" the emphasis in communion is on the re-enactment of the sacrifice of Christ; by taking communion the faithful are taking part in that sacrifice, and the priest stands in Christ's stead in the act. The word "incarnate" is a bad word to use here because it is much more frequently used for Christ's incarnation, and the priest is not the incarnation of Christ in that sense. He is Christ's representitive, and acts in his place, but is not his incarnation. You can probably find a few references who use the word that way, but other words would be much more common.

We also need to make something very clear in Protestant theology - that the 'church' is not associated with any earthly organization. In Protestantism biblical and theological references to the church are not applied to any recognisable heirarchy, but to "the body of believers". Members of other denominations may be part of "the church" and members of your own denomination may, in the finals cheme of things, not be. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You exclude from "Protestant theology" everything except radical individualism. Even congregationalism understands the local church as "an earthly organization". And for another matter, how are you going to verify this when there is no earthly organization that represents this view? For your views of Catholicism, the very words of what I wrote came from several catholic sources. That doesn't mean that it's well-written, of course, but it does mean that it's verifiable. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark, you've missed the point again by going off to the extreme. All parts of Protestantism acknowledge a significant role for the church in discipleship, preaching, teaching and other areas. The only part I'm taking issue with is the statement that Christianity sees salvation as mediated through the church. That's a statement that would be anathema to many Protestants: they would say that salvation is mediated only through Jesus; the church merely brings the person to Christ.

Could you add a reference to the Catholic sources on which you base your above statements, please? Then we can all check that they are not being misinterpreted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "missed the point"? And what do you mean by "going off to the extreme"? You are the one who said that "Protestants largely ... do not associate 'the church' with any earthly organisation". That is a very strange and extreme thing to say.

You have been stuck on the word "mediated", and you are referring repeatedly and vaguely to "many Protestants". Re-read the section as it is written now, and comment on that. Please interact with my explanations here; the wording had already been tweaked to accommodate you.

I would prefer that you would not re-insert the vague material about how doctrine is decided. It is not quite relevant to the comparison being made to the LDS under that heading about "Priesthood and religious authority", and besides, it described a popular opinion rather than a doctrine or typical perspective. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand what I meant when I said that 'Protestants don't associate the church with any earthly organisation' then please read up on Protestant Theology. In short it means that while Evangelical Prootestants recognise the existence of something called "the church" no denomination or congregation can lay claim to being that entity. If you are a Christian you are in "the church"; if you are not then you are not, regardless of whatever earthly grouping you belong to. This is basic stuff and you should read about it. Again (so you don't misunderstand) that's not a universally held position, but it is widespread.

I personally would rather the word 'mediated' was not there - I'm not hung up about it.

The reason for the paragraph about doctrine being decided is that it's a difference between Mormonism and Christianity. While some Christian denominations believe that the church has the right to make doctrine, others don't and use the Bible as the sole source of doctrine. As I understand it from the article, Mormon prophets and Apostles have (some of) their pronouncements considered doctrine. That's a difference and we should mention it.

As for my 'vague' writings, I find them clear. Yours, however, I find ridden with jargon and hard to comprehend. That's just my opinion, but I say it to remind you that you don't get veto over what goes in an article just because you don't like it.

Now that (I hope) you understand the statement about not associating the church with earthly organizations it needs to go back. It's omission is one of the principal things I find wrong with the section as it stands. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, DJ Clayworth, all this insinuation is just unnecessary. I think that you know well enough that it's Protestant theology that I'm reading back to you, when I quoted from Westminster, from Augsburg, from the Anabaptists, from Calvin and from Luther. These are standard and representative works that do in fact "associate the church with" an earthly organization, a community of people, a fellowship of real, live people.

Every Christian congregation lays claim to being "that entity" - even if no congregation claims to be the church in its entirety. What you mean to say, I would hope, is that no particular Protestant denomination lays claim to being the church exclusively and entirely, as the Roman Catholics do. Why not say that, then? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean. If you find it more helpful for yourself to phrase it like that, no problem.

The reason I think it's best to emphasise this particular part of Protestant theology is as a contrast with the Mormon view. Central to Mormon claims is that 'the church' has lost the authority to bring salvation to the people, and that LDS is given that authority. I think it's important to emphasise the stream of Protestant theology which says that salvation for the Christian is not dependant on the authority of the church. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth, by this statement and a similar statement of yours below, you show that you lack a basic understanding of the LDS view of salvation. I chose a some verses from the Book of Mormon to make my point because you would see this as a major document marking the differences that we are contrasting in this article. "For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ. [...] And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. [...] salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent."[12] I have extracted these parts of three verses from the same chapter of Mosiah and edited them down to emphasize the LDS view of salvation. I encourage you to read this entire chapter to gain a better understanding of the LDS view of Jesus Christ. — Val42 (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please concentrate, as much as possible, on describing what is true of "mainstream" Christianity as a whole, instead of arbitrarily introducing subordinate differences within "mainstream" Christianity.

I sympathize with your complaint about theological terminology. However, it is the precise language of that theology. If it's going to be corrected, I would hope that you would use a more accessible equivalent - especially in those cases where the language is supported by sources, and what you substitute is not.

I am not complaining about your substitutions on the grounds that I "don't like it". I find them inaccurate and unsupportable, as I've argued on this talk page - but you are looking right past my reasoning and sources, to simply assert views that seem more familiar to you. That's no good. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to try to portray mainstream Christianity as a monolith, because it isn't one. The 'mainstream' sections of the article are already shorter than the LDS sections, despite a history that is ten times as long and a membership that is much higher. We can afford to list two or three main streams of thought in each area.

Regarding the difference between the wordings, I find your statements are sometimes unsupported by the references you give., The references describe some functions of 'The Church' but don't make reference to The Church as mediator of salvation, which is what we are talking about. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Supposing there's room for two or three "main streams of thought", your idea of individualistic salvation apart from the church is not a main stream of thought. It's held by a minority of Protestants, while all of Protestantism is itself a minority of Christendom. It should not be given undue weight and presented as though it were more than that. Wesley (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I disagree. Most Baptists, Pentecostals and Mennonites I've talked to would say that you can be saved without the church. So would many Anglicans. That's starting to sound like a pretty high proportion of Protestants.

Is it possible we're getting confused here? I'm not describing a position where the church is irrelevant or useless, just a position where you can be saved without being a member of it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what most people would say, there are formal and representative positions. Regardless of whether "most Baptists" adhere to Baptist doctrines for example, Baptist doctrines can be cited which teach that the visible, local church is the home of all believers. Whether most Baptists subject to those doctrines actually believe this, or whether most of them know what their doctrine actually is, is a separate question. It may be verifiable that in fact most of them do not in conversations with you or me reflect this belief; but such a fact should be used appropriately, and not as a representation of Baptist teaching. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally, regarding how doctrine is decided, my only complaint was that this issue is discussed elsewhere in the article in a way that more directly contrasted with the LDS view, and more clearly (in this case, under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit, where the LDS view is contrasted with the development of doctrine in the church). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

exalted man "never doctrine"

Storm Rider - in a previous discussion, we were told that it was once LDS doctrine that God is an exalted man, but that through on-going revelation the doctrine has changed. It seems to me that the numerous quotes of past leaders demonstrates this clearly - these leaders were not "speculating", they were teaching what had been taught for most of the previous 150 years; and the whole church followed them in this teaching until new revelation gave clearer light. It makes sense to me if the LDS says that the teaching changed, putting that former teaching in a different light. But, I can't see the sense of calling the former teaching "speculation" as you have, when it was taught so clearly and dogmatically by leaders of the church. If the only reason for deleting direct references to what was formerly taught is that it is now made obsolete by the President, then I would think that those references should be replaced, since they illustrated very clearly what he has made obsolete. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how you define doctrine. It certainly was never canonized. Bytebear (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of it ever being the doctrine of the church. I believe a more accurate understanding would be that in the past there were more leaders who speculated, or felt it was true personally, but at no time was that teaching a doctrine of the church. Prophets can interpret scripture, but by themselves they cannot create scripture or doctrine. A prophet can interpret scripture and dictate the meaning of scripture, but to create doctrine a revelation must be brought before the church and supported by the body of the church. I don't see why you would be surprised by men, even leaders, talking about some of their personal beliefs. This has been common throughout the history of the Catholic church; but at not time did a Bishop's, or even a pope's personal musings, become doctrine unilaterally of the church. Brigham Young stated it best when he said it would be easier for an ant to number the grains of sand on the earth than to attempt to understand the First Cause of all things. Do leaders of other churches ever write about the imponderable questions left unanswered by scripture?

It is without doubt to me that several of the prophets of the LDS church believed that our Father in Heaven is/was an exalted man. However, I am just as clear that none of this teaching was ever formally accepted as doctrine of the LDS church. When President Snow echoed the words of Joseph Smith that "as man now is God once was and as God now is man may become" I have always understood it be teaching the concept of eternal progression/theosis. Scripture has been so interpreted; however, no scripture has supported the concept of God being an exalted man.

There does appear to be a freedom within the LDS church to contemplate the mysteries of God that is not found within other churches; however, I doubt seriously that it stands alone. The Eastern Orthodox if far more esoteric than Roman Catholicism and I suspect we would find some interesting concepts under close analysis (it is just a thought, I have no evidence to support this position). What is of more value to this article; covering the doctrines of the LDS church or the ideas of some of its leaders? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it's evident from the quotes that they thought that it was LDS doctrine at the time. The article currently characterizes this as "speculation", however, the authors of those quotes do not characterize their view as "speculation", but as their understanding of current LDS doctrine: and, you have deleted the documentation, so that even what the article currently says is not documented. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I will go back and review the section; the objective would be to clarify doctrine and discuss the confusion that has resulted between doctrine and speculation, ponderings, thoughts, etc. of leaders of the church. As I read the article first it seemed to want to overlook that something is no doctrine. It seems like there are other places in the article that states, it is not doctrine but... If something is not doctrine, then what is its value? There is some value in discussing the motivations of those who choose to focus on nondoctrinal issues; if not motivations then the fact that it is done so often by other Christians.

There is often a similar problem for orthodoxy regarding Mary. The formal doctrine of the church is clear, but its application and expression by both laity and priests (even some bishops) begins to cloud the doctrine and appears to go beyond veneration. Is this a problem with doctrine or something else? It is the same thing here and it is not an problem with doctrine. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

They didn't say, "I wonder ...", "perhaps ...", "Who's to say but that ...", "I know a theory and although I follow the reasoning I'm unaware of it being a doctrine, which holds ...", or some other indication that they are speaking only for themselves. They said these things, not in the posture of personal opinion, but as teachers of Mormon belief and doctrine.

The importance would seem to be obvious. If this teaching was thought by the quoted leaders of the church to be the doctrine of the church it explains just one more way that, during the time that those leaders were prevalent, Mormonism differed sharply from "traditional" Christianity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There continues to be a misunderstanding about doctrine within the LDS church. A man, regardless if he is a prophet, an apostle, or holding any other position, cannot make doctrine of the church unilaterally. It is without doubt that many individuals throughout the history of the LDS church believed the concept of eternal progression extending backwards, i.e. that God the Father also progressed from being a man, as well as forwards, that God's children will be allowed to grow to be like Him. However, that belief or concept was never accepted as doctrine of the church; i.e. it is not found within the Standard Works of the church. Given that there have been many other revelations that have been accepted, and this one has not been, it is logical to assume that even though those individuals believed it and discussed it, it never rose to the position of doctrine.

Your supposition as to why it never was would be as good as mine. My guess is two fold: 1) it is not significant or essential to salvation and 2) there was no clear revelation from God; it was a position taken from their own logic or understanding.

