Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about Mormonism and Nicene Christianity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Article length

Hi

This article has been tagged since August 2008 as needing cutting down in size.

File size: 286 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 94 kB
References (including all HTML code): 99 kB
Wiki text: 126 kB
Prose size (text only): 67 kB (11272 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 31 kB

Could someone have a look at how it might be cut into smaller articles, or how superfluous text might be removed, in an attempt to get it closer to the 100kb upper limit ?

For example:

Excessive refs:-

5 refs for "For both the Latter Day Saints and traditional Christians, the central distinguishing doctrines of Mormonism are: Joseph Smith, Jr.'s selection by God as a prophet and the restoration of the priesthood authority and doctrines of the primitive Christian church"
3 refs for "Some traditional Christian denominations have ministries focused on Latter-day Saints, just as they also have ministries toward Jews, Native Americans, or other demographic groups."
3 refs for "By inference, any who depart from the faith preserved by the Holy Spirit cannot authentically proclaim the Gospel of reconciliation through Christ"

Superfluous text:-

These sections have a "Main" article. The sections should be a summary of the article linked to as its main. The sections are massive and need to be cut down in size.

Mormonism_and_Christianity#Nature_of_God The section has 3,000 words - the "main" article to which it links is 3,200 (Godhead (Latter Day Saints))
Mormonism_and_Christianity#Plan_of_salvation at 3,550 is actually much bigger than the "main" article it links to ! (Plan of salvation = 2,860)

As a general note there are also several inline html links that need removing or turning into refs.

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything preventing you from merging the sections into the main aritcles and leaving only summaries on this page? Just sayin, WP:So fix it. Ltwin (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I am not religious, not a member of any of the associated projects or groups, I have little understanding of what should be left as a summary and I have much more important things to do.

Why not just WP:Get on with it instead of leaving sarcastic so fix it messages ?

:¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree—you're both right—this article is in desperate need of some serious summarizing. I may or may not help fix this in the near future, depending on the weather, my mood, workload, etc. =) ...comments? ~BF izz 03:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Going deeper than just the length issue, I think the article as it now stands is fundamentally misguided. It should not be a point/counterpoint discussion about what we think Mormons believe versus what we think traditional Christians believe on every topic of Christianity. Something like that might be appropriate for a list article, where you have some table with a Mormon column, a traditional Christianity column, and each of the rows representing a theological topic. But that kind of point/counterpoint approach is totally inappropriate for this article.

This article, should be based primarily on references that either explicitly or implicitly compare or contrast Mormonism with traditional Christianity. Nobody should be citing the Catholic Catechism, the Anglican Creed, Mormon scripture, or any of that primary source material to show what the various religions believe, or comparing them to each other. Rather, we should rely on secondary sources that discuss these creeds and scriptures within an inter-religious context. It's too easy for this kind of comparison of primary sources to devolve into original research. Besides, we need more authority than Mormon scripture or the Catechism to establish what Mormons and Catholics believe, and how those beliefs are different. We certainly should not be citing the Bible itself to show what Mormons believe, as if we were Mormon missionaries. I'm not saying that we absolutely can't quote the Catechism, or the Bible or Mormon scripture, but we should not do so in the absence of a secondary source that places these primary sources in the context of comparing Mormonism with traditional Christianity. COGDEN 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well said. I strongly agree with what COgden on this. ...comments? ~BF izz 04:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle. However, I think that you will find that in practice this will prove to be quite a problem. It's been tried before, many times. If a "comparison" article is difficult to justify for an encyclopedia, a debate article is more so - and that is how this article is always inclined to degenerate. I think that you will find that secondary sources comparing the two belief-systems, and the two faith-communities, are persistently perceived by the other side as distorting. Where distortion is perceived, correction is invited: and from there you get the obnoxious "A claims about B, B objects to A's claims concerning B and claims about A ... " which swells article size and reduces comprehensibility. In fact, the effort to frustrate this temptation to use the article as a forum for debate is what caused the article to evolve into its present structure. Indulging that temptation is primarily to blame for the bloat and redundancy. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it can be done. The key is to stick with the secondary sources, and require every potentially controversial statement in this article to be backed up by a reliable secondary source, unless there is a good reason to go straight to the primary source (which in this type of article would be rare). Also, we give prominence to mainstream and consensus academic views, and very little or no prominence to minority or fringy anti-Mormon, evangelical Christian, or apologetic Mormon perspectives (unless the subject matter is the Mormon perspective).

Another issue I have with this article in its current state: it really makes no distinction between 19th century Mormonism and 20th century Mormonism. There was a huge, huge shift in Mormon theology, practice, and doctrine at the turn of the 20th century. There is no justification for this article to pretend that Mormon theology and doctrine is some clearly-defined and monolithic whole that has remained unchanged since the days of Joseph Smith, so that you can quote Brigham Young and Gordon B. Hinckley on some matter of theology and pretend that they are talking about the same thing. COGDEN 02:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If I had my preference, this article should be as brief and as general as possible: I mean, radically shortened and generalized. The whole article should be closer to the length of the introduction as it stands now, and the rest of the article should be reduced to "See also" links. But I don't see that ever happening, or lasting very long if it did happen. Even as the introduction stands now, you can see the barely disguised urge to explain further, to answer the insult, to proselytize, to win the debate. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there's enough published material on the subject to be longer than the introduction, but I agree that the present article should be severely pruned, and basically rewritten. That's going to take a lot of work. If it's written tightly, carefully, and well-documented by secondary sources, it will be largely immune from partisan edits because they will stick out like a sore thumb and will be easily removed. COGDEN 19:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Non Trinitarianism and Non Chalcedonianism.

"Non Trinitarianism" is a logical subset of "Non Chalcedonianism" (i.e. all non Trinitarian doctrines are, by definition, non Chalcedonian). As the Unification Church is non Trinitarian then it is also non Chalcedonian. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's your own interpretation of the term and is not the one that is commonly used. Usually the term refers to those Christians who accepted the Council of Ephesus 431 but did not accept the Council of Chalcedon. See Non-Chalcedonian. We don't use our own logic to extend the meanings of terminology beyond what they typically mean in the real world. Adherents of Mormonism would never self-identify as being "non-Chalcedonian", nor are there sources that call them that. Therefore, neither should we. This has nothing to do with the Unification Church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Good Ol'factory's explanation here. Additionally, in the hypothetical situation that one category is a "logical subset" of another, I believe it is common convention here on WP to only use the more specific category, since it is redundant to use them both. ...comments? ~BF izz 04:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the category has been applied to a few other articles in ways that are similarly inappropriate: like Jehovah's Witnesses and Unification Church. (Which I think is how we got the reference to the Unification Church, through a cut-and-paste of comments from Talk:Unification Church.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sory about the cut 'n' paste oversight. The user Good Ol’factory's position is that the category should not be used because it is not "commonly used". That may be true, but then most Wiki science articles would fall into that category. Is that an excuse to delete them? I think not. I agree that it is a particularly abstruce area of interest, but let that not prevent us from Wikifying it - be bold. Also, I should point out that I did not invent the articles Non-Chalcedonianism or Antitrinitarianism. They existed previously so somebody else thinks that they are worthy of classification. So no OR was going on by me. Whether or non Mormonism itself would choose to define itself as "non-Chalcedonian" is almost irrelevant. Many denominations were not present at Ephesus or Chalcedon; that's no reason not to classify them. Alternatively, the Anglican Communion, which was not at Chalcedon, defines itself as Chalcedonian. So all Christian denominations are capable of being so classified. Where doubt exists about their stance on the doctrine, naturally that denomination should not be added to the category. Otherwise I see no difficulty in adding them where the article itself permits such categorisation. For example, many carry inof boxes that explicitly define themselves as non Trinitarian.So these are contention free. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What seems to be overlooked here—and I don't know how I can explain this any clearer—is that despite what using our own logic might say, not all Christian denomination must be either Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian. It's possible to be neither. As the article Non-Chalcedonianism states, non-Chalcedonians are those who accept the Council of Ephesus 431 but do not accept the Council of Chalcedon. That means if a group rejects both, they are not called "non-Chalcedonians". This is how the term is used in reliable sources. It is not used as a generic term that refers to all who reject the Council of Chalcedon. Second, just because an article exists does not mean that it should be a worthy subject of categorization—those are two very different issues, as articles define what is notable, whereas categories typically sort what is defining. Third, whether or not a terminology is "commonly used" is not exactly the standard that I'm getting at—it's whether reliable sources use the terminology in relation to the subject of the articles so categorized. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I again concur with G.O. I am unaware of any source that has explicitly categorized Mormonism as "Non Chalcedonian". Same goes for Jehovah's Witnesses. Ctrl-F says that the word "Chalcedon" does not appear, in any form, in the Nontrinitarianism article, except for the History of Christian Theology template. It's flaky logic to assert that "Non Trinitarian" is a strict subset of "Non Chalcedonian"; with concepts like this that are millenia old, if no one has already made that assertion it's probably because no one supports it. The terms are linked to similar concepts but used in very different ways. ...comments? ~BF izz 02:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

New Framework

It will take a lot of work to fix this article, but I thought I'd start by proposing a general framework. Here is the tentative general outline I would envision:

Evolution of theological differences

Early years (1820s to mid 1830s, when Mormonism was essentially just another form of radical Christian Restorationism; basis of early Mormon doctrines in existing Christianity)
Joseph Smith innovations (mid-1830s to 1844, as Smith unfolded a profound new theology and complete break with traditional Christianity; Smith seen as a Muhammad-like figure)
Pioneer-era and fundamentalist theology (Adam-god, etc., polygamy, alienation from mainstream Christian America)
Modern LDS theology (as codified by Talmage, Widtsoe, Roberts; Smoot hearings; Correlation Program theology and theological effacement)

Christian views about Mormons

Non-recognition of rites
Proselytizing of Mormons by Evangelical Christians
Polls and attitudes

Mormon Engagement with other denominations

Interfaith service ventures
Interfaith political action
Proselytizing of Christians by Mormons

This could drastically change, though, as the material is fleshed out. COGDEN 20:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't favor reviewing history again in this article; it is covered mutlipe times in multiple articles already. I think it is better to focus on the relationship today between the two theologies (neither hardly a single theology is understood). In stating that I don't agree with a rehash of history, I can see covering the most controversial topics, doctrines that have been rejected or declared false, and the resulting confusion in the Christian world. -^StormRider 14:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Much of the interaction between Mormonism and Christianity is very historical. For example, this article absolutely has to discuss the connection between early 1830s Mormonism and things like Christian perfectionism, the Holiness movement, the Restorationism movement (especially the Stone-Campbell group), and . These are some of the very foundations of Mormonism, and without some discussion about these connections to mainstream Christianity, this article is almost pointless. Much of the present article proceeds as if Mormonism appeared out of nowhere, but the religion indeed has a Christian context: Joseph Smith was very much concerned with traditional Christian controversies when he translated the Book of Mormon and organized the Church of Christ.