What seems to be forgotten is that Joseph Smith never taught this concept until late in his life. What is even more novel that he brought it up at a funeral. He later talked further about it, but it was never something that he highlighted as one of the great truths of the restoration. Later prophets and leaders also talked about it; they believed it as a truth, but none of them ever attempted (at least that is known) to have this revelation/concept accepted as part of the Standard Works of the LDS church. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You should read D&C Sectoin 102 [13] for clarity on the process of accepting doctrine. Just because someone says it (even if it's the prophet, in your case BY, in the case of Section 101, Joseph Smith), it does not just make it so. Bytebear (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that you continue to misunderstand what is being said about the quoted sources. These leaders evidently thought that what they were saying was the doctrine of the church - not that they were inventing a doctrine, or making any unilateral declarations of doctrine, or speculating; and because some of them were leaders of the church, many both inside and outside of the church followed them in this assumption. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Although I agree that "As man is, God once was" is not emphasized or commonly taught as an official doctrine of TCoJCoLdS, I disagree with the statements given by Bytebear and Storm Rider concerning what doctrine is, and whether or not this particular concept is doctrinal.

1. Bytebear referenced D&C 102, but that really says nothing about the process of canonization. However, D&C 102:23 does identify the final arbiter of disputes as the Lord, speaking to the president of the Church by revelation. 74s181 (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Storm Rider said "A man, regardless if he is a prophet, an apostle, or holding any other position, cannot make doctrine of the church unilaterally." This is true, however, God can. A statement on this process can be found in [D&C 68:1-6], specifically, verse 4:

And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

'They' in this case is those "...who are ordained to this priesthood...", or, IOW, the Apostleship. Seems pretty clear to me. Who confirms that statements made in these circumstances came by the Holy Ghost? The president of the Church, at least that much is clear from D&C 102:23. 74s181 (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Mark is correct when he says "These leaders evidently thought that what they were saying was the doctrine of the church..." Some of these leaders were present when JS, Jr. gave the King Follett discourse, they heard it first hand from the prophet's own mouth, but this wasn't the first time JS, Jr. spoke on the subject. According to Gerald N. Lund, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Feb. 1982, 39–40, Lorenzo Snow had a personal revelation concerning this doctrine prior to leaving for his mission in England. Upon his return, he shared his experience with the prophet JS, Jr, who confirmed that it was a true doctrine. About a year later, JS,Jr. taught this as doctrine in the King Follett discourse. Years later, Lorenzo Snow became president of the Church. In addition to teaching this doctrine, he also instituted the law of tithing as we know it in the church today. That is, tithing had previously been taught, but President Snow taught how it applies to us, today. However, nothing he wrote or said about tithing is in the D&C, PoGP, etc. Does that mean it is not doctrine? What about the simplification of the temple endowment over the years, I don't remember voting on those changes in General Conference, are they not doctrine? 74s181 (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

3. The volumes of Teachings of the Presidents of the Church are part of the curriculum, approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. An Ensign article introducing this course of study said:

The 1998–99 manual for study, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, will be distributed to every Latter-day Saint 18 years of age and older and is meant to become part of the member’s gospel library for personal gospel study.is meant to become part of the member’s gospel library for personal gospel study. Don L. Searle, “Major Curriculum Changes in Priesthood and Relief Society,” Ensign, Dec 1997, 7

The introduction to this first volume says:

This book reflects the desire of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to deepen the doctrinal understanding of Church members and awaken within them a greater desire to know the things of God. (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, page v)

Chapter 7, The Plan of Salvation, section titled We are the spirit children of God, page 50, second paragraph, quotes Brigham Young: (emphasis added):

Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits (see D&C 76:24), and they were brought forth and lived with him. Then he commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as he had been created in this flesh himself...

This is not some long past compilation of material by an individual, it was undertaken by instructions from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and as such, has been vetted and re-vetted. The statement emphasized above could have been elipsed as other statements were, but it was not. It is true that these lesson manuals are not scripture, however, we have been told to use them as reference materials for study, talks, lessons, etc., they are approved for such use.

However, the lesson manual does not emphasize this particular doctrine, there are questions at the end of the chapter about other doctrines relating to the Plan of Salvation, but nothing about the origin of God. 74s181 (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

4. We really don't know much more about this particular doctrine. During an interview, Gordon B. Hinckley, the current president and prophet of TCoJCoLdS said this:

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."

Shortly after, he spoke on this in General Conference:

"I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church."

What does this mean? I interpreted President Hinckley's original statement to mean that the doctrine may be true, but we don't understand it well enough to teach it. He did not say that the doctrine is false, but he did say that the church he leads doesn't teach it or emphasize it. And this is true. Although a statement about the doctrine is in the curriculum, it isn't emphasized or taught as an important doctrine, something we need to study and work on. 74s181 (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line, there are many things that are much more important that we need to focus on, but I felt that I needed to "...stand by my servant Joseph..." D&C 6:18]. If a WP:RS reference can be found that says "as man is ..." is a doctrine of the church, or is believed by many members of the church, then it should be part of the article. 74s181 (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think what I'm about to share will poke a hole in this entire discussion, but it's important to clarify something click here and scroll down to the second discussion which makes clear that this particular teaching has much support for being doctrine of the Church. Additionally it is included in the new Joseph Smith manual approved for study by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, which adds to the support for this doctrine. To balance that out, here is a quote from Stephen E. Robinson

The official doctrine of the Latter-day Saints is clearly defined and readily accessible to all. Doctrines are official if they are found in the standard works of the Church, if they are sustained by the Church in general conference (D&C 26:2), or if they are taught by the First Presidency as a presidency. Policies and procedures are official whenever those who hold the keys and have been sustained by the Church to make them declare them so. Other churches claim the right to define and interpret their own doctrines and policies and to distinguish between official church teachings and the opinions of individual members. Surely the Latter-day Saints must be allowed the same privilege. Stephen E. Robinson, “Are Mormons Christians?,” New Era, May 1998, 41

Mpschmitt1 (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The end of the relevant section in Mpschmitt1's link reads, "It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today." Is this also clear to the other LDS inclined editors of this article? Wesley (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case we fall back on the ninth Article of Faith: "... we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." The doctrine of eternal progression is incomplete. We know that we may inherit the Kingdom of God, have a continuing posterity, and live together in familial units. But anything beyond that is speculation and theoretical. We believe God will reveal more, but we cannot claim such theories as doctrine or absolute truth yet. More is to be revealed, and we have no idea what the nature of God really means. He is a physical being of pure light. How can we possibly understand what that is like? Bytebear (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Wesley, as a LDS I believe in eternal progression; that our Father in Heaven desires us to live with him, to be in perfect union. However, the concept that has been posited by Smith, Snow, and others that God the Father is an exalted man is beyond where I would go. It is beyond comprehension. The concept evades providing an answer for the First Cause.

As I have stated before, until it has been entered into the Standard Works or has become an official declaration that is then added to the scriptures, for me, it remains nondoctrinal. I do think that it is so often repeated by both members and leaders that it has entered into what I would consider LDS cultural theology. For these people that believe in this concept the mere fact that a prophet has spoken of it in the past means that it must be true. It may also be that some of these individuals believe they have received a witness from the Holy Spirit of its truth. Regardless, a man is a prophet when he speaks as a prophet. At the end of the day they are still just individuals who are striving to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, but they are still entitled to think and attempt to understand the mysteries of God. This process is wholly different from receiving a revelation as the prophet of the church. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I would have thought that the question of "First Cause" would be irrelevant, according to the LDS doctrine that the universe and "intelligences" are eternal. I would have thought that the whole idea, in speaking of God as a physical being, would be to scoff at the question of "First Cause". That isn't so? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This topic is very deep and it is difficult to understand if we are understanding the same thing. LDS believe that God is eternal; without beginning or end. His very presence defies the concept of First Cause. At the same time I personally find the concept of God being an exalted man to appeal to the question of First Cause; it implies "time" or a beginning. I clarify that it my own inability to comprehend that at issue; what is sufficient for me is to know that He is my God, my creator. His Son is my Savior, Redeemer, Master, and Friend.

I am not sure if I understand what you mean when you say "to scoff at the question of First Cause". If what you are saying is there is not First Cause, then you are correct. Mark, I feel very inadequate in attempting to clarify these mysteries. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The argument of First Cause makes it mocking and silly to ask, "what caused God?". God's existence requires no "cause", because he is not composed of parts, he is not put together. However, if God also is made of stuff, then according to the argument of First Cause all things simply exist, they are ultimately uncaused: eternal. In a conception of an uncaused cosmos, it is just as serious a question to ask "what causes God?" as it is to ask "what causes the sun to shine?", and it is ridiculous to speak of a First Cause: in other words, there is no God in the sense of "First Cause". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider said he feels "very inadequate in attempting to clarify these mysteries". Let's turn to a recently released, officially approved volume in the curriculum of TCoJCoLdS. For the next two years, two Sundays per month, the priesthood and Relief Society classes will be studying "Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith". I think the mystery is pretty well cleared up in chapter 2, "God the Eternal Father", page 40, which quotes from the King Follett discourse:

"If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves. I want to go back to the beginning... My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being He is... God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!"

No, this isn't scripture, but I think it is doctrine. The church is teaching this more explicitly than I can remember it ever having been taught before. 74s181 (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That certainly makes it sound like it's the teaching of the LDS church, that is to say its doctrine, even if there isn't full consensus among the LDS editors here. Wesley (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I think the doctrine that God the Father became God through a celestial progression similar to our own is sound doctrine. The fact that the scriptures are clear that God exists from eternity to all eternity is not in conflict with this doctrine because Doctrine and Covenants makes it clear that "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be (see D+C 93:29-30 and surrounding verses as well as Proverbs 8:23 and surrounding verses). Intelligence (of which our spirits are formed ~ see Abraham 3:22) is co-eternal with God: "The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself." Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44, p.353. Joseph F. Smith clarified that this should read co-eternal, not co-equal. So in that sense God has existed from eternity to all eternity, as have we. At some point in that eternity, however, his intelligence was organized into a spirit which was tabernacled in flesh that was transformed into a glorified and perfected state in the same way our Savior was glorified and perfected (see John5:19). Bytebear is wise in this discussion to appeal to the notion that we know virtually nothing about eternity except what little has been revealed and it behooves us not to speculate, but I think this much is clear in our doctrine: "God himself is an exalted man and sits enthroned in yonder heavens". We don't understand all the ins and outs of what that means, but the basic gist of it is widely accepted by those having authority to decide such things as sound doctrinal teaching in the Church. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that on national television President Hinkley stated that this was not the teaching of the LDS church. My position is clear; it is not stated in scripture an the prophet clarified the position. For me, there is no room to speculate. I also agree with Byte, everything else is beyond our comprehension and should be left as possibilities, but nothing more. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, since so little has been revealed on this subject I think a safer route is to cling to the trunk of the tree and make our focus the core doctrines surrounding the Savior and the redemption of mankind. As you say, the standard works and the teachings of the Prophets and Apostles that meet the D+C 107 standard (unanimity of the quorum) are the standard against which all other doctrines much be measured. It is significant though in my mind that the new Joseph Smith manual, prayerfully approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, contains the statement from Joseph Smith that "God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" (pg 40). I think that is even a stronger statement than anything President Hinckley has said in television interviews about the place this doctrine has in our theology, since it follows that D+C 107 standard of unanimous approval. The introduction to the book suggests that this is course material carefully and prayerfully approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to "help deepen [our] understanding of the restored gospel and draw closer to the Lord through the teachings of latter-day Presidents of the church". As such I don't think we can just set it aside and say that the statements made in them are not the teaching of the church. I've always seen President Hinckley's statement to Mike Wallace as more of an assertion that the King Follett discourse was not typically discussed or taught much in the Church, not a refutation altogether of the theological statements made in that discourse:

"I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.”

In saying all of this, though I'm not trying to prove you wrong Storm Rider or start an argument. I'm just offering it for your consideration. There have been a number of times where I have wrestled with a particular doctrine or teaching in the Church and then had my perspective altered by further study and revelation. If this becomes a point of contention or dispute, I think it can be safely laid aside for now since we are all agreed that the specifics of this doctrine and the full understanding of it have not been clearly made known by the Lord yet. I do believe though that there are some things we can understand from official sources concerning these docrines. We don't have a complete understanding, but there are some statements (like this one) that are supported by official sources and merit our prayerful consideration. Let us focus our best attentions, though on those doctrines that are clearly taught in the scriptures and by the unanimous voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and I'm confident we will be guided aright. It's far more important that we know and love our Savior and our Father in Heaven, and worship them in truth, than that we get all bent out of shape and leave the fold because we can't figure out the exact coordinates of Kolob. :-)Mpschmitt1 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No argument is perceived. I believe what Joseph and Snow, as well as others have discussed, is a mystery. Many would say that it is discussed so often that it is "assumed" as doctrine. I would probably say that I am more of a purist. If this teaching was absolute doctrine it would have been added to the standard works of the church; so many other things have been added it is interesting that this was not. I do think it is significant that the teaching is found in teaching manuals, but manuals are not the equivalent of scripture. It is certainly safe to say that LDS do not highlight or focus this teaching. However, it excites those outside of the church and is found to be anathema to them. I find President Hinckley comments similar to my position, I understand the logic behind it, but it is beyond my understanding. It may be clarified in the future, but as for now we have limited teaching about it and no clarification. The purpose of the church is to teach repentance, baptism, receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and seek to emulate the teachings of Jesus in our daily lives. Our purpose as members is to "go in all meekness, in sobriety, and preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified; not to contend with others on account of their faith, or systems of religion, but pursue a steady course." The mysteries are for personal study and prayer, but they are not the Gospel and have nothing to do with salvation. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "...until it has been entered into the Standard Works...it remains nondoctrinal. ..." - Every endowed member knows doctrines that are not contained in the standard works. 74s181 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"...what Joseph and Snow, as well as others have discussed, is a mystery..." I don't think there is anything mysterious about JS, Jr's statement "God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man", or Lorenzo Snow's couplet "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become". I think it is safe to say that these statements, isolated from all the speculation about them are doctrine. HOWEVER, I think the question of exactly how God the Father of our spirits came to be a mortal man walking on an earth IS a mystery, and I agree that there is no firm doctrine about THAT, there is only speculation. I think the speculation is the reason the doctrine is not commonly taught. 74s181 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it." I agree, this doctrine is not emphasized or taught. That is, the quotes are in the curriculum, but the current lesson material doesn't reference the quotes specifically, or call attention to the doctrine they imply. When we our High Priest Group Leader taught this chapter in the JS,Jr. book I was curious if he would bring it up, or if any of the other members of the quorum would. He didn't, neither did anyone else. But I suspect if it had come up, everyone in the room would have agreed that "...as man is, God once was" is doctrine. That doesn't make it so, but the fact that JS, Jr. spoke on it, and that the quotes are present in current curriculum does. At least until a successor President of the Church clarifies it. GBH did not do so, he said we don't teach it. 74s181 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"The purpose of the church is to teach repentance, baptism, receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and seek to emulate the teachings of Jesus in our daily lives." I agree, these things are the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, they are the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel, the core of our doctrine and practice. The church also teaches many other doctrines that are not part of this fundamenal Gospel of Jesus Christ, and there are other doctrines (like this one) that are not taught. 74s181 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Members of TCoJCoLdS believe that the teaching and acceptance of certain doctrines is essential for the building up of the Kingdom of God on earth, but other doctrines, while true, are not essential at this time. "...as man is, God once was" is one of those doctrines that is not essential at the present time. However, those outside of the church are sometimes more interested in how LDS are different than they are in how LDS are similar. The "Gospel of Jesus Christ" that LDS teach is similar enough to MC belief that I think most MC would accept LDS as Christians if that were all we believed and taught. It is our other beliefs that offend, and "...as man is, God once was" is one of those beliefs. 74s181 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is, if someone can come up with a WP:RS reference that says some, or many, or most currently active members of TCoJCoLdS believe "...as man is, God once was" to be true, then it belongs in the article, independent of whether or not it is 'official' doctrine. If such a reference can't be provided, then it doesn't belong in the article. 74s181 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

L Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith

We need an article contrasting Scientology and Moronism; These are the two great native born US religions.217.43.168.194 (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

We need reliable sources that do the contrasting, or it is original research. — Val42 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Exalted man

There seems to be a bit of a disagreement about "God is an exalted man". One side someone says "This was taught by Joseph Smith and stated in LDS publications", the other wants to say "this is not church doctrine". Well, why can't we say both? If both are true then that gives the best picture for readers. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the article already says that. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

One of those DUH moments; it was your edit that added it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I could have made that clearer. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope your understanding of my statement was what I intended. I was slapping myself upside the head because I commented that your request was already in the article and then noticed that you were the one who added it. I should have just said "good edit".

There is so disagreement about which prophets have said what or when and it is more than legitimate to discuss those statements. Thanks for your work. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, StormRider. I've done the same thing myself. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Latter Day/Latter-day

I think we've had this conversation on other pages, but my memory is that "Latter-day Saints" refers to a particular church whereas "Latter Day Saints" refers to the movement as a whole, including all its branches. We want to compare (as far as possible) all the branches so I've changed the term back to "Latter Day". Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Latter-day Saints refers only to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Latter Day Saints refers to the Latter Day Saint movement. Give the context of this article, I wonder if Latter-day Saints is more appropriate. But that's a debate for another day. Bytebear (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to claim much knowledge of the differences between the LDS branches, but it would be better to cover all branches where possible. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, however, I see the Community of Christ as being much more in line with traditional Christianity than the LDS Church because of their adoption (or acceptance, if you will) of the traditional view of the trinity, and other aspects. Most if not all sources contrasting Mormonism with Christianity will be focused on the LDS Church (or perhaps FLDS when dealing with polygamny), although this is not a focus of this article. My suggestion is to use Latter Day Saint movement when talking historically (pre 1847), and Latter-day Saint to speak of the church as a body (including but not mentioning splinter groups) when discussing the Rocky Mountain saints. Oh, so many labels!!! Bytebear (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh how true, and on both sides. DJ Clayworth (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Most Evangelical Protestants

DJ Clayworth, please explain this statement:

Specifically for most Evangelical Protestants no priestly function or authority is necessary for the salvation of the believer; Jesus Christ is considered the "only mediator between God and Man". Likewise 'the church' is in the entire body of believers around the world.

1. What do you mean by "most Evangelical Protestants"?

   Where are their views represented in such a way that "most" may be verified?

   Where do "Evangelical Protestants" say that "no priestly function or authority" is necessary for salvation?

   Do you suppose that this implies also that the "priesthood of all believers" is also not "necessary for salvation"?

   Does "no priestly function or authority" include the priesthood and authority of Jesus Christ? Do you think that you can phrase this in a fashion that does not seem to exclude Jesus Christ?

2. You seem to imply that someone overtly denies that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and Man.

   Do you mean that, the Protestant view of the Catholic priesthood is that it is in conflict with the sole mediation of Christ? In that case this is a criticism of Catholicism, not a positive statement of "Protestant" belief. The Protestantism of Luther, Calvin and Cromwell affirms that ALL are priests - that's not less priesthood, but more priesthood. Which Protestantism are you talking about?

   The Catholics do not deny that he is the only mediator, however; and that is the significance of in persona Christi Capitis. They do not deny that all priesthood is in Christ - on the contrary, this is their formal doctrine.

Would you please interact with these remarks? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

1. By 'most evangelical protestants' I mean pretty much all Protestants except those Anglicans that belong to the Anglo-Catholic persuasion (who might not consider themselves Protestants anyway). Some Episcopalians and Lutherans might disagree too.
2. I gave you a very large number of references above. I don't think you need more.
3. I couldn't answer for sure about whether the "Priesthood of all believers" is necessary for salvation. I'd need a theologian for that. I would suspect it is not necessary, since a core belief is that salvation is between Christ and the Christian alone. Once again I'm not saying that Protestants believe that the church has no useful function, but that they would say it is not necessary for salvation. To put it bluntly and simply, in the Protestant view if a man finds a Bible on a beach, reads it, believes it, prays to Jesus for forgiveness and becomes his follower then that is all they need to be saved.
4. It was not my intention (or the intention of Protestantism) to say the the priesthood of Jesus is not necessary for salvation - just that no other priestly function is necessary.
5. It was not my intention to "overtly deny that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and Man".
6. Yes, many Protestants do consider that the Catholic view of the priesthood is contrary to biblical doctrine, especially "in conflict with the sole mediation of Christ". I didn't put that statement in the article though, and I think that this is not the place to discuss disputes within Christianity.

If I may digress a little, the difference between the two attitudes is: in Catholicism there is Jesus, there are ordinary Christians, and there are the priests who mediate between them; in Protestantism there are ordinary Christians (who are all fully priests) and Jesus and no mediators. That's an oversimplification of a complex situation, but it might help if you think about it that way.

1. Yes, Catholics consider their view of the priesthood as in harmony Christ being the only mediator. Others disagree with them. That's one of the things makes writing an article complex. I'm not here advocating one point of view over another, just noting that we should record both points of view.

I hope that's helpful. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there are a number of Protestant denominations that believe baptism is required for salvation, with perhaps some exceptions made for extreme circumstances; not just Anglicans and Lutherans either, but also Baptists, Church of Christ, Assembly of God, etc. And generally in these denominations, baptisms are performed by a pastor. While they may not state it this way, in practice, it is a rite associated with entry into "the church" (however you define it) that takes place in the context of a local church, through the leadership of a local church. The Salvation Army is one notable denomination that does not practice baptism in any form; there are probably others that I don't know of, but they're certainly in the minority.

In any case, even Protestants who profess to believe in the "priesthood of all believers" and "sola scriptura" generally have specific leaders and preachers whom they trust to teach them the Bible. Sometimes they trust a radio preacher or book author more than their local pastor, but there are always leaders in the church that help guide them in understanding the Bible, to them God's fullest revelation to us. And on the other hand, Catholics and Orthodox have been known to pray to God directly from time to time, and are even encouraged to do so by their priests. Too many times they are both caricatured as though this were not the case. Wesley (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this illustrates the real difference. The question is why these leaders are trust. For the LDS their position seems to be that only those authorized to preach the gospel can preach it effectively, which is why the question of the supposed withdrawl of authority from the mainstream churches is significant. For most Evangelical believers "they trust their leaders because they trust them". It is not necessary that they have been appointed by any organization. For local leaders, if they don't trust their minister they will go to a church where they do trust them. This difference is the one I've been trying to bring out. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue of authority for LDS does not entail preaching the gospel. Children or teenagers, women all "preach" or talk in Sacrament meetings. Authority affects two things 1) the sacraments or ordinances and 2) who can preside. Only priesthood holders can preside at meetings and only priesthood holders can perform ordinances from the blessing of the Sacrament, performing baptisms, to marrying people.