Also, there is no reason to ignore the interaction between Mormonism and Christianity during the 19th century, when according to the mainstream academic view, Mormonism was decidedly less traditionally Christian than it is today. After all, Mormonism includes fundamentalist Mormonism, and they still practice 19th century Mormonism. But you can't lump what Brigham Young believed with what the modern LDS believe and call the conglomeration "Mormonism". That's what polemical anti-Mormonists do. There is no one "Mormonism", only several different Mormonisms as the religion has progressed and its leaders have changed the religion by introducing "further light and knowledge". COGDEN 17:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've made some major changes to the article. In particular, I have added a discussion of Mormonism's Christian foundations (circa Book of Mormon). It is important to note how very early Mormonism was situated within contemporary Christianity (i.e., that it was essentially Trinitarian and Arminian). Also, the article needed a discussion of how far afield of traditional Christianity the religion moved in the second half of the 19th century, and how the religion (except fundamentalists) retreated from much of this in the early 20th century. Also worth noting is the very recent "neo-orthodoxy" trend away from orthodox 20th century Mormon theology. The article still needs extensive further trimming of unsubstantiated and potentially-OR material, but I've left that for later. COGDEN 02:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I revised the first paragraph in the interest of clarity but also to test the water to see what objections may be raised by other editors.--John Foxe (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the first sentence, and I don't have on hand any good secondary sources to back my thoughts up yet, but I just had a couple of thoughts that might merit at least a few modifications or clarifications:

Joseph Smith's comments about all churches being "wrong", all creeds an "abomination", and all professors were "corrupt" didn't occur until 1838. There is no evidence that he expressed this extreme view to any other Mormon until then, and most Mormons didn't hear it until 1842. By 1838, Smith was well on his way toward departing from Protestantism and traditional Christianity. The idea that Mormonism was a rejection of the whole of traditional Christianity is probably not representative of the very earliest Mormon doctrine.
The Book of Mormon expresses some definite opinions on the nature of the church and true religion, but those opinions are for the most part the same as those of Methodists (theology and soteriology) and the Disciples of Christ (ecclesiology). The Book of Mormon never says that all of Protestantism is wrong, or that all non-Mormon churches are false or corrupt. Reflecting the views of contemporary Christian primitivists, the book does single out the early Catholic church (1 Ne. 13) as being particularly "abominable" for causing the Great Apostasy, but that sentiment does not necessarily apply to Protestantism. In fact, the book speaks very highly of the Puritans (Calvinists), and even says that "the power of the Lord was with them" (1 Ne. 13:15-16). The book also rails against churches that have paid clergy, fancy buildings or vestments, that teach their own learning rather than utterances of the Spirit (2 Ne. 28:4), or that deny miracles (2 Ne. 28:6). These statements do not, however, exclude all of Protestantism, or all of contemporary Christianity. The Book of Mormon could reasonably be read as trying to convince existing Christian churches to reform.
The Book of Mormon teaches that all followers of Jesus who repent, are baptized, and take upon themselves the name of Jesus, were considered to be part of God's collective "church", which is broadly defined. The book contemplates that there could exist many individual churches of God/Christ: "And thus notwithstanding there being many churches they were all one church, yea, even the church of God; for there was nothing preached in all the churches except it were repentance and faith in God." (Mos. 25:22) Apparently in 1820s Mormonism, like the Disciples of Christ but unlike later Mormonism, any church is the "church of God" if it teaches only basic Biblical principles like faith and repentance (D&C 10:67-68, dated 1828), and is called by the name of God (Alma 46:14) or Jesus (3 Ne. 27:7-11).
It was not until April 1830 that Smith established that his church had special authority to baptize beyond that of other churches. And even then, the revelation did not say that the baptism of other churches (e.g., the Disciples of Christ) had been void ab initio. Rather, Mormon baptism was framed as a "new and everlasting covenant" to replace the "old covenant" of traditional Christianity.

COGDEN 01:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In general, I like Foxe's change. I also have a few thoughts:

It feels like the very first paragraph is missing. The summary jumps straight to details about Joseph Smith founding Mormonism before making any sweeping summary statements. I would like to see some generalized comments about what Mormonism is in comparison/contrast to Christianity.
"Many of the radical elements —such as the Adam–God doctrine—disappeared..." - were there really "many" radical elements that disappeared? Also, the delineation of what is "radical" is rather blurry.
"Mormon theology was gradually woven into a more biblical framework through the use of traditional Christian terminology and ideas." - I raised an eyebrow at this sentence. As COgden has noted, Mormonism started out looking a lot like traditional Christianity. The "biblical framework" was there the whole time, as were many "traditional Christian terminology and ideas".

Other than these small concerns, I think that the gist of Foxe's edit is an excellent basis for the proposed restructuring of the article body. ...comments? ~BF izz 06:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

On the last point, I guess I agree it's hard to say that the ideas and terminology of James E. Talmage's theology was any more "biblical" than that of Brigham Young, or of Joseph Smith circa the 1840s. But I guess it's fair to just say that most of Brigham Young's theological innovations were jettisoned in the early 20th century. Then in the later 20th century, Mormons began to de-emphasize or omit some of the elements of its modern orthodoxy that distinguish it from traditional Christianity, and to recover the more Protestant-oriented discourse of the Book of Mormon. COGDEN 10:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with virtually everything both COGDEN and BF have said. My only quibble is that if the BoM refers to the Puritans in 1 Nephi, I think it's praising Puritan cultural success rather than Calvinistic theology.--John Foxe (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think the Book of Mormon has much good to say about Calvinism. But it did have very good things to say about this particular group of Calvinists and their descendants. So I don't think the Book of Mormon was a condemnation of the whole of contemporary Christianity--rather, just a clarification of plain biblical truths that supposedly existed in the original version of the Bible but were suppressed by the Catholics. COGDEN 22:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to talk through the idea of Mormon neo-orthodoxy, but the Mormon version seems so different to me both in chronology and theology that it seems odd to make a big deal about its connection to the Barth and Brunner variety—now virtually extinct except in theological schools.

While I'm here, let me complain about the next section of material, which doesn't seem relevant (despite its length), nor does it fit in your schema above. Could we be bold and move Mormon views about Christian doctrinal controversies to a separate article?--John Foxe (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, this section is a place-holder for material from the original article, which was a mess. I didn't want to delete it without going through it carefully, and maybe without some discussion. I also thought of using it to compare Mormonism with traditional Christianity in a more detailed, topical way. For example, a lot more can be said about the Mormon views of Christian/prophetic authority (place of Joseph Smith, prophecy vs. scripture, etc.), and its soteriology (mode of baptism, election, perfection, etc.). Then again, we can also just fill out the previous section and present the material chronologically rather than topically.

As to the neo-orthodoxy issue, I don't think that any of the writers are suggesting that Mormon neo-orthodoxy is part of Protestant orthodoxy, only that it is analogous. I think mention of that ought to be made, to explain why it is called Mormon neo-orthodoxy and not just Mormon neo-fundamentalism or something like that. COGDEN 18:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the mention of neo-orthodoxy and tweaked the paragraph a bit. From a non-Mormon perspective, I see less change than you seem to from nineteenth century to twentieth century Mormon orthodoxy. To my mind, once we get past Adam-God, it's mostly PR smoke-and-mirrors to keep the religion from scaring the neighbors. --John Foxe (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

user John Foxe

I like what he's doing to the article. The changes are moderate, even handed and sensible. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that kind word. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Article scope and definition of Christianity

I think I'll let you take the next step in beginning to fulfill the promise of your outline above. I just don't know how to get a handle on the "place holder." But if we're talking about Christianity here (as opposed to Protestantism or evangelical Christianity), then I suggest we step to back to say the Nicene creed, which will better illustrate the "great gulf fixed" between Mormonism and all three of the largest branches of Christianity. Of course, following that course will also virtually eliminate discussion of baptism, prophetic authority, election, etc.--John Foxe (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I see the article as not just comparing and contrasting Mormonism with traditional Christianity as a whole, but also situating various elements of Mormonism within either traditional or at least heretical Christianity.

I also think that it's important to distinguish between early, middle, and late Mormonism. Though radical, pre-1835 Mormonism might arguably be considered to still be within the Protestant tradition. As to recent Mormonism, there is a disconnect between early 20th century Mormonism and late 20th century Mormonism. On the surface at least, late 20th century Mormonism sounds trinitarian and somewhat Protestant except for an emphasis on works. I agree that part of this may be a lack of candor by many contemporary Mormons who, deep down, believe the Roberts/Widtsoe/Talmage version of Mormon theology, but pretend that they believe something more Protestant.

However, if we are going to compare Mormonism with traditional Christianity, you have to define what Mormonism is. In the 19th century and early 20th century eras, this was easy, because what Mormons preached at the pulpit and published in official documents was pretty much what they honestly believed. For other faiths, you can tell what their religion is about by looking at their creeds, ignoring what lay adherents actually believe, which is often not quite orthodox. The only Mormon creed is its Articles of Faith, so if we applied that same standard to Mormonism, you could say that Mormonism is trinitarian. If you look only at modern official Mormon publications and what is now actually taught over the Mormon pulpit, you could also easily conclude that Mormonism is trinitarian. Looking exclusively at current official sources, the only major departures from traditional Christianity I can think of are vague references to us having "heavenly parents", the radical Christian perfectionism set forth in the D&C, and the idea that the Father has a body like the Son. A new convert could join Mormonism as a trinitarian (most probably do), and remain a trinitarian until death, and nobody would have reason to question their faith in today's LDS Church.

So basically, there are two contemporary Mormonisms: an official neo-orthodox Mormonism, and an older Mormonism that is extremely widespread but no longer official. I think that the article ought to discuss both Mormonisms. The article can also cite sources discussing reasons why there are two contemporary Mormonisms. (Is it merely PR doublespeak? Does a neo-orthodoxy exist? Are there studies that show what new Mormon converts believe, and whether they retain that belief as they are exposed to nontrinitarian Mormons? ) COGDEN 22:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What you're discussing is well worth a Wikipedia article, but I'm not sure it can all be shoehorned into this one. For one thing, it's impossible to know what "official" Mormonism is and what it's not because, as you've noted, there's nothing out there beyond the (in my view, deliberately deceptive) Articles of Faith. I think Sandra Tanner hit the nail on the head last year when the Church pulled Bruce McConkie's Mormon Doctrine. She told a reporter, that ending publication was largely "due to its candid discussion of LDS doctrines that the church is now trying to hide..... Mormons often say to me, “That’s not official doctrine” as though there was some place to look up the official teachings. Where is the official systematic theology of Mormonism?" You can claim that there's now an official neo-orthodox Mormonism, but there's no proof of any such thing beyond wishful thinking. Ah, to have Bruce McConkie back, forthright and crunchy.

As to this article, you'll have to take the lead. If I were writing it, I'd show the divergences between the various Mormonisms and the Nicene Creed, quote embarrassing Mormon attacks on the various branches of Christianity, say a few words about proselyting in both directions, and call it a day. But, having said that, I think there's a place for what you want to do, and I respect your level-headedness, so I certainly won't stand in your way. As Francis Bacon observed, "truth will sooner come out from error than from confusion"—which is what most of this article is right now.--John Foxe (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to find a citable source on the perceived dual nature of modern Mormonism that treats the subject with some degree of critical distance, but thus far I haven't found one. Plenty of sources point out the duality, but very few offer any critical analysis. I'll see what I can pull together on that, but in any event, I recognize that while the reader needs to understand the dual nature of modern Mormonism so they know what the article is comparing against, the real "meat" of this article is its comparison with, and standing with respect to, traditional Christianity. So I'm not proposing to make this into a Freudian psychoanalysis of Mormonism. Maybe it's enough to note (so to speak) that Mormonism has both an id and an ego, and to compare traditional Christianity with both the id and (where appropriate) the ego. COGDEN 21:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just curious, since there is no monolithic thing as a single "Christianity", I wonder if we should also portray Christianity in a similar way: early, middle, and modern? The question is meant to be rhetorical. What is the doctrine of the LDS Church? Only what it says it is. What is the doctrine of the Christian Church today? Only what 36,000 denominations says it is. I find it interesting that we choose a fine-tooth comb when attempting to analyze Mormonism, but turn an almost blind eye to what is certainly not a single Body of Christ.

If we are going to compare these two belief systems, then compare them, but use the same standard for both. Neither is a single entity, neither has a single doctrine, neither has a perfect history, neither is free from interesting conflicts of thought and belief. The result is this is a complex topic that needs to be narrowed and stated as such. Pick your point and begin from there, but if you vere for one, vere for the other. Doing anything else will only result in a slanted, POV work of opinion.-^StormRider 00:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The result is this is a complex topic that needs to be narrowed and stated as such - I agree. This article has a potentially huge scope. Perhaps we should break it into "History of Mormonism and Christianity" and "Differences of Mormon theology from traditional Christianity"? People are landing at this article looking for various different things; it is rather ambiguous which one we should elaborate on, and covering both would make this article unwieldy. ...comments? ~BF izz 02:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

One point of my discussion with COGDEN above was that if you go back far enough, say to the Nicene creed of 325, Christianity is more-or-less one thing. There's no split between Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, and of course, that's long before the Protestant Reformation. With only some minor quibbling, the three great branches of modern Christianity all agree about the orthodoxy of the Nicene creed. Mormons don't. In fact, Mormonism attacks the Nicene creed as apostate. So comparing Mormonism of any and all eras with the Nicene doctrines is an easy way to finesse the problem of a potentially huge scope.--John Foxe (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the purpose of this article is to simply answer the question "What is the relationship between Mormonism and Christianity?" This relationship is both historical and doctrinal, and I think we need to cover both, and we can do so succinctly. As far as the doctrinal comparison is concerned, I think it should mainly be a comparison between traditional Christianity and modern Mormonism, with maybe some contrasting early Mormon doctrine thrown in occasionally if relevant.

We could compare Mormonism to various other eras of Christianity than the present one, but that comparison is likely to be a purely apologetic discussion outside the academic mainstream. Mormonism arose during the era of modern Christianity, and in part as a reaction to modern Christianity. No mainstream scholarship that I know of has presented evidence that Joseph Smith was directly influenced by, or even really aware of, early Christian heresies. So the focus should be on what we call "traditional" Christianity, meaning the Christianity of modern times, which shares nearly universal trinitarianism and exclusive recognition of the Bible, but is diverse on many matters of soteriology, ecclesiology, and other areas.

Also, I think that both modern Mormonism and early Mormonism are relevant, because early Mormonism arose in part as a reaction to traditional Christianity, and because modern Mormonism is redefining itself (at least in its operative texts and emphasis) in reaction to evangelicals who question its Christianity. Early Mormonism is most significant with respect to the historical aspect of this article, while modern Mormonism is more significant with respect to the doctrinal comparative aspect of this article. COGDEN 12:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm baffled as to how a thing can be both "modern" and "traditional" at the same time ("what we call "traditional" Christianity, meaning the Christianity of modern times"). The various non orthodoxies / heresies / divergent opinions / call-it-what-you-like post nicene make it impossible to lable the groups as being alike in tradition. Each may have a different tradition. However, they may be alike in orthodoxy. So the defining thing is not whether they themselves describe themselves as traditional but whther most Chistians would also so define them. For this task, a standard is necesary. As user Foxe suggests, in the absence of anything better, Nicene is probable as good as it gets. After that, one might wish to wade into the murky waters of the Category:Chalcedonian dichotomy. I don't think that a comparison standard of compliance with the articles and creed of nicene would constitute OR. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's "modern" in the sense that it is Christianity in the modern era, but "traditional" in the sense that modern Christianity is not fundamentally different from the Christianity that was established by the late Roman Empire. The biggest deviation from Roman Christianity is, of course, the Reformation, but Protestantism is widely regarded as still within the same broad tradition, at least in comparison to Christian faiths such as Mormonism, 7th Day Adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Swedenborgianism.

I don't think it makes sense to just define traditional Christianity by the Nicene or Athanasian creed, and simply compare Mormonism to that creed. The relationship between Mormonism is not merely a rejection of most of trinitarianism. It is also: (1) a rejection of most of Calvinism, (2) a radical extension of Christian perfection, (3) a partial incorporation of Christian Universalism, and (4) a hebraicism of Christianity. COGDEN 22:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we can agree to disagree about the appropriateness of contrasting Mormonism to Nicene Christianity, especially since you've so dramatically improved the quality of the article with your additions and deletions.--John Foxe (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with COGden's position stated immediately above. One thing that remains a difficulty is an earlier statement on the use of the Bible. Within traditional or mainstream Christianity there is certainly a great reliance on the Bible, but Catholicism and Protestantism have different bibles. When Protestants write about Mormonism they often attack their adding to the Bible, yet this very same critique is easily leveled against Catholicism. I would like to see some discussion about the conflict within traditional Christianity about this and other beliefs that are supposed to be sacrosanct. They accept for one, but not for others. Exactly what is the dividing line and why? On what principle have they concluded acceptance? -^StormRider 05:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find that within fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism there's quite a bit of criticism of Catholicism for its addition of the Apocrypha to the biblical canon. Of course, my point above was that if this article simply analyzed differences between Mormonism and Nicene Christianity,it would avoid just such a problem as the nature of the biblical canon.--John Foxe (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My concern is the risk of making Christianity appear monolithic in nature. So many of Christian doctrines that exist in the world today evolved after the Nicene Creed development. The priesthood of the believer, infant baptism, saved by Grace, etc. Introducing the full spectrum of Christian beliefs illuminates that there is a very broad range of doctrines. In addition, it allows for the fundamental beliefs to be focused upon: belief in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. belief in Jesus Christ, his only Son, conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead and on the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. Belief in the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

The divers definitions of the word Christian should also be explored briefly. Through the vast number of definitions used and the groups who use them, one group easily denies the application of the term Christian to the followers of the LDS Church. I can't see how this would be a complete article without a treatment of this specific topic.-^StormRider 06:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm content to defer to COgden on this issue. But I still want to be clear that if we compared Mormonism to Nicene Christianity, we would indeed make Christianity "monolithic in nature" and thereby clarify the dramatic difference between Christianity and Mormonism. Taking such a course would also make the article shorter.--John Foxe (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with user Foxe's position immediately above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I take the view of Jan Shipps, who has written as much as anybody on the relationship between Mormonism and Christianity. She is a liberal Methodist, and not an evangelical, so she has her own point of view, but she notes that there are many dimensions to the question of Mormonism's relation to Christianity. Evangelicals like to turn this topic into a simple, normative question of whether Mormonism is Christian, using the Nicene Creed as a litmus test. But the literature on this subject is not all written by evangelicals. It would also be incomplete to focus solely on theology proper, without discussion of ecclesiology and soteriology, which are parts of Christianity too--and important ones, otherwise there wouldn't have been a Protestant Reformation. If Protestants and Catholics disagree on church authority and how we are saved, that doesn't mean we ignore the issues in this article. It means that we explain where Mormonism fits in with various Christian traditions, and where it doesn't. There is also the question of "which Mormonism" we are talking about--which complicates the issue because there is no systematic or canonized Mormon theology.

Another thing, this article doesn't have to define Christianity. Any such definition will be purely normative, and if evangelicals have a ready-made definition of Christianity calibrated to exclude Mormons, the most we can do is report on it. We can't use it as the underlying assumption and framework for the whole article. The same does not apply, in my view, to a discussion about "traditional" or "orthodox" Christianity, as all sides agree that Mormonism is not orthodox, and is not part of traditional Christianity. COGDEN 22:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations

If we are going to using the personal opinion of writers, we cannot write statements as if they were facts and simply add a references. Opinions need to be identified. For example, Kurt Widmer believes... Widmer's position is not accepted as fact by the world; he provides an opinion. Coversely, there are many opinions and there are many opposing opinions to his views. Why is opinion given so much weight on "early" church beliefs? I am not comfortable with the direction the current sections are going. -^StormRider 13:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think, for the most part, Widmer's views reflect the mainstream consensus of scholars, and they find "widespread support" (to quote a BYU professor who reviewed it for FARMS). If there is a mainstream view that differs from that of Widmer, we should include that too (but not fringe views, such as the view that Mormon theology has always been consistent). COGDEN 23:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that it is not a fact like the sky is blue; the position is debatable, controversial, and not universal. As such, I see no reason not to include the scholar's name in the comment being made. Do you see a problem doing so?-^StormRider 07:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If for every point in the article we listed every scholar who has ever expressed agreement with the consensus view layed out by Widmer, Alexander, or others, there would be more names than substance. If you can find an alternate perspective on a particular point which is still inside the mainstream, we can deal with that on a case-by-case basisCOGDEN 20:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag

I added the POV tag because there is just too much to delete from the recent edits. It reads like an anti-Mormon tract rather than an article on the similarities and differences between Mormonism and other forms of Christianity.

1) Christianity is never defined; all we know is that Evangelical leaders know Mormonism is not it. 2) Kurt Widmer is an insignificant author and book reviewer. How did he become the all knowing possess of facts on Mormon Theology? The article is a summary of his personal opinions. If we want to do this, the identify each of his opinions as such; don't pretend they are facts. 3) Who says the Adam God theory was the most important doctrine of 20th century Mormonism? When was Jesus put on the back pages and who says so? When did prophets dissappear, priesthood authority, revelation, apostles, etc.?

I should list every point, but I don't have time at the moment. Suffice it to say there is an enormous problem with what has been added, its tone, and its complete lack of anything that ressembles the LDS position on anything. It is unfortunately become an Evangelical anti-Mormon tract. -^StormRider 14:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Try cutting rather than adding. The shorter we can make this the better.--John Foxe (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Storm, why don't you list what sources, other than Widmer, White, Alexander, DePillis, etc., you would like the article to cite more of. One I would like to include more of is McMurrin, but I don't have access to that source. I intend to add more Shipps to the mix. The only reason Widmer is cited so often is that his book puts a lot of previous scholarship together in one place, and synthesizes it all, making it easy for us to cite. We could go to other sources for essentially the same information, but what's the point? COGDEN 23:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

When a source is less than neutral, should they be used without qualification of such a position? What makes Widmer's position valid? Does gathering similar positions mean it is somehow of more merit or does it mean he has achieved a book of like opinions?

When a doctrine like the Adam God concept, which has been declared false by the LDS Church becomes a significant portion of the article without even stating that it is false doctrine, what are editors supposed to understand? I would delete the entire section. The topic is Mormonism and Christianity and not teachings that have been declared false. In addition, the Adam God teaching was never added to the scriptures or do you have some source I have missed?

Has doctrine changed or has emphasis changed? Has doctrine evolved on the nature of the Godhead? It is a little difficult to believe when the Book of Mormon states God is one and that all three are seperate. There is a drastic difference between taking specific texts and making a conclusion and then taking the entire set of teachings and making a correct conclusion. The first is a deception while the second relies on the entire body and is more accurate.

Evolution may not be the best manner to portray the addition of new teachings. Smith spent a great deal of time from the beginning in attempting to prepare/enable each individual saint to see the face of God. This teaching continued to be added to until the full temple ordinances were complete. How does one discuss continuing revelation in the founding of a church? The church did not begin with all teachings all at once, but then nor did Catholocism or any other church. If we accept this last statement, why focus on the LDS movement as if it is unique? It just seems like the article is slanting information to achieve a specific conclusion in an unbalanced manner. -^StormRider 08:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care whether or not sources are neutral, only whether they are reliable. But it also cares about whether we present all prominent (mainstream) sources, biased or not, in a way that doesn't favor one over the other, and provides them space roughly commensurate with their prominence. If there is a mainstream consensus view (i.e., early Mormon theology has evolved), then we don't necessarily need to qualify it. But if there is a prominent view that differs from the general consensus of such writers as Widmer, Alexander, Ford, White, McMurrin, and the others, I agree we should include it. But frankly, the idea that Mormon theology has not evolved is a fringe view.