The priesthood is not accorded someone just because they believe, which is the main difference between Evangelicals and the rest, but because an individual was had the authority given to them through the laying on of hands by those already with the authority. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Stormrider you've hit an important difference. Catholics, Orthodox and many Anglicans would agree with the LDS on this; that the authority of the priest to perform his functions comes from laying on of hands of those who already have authority. Many evangelical protestants would disagree, saying authority comes directly from God or from the community. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference you are pointing to is mostly situational, DJ: it describes how things are done in most places in the modern era. This situation did not necessarily arise out of a conviction that this is how things ought to be; rather, the modern era has brought with it a new situation, a new mobility and emphasis on the individual's powers of voluntary association. This new liberalism overwhelms contrary influences unless they are very deliberately exerted against it. People go where they want without regard to other factors, not because this is how it is taught that things ought to be but because the culture powerfully demands that they be free to do so. Naturally, there are models that have arisen to take advantage of this market-driven approach to choosing a church - models which adapt to the situation in which we find ourselves, rather than resist it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that, Mark, though I would consider that some of the authority models we are talking about here go back to the Reformation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing what the basis is for your opinion. It doesn't go back to Calvin or to Luther - then to whom? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read through the above debate and have a few things to say as an outsider. First off, I would like to thank you both for keeping things civil. Second, I know your intentions are good Mark, but I believe you are misreading some of DJ's statements. As for the "basis for his opinion", nothing he has said contradicts Calvin or Luther. Coming from a traditional 5-point Calvinist background, I believe I have some knowledge to put on the table. He is not saying that mainstream Christianity believes the church is useless, he is saying that many denominations believe it is not necessary for salvation, yet is crucial for growth. Wesley brought up the point that some churches believe that baptism is required and such. These are all valid points. I am not an expert on Catholicism, so I cannot say much about their views. However, the Reformation views were that only Jesus was required to be saved. Early reformers believed that the church was instrumental in growth and daily Christian living, but not "necessary". When I say necessary, I am sticking to the books. Reformers would probably have considered you a fool if you did not meet with other believers, but they would not say you could not be saved. --Wick3dd (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wick3dd, "not saved" is what these Reformers would say is the "ordinary" case of anyone outside of the church. "Not necessary for salvation, yet ... crucial for growth" comes short of the Catholic and Orthodox view certainly; but it also comes short of what the Reformers taught, and short of what the churches aligned with them have historically taught. "Only Jesus is required to be saved" - but it is his life that saves - not a mental magic trick - and that life has been ordained by him to be found in the church he established, "which is his body" (which contrasts with a disembodied idea), that is: "the fullness of him who fills all in all".

While affirming that God is not limited to acting according to the means he has ordained, the churches of the Reformation did not overthrow the ordinary by appeal to the hypothetical or the exceptional. The church has been ordained for the sake of salvation in Christ. Anyone who professes belief in Christ, hoping in the salvation promised in him, would be directed toward the church he has united to himself. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit

I wasn't aware that Holy Ghost was used preferentially by LDS over Holy Spirit. I'm not sure why we would use the LDS terminology over the mainstream terminology, but since Holy Ghost is still used by some mainstream Christians I guess that's probably the best compromise. However I think we need to explain that somewhere in the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did that. Consider the above an explanation of what I did. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Stormrider I made the edit which you undid because User:Alanraywiki reverted my edit (Ghost->Spirit) saying that "Ghost" was preferred by the LDS. I am ignorant on this matter, but it seems we should either use Spirit throughout, since it is the modern term, or if the LDS prefer Ghost then we should add a note like the one I did to explain that the two terms mean the same thing. Would you and User:Alanraywiki like to sort out which one is true? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the terms used interchangeably, but Holy Ghost seems to be used more often when referring to that member of the Godhead. For example, baptisms are done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost . . . not of the Holy Spirit. Alanraywiki (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will work with Alan. I may have been too hasty in reverting and will review the history also.

I suspect that Alan is probably going to 1st article of faith which uses the term Holy Ghost; however, the scriptures would seem to use both appellations interchangeably. The Doctrine and Covenants uses the term Holy Spirit eleven times; the term Holy Ghost twenty-five times. The KJV New Testament uses Holy Ghost 55 times; Holy Spirit 4 times. The Book of Mormon uses Holy Ghost 43 times; Holy Spirit 14 times. In he Pearl of Great Price it is a ratio of 8 to 1. In LDS Church magazines Holy Ghost is used 5,170; Holy Spirit is used 6,458 times. I would submit that both term are completely acceptable and there is no true preference within the LDS religion.

In my personal usage I suspect I use the term Holy Spirit most often, but both terms are completely acceptable. Alan, are you proposing that both terms be used in the article, rather than just a single term? I don't have a preference. DJ, is the term Holy Ghost never used in your experience? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've no knowledge of LDS usage. In non-LDS Holy Spirit is used by the vast majority; Holy Ghost is considered archaic (Ghost not meaning the same as it used to 200 years ago). I think we should stick with the same word everywhere in the article, otherwise people might think they refer to two different things. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My two cents - "Holy Ghost" always refers to the third member of the Godhead, but I think that sometimes in the scriptures, "Holy Spirit" does not mean the third member of the Godhead. 74s181 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Going to the LDS Bible Dictionary [14], they seem interchangeable. If you look up Holy Spirit it says "see Holy Ghost". I do not recall hearing the third member of the Godhead called the Holy Spirit, like 74s181, but we do refer to doing thing by the spirit. I would recommend using the term Holy Ghost, but that may be a personal preference. Alanraywiki (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few scripture references for Holy Spirit referring to third member of Godhead:

1. D&C 45:57, "For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day."
2. D&C 46:2, "But notwithstanding those things which are written, it always has been given to the elders of my church from the beginning, and ever shall be, to conduct all meetings as they are directed and guided by the Holy Spirit."
3. D&C 53:3, "Take upon you mine ordination, even that of an elder, to preach faith and repentance and remission of sins, according to my word, and the reception of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands;"
4. D&C 55:1, "Behold, thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant William, yea, even the Lord of the whole earth, thou art called and chosen; and after thou hast been baptized by water, which if you do with an eye single to my glory, you shall have a remission of your sins and a reception of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands;"
5. D&C 76:35-36, "Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame. These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels—"
6. 2 Nephi 33:2, "But behold, there are many that harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit, that it hath no place in them; wherefore, they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught."
7. Jacob 6:8, "Behold, will ye reject these words? Will ye reject the words of the prophets; and will ye reject all the words which have been spoken concerning Christ, after so many have spoken concerning him; and deny the good word of Christ, and the power of God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and quench the Holy Spirit, and make a mock of the great plan of redemption, which hath been laid for you?"
8. Mosiah 3:19, "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."
9. Alma 11:44, "Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil."

I think it is undeniable that what you and 74 are discussing/presenting are only personal preferences and are not based upon doctrine, theology, or scripture; would you agree? 74 is correct that at times Holy Spirit may be interpreted to refer to the Spirit of Jesus Christ or even God the Father, but this is the exception rather than the rule. I would also submit that in those instances that it may not be a clear delineation between the two. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that, as I noted earlier, it would be my personal preference to use Holy Ghost simply because it seems to be used more in the present day church, particularly in referring to the member of the Godhead. Although I reverted the usage before, I would leave it if it was changed to Holy Spirit. One can even use both terms in the article and note that in Mormonism the terms are used interchangeably. The only exception may be the term "gift of the Holy Ghost". Someone may have a citation saying otherwise, but that term always seems to use Holy Ghost rather than "gift of the Holy Spirit." Alanraywiki (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the Gift of the Holy Spirit are terms that have been used by Lowell Bennion, Joseph Fielding Smith, James E. Talmadge, Parley P. Pratt, Gordan B. Hinckley, Daniel H. Ludlow and B. H. Roberts. Outside the church, Origen, John Calvin, Hilary, Augustine, used the phrase. However, I would say that LDS most often use the term the Gift of the Holy Ghost, but as can be seen this is also an interchangeable term with Gift of the Holy Spirit. If you would like some specific references, please let me know.

I don't think we have a disagreement but are trying to determine if everyone finds it acceptable to use both terms in the article. I don't think it should be uniform and I asked DJ above a question in this regards. As far as I am aware the term is interchangeable throughout the Christian faith. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Based upon DJ's comment above, does everyone feel comfortable using Holy Spirit throughout the article with the objective of clarifying for all readers that we are all talking about the same, in broad terms, being in both the Trinity and Godhead? I can support this proposal to alleviate confusion. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I support that as long as there is a phrase that says something along the lines of "the Holy Spirit, also referred to as the Holy Ghost by Latter Day Saints, . . ." It only needs to be in there once so LDS who generally use the term Holy Ghost recognize that the article is referring to it. The rest of the article can then say Holy Spirit. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might find this interesting. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Holy Ghost" according to the LDS is always exactly the third person of the heavenly triumvirate, a being with a body of spirit rather than of flesh and bone, unlike the other two personages. However, "the spirit of Christ", "the spirit of God" and various other terms that are exactly equivalent to "Holy Ghost" in "mainstream" usage (archaic), may not refer to that personage at all in LDS terminology, depending on the context. We should be careful of the context, to make sure that we don't invite the false inference of "mainstream" meaning from LDS usage - which among the LDS themselves, they seem to be careful to do. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The intro needs some help

I think it is suffering from a case of multiple-personality disorder, or something. :)

In the space of four sentences, it says:

LDS vies Christianty and LDS as one and the same

From a LDS perspective, xianty is an abomination to God

No, from a LDS perspective Xianity is merely incomplete

LDS and Xianity admire each other

LDS'ers and Xtians kill each other over these differences.

Personally, I think this one paragraph is trying to do way too much for an intro. It sounds like the truth of the matter is- there are A LOT of different views of what the relationship it. Feedback? Sethie (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the text is being misread; what was stated is that their "creeds" were an abomination; not that Christianity was an abomination. It is my understanding that creeds are not the equivalent of Christianity, but a subset of beliefs of some churches. With this understanding the critic of several of your other points are clarified.

Is there any historical evidence where Mormons killed Christians for their beliefs? I don't think there are any; however, there are many examples of persecution of the saints for their beliefs. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think the LDS would say they were not being attacked if someone said "their creeds are an abomination". Joseph Smith and other early LDS leaders certainly said some very nasty things about other Christians; there were some references in the article but they keep being mysteriously edited out. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add them, I am watching the page now. They don't need to go into the intro per say though. Sethie (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question- we may need to remove the "deadly conflicts" part.

Good catch, I simplified what the text was saying. The current text of this article says: demoninations are not accepted by God and that their creeds are abominations.

We need to get clear what Smith meant by creed here. He may or may not have meant subset.... My hunch is this would include the trinitarian belief and the how salvation happens for christians.... which are kind of... what the whole Christian church is built on!

Now, even moreso, I think all of these are interesting issues and too intricate for a lead. Sethie (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not say that Christians caused the persecution against the Mormons, although they were of Christian faiths. It was more political than theological, and I don't recall any preachers leading anti-Mormon mobs. Bytebear (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Sethie is asking for. There is nothing particularly ambitious about the introduction. However, I do think it's regrettable that someone along the line thought the article can't say that, regardless of distrust, disagreement and occasional violence (in speech certainly, but also physical at times in the past), there is also admiration and cultural affinity between the groups - which I would think is a commonplace, which anyone familiar with the relationship would admit no matter how grudgingly they would be forced to acknowledge it. It is not accurate to say that the relationship is one of unrelieved animosity, which is what the intro says now. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As for the "deadly conflicts" part, we are talking about faith-groups - people-groups whose central issue of identity is their belief, and whose other matters of culture are arranged around this binding force of religion. So, Catholics and Protestants have rarely if ever attacked one another physically purely over differences of faith; and the same is true of Mormon/"mainstream" conflicts. Our clashes have been political or more broadly "cultural"; however, whoever ignores the difference in faith is not equipped, even on a very superficial level, to understand these conflicts. When we talk about our "faith", this is not a matter hermetically sealed off from the rest of our life. We imply by our "faith" many associated attitudes and expectations that touch on our families, our communities, our whole history; so that our loyalties and frustrations, our insight and blindness, etc., are strongly affected accordingly. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Title "Mormonism and Christianity"

I find that the title of this article immediately implies that Mormons are not Christians. Would you say "Catholics and Christians" or "Presbyterians and Christians"? I feel a much better title would be something like "The Controversy about 'Are Mormons Christians?'" or just "Are Mormons Christians?". I believe this is what you are really trying to discuss.