As to the Adam-God doctrine, its prominence in this article is already relatively minor, because Mormon fundamentalists are only a relatively small part of modern Mormonism. But it deserves mention. It may be false to modern LDS, but it wasn't false to Brigham Young, his disciples, or modern Mormon fundamentalists. That it is not in Mormon scripture makes the doctrine no different than most other theological ideas believed by Mormons (e.g., Heavenly Mother, God was a man, Jesus is subordinate to the Father, Jesus is our elder brother, birth of spirits, Jesus is Jehovah, etc.), which are also not found in Mormon scripture. COGDEN 12:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Of the authors you mentioned above (Alexander, Widmer, Ford, White, McMurrin) which would you identiy as anti-Mormon. Just curious so that we see which mainstream thought you are tapping into? In addition, do I understand you do say that there is no difference between a highly biased author and a neurtal scholar?

The fundamenatlists make up less than 1% of Mormonism. Yet, somehow this false doctrine has a major position in this article. So you say that a teaching from over 125 years ago has such an important position that it should be a main focus of the article? Please define what balance means to you? -^StormRider 12:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

These particular authors are Mormons, but their perspective at least on the history and Mormon doctrine, including current Mormon belief, is not different from non-Mormon perspectives. A Mormon, or an evangelical, can write works to the mainstream while still maintaining a personal perspective (see, e.g., Richard Bushman). I think there is a broad mainstream consensus as to most of Mormon doctrinal history, just as there is Mormon history in general. I oppose the inclusion of any anti-Mormon works in this article, just as I oppose fringy or polemical Mormon works—Not because they are biased, but because they are not the kind of work that is cited in academia (i.e., they are not reliable), and they often represent "fringe" views. COGDEN 20:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Differ markedly

John, you made the following edit today:

"Nevertheless, the Mormon understanding of Jesus differs markedly from that of traditional Christianity, and in developing Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Jr. condemned contemporary Christian churches as part of a Great Apostasy."

First, Mormonism teaches that Jesus is the only way to God, that he is the Son of God, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, was crucified for the sins of the world, taught the spirits in prison, rose the third day, sits on the right hand of the Father, and look to his second coming. He was the promised Messiah. There is no confusion in these words or statements. He (they) is the rock upon which Christianity are built. I would dare say, that there is no greater doctrine or belief in all of Christianity. I may be missing something and there may be more significant beliefs within Christianity, if so could you describe those beliefs.

I will edit the section to focus on similarities and then allude to the differences. -^StormRider 13:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Storm, the intro already says that Mormons emphasize Jesus. And even among Mormon apologists, you won't find much support for the view that the (20th century) Mormon Jesus is essentially the same as the Jesus of the Trinity. The detail you'd like to put in may be appropriate in the main body of the article, but it seems like overkill in the intro. Maybe we can say something like Mormons emphasize the biblical story of Jesus' life and mission, but their view of his nature is markedly different. COGDEN 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with describing Mormon theology is that it is simultaneously very similar and very different from orthodox Christianity. Many fundamentals are the same, for example, the details about Jesus mentioned by StormRider. But many are drastically different: (according to Mormonism, in contrast to others) Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three entities instead of one; man can become like God; Jesus retained his resurrected body; Jesus and Satan (and the rest of us) are brothers (/sisters)...etc. I don't think it wise to focus on the similarities, nor on the differences. Rather, we should clearly illustrate both sides of the coin, since both are quite significant. ...comments? ~BF izz 02:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with identifying both, but when the emphasis is solely on the differences then the article is slanted. Putting this information in the lead seems not only important, but vital. When so many people in the world think the Latter Day Saint movement is not Christian, it is vital for these same people to understand what the movement does believe. Then when it is said that it is not Christian they more easily understand it is not Christian if a narrow definition of the term is used. Which brings up the point that the article does not define what definition of the term Christian is going to be used. The dictionary or something else; let's cite it for readers.-^StormRider 07:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems with the similarities that you've tried to introduce is that they're deceptive to a non-Mormon reader. For instance, you wrote that Jesus was born of a virgin without noting that according to Mormonism this virgin had sexual relations with Heavenly Father (or Adam, if you're living in the 19th century). We could annotate similarities (yes, "Jesus is the 'son of God' but not 'God' in the normal Christian understanding of the word"), but this job is not something for the lead.--John Foxe (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It is good to see you begin to interact rather than just edit war. What's the problem? The process here is that you stop editing the article when there is disagreement and attempt consensus. I have added a 3RR warning to your personal discussin page for your third revert. I have stopped at two, but will revert tomorrow and will continue to do so until consensus is reached.

Yes, that old red herring that anti-Mormons love to chew on. In Brigham Young's personal writing he did say that he thought egg and sperm union happened in the normal manner. However, the doctrine of the LDS Church is that Mary was a virgin. Now, is this article about fringe ideas of Mormon leaders or doctrine? It would seem if we are going to approach this topic from a neutral, balanced position, we stick with the majority, mainstream opinion within Mormonism. Jesus is the Son of God and God. If you want to introduce peculiarities in this false dichotomy of Mormonism and Christianity, would you care to explain "essence" for the readers and then explain how the three are one? Or does Mormonism not get an opportunity to expose this 4th century doctrine that has become the rage in Christianity? Is this article going to be an attack page or an scholarly explanation. You choose, but I am more than prepared to devote the time on this article to prevent the silliness from going further. COgden and you are excellent at repeating anti-Mormon propaganda, but neither of you have a handle on Mormon scripture or doctrine, fortunately, I can assist in this area. -^StormRider 15:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty with getting a handle on Mormon doctrine is that it's malleable and can be shaped around whatever contours contemporary LDS leadership believes it can get away with. History's becomes the adversary of the Church. In what official source does the LDS Church declare the prophet Brigham Young incorrect about the conception of Jesus?--John Foxe (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

From a google search, through FAIR, to an Ensign article, March 1986, by Ezra Taft Benson: "He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth. (See 1 Ne. 11:20.)" I'm not the biggest FAIR fan but their page on Prophets are not infallible is useful. Not really citable, but useful for understanding Mormonism nonetheless. Just because Joseph or Brigham said it doesn't mean it is instantly church doctrine; Mormonism allows its prophets and apostles to have opinions, too. ...comments? ~BF izz 22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

John, I think that's the point of the malleability. As B Fizz says, just because it was Brigham Young's doctrine doesn't necessarily make it an operative doctrine among modern Mormons. I'd say that the "Elohim had sex with Mary" doctrine is no longer considered to be orthodox Mormon theology, although it is orthodox Mormon doctrine that Elohim provided Jesus with half his genetic material by some unknown means. For Mormons, there's really no escaping that conclusion, given that Jesus was considered to be fully human, and his Y chromosome didn't come from Mary.

As to LDS leaders "getting away with" shaping Mormon doctrine, I think you're wrong to assume this shaping of doctrine necessarily implies deception. To a large extent, LDS Church leaders define LDS Church doctrine. Mormons revere their leaders and believe they are nearly infallible, so if they say something isn't LDS orthodoxy, Mormons believe them. So I would take any pronouncement by LDS Church leaders on matters of orthodoxy seriously. What we arguably might want to take with a grain of salt is the situation where LDS Church leaders speak in a way that means one thing to non-Mormons, and something entirely different to Mormons, so that uninitiated non-Mormons understand it as traditionally Christian, while Mormons understand it as something else. That's not necessarily deception, unless the speaker or writer intends to deceive. But it could also simply be the innocent use of Mormon terminology, which borrows from traditional Christian terminology because that's the tradition from which Mormonism originated. Plus, I think that some Mormon leaders, not having had much exposure to traditional Christianity, honestly but erroneously believe that what they believe on particular issues is the same as orthodox Christianity. COGDEN 23:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on whether or not Church leaders believed Brigham Young's view of the conception of Jesus was in error but on the fact that they refuse to confirm or deny its accuracy. It's safer to leave things a muddle—as Ezra Taft Benson's statement does in spades. As for getting inside the heads of the leadership to ascertain whether they're deliberate deceivers, self-deceived, or simply confused, that's not going to be easily solvable unless someone does a Wikileaks on the Church Administration Building.--John Foxe (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A new approach to the lead

OK... I did a Google Books search on "Mormonism Christianity" as search terms and the first page of results yields some good sources that discuss the relationship between Mormonism and "traditional Christianity". I have summarized some key ideas in the first paragraph of the lead. I think this is just a start and there's a lot more that I found in the sources that should be presented in the article but it's late here and I have to turn in now. I'll try to add more in the next few days.

@John Foxe, what do you think of this new approach? Is this an improvement?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems. First, the lead's too wordy. One of my goals as a Wikipedia editor is to make articles clearer by making them shorter. Most of the time prose is degraded by adding; it's almost always made clearer by cutting.

The second problem is that you've eliminated half the equation best reflected in a chapter title of the Ostlings' Mormon America: "Are Mormons Christians? Are Non-Mormons Christians?"--John Foxe (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Re "the other half of the equation", I'm working off of what I can find via Google Books previews. I've only begun to present the material that I've found via these sources. If you can improve the lead or the main article text with material from other sources, please do so.

Re "the lead being too wordy", if it helps to move some of what I wrote into the body of the article, feel free to do so.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we need an adjective in front of "Christianity." There are perfectly good Wikipedia articles that could be written about "Mormonism and Nicene Christianity," "Mormonism and Protestant Christianity," "Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity"—even "Mormonism and Roman Catholic Christianity" and "Mormonism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity." I think Storm's right that this article will continue a never ending muddle unless we can define the sort of Christianity that we're talking about.--John Foxe (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with "the lede is too wordy". ...comments? ~BF izz 22:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph of article

I think the above discussion is likely to go around and around in circles. Rather than trying to discuss everything all at once, I propose that we discuss each paragraph in sequence and possibly even each sentence in sequence. Once we can find a mutually agreeable version, we can move on.

I will start by listing both StormRider's version and John Foxe's version. I would ask each side to list the concerns they have with the other side's text. Once that's done, we can move towards finding a version that will address all the issues and hopefully be acceptable to both sides. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Storm Rider's version

Mormonism and Christianity' have a complex theological, historical, and sociological relationship. Mormon denominations include "Jesus Christ" in their titles, emphasize Jesus in their teachings, and claim to be fully Christian. Mormonism teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, the only path that leads to heaven; that he was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, was crucified, taught the spirits in prison, rose the third day, sits on the right hand of the Father, and will return one day. Nevertheless, the Mormon understanding of Jesus differs in other ways from that of traditional Christianity, and in developing Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Jr. condemned Christian creeds as part of a Great Apostasy.

John Foxe's version

Mormonism and Christianity' have a complex theological, historical, and sociological relationship. Mormon denominations include "Jesus Christ" in their titles, emphasize Jesus in their teachings, and claim to be fully—or even exclusively—Christian. Nevertheless, the Mormon understanding of Jesus differs markedly from that of traditional Christianity, and in developing Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Jr. condemned contemporary Christian churches as part of a Great Apostasy.