As for my personal opinion on this topic: I have studied many religions. The differences between Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and Christians are obvious. At this level, Mormons are certainly within the sphere of Christianity and Christian thought. I doubt that members of any of these other religions would consider Mormons anything other than Christians. Only from within "Traditional Christianity" is there a controversy. Just because Sunni Muslims believe the Shia are not truly Muslims, does that place them outside the Moslem world?

Awsikes (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "Christianity" could be better defined. Perhaps "Traditional Christianity" or "Trinitarian Christianity" or "Historic Christianity", but really, it comes down to the "creeds" for the most part, so maybe "Creedal Christianity." Bytebear (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The title should not be read as "Mormonism versus Christianity". On the other hand, "Mormonism" is not what has ordinarily been meant by "Christianity" for the last couple of millennia, nor is it what is meant by "Christianity" according to most Christians; so, to explain Mormonism's credentials as Christianity something more is needed than just an article on Mormonism. That, at least, is one rationale for this article; and it explains why the title should not be read as making an assumption, as Awsikes interprets it. On the contrary the title is worded as it is to avoid assumptions either positive or negative; and to allow the presentation of the case without being prejudiced by the title.

And as a matter of fact to answer your question, "Presbyterians and Christianity" would be a perfectly legitimate article title, on the same model as this one. There are plenty of Christians who do not think that Presbyterianism and Christianity are simply equivalent terms, and if it were a notable issue with a significant literature dedicated to exploring the questions implied in that difference of terms, it might be considered encyclopedic, and an article might be dedicated to it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To your point "'Mormonism' is not what has ordinarily been meant by 'Christianity' for the last couple of millennia," I will point out that Christianity has not been unchanged in 2000 years. In fact, a lot of change has occurred, and certainly more harsh attacks of "heresy" (primarily toward science and protestantism) than what is generally pointed at Mormonism. Bytebear (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If the measure for Christianity is by how long the term was used, then all Christianity should be compared to the Catholic church and not just "Christianity". What is the objective? Based upon English grammar it can definitely be POV to pose the statement "Mormonism and Christianity" because it infers a difference or something that excludes Mormonism from Christianity. It is very possible to exclude Mormonism from Christianity, but one must first design a definition that would allow one to do because the term found in dictionaries disallows the possibility. Anti-cultists have bee very proficient at these types of endeavors since the beginning of the Christian movement.

However, the rules of grammar are not exclusive in this domain. One may infer commonality just as one perceives from the title "Presbyterianism and Christianity" or "Calvinism and Christianity". In this context there is both commonality and difference. Much has to do with the perspective of the reader. It is very difficult when attempting to communicate meaning that a reader is wrong because he interprets the title negatively. I think it is the objective of writers to write articles and titles so clearly that misinterpretation is minimalized. Given at least two editors' notes above, thie title may need to be further clarified. I favor the most concise title possible. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To compare, Awsikes, would the title "Mormonism and women" lead you to assume that Mormons and women are mutually exclusive categories? Or, would the title "Mormonism and Judaism" really imply that Mormonism and Judaism are two different things? Or wouldn't you more reasonably assume from the title that the article will explain the sense in which Mormonism considers itself to be a restored form of Judaism, and wouldn't you expect it to explain why adherents to what we usually mean by "Judaism" would reject their claim? You're right that there is a controversy implied by the title. "... and ..." titles usually imply just that. But it doesn't imply, as you've claimed, that the issue is settled or prejudiced simply by the acknowledgment of controversy. Mormonism's claims to be Christianity are controversial; that's the fact of the matter. You or some other reader might think that this controversy is unnecessary, or unreasonable, but that's just a point of view. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see your point, Bytebear. I can't see how your comments are relevant. I don't deny, of course, that "a lot of change has occurred"; and yet, this does not leave up in the air everything that has remained consistent, and it doesn't mean that there is no "usual" definition of Christianity that applies throughout the history of those changes.

The United States has changed since its founding; but it would be a strange opinion to say that it is not the same nation that has undergone these changes. Of course, it's a legitimate point of view to say that this is not the same nation - considering all the changes. But it would sound strange to say that this nation was not founded in 1776, or that we did not have such and such a war, and so on. It's a matter of historical perspective.

Similarly, when people think of "Christianity" they do not typically look to the Mormon view of things to define it, unless they are Mormons. However, the Nicene creed for example is very typical of what people would use to identify a continuous intellectual history over the past few millennia, and in those general terms it is applicable to Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism but not to Mormonism. And there are other ways of measuring whether Mormonism is what is usually meant by "Christianity", which the article also explains. By some of those measures (such as the naive measure applied by Awsikes), it is exactly what is usually meant. But by other measures, it is not. Which measures are decisive is not for us to say, prejudicially. Thus the title: "Mormonism and Christianity" - not "Mormonism versus ..." — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider, the changes to the title suggested are not more concise or clear; they determine a different content. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If this article is "Mormonism and Christianity" then it should be presented as such. Reading the introduction, it definitely reads as "Mormonism vs. Christianity." I think the intro should be more about how Mormons see themselves, rather than how they are seen by others in Christianity. It should, of course, cover how the church has reacted to "Traditional Christianity" but I think the reaction should be the focus, and not the action. I am looking for a subtle change in focus, and I hope you can understand what I mean. Bytebear (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not see your logic. The introduction says that as far as Mormons are concerned, Mormonism is Christianity. How is it possible to construe that statement as reading that Mormons view their religion as being different from Christianity? And why should the introduction be "more about how Mormons see themselves" - doesn't this strike even you as a demand to let Mormonism's POV prevail? Please explain how this makes sense to you, and why you think that this sounds in any way like a "subtle change in focus". Why doesn't it sound to you like than a proposal to censor content? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are contending this article is not "Mormons vs. Christianity" then the Mormon POV should be presented. Only counter arguments to that POV should be presented. It basically means the LDS POV is given first, as the "action" and then comes the "reaction" rather than the opposite happening. It is subtle, so that is why I am having a hard time explaining it. If this article isn't "vs" then the LDS POV on Christianity is perfectly sound, even with no contradictory views. Remember, this article is about Mormons AND Christianity (as they see it). Just as the article Mormonism and Priesthood (which is actually Priesthood (Latter Day Saints) has no attacks on the way Mormons view priesthood. That article has no "traditional priesthood" comparisons. So I really don't see this as an AND article, but a VS article in its present form. Bytebear (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot make sense of what you're saying. The Mormon POV is presented. But it isn't presented exclusively. Is it your assumption that if the article is neutral, it should not be written? Are you arguing that this article should either be pro-Mormon or else anti-Mormon, and should not attempt to explain the controversy without taking sides?

The Mormon view is controversial, but there are articles about Mormonism which do not explain the controversy described here. If you want an article explaining the Mormon view outside of the controversy, there is a super-abundance of such articles; but how can this be one of them, and why should it be? As you say, there are articles explaining the Mormon view without serious interaction with the contrast between Mormon terminology and "mainstream" terminology. What are you suggesting: that an article is only fair or neutral if it is decidedly favorable to your claims? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There is already a well-established model for titling articles which explain how the LDS "restore" standard terminology, so that it acquires a very different sense and use than that which is ordinarily understood. You pointed to one yourself (Priesthood (Latter Day Saints)). You're asking for an article entitled Christianity (Latter Day Saints): that is, an article which explains the Latter Day Saint POV. That title dictates a different approach than that taken by this article: one which very narrowly limits the kind of interaction that is appropriate to the context. The different title dictates that difference in approach: not the wide latitude for interaction promised by this title, where the Mormon definition of terms is not necessarily assumed. However, although the title indicates that the Mormon POV will be considered against the backdrop of a more generic perspective, that is not the same thing as implying that the Mormon POV is not correct. It simply compares that POV more neutrally than you are proposing, indicating that there is another, notable measure of what Christianity is, with which Mormonism itself obviously interacts. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can think that this article needs to be more about Mormonism. The intention of the article is to compare Mormonism and Christianity. It seems logical that the article should be approximately equally about both groups. However if you look at the article much more than half of it is about Mormonism, despite the fact that non-Mormon Christianity has a much longer history and a much wider variety of faith and practice. There are plenty of articles about Mormonism, and we don't need another one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that I am rather naive in this discussion, but I thought that Wikipedia was designed to help naive people like me better understand a subject. And when the title of an article seems to state one point of view on a subject, to a naif like me, rather than being an unbiased statement of the topic, then I feel it needs to change. Maybe "The title should not be read as "Mormonism versus Christianity", but that's a very easy and common (naive?) way to read it. I am not looking for an article that is more about Mormonism. I'm not even looking for an article that also explores all the ways Mormonism is like Traditional Christianity. Rather, I am suggesting that the title can easily be taken as "versus" and perhaps should be changed to better reflect the content of the article in a non-prejudicial way. This article is specifically about the question raised by some (not necessarily most Christians) as to whether or not Mormons are Christians. So, a title like "Are Mormons Christians?" states clearly that there is a controversy without taking sides in that controversy. Awsikes (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the article isn't about that question. It's a comparison of Mormonism and Christianity, and it's also about how they have related to each other. The question of where each part draws the boundaries of Christianity, and their view of each other, is only part of that.

As for this being read as "Mormonism versus Christianity", Mkmconn already answered this. If there were an article entitled "Democracy and the United States" I wouldn't assume that meant they were in opposition to each other. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Awsikes, I don't mean "naive" in a disapproving sense. Without intimate attention to the details, from a viewpoint disinterested in the issues that generate controversy, the difference that Mormonism has created between itself and "mainstream" Christianity might not look very important. You compared it to the differences that exist in Islam, for example, between the Shiites and the Sunnis. I agree with this naive evaluation of Islam, so that you make your point with me: in these terms, I'm not very interested in the details of difference between Sunnis and Shiites, and as far as I'm concerned they are the same religion. I see the parallel that you are drawing, with the Mormons and traditional Christianity, and it is legitimate. We cannot deny in this article that in naive and disinterested terms, the differences between them are not important and Mormonism is a variety of Christianity. We can verify the validity of these terms, if we need to, by looking at the way that Mormons are categorized in various sources of demographical statistics, etc. For example we can expect to see Mormons counted among the estimated two billion Christians, and Muslims or Baha'i are not.

I don't believe that the title "Are Mormons Christians?" is a more neutral or encyclopedic way of representing this topic, in Wikipedia's terms. I have the same opinion about "Mormonism versus Traditional Christianity", or "Mormon Christianity versus Christian Tradition", etc., which are titles that promise a debate. Mormons don't necessarily see their religion as an attack on traditional Christianity. Most traditional Christians do not know much about Mormonism. Mormonism and tradition do not conflict in all respects, nor do all quarters of mainstream Christianity contradict Mormonism in the same way. The title shouldn't suggest questions that it can't really answer.

Finally, I shouldn't say that the title "Mormonism and Christianity" can't be read as implying that Mormonism is different from Christianity. I admit that it can be, and it will be read that way especially by people who are convinced of that difference, or by people who are sensitive to the implication that Mormonism is not Christianity. But it seems to me that this title does not narrow the approach to the topic or prejudice the conclusion, as the suggested alternative titles do. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's just a matter of taking the general to the specific. If I say "Democracy and the US" then it seems to be inclusive but if I say "The US and democracy" it seems devisive. Maybe we just need to change the article to "Christianity and Mormonism" Bytebear (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see that at all. I would read those two as meaning exactly the same thing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DJ Clayworth; there's no difference that I can tell. I admit that "...and..." titles imply some kind of tension - they imply that there may be some uneasy relationship between the two: but it doesn't dictate that there must be. On the contrary, I would think that a Mormon should read the title as providing him a completely open forum, and that's exactly what it does.

This title allows you to say: "Mormonism is the restoration and perfection of Christianity", "Mormonism is Christianity; Christianity is Mormonism; they are one and the same". When a reader comes to find how Mormonism stands with relation to Christianity, in other words, he will immediately learn that the Mormon perspective is that there is not a particle's difference between Mormonism and Christianity, not the smallest dilution of Christianity in Mormonism.

I am not impressed by the complaint that the title betrays a negative bias against Mormonism, or that it prejudicially dictates the conclusion that Christianity is different from Mormonism. Given what the article says under that title, the complaint sounds ridiculous. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Woodruff Quote

I find the Woodruff quote about the nature of the Godhead to be unhelpful, as it seems to be emphasising the oneness of the three components of the Godhead, whereas (as I understand it) the chief difference is that LDS believe they are separate in substance. I presume when he is talking about their lack of division he means their unity of mind and purpose, but is there possibly a quote that more clearly emphasises this? From this quote it would be easy to draw the conclusion that LDS differ from the Mainstream in believing that the three are absolutely and completely the same. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think another quote should be added also; one that clarifies that the three are distinct from one another. "Substance" is not a term used within the LDS movement or a concept. It is wholly foreign except when studying the history of other Christian churches. It simply has never been a topic. I will try and find one that will demonstrate that LDS believe in Godhead as separate, distinct, beings though one in purpose.

Question: does a son have the same substance as the father? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more like replace the quote than add to it. In an article about the differences between the faiths the Woodruff one is confusing. It would probably be fine in an article about the Godhead.

I think the Trinitarian summary is "three persons in one substance", so yes, but let's not forget substance is not the same meaning we normally associate with it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it always harkens back to homoosios versus homoiousios. It is a very particular context that is used when one speaks of substance within the mainstream definition.

LDS will often think of the Trinitarian doctrine as overly complex, but the LDS position is not so simple either. The quote used should adequately define the LDS position; replacing the quote is fine. I see no purpose in maintaining a selection of quotes in any article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I put that quote in there a while back and I actually like it. I don't think it confuses the LDS position at all. I think the unity of the Godhead gets underplayed too often partly because we are emphasizing their physical and personal distinctness. But I think LDS scripture and the teachings of the prophets over the years support the emphasizing of the oneness as well. This is very important to getting a full understanding of the LDS notion of the Godhead. Many times critics of the Church cry "Three Gods! Three Gods! They're polytheistic heathen cultists!" and only cite quotations about the distinctness of the the members of the Godhead in LDS theology. In so doing, they miss one of the most beautiful aspects because we believe, as Christ declared in John 17 that we too, if we are faithful, will be one in them as they are in each other. But for further balancing, I've added a blurb and another quotation from this talk by Jeffery R. Holland. I don't think it's overkill to have both in there but feel free to let me know if you still want to drop the Wilford Woodruff quote. Mpschmitt1 (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If this article were about LDS beliefs, then the Woodruff quote would be entirely appropriate. But it's about the comparison between LDS and Mainstream Christian beliefs. If we're going to have quote about the unity of the three persons of the Godhead, why not have a Mainstream quote, where the unity is more strongly emphasised? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree that this article is solely about differences. What is absolute fact is that LDS and other Christians believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, was crucified and died for the sins of man, was resurrected the third day, returned to sit at the right hand of God, and is the only path to God and salvation. These beliefs are the over-riding teachings of Christianity; there are no greater truths.

Conversely, there are churches that have attempted to make specific teachings, for example the Trinity, to be greater than Jesus Christ. They think that belief in those teachings is greater because they use them to differentiate between "true" Christianity and that deemed false. This is a worthy topic to discuss; how did belief in the Trinity become so significant that it overpowered the saving power of Jesus Christ? How did belief in Jesus Christ, being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost become subsidiary to the belief in the Trinity or any other doctrine? None has ever explained how any belief became greater than Jesus as Savior or how this aggrandizement is supported by scripture. It would be a fascinating addition to the article.

I still caution against too many quotes, but maybe this single doctrine is worth more attention given its overriding importance within much of Christianity. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

StormRider, I think you misunderstand. I don't know of any Christian church where "belief in the Trinity become so significant that it overpowered the saving power of Jesus Christ"; nor does "being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost become subsidiary to the belief in the Trinity or any other doctrine". The Trinity is rarely a factor in the practical side of the average Christian's life, and baptism is typically important to a Christian just once in their life. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument you're answering is a red-herring, DJ Clayworth. It has all the rhetorical power of saying "I am a Mormon, therefore Mormonism is true": it is not worth answering. It would be no more valid as an argument to say that, the gospel of Mormonism does not concern Jesus Christ, but the restoration of Christianity through Joseph Smith: therefore the Mormon Gospel concerns Joseph Smith and not Jesus Christ. But, that is not how Mormonism explains itself at all, and so, to say that is nothing but to say "I am not a Mormon, therefore Mormonism is not true". It is hard to top for flaunted, willful ignorance to say that, "the Trinity is more important to traditional Christians than Jesus Christ is"; but the dismissiveness of such a remark, and the barrier it poses to discussing differences meaningfully, is exacerbated if the answer is "The Trinity is rarely a factor in the practical side of the average Christian's life". We are not discussing "the average Christian's life", whatever that means. We are talking about Mormonism's understanding of itself as the restoration of Christianity, and traditional Christianity's view of itself as the revelation of Jesus Christ and the salvation which is through faith in him, preserved in the faith of the Christian Church. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but there is a significant portion of Christians that believe Mormons are not Christian because they do not believe in the Trinity; which also means they are not saved through their belief in Jesus Christ. Somehow all of the LDS belief in Jesus is overcome by their rejection of the concept of the Trinity and other beliefs. It is pretty clear that some Christians believe that some beliefs/or belief in falsehoods is so significant that it puts the "believer" beyond the saving power of Jesus Christ, Jesus' saving power becomes impotent to save because it is so violated by other beliefs. Am I wrong on my understanding of this Christian position or do Christians believe that LDS belief in Jesus Christ has saved them, but LDS just believe in false doctrine? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and No. Most Mainstream Christians do believe that Mormons (as a denomination) are not Christians; but the whole question of the 'saved'-ness of non-Christians is the subject of much disagreement. Paul clearly says that those who haven't heard the true Gospel will be judged by a different standard from those who have (and so may be saved). Hardly anybody would say Mormons were worse off than a person with no Christian beliefs.

For many Christians the important question would be "how much of your trust is in Jesus, and how much in something else?". If someone is primarily trusting Jesus, and considering all other stuff secondary then (individually) most Christians would acknowledge them also as a Christian. For Evangelicals at least the stress is on your personal beliefs and not on membership of any kind of church. An individual Mormon might be a Christian, or might not. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(newindent) It might be helpful to provide some references on what Christian groups feel about the salvation offered by the beliefs of Mormonism. Though Evangelicals are often the most strident in their rejection of Mormonism, their belief "only" in the saving power of Christ is most prevalent. However, I think several quotes could be found that condemn Mormons to hellfire because of their beliefs; which completely undermines the strength and saving power of Jesus Christ. They focus on the impossibility of belief in the true Jesus within Mormonism. Of course, then one must accept the belief that the Father and Jesus can't hear a LDS when (s)he prays. Catholicism and those more apostolic in their doctrine have a more nuanced position that has flowed over the centuries going from strict condemnation for being outside of the Holy Mother Church to a more benign it is possible. I have heard too many times that it is "either/or", but never both. The anti-cultists and quite strong in this position. We have to be careful not to get caught up in the beliefs of the individual; we necessarily must focus on the beliefs/doctrines of churches. Regardless, I do not think we should focus overly much on this point, but some mention of it might be interesting. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the range of differences you describe, Storm Rider. But, I can't think of any denomination that teaches that faith concerns only how much you trust Jesus, and is otherwise indifferent to who Jesus is revealed to be. Although, I'm sure that many people hold the view that doctrine is a distraction from a "personal relationship with Christ", I don't know how it could be proved that this is a "typical" or majority view - since it would depart from Catholic, Orthodox and historic Protestant teaching. However, there have been significant trends away from the ecumenical creeds and other traditional views - which those of us who cling to the historical views often lump together under the vague pejorative: "liberalism". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

For a different example, my own tradition is not unique in teaching that the Christian life can be described as living out the life of faith into which we were inaugurated at baptism; so that baptism should not be forgotten but constantly brought to mind, as signifying to the believer that he has been given up to the Father, in Jesus Christ, by the Holy Spirit in order to walk in newness of life. In fact, we sometimes use the phrase "improving your baptism" to speak of the whole Christian life. Paul speaks this way in Romans 6, when he says

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

It may well be that there are significant numbers of people whose do not attach much importance to baptism, or to communion with the Father in the Son in the Holy Spirit, but in doing so they depart from the doctrines to which the majority of "mainstream Christians" nominally adhere - whether they are Protestants or catholics. Allegedly widespread departure from the standards, if that can be verified, would be tested by sociological measure rather than a theological one. But as for the theology, the doctrine of the Trinity, and baptism into the name of the Trinity, are of basic and ongoing importance to the Christian life, according to "mainstream Christianity" - individual differences and other anomalies notwithstanding. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Spurious "Mother of Heaven Reference"

I deleted the reference to "Mother of Heaven" once before, and it has been restored. Please do not mistake the writings of pious laymen or laywomen with official pronouncements of the Church. The two links were not links to official Church teachings, and they really had no weight. In addition, I think the reference to Mary as Queen of Heaven is a red herring: There can be no comparison to a title of honor for a human being (even if she is the Theotokos) with a deity. The Mormon "Heavenly Mother" is not a mere human being, but a god. This is a false parallel. InFairness (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. I am not sure I have been involved directly in this issue; however, I have edited the article periodically and may have. I will review your edits to understand what position you are taking.

The parrallel between Mary, Queen of Heaven and the LDS concept of Mother in Heaven does have definite parrallels in the manner in which Catholics view Mary in a practical sense. Though LDS do not pray or even venerate Mother in Heaven, Catholics do. I would propose that in a real sense Mary is viewed as the spiritual mother of all Roman Catholics, if not the world in their view. The concept of theosis can be taken from "become god" as Athanasius to the more currently orthodox view that is more milk toast compared to the power of the language of the patristic fathers (I digress, this has been thoroughly discussed on this page in the past and simplistic); bottom line, I think the parallel is valid. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You can 'propose' this all you like, but it's not the Catholic view. Any number of references to Catholic doctrine will reveal that Mary is not considered divine. She is a unique human being (no-one else has given birth to God), but not a God. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

DJ, I never proposed to say that Catholic dogma states Mary is divine, rather I propose that there is a parallel; and that is just plan facts. Anyhone wanting to put there head in the sand and deny is fine, but that does not deny the factual basis of the parallel. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you need really good references to show the parallel as a 'fact'. As I understand it one is the divine wife of God the Father, and the other is the human mother of God the Son, wife only to human Joseph. Mary's chief role is as intercessor. I'm not sure what the Heavenly Mother's role is. Obviously there are some similarities (both female, for example) but the degree of parallel is going to be a bit subjective. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no parallel. The similarities being drawn are superficial, just as the favorable comparison between Exaltation and theosis is superficial. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I more than understand your reasoning to promote that there are no parallel between the respective positions on theosis and Mary. Tell me, when you hear the words "Queen of Heaven" or "God became human so humans would become gods" what exactly is the person saying than what is intended by the words?

To attempt to dismantle the simple words one must do mental backflips to arrive at a place that the words really don't mean what they say, but something wholly different. She is not really Queen of all heaven, but.... or we really don't become gods, but... When one reads the statements of the patristic fathers on the doctrine of theosis it makes the vast majority of Christians want to shout blasphemy. If you did not state that it is not a Mormon speaking most would declare it is pure unadulterated Mormonism. That is what makes it so interesting. The parallel is obvious to all but those who want to deny its existence.