Concerns about Storm Rider's version

(I haven't been involved in the discussion yet, so I'm not sure if you're looking for other views, but ...) StormRider's third sentence seems to be composed of examples of what is meant in the previous sentence that Mormon denominations "emphasize Jesus in their teachings". That sentence is information that I would expect to find later on in the main body of the article when explaining what it means that Mormon denominations "emphasize Jesus in their teachings". I would not expect this information to be found in the lead of the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree.--John Foxe (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

We want as many participants as possible in the discussion and you would be most welcome. The intro of any article summarizes the most salient points of the article. I submit that LDS movement's belief is crucial in the intro simply because the balance of the article focuses solely on the view that others deny such Christianity and why. Not really the intent of the title I think, but it is the present direction unfortunately. -^StormRider 11:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Storm's apparent point that there are some things about Jesus that probably fall within the Christian mainstream, but other things that are very different. The similarities relate mainly to the mythology of Jesus, while the differences relate to the metaphysics of Jesus. For example, the Mormon view of a bodily resurrection, a second coming, a sinless life ending in crucifixion, his teachings and miracles, an atonement (Mormons follow the Calvinistic penal substitution theory), and fairly orthodox interpretation of Jesus' descent to Hades. But the metaphysics, or the nature of Jesus as a being, is markedly different, and that affects such things as whether Mary was a virgin in the normal sense of that word (Mormon's aren't sure), what it means to be the "Son of God", what it means to be on the "right hand of the Father", etc. So my recommendation would be to use John Foxe's version with some changes:

Mormonism and Christianity' have a complex theological, historical, and sociological relationship. Mormon denominations include "Jesus Christ" in their titles, emphasize in their teachings the life, atonement, and resurrection of Jesus, and claim to be fully Christian. Nevertheless, the Mormon understanding of the nature of Jesus and the Trinity differs markedly from that of traditional Christianity. Mormons believe it is traditional Christianity that has fallen away from the truth as part of a Great Apostasy.

COGDEN 20:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I mainly agree with user JF's version. But in the interests of peace, I'd be prepared to accommodate user C's version. What about this as an alternative?

Mormonism and Christianity have a complex theological, historical, and sociological relationship. Mormon denominations include "Jesus Christ" in their titles, emphasize in their teachings the life, atonement and resurrection of Jesus, and claim to be fully Christian. Nevertheless, the Mormon understanding of the nature of Jesus and the dogma of the Trinity differs markedly from that of traditional Christianity. As Mormons believe that traditional Christian denominations have fallen away from the truth as part of a Great Apostasy, Mormons are the only true Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurel Lodged (talk • contribs)

I think COGDEN's version represents a reasonable compromise. I think both sides need to bend a little bit here. No one is going to get exactly what they want. The information omitted from the lead can be included later in the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about John Foxe's version

This sentence does have errors: which LDS group things they are exclusively "Christian"? You do not say they believe in Jesus, but you slight the LDS by saying they "include his name in their titles". It is similar to saying Evangelicals mention his name in their sermons. The Mormon understanding of Jesus differs markedly? What is the similarity first or is that not important? I think it is just as important to state there are significant similarities and differences.

How much does "developing" Mormonism have to do with today? Is the intent to demean LDS movement churches or is the intent of the article to compare the beliefs of Mormonism and the rest of Christianity? I firmly believe in the latter! -^StormRider 11:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the sentence use the phrase "developing Mormonism" in the context of Joseph Smith developing the religion he started? It is saying that while J.S. was developing Mormonism he condemned other Christian churches. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we need the "or even exclusively [Christian]" phrasing. I am not aware of any Latter Day Saint group that claims that there are no other Christian faiths or that Mormonism is the only Christian faith. I am aware of certain comments by some more conservative LDS Church leaders—Bruce R. McConkie comes to mind—that true Christianity is Mormonism and Mormonism is true Christianity, but I'm not aware that any of these types of comments have ever denied the Christian nature of other churches. Mormonism teaches that other Christian religions have gone down some wrong paths due to the Great Apostasy and that other churches lack the authority of God, but it doesn't teach that they aren't Christian, at least as far as I am aware. I think I would be happy with this version of the lead if this phrase were removed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Bruce McConkie says that "so-called Christianity does not come much nearer the truth in many respects" than Greek or Norse mythology, that "believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls." What definitive statement of the LDS Church can you bring into evidence that McConkie is incorrect?--John Foxe (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think if you looked you would find plenty—by persons in the LDS Church hierarchy that were higher than McConkie—that take an entirely different approach and who acknowledge the commonalities in Christian beliefs between Latter Day Saints and other Christians. I know of several quotes to that effect by LDS Church Presidents George Albert Smith and Gordon B. Hinckley. I'm going to bed so I won't fish them out just yet, but to take the opinion of one Mormon and to place it in the lead seems a bit extreme. McConkie was an extreme voice on many things; it doesn't mean he defines the entire debate. I would say that his is surely not a mainstream opinion within Mormonism on how to view other Christian beliefs. It would be much better suited to something that is discussed in the body of the article—McConkie could be used as an example of one extreme among the beliefs of Mormon individuals. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 15:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Are these folks superior in authority?

"The Christian world, so called, are heathens as to their knowledge of the salvation of God." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:171)

"...all other churches are entirely destitute of all authority from God; and any person who receives baptism or the Lord's supper from their hands will highly offend God, for he looks upon them as the most corrupt people." (Orson Pratt, The Seer, 255).

"And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth..." (Doctrines and Covenants 1:30)

My point is that to refute McConkie, a book sold by the Church for fifty years, you'd need to provide an official statement from the LDS Church that he's wrong. If there's no official statement of the church that McConkie's wrong, then his statement is just as valid (or as invalid) as any other General Authority past or present. In other words, Good Ol’factory, "mainstream opinion within Mormonism" can be anything you want it to be because the LDS Church doesn't have a systematic theology to clarify its doctrinal positions. On one hand, that's an annoyance when I try to distinguish the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. On the other hand, it's an argumentative advantage because I can point to the Nicene Creed or the Augsburg Confession, and all you can use in response are conflicting (and sometimes politically incorrect) statements scattered throughout the history of the religion.--John Foxe (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I begin to wonder if part of the problem with citing McConkie is that he is a primary source. WP:RS discourages use of primary sources. It would be better to find a secondary source that makes the argument that LDS views itself as the exclueive true Church of Christ and cites McConkie et al. Similarly, another secondary source might argue that other LDS General Authorities have a different view. Thus, instead of trying to determine what the truth is vis-a-vis the LDS' "official position" on the issue, we should be documenting all mainstream points-of-view. One sticking point is that, unless you can find a source that asserts that McConkie is a minority view, then you have to give him as much weight as those who have a defferent view. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sound secondary sources are not hard to find. "On the negative side, Mormon scriptures contain more than twenty passages denouncing the rest of Christendom as apostate....In the very influential, though nonofficial, tome Mormon Doctrine, the late Apostle Bruce R. McConkie gives a hard-edged interpretation of this teaching." Ostling & Ostling, 322.

I'd be perfectly happy to have the article say that Mormon doctrinal statements depend on when they were made and whether they were made at General Conference or for non-Mormon consumption. I remember hearing Jan Shipps discuss Gordon Hinckley's uncertainty about whether god was once a man. She said rhetorically, "President Hinckley, if you don't know, who does?"--John Foxe (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the quote from Ostling & Ostling. I don't see how StormRider could object to that. It seems to me that he would have to come up with quotes that offer a different interpretation of those Mormon scriptures. It would be nice if we could find a secondary source that provides a listing of the twenty-plus passages or at least a sizable subset thereof. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's one thing to criticize the rest of Christianity as apostate, and it is quite another thing to call everybody else non-Christian. I think Bruce McConkie was very much overreaching. To call traditional Christianity non-Christian is absurd, and I think that the vast majority of Mormons agree. Plus, I don't think the secondary sources support this. The current wording does imply that the "exclusively Christian" view is a minority Mormon view, but I think it's really not even a minority view--just McConkie's idiosyncratic view. So in my draft above, I changed the wording. COGDEN 21:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The OED definition of "apostate" is "one who abjures or forsakes his religious faith, or abandons his moral allegiance; a pervert." So McConkie is very much in harmony with Smith, Young, and other 19th century Mormons who viewed Christianity as anti-Christianity. At the very least, you need to cite reliable sources that say that McConkie speaks for no one but himself and that a majority of contemporary Mormons believe that Christians are Christians and not apostates as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said they were. The Ostlings don't give that impression.--John Foxe (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"At the very least, you need to cite reliable sources that say that McConkie speaks for no one but himself". McConkie himself said exactly that in the preface to Mormon Doctrine. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of starting a mud slinging war, I'd have to say that user JF makes reasonable points above. The "apostacy" was not of the nature from, say, Protestantism to Catholicism but of a more fundamental nature. It was, allegedly, from very Christianity itself. So if all other supposed Christians have aposticised, then by definition, there can be no other Christians left than Mormons. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately both COGDEN and I are more into slinging footnotes than mud. I have deep respect for his knowledge of Mormon history and practice even when he occasionally slips on his rosy-tinted, liberal Mormon glasses.--John Foxe (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust Laurel Lodged's opinion in matters related to Mormonism since earlier on this page that user argued that Mormonism was a non-Chalcedonian Christian religion, which is obviously false. 122.57.240.247 (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(new indent) If what you are saying is true (which I completely disagree with; you are stretching) then you would have to say that both sides declare the other apostate or non-Christian if you wish. Mormonism is clear that it believe itself to be the one true church, the restored church of Jesus Christ. John, you are doing a lot of quote mining, but none of which you have listed is the doctrine of the LDS Church.

Also, it looks like if we are going to focus on the evolving nature of Mormonism, then we need to also focus on the evolving nature of Christainity during the first few hundred years. You guys seem rather keen to paint Mormonism as something unique, when the early history of Christianity was anything but monolithic i.e. it did not come out of the box complete. In fact, it looked nothing like the beliefs of today. -^StormRider 01:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

StormRider wrote "we need to also focus on the evolving nature of Christianity during the first few hundred years". I'm OK with doing that. I think it's more important to nail down what the nature of the alleged "Great Apostasy" is than to try and smooth over the allegation and pretend that it never existed. Whether that is part of LDS doctrine today or not is something I do not know enough about to form an opinion. (In truth, I thought it was part of contemporary LDS doctrine and I'm surprised to find that it might not be.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The LDS church is characterized as "Restorationist". We should explain what is being restored and why it needs to be restored. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo, there is not any degree of smoothing over the belief in a Great Apostasy, without the Apostasy there is no reason for the Latter Day Saint movement to exist. Without an apostasy there is no need for a restoration. Where the Protestants chose to create churches without claiming any direction from God, Mormonism proclaims clearly that the organizatino restored is the Church of Jesus Christ. In a very real sense, for Latter-day Saints there are only one of two realities. There was an apostasy and therefor a need for a restoration or there is Apostolic authority and the Catholic Church is true. Protestants are viewed wholly by LDS as churches created by man.

This question of authority is vital to a discussion of Mormonism. Without authority from God, there are no sacraments or ordinances. The question of what is scripture is also important. Evangelicals will claim the Bible is whole, but they then they excluded the Apocrypha, which the Catholics have. Mormons went the other way and have three additional books i.e. God talks to man today and thus the canon must be open.

This article should address the whole of Christianity. Evangelicals would prefer to hide behind the veil of belief in the Trinity, but the stage of Christianity is much broader, more diverse, and does not exist in just a discussion of the Trinity. We should be discussing this broader issues rather than attempting to micro-analyze Mormonism. In doing so, we achieve a true comparison of Mormonism and Christianity. -^StormRider 06:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the modern LDS church's doctrine, see the Apostasy topic page at lds.org; it has various links to church publications on the topic. ...comments? ~BF izz 06:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I still believe there is a difference between claiming there is a Great Apostasy and claiming that other forms of Christianity are non-Christian. Consider this logic: the terms Christianity and orthodoxy are not synonymous. (If the two terms meant the same thing, then the term orthodox Christianity would be redundant.) Therefore, I think most Christians and Mormons believe that Christianity is broader than orthodoxy, which is why Catholics think Protestants are Christian, even though they revolted from what they consider to be their Catholic orthodoxy, and vice versa.

Scholars have defined a broad category called Christian orthodoxy as including whatever Catholic dogmas and doctrines the Protestants didn't disagree with. But most people (though maybe not evangelicals) agree it's still possible to be a non-orthodox Christian—that is, a Christian with heterodox views. Likewise, Mormons and other restorationists have imagined what they believe to have been an earlier orthodoxy of the Early Christian church. They believe that later Christianity apostatized from that primitive orthodoxy and became heterodox, but in my experience very few Mormons (McConkie being a notable exception) equate that primitive orthodoxy with Christianity itself. Mormons describe the Great Apostasy as a turning away from "the truth" or from the "original church" (i.e., orthodoxy). They don't talk about a departure from "Christianity". COGDEN 19:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. But as a practical matter I doubt that our disagreement has much practical import for the writing of this article.

As the Ostlings note, at a 1998 Sunstone Symposium, Philip Barlow asked a local Baptist pastor whether Baptists are Christian. The pastor answered, "Not necessarily." (318)--John Foxe (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

B Fizz's edit

I've made an edit. I felt that Storm's version was too detailed, but that Foxe's was lopsided and left the apostasy unexplained. So I expanded on Foxe's version a tad. ...comments? ~BF izz 07:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I support the result of these recent edits; Foxe's writing style is impeccable, as always. I don't see the need for saying "contemporary Mormonism asserts" rather than just "Mormonism asserts", but it's not a big deal to me either way. We might also want to reword the part that says "Mormon understanding of ... Nicene doctrines differs markedly..." - I do like that clarification, which balances the sentence, but Mormons don't "understand" the Nicene creed; rather, they reject (most of?) it. A quote from Gordon B Hinckley came to mind: "Personally I cannot understand it. To me the creed is confusing." - General Conference April 2007

It seems to me that another careful rewording would be best. Something like

“

While contemporary Mormonism asserts the reality of the virgin birth, atonement, and bodily resurrection of Christ, it also rejects fundamental Nicene doctrines that are widely accepted by traditional Christianity.

”

I also want to mention that Mormonism holds unique beliefs about Jesus that are widely rejected by traditional Christianity, but didn't have the literary skill to squeeze that in there without excessively bloating the sentence. ...comments? ~BF izz 17:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about including the "virgin birth" part. Mormons don't know what they believe about the virgin birth. Taking a clue from Brigham Young, some Mormons think that Mary was a "virgin" only in the sense that she hadn't had sex with a "mortal" man. Other Mormons do agree with traditional Christianity that the conception was sexless and mystical. But probably the majority of Mormons don't know, and don't care, about the literal virginity of Mary—therefore, it would be more accurate to say they are apathetic about the virgin birth doctrine. COGDEN 19:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have removed "virgin birth" from the lead. We could have a more nuanced statement in the body if that appears to be necessary.--John Foxe (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A possible spanner in the works

I'm looking at the sentence "While contemporary Mormonism asserts the reality of the virgin birth, atonement, and bodily resurrection of Christ" and thinking "Are those the central tenets of traditional Christianity?". If we were to try and distill the commonality between Mormonism and so-called "traditional Christianity" down to a few concepts, would those be the ones? I don't think so.

Virgin birth is certainly a commonly held belief in traditional Christianity but is it central? I'm not convinced that it is. I think it's a derivative conclusion from the assertion that Jesus was divine at birth.
Atonement? Close to central but this is a very vague concept; there are many views on what atonement is. Mormons may have the general belief that Jesus was atoning for our sins but Christians are not universally believers in a specific theory of atonement.
"Bodily resurrection"? Pretty close to central but it's kind of a detail. I think the resurrection is pretty central. I'm not 100% sure that we need to say "bodily" here.

What is truly critical to Christianity? That Jesus was both God and man and that his mission on earth was to bring salvation/deification to mankind. Do Mormons believe that? I believe they do. I think that's what we should focus on. Then, we can move on to list other commonalities as well as the differences. For example, there is the question of whether Jesus was always God or whether he became God and, if so, when that happened.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the point of this passage is to suggest that virgin birth, atonement, and resurrection are the "central" elements of Christianity. The purpose of this passage is simply to acknowledge two or three of the areas where Mormon views of Christ are considered "orthodox" in relation to traditional Christianity. There are many "orthodox" views about the atonement, but the Mormon view is basically penal substitution, which is within the Reformed tradition. There are a few "orthodox" views about the resurrection, but the Mormon belief in a literal bodily resurrection is among those views. I've expressed the opinion above that virgin birth shouldn't be included in this list because Mormons are apathetic about the literal virginity of Mary. COGDEN 20:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

On the general issue of focusing on one or two "central" elements of Christianity, I think that is a mistake. Centrality is a normative category, and while there are probably a lot of issues that most of traditional Christianity would consider central, distilling them down to the two or three "most" central is dicey. I think it's better to forget centrality, and instead focus on how Mormonism is situated with respect to traditional Christianity, and their main areas of contrast. COGDEN 20:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I did chose those three things because I felt them to be obvious and basic similarities. Regarding "virgin birth", Mormons are quite certain that Jesus was born of Mary without her having sexual relations with any mortal man. They are also quite certain that Jesus was divine: the son of God. These are the basics of the virgin birth of Jesus, which are almost universally accepted by both Mormonism and traditional Christianity alike. I suggest its explicit inclusion in the lede, and perhaps we should add "the divinity of Jesus" alongside it.

Worth noting, however: Mormons reject both the Immaculate conception and the Perpetual virginity of Mary. ...comments? ~BF izz 01:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you should use the phrase "divinity of Jesus." Among the theologically attuned in the evangelical world, use of "divinity" rather than "deity" would mark you as a heretic from the get-go. There's also a good Latin lesson there: deus means god, dius, means god-like. So when the Romans made their emperors gods, they became divi, not dei, like the Olympians.--John Foxe (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

B Fizz, if you have a Mormon authority or scholar that definitively states that Mary conceived without sex, I'd like to see it. The Book of Mormon agrees with virgin birth, but later Mormon authorities like Brigham Young and Orson Pratt disagreed. According to the later view, Mary was a virgin only in the sense that she had no sex with a "mortal" man. I think the status of virgin birth doctrine among Mormons today is apathy, both officially and in the popular Mormon mind.

I agree with John on the "divinity of Jesus" issue. The Mormon view of how Jesus is God is different from the trinitarian view of how Jesus is God. COGDEN 20:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of accuracy, I should point out to user Cogden that the dogma of the Immaculate conception has nothing to do with Mary having sex. This is a common misapprehension. It has to do with her own conception being without the stain of Original sin. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The details in both cases are different, but the basics are the same. That's all I've been saying. Many other Christian denominations also vary in what they believe about the details of these two examples—the deity of Jesus and the virgin birth—but they almost unanimously agree on the basics. Saying "Mormons don't know what they believe about the virgin birth" is misleading. Mormons internally disagree about details, but all believe the same basic ideas as other Christian churches. The apathy is towards the details—which is also far from unique to Mormonism. ...comments? ~BF izz 21:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Despite my arguments, I do not insist on mentioning these topics in the lede. I think its a good idea, but not the only way to do it. I think the lede, as it stands, is quite acceptable. ...comments? ~BF izz 21:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not there yet. I can live with the current wording but I wonder if we wouldn't do better with something like "Although Mormons and traditional Christians agree on the centrality of Jesus Christ in the reconciliation of mankind with God....". Atonement and resurrection are just components of this concept of Christ as the savior of mankind from the consequences of sin. I would like the lead to focus on the key point and not just hint at it by talking about atonement and resurrection which are just two of the key aspects of the overall concept of salvation through Christ.

Or better yet, we could turn it around and say "Although the Mormon understanding of Jesus and other Nicene doctrines differs markedly from that of traditional Christianity, Mormonism and traditional Christianity are in firm agreement regarding the centrality of Jesus' role in the reconciliation of mankind with God." I like this because it puts the emphasis on what is shared rather than on what is differenct.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate B's irenic spirit, but I disagree that "the basics are the same." Mormons frequently use the same theological terms as Catholics and Protestants, but they often infuse those words with different meanings, sometimes deliberately, sometimes unconsciously. McConkie's "mortal man" business is a strange way to talk around the Virgin Birth. Sex is sex.

Likewise, the "centrality of Jesus" is a dodge because in Mormonism, Jesus' blood can't forgive certain sins like murder and apostasy from the Mormon Church; and "salvation" to Mormons means living meritorious earthly lives that will win a higher level of glory in the next life.--John Foxe (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the goal is to say "Mormons and Christians agree on A and B while disagreeing on X, Y and Z". Apparently, it's easy to figure out where they differ but a little harder to nail down in a concise statement what exactly they agree on. I think we are pretty close when we say that Mormons and Christians agree on the centrality of Jesus in God's plan for humankind. However, "God's plan for humankind" is a bit of a fuzzily-defined and not that universally used phrase.

I understand what John Foxe is saying about "salvation" not necessarily having the same meaning. Traditional Christians are "saved" when they are baptized and the only debate left is whether they can "lose" their salvation through apostasy, mortal sin and/or "backsliding". My understanding is that Mormon cosmology and soteriology are quite different. There really isn't a heaven or hell and thus less of an explicit need for "salvation from damnation" and more of a drive towards "exaltation" (see Divinization (Christian) and Divinization (Eastern Orthodox Christian theology).

Do you have any objection to this formulation: "Although the Mormon understanding of Jesus and other Nicene doctrines differs markedly from that of traditional Christianity, Mormonism and traditional Christianity are in firm agreement regarding the centrality of Jesus' role in the reconciliation of mankind with God."?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I could go along with that formulation as long as it did not set a precedent for other "central" doctrines. Like other editors above, I don't think that this article should be diverted down the road of defining what is / is not a central or standard tenet. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I think my formulation represents about the minimum you could say without saying that there was no commonality at all. Whatever people might want to say about Christianity being or not being based on the First seven Ecumenical Councils, any religion that doesn't have Christ as its center isn't Christianity but something else. My formulation leaves the door open for further discussion later in the article of areas where there is commonality and areas where there are differences. If, for example, we want to discuss topics like virgin birth, atonement and resurrection, we can do so later in the article. My sentence doesn't preclude doing that. It just doesn't bring them up in the lead as the most important topics to discuss over and above all other aspects of similarity and difference. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I would agree to include that statement only if it could be backed by a scholarly source. Personally, I believe it false. The reason that it's difficult to find areas of agreement between Mormonism and Christianity is that the similarities are largely superficial.--John Foxe (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe, you wrote "I believe it false." Could you explain why you believe this? Are you saying that "the role of Jesus Christ in reconciling mankind to God" is not the central focus of Mormonism? And are you saying that there is no possible modification to the sentence that would make it true? (Also, I apologize if anything I wrote in earlier posts gives any offense. It may be that I am just more ignorant about Mormonism than I thought.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that "the role of Jesus Christ in reconciling mankind to God" is central to Mormonism. In Mormonism Jesus has provided "general salvation" to all men whether believers or not. What is central to Mormonism is the individual's working towards godhood. (I'm not offended in the least by anything you wrote. Articles about Mormonism are not good projects for the easily offended.)--John Foxe (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Humph... and I came up with "reconciling mankind to God" as a way of getting around the use of the word "salvation". In the soteriology of traditional Christianity, these two phrases are more or less equivalent. In brief, Adam's sin constitutes "original sin" which creates a rift between mankind and God (in many traditions, this original sin is responsible for death and for mankind's separation from God and from Paradise/heaven). The Hebrews are offered a covenant based on observation of laws but that covenant is too hard to keep so Jesus comes and offers a new covenant that is based on love, not laws. Jesus' death and resurrection constitute an atonement for the sin of mankind and reconciles mankind to God thus opening the way to eternal life in God for those who believe in Jesus. Now, I know that the Mormon view differs from this although I expect there are similarities. Even within traditional Christianity, there are different interpretations (e.g. the Eastern Orthodox believe in "ancestral sin" rather than "original sin"). Could my proposal be made to work if it read "Although the Mormon understanding of Jesus and other Nicene doctrines differs markedly from that of traditional Christianity, Mormonism and traditional Christianity are agree that Jesus is the savior of mankind. Even on this point, however, there are differences regarding the soteriology of that salvation." --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to go off on a tangent about Reformation theology, but I don't want to move too far from our topic. Let me just say that in the theology of Luther and Calvin, the sacrifice of Jesus is in view from before Creation; the redemption purchased by Christ is applied to redeemed sinners, both Old Testament and New Testament; and "belief" comes only through "effectual calling"—that is, no one is able to accept the offer of salvation except through the work of the Holy Spirit.