The Mary dogma is really something that is just unnique about orthodoxy. It is an interesting doctrine that Protestants ignore completely. The LDS concept of mother in heaven is different and does not even begin to come close to the degree of development within orthodoxy. Though the concepts fill different roles, the kernal of commonality is that the feminine has been elevated to a station unknown in most other branches of Christianity. To delete the topic is to lessen the value of the article, particularly the conversation of the doctrine within orthodoxy. If anything, it should be expanded and the orthodox position made more clear and full. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider, Athanasius explains plainly what he means: no backflips are necessary to follow his meaning. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

StormRider you seem to be trying to say that Christian believe something they don't actually believe. Or at least that they ought to believe that. To be a Queen is not the same as being a God. And no, orthodox Christians don't believe we become Gods. And remember the patristic fathers are not viewed as infallible. If they did mean that (and I don't think he did) then it was just their opinion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that we become gods, in the sense that Athanasius explained. It is not a matter of opinion but of orthodoxy that, we are partakers of the divine nature, meaning that in Christ our human nature is lifted up into the eternal love between the Father and the Son, so that we are made "sons" by adoption, "born again" with the divine life: made sharers in the holiness of God which is revealed in Jesus Christ, given for us on the cross and raised up by the same Spirit who indwells us. But there is a stark and pervasive difference between what we mean by this language, and what Mormonism means if it uses comparable language: because the Mormon conception of God is starkly and pervasively different.

What Catholics believe about Mary as Queen of Heaven is not analogous to the Mormon view of "heavenly Mother". It is far more immediately comparable to what Protestants believe about the Church. The Christian portrait of the Church is the Bride of God, a woman bedecked in the sun, moon and stars of heaven, a pure virgin. The Catholics believe about Mary that, as the first of the redeemed and the bearer of God, she is symbolic of the whole people of God, Heavenly Jerusalem, the Church, the virgin mother of us all, who reigns and will reign pure in heaven with Christ. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

neutrality

It is not "neutral" to neutralize the view of traditional Christianity toward Mormonism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark's edit is correct. The perception of the LDS church by other churches should be stated flatly and should not be "softened". The current language is an accurate view. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Heavenly Father

Have it as you will, Storm Rider (but your guesses about my motives were out of place in edit comments). I would still argue that "Heavenly Father" is preferable in that particular context. The sentence with the contested phrase reads this way:

In this context, they believe that they will become gods, but that God Heavenly Father will always be their god and his role as the object of their worship and praise will not diminish.

In this context, to what does the pronoun "his" refer? It does not refer to the Godhead; and it does not refer to YHWH ("God" in the Old Testament: Jesus, in Mormon theology). In this context, where a particular being is being specified, LDS meaning should better be distinguished from "mainstream" meaning. Why do you not think so? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This one I went back and forth on. I arrived at a position that the context God always being God was paramount. I suspect we are splitting hairs, but speaking of exaltation, or becoming gods, I felt it was important not to introduce any confusion about God; though LDS belief is that we are co-heirs with Christ, or gods, we will eternally be subject to God. LDS doctrine will show a confusion on this topic and there is not an understanding of what being "gods" means. You will find comments that go from creating worlds to being one with the Father as the Son is one. Most of this is speculative and is not defined. My personal belief is that we will fulfill God's design for us and to glorify Him. Again, we may be splitting hairs and one may be just as good as the other. I would not be opposed to rewording those sentences so that confusion is not introduced and Heavenly Father is used. thoughts? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I deduce that no Mormon would consider this to be splitting hairs after thinking about it. The difference that is buried in broad and general terms you've used to explain God's plan of salvation that, "we will fulfill God's design for us and to glorify Him", are important enough to Mormonism that a separate religion is founded upon it. Those differences are important to the orthodox, too. I would think that we should be trying to carefully and accurately disclose those differences, and consistently and sympathetically explain how important they are to the respective parties. Here is one place where I think that the Latter Day Saint view is made to sound more like Trinitarianism than it could, if we were more diligent in drawing out the contrast. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For me it was splitting hairs on terminology. There is no confusion in the mind of a LDS about who is God; there is one God and there is no question. An easy way to always gain understanding when talking to a LDS is, "who do you pray to?" There is never any confusion. We may call God Heaven Father, but that term never muddies our understanding about who God is. The concept of exaltation does not confuse a LSD; there will only be one God for us throughout eternity; that relationship to our God never changes.

I would propose that you rewrite the few sentences here and then let's add it to the article after agreement is reached. I am sure that we can arrive at something that you feel adquately distinguishes differences on the hereafter and that I think does not add confusion. I also suspect there will be others who wish to participate and this will more easily allow a cooperative effort rather than a back and forth in editing the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already offered what I think is appropriate, and you've already said that you don't think it makes any difference. If the only reason for saying "God" instead of "the Heavenly Father" is because you worry about my motives, then I think that we've already gone as far as cooperation can take us because cooperation is broken at that point. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

The LDS sections of this article seem to have extensive quotes inline in the article to back up certain statements. Is there a reason why these should not be made references? It would cut down on the discrepancy in length between the LDS and Orthodox sections. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think people typically read footnotes. The inline quotes, if they add content or clarify a remark, are more useful than a footnote in my opinion. On the other hand, I think that the LDS sections have a tendency to be less concise than they could be. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mary

There are several lines about the difference in Protestant and Catholic views of Mary in the section entitled "Nature of God". I don't think these should be there, since Protestants and Catholics are agreed 100% that Mary is not God, so any discussion of the differences can be deferred to elsewhere. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In the context of a comparison of Mormonism and traditional Christianity, this discussion of Mary's mere humanity is relevant. The reason for the discussion is not to explain how Protestants differ from the Catholics, but to show how both differ importantly from Mormonism - and this difference which is epitomized in Mary is also indicative of how the orthodox understanding of "theosis" is markedly different from the Mormon idea of "exaltation". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

But the LDS section doesn't say anything about Mary? How are we supposed to compare? I'm also not sure how theosis is relevant to Mary either. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that you understand it intuitively; but you seem not to like the sound of it. You added the phrase "fully God and fully Man". You are referring to the Chalcedonian formula: the idea that by becoming man we do not mean that God was changed into a Man, and we do not mean that deity was alloyed with human nature. You mean by that phrase, what we might pedantically call "the hypostatic union of a theanthropic person".

Consider how your phrase, "fully God and fully Man", is meant to exclude the Mormon premise. I assume that you do not mean by this that Jesus is "fully God" because God is "fully Man". You mean to say, I assume, that these are two entirely different natures - the created body and soul of man on the one hand, and the other invisible and eternal and unchangeable - two natures united in one person, but not mixed or diluted by one another. Thus our human nature in Christ is joined to God; and that is the particle around which all the rest of "theosis" accumulated, or the seed of the idea from which the mature theology grew. And he clothed himself in this human nature from his mother. Mary is relevant here because she is (and therefore we are) exalted by this condescension of God (but she does not thereby become a deity in her own right). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mary is not, as far as I know, 'exalted by this condescension' any more than any other person. She has special honour because of her unique role. You write "Mary is relevant here because she is (and therefore we are) exalted by this condescension of God" but that is not how Christians see it. We do not become exalted because Mary is - we (and she) are exalted equally by the grace of God. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You should be careful not to distort what I said. You write "that is not how Christians see it" - but whether you see it or not, you've already professed the same thing when you said "fully God and fully Man". But I didn't say at all that we are exalted because Mary is. We aren't exalted because Mary is exalted; we are exalted because the eternal Son made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, being born of Mary.

She is (and we are) clothed in his glory because he humbled himself to be formed in her; it is God himself who is admired in her (and in us) - and that is the sense in which she epitomizes our salvation by grace - not as a savior, but as a sinner in whom God chose to have his mercy appear. But she does not thereby (obviously) become a deity in her own right, which in very stark contrast is the goal envisioned by Mormon exaltation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you've lost me there. My writing "fully God and fully Man" refers to Jesus, and happened to be something I added at the same time as the edits I made about Mary. It wasn't intended to be relevant to Mary at all.

"we are exalted because the eternal Son ... was made in the likeness of men". Yes absolutely. But then why is Mary relevant to the question? Is this about the Immaculate Conception and Mary's sinlessness? If so I can see you have some point (Mary had to be made sinless in order for Jesus to be born without sin) but I think it's still a big red herring with regard to the Nature of God. I think even a Catholic would consider it a side-issue. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you'll notice from reading the LDS section, their conception of the nature of God is relevant to the issue of their exaltation.

I don't see what anything I've said has to do with the idea of immaculate conception. I'm not at all sure that you are interacting with what I've said. But it is not a red herring, unless the LDS discussion of exaltation is a red herring. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And I didn't lose your meaning. "Fully God and fully Man" can only make orthodox sense if God is not a Man. Otherwise it is redundant (it would be analogous to saying "Fully a lemon and fully a fruit").

Are you catching the idea that God's nature is not human nature? Are you picking up the idea that humanity cannot be God? Are you thinking through the implications, in light of that, of saying that Jesus is "fully God and fully Man"? Are you following through with the idea that in Jesus Christ, one person is God and Man? Do you see then that the "traditional" Christian conception of exaltation is not in humanity's supposedly limitless potential to lift himself up, but concerns the ruin of sin, the lowliness of flesh, and the condescension of God? Why can't I get your attention focused on the issues raised? That is, that Jesus receives his human nature from Mary and not from God; but human nature is exalted thereby ("deified" in Eastern Orthodox terminology) - and so Mary is the epitomy of what is meant by "theosis" in that she is merely human, and not changed into God, but God is glorified in her. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

When you say this, I'm sure we have completely different goals in mind:

"we are exalted because the eternal Son ... was made in the likeness of men". Yes absolutely. But then why is Mary relevant to the question?

It is hard for me to understand how you think that question makes any sense. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with any of your explanation above, except at one point. "Mary is the epitome of what is meant by 'theosis'.". I don't see that in anything I read about theosis. Mary played a vital part in the incarnation of course, but she did not experience more 'theosis' as a result of that than the rest of humanity. Nothing I read about treats Mary as any kind of 'ideal' of theosis. My issue is that we spend three lines talking Mary's titles and about the difference in attitude to Mary between Protestants and Catholics in a section that is supposed to be talking about the Nature of God. I'm not saying a discussion of Mary doesn't belong in the article necessarily (though only there is a noticable difference between Christian and Mormon attitudes) but it doesn't belong in a section about the nature of God. If we want to discuss theosis and exaltation then let's do so directly, and explain the concepts, and not by talking about Mary. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

While explaining the traditional view of the nature of God, the section turns attention to the nature of Christ. In the context of a comparison to Mormonism, you yourself summarized the orthodox view of Jesus that he is "fully God and fully Man". But you do not mean what the Mormons mean, that God is fully a Man. To explain the humanity of Christ, Mary is necessarily of interest; since Jesus is the fruit of her womb. Just how human is she?

I do appreciate that what you're saying now is sounding more reasonable to me. I can understand the argument that this might not be the best approach. It's better than saying that it is irrelevant, to which I cannot agree. I continue to be frustrated though, that you read "typifies", "epitomizes", etc., as though these mean superiority of some kind. Israel's deliverance from Egypt epitomizes our deliverance from the world and from sin, and typifies Christ's triumph over the powers of the world. Does that mean that the Old Covenant is superior to the new? You're not using these words accurately. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Schmemann wrote somewhere that Mary, not Jesus, is the first figure you meet upon encountering Eastern Orthodoxy; and that is not an accident. She is the one who shows the way. It's hard for me to imagine a more prominent place for Mary, than in the manner of thought and piety that is most ordinarily associated with "theosis". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt the accuracy of your Schemann quote. However the connection with what is being written about is still tenuous. Theosis is not mentioned in the section, so even if Mary is relevant to theosis the reader will not understand the relevance of Mary to the section. Moreover theosis is not about becoming God in the (ontological) sense understood by most Christians - therefore it is doubtful that theosis has any real relevance to the Nature of God - the section is about the nature of the God, not any Godlike state to which man might aspire.