So the statement that Mormons and Christians "agree that Jesus is the savior of mankind" is only true if we allow the words "Jesus," "savior" and "mankind" to go undefined, because in Reformation theology, Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man, is only the "Redeemer of God's elect" (Westminster Shorter Catechism); in Mormonism, Christ's redemption ensures to all men the resurrection of the body and its reunion with the spirit: good, bad, believers, and unbelievers. By not defining terms, we can say that Mormons and Christians believe the same thing; if we define terms, it's clear they believe opposite things.--John Foxe (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes... I understand what you are talking about and I am coming to the conclusion that it is pointless to try and come up with a single sentence that identifies a simple commonality between Mormonism and Christianity. The current lead doesn't try to do that. All of these issues should be brought out in the article. Do you think the current article text does an adequate job of explaining the differences? I think the current text is a bit too concise and does not adequately contrast and compare the theological differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. (Especially since it is sometimes hard to nail down a single theological doctrine that is held across all of so-called "traditional Christianity.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Gosh - sincere thanks to user JF. In all sincerity, I think that that was a great explanation and possibly worthy of inclusion in the main body as it stands. Makes my agreement above look foolish. Clearly, the agreement was more illusorary than real. While the qualifications will not make for easy reading and will annoy some looking for a non technical explanation, I think that we can agree that we do not have the luxury of not explaining the terms. We really do have to be very explicit - that much is now very clear to me. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that kind word. Thank you.--John Foxe (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how this

“

Depending on how theological terms are defined, Mormon teachings about Jesus' messiahship, atonement, and bodily resurrection could be interpreted as within the parameters of traditional Christianity.

”

is better than this

“

Mormons agree with other Christian denominations on basic teachings relating to Jesus Christ, such as his messiahship, atonement, and bodily resurrection. However, the Mormon understanding of the details of these and other Nicene doctrines differs markedly from that of traditional Christianity.

”

Isn't the latter saying the exact same thing, but without rediculously roundabout qualifiers? Perhaps I can suggest a mild improvement to clarify the intent of the sentence.

“

Mormons agree with other Christian denominations on basic teachings relating to Jesus Christ's messiahship, atonement, and bodily resurrection. However...

”

Richard said that "I think the goal is to say 'Mormons and Christians agree on A and B while disagreeing on X, Y and Z'." Yes. That is my goal. Though identifying all of the specifics for A, B, X, Y, and Z is not as important as highlighting illustrative and central specifics. ...comments? ~BF izz 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Christian ethics

Ugh... John Foxe has established fairly convincingly that mainstream Christians and Mormons differ quite radically on just about every significant theological doctrine. And yet... Mormons are often the best exemplars of Christian behavior (yea, I know, that's my own personal speculation). However, there is I think something going on here. Is it possible that Mormons share with mainstream Christians the ethics taught by Jesus and the Christian values (the so-called "family values") even if they differ radically in theology? I assert this is possible and it is true at some level of generalization. (Obviously, not every Mormon is an exemplar of Christian ethics any more than every mainstream Christian is.)

The article focuses so much on theological differences and doesn't discuss the similarities in ethics. I understand that what I wrote above is OR unless supported by reliable sources. Are there any reliable sources who take this view?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

An interesting point; it sounds kind of POV-y to include this, but if reliable sources support it, then I suppose it merits inclusion. ...comments? ~BF izz 21:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see is that the ethics taught by Jesus were not very different from those taught by his Jewish contemporaries, or from many other non-Christian ethicists before and after. So these ethics are not exclusively Christian. But I do think it's a point worth noting that on moral and cultural issues (and even some theological issues, if you believe Harold Bloom), Mormons have more in common with American evangelicals than either of them share with "traditional" European Christianity. COGDEN 22:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism vs. traditional Christianity

The major question I want to ask you is whether you agree that we are headed in the right direction by moving away from looking for commonalities between traditional Christianity and Mormonism and refocusing on the dual questions of whether traditional Christians consider Mormons to be Christians and whether Mormons consider traditional Christians to be Christians. I'm guessing that either COgden or StormRider may have objections to the direction we're going but I figure we'll work on addressing their concerns when they present them. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we need an adjective in front of "Christianity." There are perfectly good Wikipedia articles that could be written about "Mormonism and Nicene Christianity," "Mormonism and Protestant Christianity," "Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity"—even "Mormonism and Roman Catholic Christianity" and "Mormonism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity." I think Storm's right that this article will continue a never ending muddle unless we can define the sort of Christianity that we're talking about.--John Foxe (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree but I think there is little hope to find a suitable adjective except possible "traditional Christianity" and that is sort of POV because it asserts that so-called "mainstream Christianity" is traditional and Mormonism is what? "non-traditional"?

Also, I am not enthusiastic about a proliferation of articles for different branches of Christianity. I think this just serves to confuse by spreading out the topic too diffusely. I think we should just go through each subtopic and point out which branches of "traditional Christianity" agree with Mormonism and which don't. At least, I think we should try doing this until it's proven to be unworkable.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with "we are headed in the right direction by moving away from looking for commonalities between traditional Christianity and Mormonism". I agree with Foxe/Storm that the scope of this article is unclear. I feel that the questions "are Mormons Christian" and "are non-Mormons Christian" are only one part of the potential scope of this article, and "commonalities between traditional Christianity and Mormonism" is another big part of it. It might not be a bad idea to make subarticles such as those Foxe has listed, and then make this article the parent article that summarizes each subarticle....comments? ~BF izz 22:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

B Fizz, I don't think we are asserting that there are no commonalities between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. What I was saying is that it is not very productive to try and assert those commonalities in a single sentence in the lead. There are so many nuances and background contextual explanations that must be provided in order to make a simple sentence true that we would either wind up with an extremely unwieldy lead paragraph or mislead the reader into assuming that there is a greater degree of commonality than actually exists. The discussion above with John Foxe has convinced me of that. I think we are far better off just hinting at the existence of commonality in the lead without specifying what exactly that commonality is. Then, in the body of the article, we can get into a detailed discussion that compares and contrasts the two positions on any particular topic and let the reader decide whether that constitutes commonality or divergence. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made an edit that attempts to instantiate commonalities without needing to give the nuanced details. Most people coming to this article will read no farther than the first paragraph, and I think its important to give a summary idea of *how* Mormonism is both similar to and different from other forms of Christianity. At a very low level of detail, they agree. At a higher level of detail, Mormonism disagrees with other Christian faiths, and at a very high level of detail, Mormons disagree with each other. ...comments? ~BF izz 23:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I support COgden's edits with one small exception: I feel it important to clarify that Mormons believe God restored doctrine and authority through Smith and successors. I consequently made this edit....comments? ~BF izz 02:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As to the question raised above about what kind of Christianity is the subject of this article, I think the answer has to be the broad Christianity represented by Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. The purpose of this article is to explain how Mormonism relates to this type of Christianity. That relationship has at least three important dimensions:

It has a historical dimension, because Mormonism originated within a roughly trinitarian, Arminian tradition, and then started to diverge in the later 1830s so that by the reign of Brigham Young, the relationship between Mormonism and traditional Christianity was in some ways analogous to that between Christianity and Judaism.
The question has an important theological and doctrinal dimension, because while Mormon doctrine is sometimes within the mainstream of Christianity, Mormonism and traditional Christianity differ on fundamental matters of the nature of God and salvation. I say "fundamental" because both Mormons and non-Mormons agree that these issues (becoming gods vs. getting to heaven, God as a man vs. God as three persons in one) go to the very heart of both traditions.
The question also has an important cultural dimension, because modern Mormons work hard to portray their religion as "Christianity plus", and to efface their progressive theological legacy, while American evangelicals work hard to portray Mormons as something that might as well be as different from Christianity as Scientology or the Raelians. Non-evangelical Christians have various views on Mormonism, mostly agreeing with the Mormons that Mormonism does not follow the same Christian tradition, but stopping short of calling Mormons non-Christian.

COGDEN 05:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm content to defer to COGDEN on this matter so long as a definition of the construct, "broad Christianity," appears early on in the article. After all, the conservative Presbyterian J. Gresham Machen's influential Christianity and Liberalism (1923) argued that liberal Protestantism was a non-Christian religion, and there have been recent attempts by the Russian state/Orthodox church to suppress certain evangelical groups as cults.--John Foxe (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So... I've taken another whack at rewriting the lead. Mostly, I've rearranged the flow and incorporated COGDEN's points above. I hesitated to add COGDEN's third point of Mormons portraying their religion as "Christianity plus". First, to the extent that they do so, this is arguably at variance with Church teaching (that is, Mormonism isn't just a set of additions to mainstream Christianity, it is a radical and destructive rejection of mainstream Christianity in favor of a restoration of what is envisioned as the "original Christianity" that was lost due to the Great Apostasy). I would like to see a source for the use of the phrase "Christianity plus" before inserting it into the article. Similarly, I have seen a source that uses the "as different as Christianity and Judaism" analogy but I haven't seen analogies comparing Mormonism to Scientology or the Raelians. I'm sure someone has made such comparisons but I think we need a source before we put anything that strident in the article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the "Christianity plus" phrase used in several different sources. (For example, the Ostlings, p. 222.) I think it's based on a trend that began in the late 20th century and is reflected especially in LDS missionary training manuals, where missionaries are taught not to correct "false" beliefs, but to build on existing "true" beliefs. It is also reflected in the church renaming the Book of Mormon to append "Another Testament of Jesus Christ". A cynical view is that these are just PR moves that don't change Mormon doctrine, but the church also made changes in 1990 to its temple ceremony so that it no longer portrays traditional Christianity as satanic, and Mormons are taught the "Christianity plus" view even in exclusively Mormon settings. See, e.g., this 1995 general conference talk by Dallin Oaks, in which he told a Mormon audience that the church sends missionaries to proselyte Christians to teach them the "important additions our doctrines make to the Christian faith". I think the predominant Mormon view since the late 20th century is that traditional Christianity is basically good, but is missing essential truths and authority. COGDEN 21:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is excellent. Can you insert a version of this into the article that has citations to the sources? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to think about what to introduce into the lede. I don't want to overburden it with too much detail. I'll look for authoritative secondary sources, though, because I think this at least should be discussed in the body of the article. COGDEN 20:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Basic similarities

In case it is unclear how Mormon teachings are similar to traditional Christian teachings regarding these topics, let me briefly explain.

Messiahship

According to Messiah#Christianity: "Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah that Jews were expecting". That's as basic as it gets; Mormons agree 100%.