If you really think that this stuff is relevant to the section then I think you have to add something in it about theosis and then the stuff about Mary can be used to back it up. For myself I think anything about theosis is not relevant. No orthodox Christian understands theosis as 'becoming of the same nature as God'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Becoming the same nature as God" in the sense of becoming holy, being beautified with his holiness, is exactly what theosis means. But it does not mean that human "essence" is mingled or transformed into God - which is an absurd idea, considering who we say God is.

Anyway, I'm not sure that a direct comparison in that context is really necessary. The point is that Mary is just like the rest of us - not a God as she might seem from the outside to be, but a personification of lowliness exalted by the lowliness of God. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The comparison should be evident, when considering who Mary is in the explanation of what it means that God is incarnate through her, is concerned with theosis because it's concerned with salvation (since "theosis" is a conception of salvation) . There are two different conceptions here, of what salvation looks like. In traditional Christianity (most obviously in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism), salvation looks like the lowly handmaid of God, overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit so that Christ was formed in her, and thus the holiness of God himself is admired in her. Consideration of this has transfigured her in the contemplation of Christian tradition into a kind of epiphany of the Holy Spirit. The contrast that this sets up with Mormonism is subtle, and not elaborated upon - it is implied, but not expanded. To expand it seems to me to require saying something explicit about what Mormonism teaches about the nature of God, and that is not a simple matter. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark, you focus exclusively on the concept of God the Father being once man; however, as I have discussed on multiple occasions, this concept is not explained or even fully taught in the church and is not found in LDS Scripture. In brief, you take only the extreme teaching and make it sound as if it is the sum total of what LDS believe or teach. You reduce LDS teachings to much less than what they are; there is no mystery, no glory almost as if there is nothing of the divine. You ignore virtually all LDS scripture concerning God and then you concoct the difference from this false premise.

We have talked before about New Testament scripture that records Jesus saying I only do what I have see the Father do. When we discussed it, all you had to say is that posed some problems and then blithely ignored it. In what context did Jesus see the Father "do" anything and in that context where was Jesus looking from? Does this scriptures allow a follower of Christ to make an assumption that at some point Jesus observed the Father interacting with others? If so, where and how? Jesus words don't just pose a problem, they pose a conundrum that most of Christianity ignores. As you know, I am not a proponent of the God was a man theory, because I don't believe it has been explained fully and it is not been made part of LDS scripture. If it were doctrine of the church, then it would have been added to the canon.

As far as Mary goes, it is a doctrine completely foreign to LDS. She was the virgin mother of Jesus Christ; she was choice above all others. But we really don't have more than that. Orthodoxy has created an entire dogma and theology around her that is wholly outside of scripture and yet has become central to worship. To a layman looking at it from the outside, it would be very difficult to assume that it doese not surpass adoration and enters the realm of worship. What is interesting to me, in the context of comparative religion, is how groups make the feminine, the divine. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost as an aside, StormRider, in orthodox Christian theology Jesus, being a separate person from the Father can observe him interacting with others. With the Holy Spirit perhaps, and also, before his birth but after the creation, can see him interacting with the human race. The man Jesus can also observe (indirectly perhaps and to some extent) the interactions of the Father with the human race. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider, at least you understand my point, better it seems than DJ Clayworth, that with regard to the role that Mary plays in God's plan of redemption, without any change in her nature, indeed because she is human and lowly, God is her exaltation. In some respects, in some places, she is regarded as so highly exalted that from the outside she appears to you to be regarded in herself as divine. But what she contributes, without corrupting the salvation revealed from her womb, is not some strength from herself that is different from the rest of us. That which she contributes is the weakness common to all of us: our human nature. And that, as a matter of fact, is a different conception of the incarnation than Mormonism offers because your conception of the difference between God and Man is different.

But, Storm Rider, although I don't consider you to be any sort of final authority concerning what the LDS teaches, I don't think it's very relevant to what that section says at this point. If Mormons are free to believe that the Word proceeds invisibly from the invisible Father, to reveal the Father by incarnation, then so be it. And if some of them believe the "extreme" doctrine that the Father has a body, and is a Man so that Jesus is called "Son of Man", then so be it. The description of traditional views should be dis-entangled as much as possible from deciding what the doctrine of the LDS really is, and should explain itself in its own terms but with a view toward the contrast to Mormonism which traditional Christians assume to exist (implicitly). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a beauty to the teachings of Marian adoration that can lend strength to the worship of Christians; I have a degree of both appreciation and respect for it.

Do not misunderstand my position, the LDS position is not that one can believe whatever one chooses and state it is true. The LDS church strives to teach truth and it is our obligation to gain a spiritual witness of each truth. The concept of God was a man is not taught in this manner of "truth". More often then not it is brought up to teach the possibility of eternal progression. That God's plan for us is to become like Him, to live in His presence for eternity. In a very real sense exaltation is to live in God the Father's presence eternally; that is the meaning of being a co-inheritor with Christ. Granted some have attempted to explain more fully what that means and that is where some have gotten carried away in to creating worlds of "our own", etc. Fundamentally, we are go glorify our God for all time and it is His glory that will grow forever. Explaining further than that is speculative and is not LDS doctrine.

I have no issue with the disentangling of doctrines, but I am not willing that it go so far as to attempt to frame LDS doctrine in extreme or even speculative positions that have not been explained by the church. That is a false analysis and does not enlighten the reader with facts, but with caricature. Let's focus just on the scriptural beliefs of the LDS church.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What's clear to me is that, what those scriptural beliefs are, is a matter of very real controversy: not only with opponents of Mormonism, but within the LDS. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll truncate the remarks in the article about Mary, and that might put an end to these contentions. But I do think that these issues are significant for this article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all I'm asking for. I didn't want to get into a discussion of Mary's role in redemption. I didn't say you were wrong. I'm not even saying that the point doesn't belong in this article. Just that it doesn't belong in the section entitled "Nature of God". DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why, though? What is the relationship between deity and humanity? Are they in some sense the same thing? You believe that Jesus is God revealed, and yet he has a mother. If it makes sense to you that the eternal Word of God has a mother, then does it make sense to you that the Father has a mother; that the Spirit has a mother? Is it even conceivable to you that they are of the same genus? Could Mary have been something special, and this is why Jesus turned out so well - is she super-human, and that's why there are pictures and statues of her all over the place in Orthodox and Catholic piety? Isn't it an example of an intersection with the common belief that humanity is after all filled with all the potential of being raised up to godhood - don't we see that in Caesar and Jesus and Pharaoh and Nimrod? Isn't that what we see in Mary: the unlimited potential of the human spirit? Isn't Mary a good example of the god-ness inherent in the human soul? When we admire God, aren't we really admiring ourselves? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If not, then it seems to me that an explanation is appropriate - a brief one, not expansive, just the seed of the idea - that in Mary we see the traditional Christian idea that God intends Himself to be the greatness revealed in human nature. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not I agree with it, the speculation you are expressing is on the extreme fringe of orthodox Christian views. As such they don't belong in a discussion of the differences between Mormon and Christian view of the Nature of God. They might merit a brief mention in some article, but not here; and even then not without references. If you want to leave me a message on my talk page I'll be happy to discuss the question offline. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You are calling "extreme" some very common speculations which are completely excluded from orthodoxy, but right at home in Mormonism. That's the point. I've never said that Mormonism teaches that man and god compare to one another like fruit and a lemon; but it is possible in Mormonism to think so, and it is not possible in orthodoxy. I've not claimed that Mormonism teaches that God is a Man, but it is possible in Mormonism to speculate that this may be so, and it is not possible in orthodoxy. I've not claimed that Mormons teach that Mary is biologically the same as God, but it is possible in Mormonism to think this makes sense, and it is not possible to think this and be orthodox. I have not said that Mormonism teaches that human nature is deity in potential form, but it is possible for Mormons to speculate that this may be the case and it is therefore not traditional orthodoxy. Who Mary is, and the sense in which she is "properly" thought to be glorified as opposed to the Mormon idea of deification, exemplifies this divide. That was the point. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark: The section we are discussing is about the views on the Nature of God in Traditional Christianity. So whatever speculations are permitted about Mary and the Nature of God in LDS, feel free to add them to the LDS section. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I only have time for a quick response; it is more correction than anything. LDS do not teach that Mary is deity; one may interpret that is the position of orthodoxy, but it is wholly foreign to LDS and there has never been anything taught where that could be construed, which cannot be said about othodoxy (though I completely agree that it is a misreading of the whole context about Mary).

I think references can be found by mainstream theolgians that allude to being sons and daughters of God and the possiblity of becoming gods. More importantly, that is New Testament teaching and patristic fathers supported that and said it. What you are quiblling about is a definition of god; gods with qualifications, but gods nonetheless. If it were not so, it would not be found in scripture. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case I was misunderstood I didn't mean to imply that I thought Mark's comments about Mary were necessarily true for LDS; just that they were not true of mainstream Christianity. I know nothing about the LDS view of Mary except what I read here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is not what the LDS believe about Mary; but what the orthodox believe about her (and all other mere human beings full of grace).

LDS teachings could be fairly summarized as teaching that in admiring God, we admire what we ourselves may to a large extent become (having been enabled by the atonement and the gifts and ordinances given by God). Look to him, and you see your own potential. You see in him the kind of life you can live, the example of what you may in some sense become. In admiring him, man admires himself.

This is very different from orthodoxy. Orthodoxy cannot look toward God as the expression of what we ourselves may become (that is, except by grace, and except with regard to holiness), as Mormons are frequently quoted as doing. Orthodoxy has no room at all for apotheosis. It does not venerate human greatness; instead, it venerates weakness in which the power of God elects to appear. If you want to see an orthodox admiring himself in the object of adoration, you can consider the adoration of Mary (or the theology of Mary, without religious adoration, as in Protestantism). It is not our potential for greatness that is admired in her, or some potential in ourselves; it is Christ, the fruit of her womb that is admired, and the revelation of the Father in Him, and the Holy Spirit who overshadowed her to form that Holy thing in her: so that she is beautified by God Himself, not changed into a deity. Is the point of this getting through? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not a quibble. It is the difference between Christian tradition and virtually all pagan and paganized-Christian conceptions of deification. Mormonism, in specific regard to this element of its teachings, has much more in common with the religion of Pharaoh than with the religion of Nicea. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And the religion of Nicea has nothing in common with the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is pure, creation of man. It is the amalgam of Greek philosophy and Christian teachings that struggled to come to terms with having a son of God, divinity, and the concept of monotheism. It personifies the apostasy and a religion of man versus that religion taught by Jesus Christ, found in the New Testament, and confirmed by the Holy Spirit. Quibbling? Certainly not when talking of truth. Quibbling when we are trying to define gods? Absolutely; you dance around terms used for millenia, placing new definitions to terms used and understood by the Son of God and the early apostles. Did they not use the term gods? Yes! They did not qualify and invent some new definition never understood at the time of Christ or in any other time period. That creation came 400 years latter through the workings of man. The future of humanity is to dwell in the existence of the God of the universe; that was the gift Jesus explained.

When we move from a position of academic discussion of comparative religion to declaring "truth", please rest assured that everyone can join in that little tussle and no one is free from accusation or fault. I would caution you to focus the context of the conversation from a purely analytical viewpoint. The moment you cross into attempting to paint one as more holy, more pure, or true you move the conversation into a realm unacceptable for wikipedia. As editors we must strive to write as if all religion is true; we report facts only and not strive to guide readers or taint treatment of churches with personal beliefs. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What I said was a simple fact, with which I would expect you to agree. What you have done is take this as an opportunity to jump with both feet into rant mode. I think that if you'll look closer, there's none of what you caution me against in what I've said. It shows up first in you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, Greek philosophy of various schools can conceive of henosis and apotheosis, as Mormonism also can. Orthodoxy cannot. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)