Mormons believe that Jesus was a created being, the first of many spirit children, who earned his own salvation just as exalted men will also one day reach godhood.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is uncreated God, who being God required no salvation.--John Foxe (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia felt no need to point out the "Christian" belief that Jesus Christ is uncreated God, nor that he "required no salvation" within the Messiah article. As a side note, Mormons equate salvation to perfection; the ultimate salvation is becoming purified and perfected through Christ, to the point that man becomes a God. So to a Mormon, Christ didn't "earn" his salvation, so much as accomplish it implicitly. And man "earns" salvation not by his own merit, but by demonstrating to Christ that he truly desires to be purified. But whether Christ needed salvation or not, as I said, is a completely different and tangential topic to that of his Messiahship. ...comments? ~BF izz 21:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think on the issue of messiahship, Mormonism is within the traditional Christian orthodoxy. True, Mormons have a different view of the nature of Jesus, but as to whether or not Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, that's a different issue. COGDEN 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

True enough. But whether Jesus was the Jewish Messiah is a relatively inconsequential question compared to whether Jesus Christ is God. --John Foxe (talk)

Mormons, Jews, and probably secularists will have a different assessment of the consequentiality of this particular element of Christianity than will traditional Christians. Fortunately, we can avoid making such a normative judgment by just noting it without implying that it is either consequential or not. I think the point is to just throw in a couple of examples of where Mormonism and traditional Christianity agree, to make the point that there are some similarities, even though there are also some fundamental differences. COGDEN 11:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Atonement

According to Atonement in Christianity: "Atonement is a doctrine that describes how human beings can be reconciled to God. In Christian theology the atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin through the death of Jesus Christ by crucifixion, which made possible the reconciliation between God and creation."

Re-arranging the second sentence, we get the Christian assertion that "through the death of Jesus Christ by crucifixion, reconciliation between God and creation, and the forgiving or pardoning of sin, is made possible."

Mormons agree that 1) Jesus died by crucifixion as part of the atonement; 2) the atonement allows reconciliation between God and creation; and 3) the atonement makes possible the forgiving or pardoning of sin. Mormons completely agree with these basic concepts.

Mormons believe that the atonement gives men an opportunity to earn their own salvation "by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." In no way does Christ's death on the cross actually purchase salvation for anyone, just as earning a college degree does not produce a salary but may make it possible for one to earn one.

Christians believe the death of Christ paid the penalty for sin which is applied to the elect through the Holy Spirit "working faith in us and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling."--John Foxe (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how Mormons would disagree with the "Christians believe" statement you have presented. The degree/salary metaphor is flawed; as I mentioned, Mormons do believe that participating in Christ's atonement (through repentance, the sacrament, baptism, etc) is an active part of "earning" salvation. The difference lies in the distinction of who the "elect" are. Mormons believe that they themselves must choose to become "elect"; that it is not predestined. Various Christian denominations have various interpretations at this level of detail. ...comments? ~BF izz 21:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Mormon soteriology as a whole is outside the traditional Christian orthodoxy, but the Mormon view on the atonement (i.e., how sin is forgiven or pardoned through the death of Jesus) is simply Calvinistic penal substitution, with the Arminian caveat that Jesus suffered for the sins of all, including those who would not ultimately be saved. Mormons believe that Jesus suffered in place of all sinners (both elect and non-elect), to satisfy the demands of God's justice. John, I think your concern above mixes in other soteriological issues that are not specifically focused on the nature of the atonement. Yes, Mormons believe in salvation by works, but that is a question of whom God chooses to save, not a question of how sins are forgiven through Jesus. In any event, the Mormon view of how you "earn" forgiveness of your sins is not really that different from the Catholic view. John, the quote above represents the Presbyterian view, but the Catholic view is also within the traditional Christian orthodoxy. What is not within the traditional orthodoxy is the Mormon theory of what it means to be saved.COGDEN 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The following from a Catholic priest: "The Mormon church teaches a limited, conditional atonement. Christ's saving death saves only those who are free from certain sins. Eternal life is not bestowed upon those who confess Christ and strive to live by their faith; rather, it can be earned only by diligent adherence to Mormon rules." Isaiah Bennett, When Mormons Call (Catholic Answers, 1999), 35.--John Foxe (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Bennett's book slightly misunderstands the contemporary Mormon view of atonement. That Mormons believe in an infinite atonement is easy to document, and it's one of the few true surviving "infinites" of Mormonism. They believe that he suffered infinitely and died for all sins by both the elect and non-elect, without condition. What is conditional in Mormon soteriology is whether people have been baptized and sufficiently faithful that they can take advantage of the cleansing grace of Jesus (which cleansing, as Mormons agree with Catholics, can sometimes take place in the afterlife if the sins are not too bad).

I haven't read the book, but it sounds like Bennett doesn't quite appreciate the fine distinction between Mormon salvation and Mormon exaltation, which is understandable because Mormons often use the words interchangeably. In Mormonism, there is a concept of "salvation", different form exaltation, which means the cleansing of all sin via the atonement of Jesus, the result of which is admission to the Celestial Kingdom, but not necessarily exaltation. I think the predominant view is that Jesus' grace does not extend to anyone outside the Celestial Kingdom, who will have to pay the penalty for their own sins, though they will eventually inherit a kingdom of glory after that price is paid in full. However, Richard Bushman understands it a little differently: he says that the grace of Jesus saves even those in the lower heavenly kingdoms, who will at some point have to confess Jesus in the afterlife. I think both views are probably within the Mormon orthodoxy right now, though I think Bushman's is a younger, more retrospective interpretation.

Exaltation is different, and determines one's place within the Celestial Kingdom. It is a radical expansion of Wesleyan sanctification, and comes after and independently of salvation. While Mormons are saved in their imperfections as long as those sins are not too bad--that is, probably not much worse than about the minimum level required to receive a "temple recommend", which is a much higher bar than the Catholic "mortal sin"--exaltation is where Mormons eventually achieve their godhood based on their own merit. It differs from classical Wesleyan sanctification in that Mormon exaltation/eternal progression is not really a second manifestation of grace, but a manifestation of good works and the embryonic god within each individual. Often, Mormons refer to this as "salvation", but that doesn't mean they don't also believe in the separate, more traditionally Christian type of salvation from sin through the grace of Jesus. COGDEN 11:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Bodily resurrection of Jesus

According to Resurrection of Jesus, "In Christianity the resurrection of Jesus refers to the return to bodily life of Jesus on the third day following his death by crucifixion. It is a key element of Christian faith and theology. The resurrection of Jesus is not to be confused with the Ascension of Jesus into heaven forty days after the resurrection."

Again, Mormons completely agree that Jesus returned to bodily life on the third day following his death by crucifixion.

Mormons and Christians agree on the bodily resurrection of Jesus. They disagree on the meaning of the resurrection.

Hence, the similarity at a basic level of detail, and difference at higher level of detail. ...comments? ~BF izz 21:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the New Testament, Lazarus rose bodily from the grave. It's the meaning of the resurrection that's important. The similarity of belief is incidental; the difference fundamental.--John Foxe (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

"Mormons agree with other Christian denominations on basic teachings relating to Jesus Christ's messiahship, atonement, and bodily resurrection."

Is it not sufficiently clear that this statement needs no qualification? For clarity and NPOV, I naturally support following this up with mention of how Mormons differ on the details for these and other Nicene doctrines. But I see no reason to believe that Mormons do not agree with other Christians on the basics of these concepts. ...comments? ~BF izz 05:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If theological terms are defined, Mormons and Christians clearly differ on all significant doctrines.--John Foxe (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I never said they didn't. But they do not differ 100%. When you reach into related or tangential topics, you will, of course, find differences: what happened to Jesus' body after the ascension? etc. Atonement reaches into a lot of significant topics: what is "pardoning of sin"? how does the atonement work? etc. In these, Christian denominations, Mormons included, have many differing explanations. But it is clear that basic similarities exist, and I feel it important to point them out.

I have given the very basic summary definitions for these three terms, as they appear in ledes of their associated articles or sections of articles. This is why I insist that at a basic level of detail, for these topics, Mormonism and traditional Christianity teach the same thing. Once you reach into deeper detail, specifically defining each sub-concept, you will find differences. I see no better way to illustrate both points in the lede, than that which I have proposed. ...comments? ~BF izz 21:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that there aren't similarities between Mormons and Christians. I'm arguing that the similarities are superficial, and the differences fundamental.

Since we're not permitted to quote other Wikipedia articles in this one, we'd need authoritative secondary sources for both Mormon and "broad Christian" views—and that's a tough order. At this point we have no definition of "broad Christian," and the contemporary LDS Church has a vested interest in trying to appear as mainstream as possible.--John Foxe (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that is where our opinions differ. I feel that while the differences are fundamental, the similarities are also fundamental, and not superficial. While secondary sources are indeed necessary to support claims of similarity or difference, I feel that the distilled, "fundamental" descriptions of each topic as indicated in the summary sections of each article listed are a fair indication of how similar some (but not all!) basic Mormon beliefs are to those of other Christian denominations.

One thing that puzzles me, Foxe. You say "the contemporary LDS Church has a vested interest in trying to appear as mainstream as possible". It's a fuzzy line between what you might consider "the LDS Church trying to appear mainstream" and the LDS Church actually being, or becoming, somewhat mainstream. How do you distinguish what the LDS Church looks like as opposed to what it is? ...comments? ~BF izz 00:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As you say, our opinions differ; but I think reliable secondary sources, such as secular studies of Mormon theology, emphasize differences more than similarities.

The reason I believe the LDS Church is attempting to appear mainstream rather than actually be mainstream is that in the latter case the Church would issue an official systematic theology that would clarify its positions. But it's in the Church's interest to keep its theology as murky as possible because (to be perfectly cynical) it wants to keep its membership and income high. The Church doesn't want to scare potential converts off with speculation about such things as God being man, pre-mortal existence, and inhabitants of the planet Kolob; neither does it want to go the way of the CoC.--John Foxe (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources are not ideal just because they are secondary. Many, if not most, of the texts you are speaking of have the objective is defining differences without any intent of approaching the topic from a neutral, comparative position.

Fox, you assign a particularly twisted motivation to the leaders of the LDS Church. As a member of the Church and one that certainly is not content with many things the Church leadership does, you border on one of those paranoid fellows that sees conspiracy behind every action of government. It is no helpful and it does taint your position unnecessarily.

Your Evangelical position is devoid of any concept of Theosis or Divinization. Even Catholics are hyper about using the term becoming gods; unfortunately, their own Cathechism clearly teachings they will become gods. The orthodox are much more comfortable with the terminology. There are certainly differences between Exaltation and Theosis if one uses the King Follett discourse as a definition of Exaltation; however, the KF discourse is not doctrine nor was it every doctrine. Attempting to show an Evangelical's position as THE position is not realistic; they are not even the middle road, which is firmly found in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The main points of Christianity supported by LDS focusing on Jesus Christ, his purpose, his mission, and his gift of salvation. These major points are sacrosanct for LDS. Where problems develop is where doctrine is added, specifically 4th century doctrine of the Trinity. Catholics and LDS have far more in common when it comes to the sacraments than Protestants and specifically Evangelicals who have abandoned in total any concept of them. Should this not be addressed? Why do Catholics and LDS feel so strongly about Baptism, marriage, confirmation, etc. where others turn a blind eye? -^StormRider 10:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Both Catholicism and Mormonism emphasize the necessity of men partnering with God to gain salvation; and taking part in ceremonies of various kinds is a pleasant way of generating religious feeling, especially if the ceremonies are esthetically pleasing.--John Foxe (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe's comment about "religious feeling" and "esthetically pleasing" distract from the current topic which is "partnering with God". The real question is the "salvation through faith alone" vs. "faith without works is dead" controversy. It is sufficient to say here that "mainstream Christianity" is not of one mind on this question and thus we can only say that Mormonism is more like one part of Christianity than the other (Arminianism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, whatever). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's focus on sources

StormRider wrote "Secondary sources are not ideal just because they are secondary. " This may be true but objective secondary sources trump primary sources. Even biased secondary sources trump primary sources if the bias is presented clearly to the reader. Thus, we can quote Mormon sources and evangelical sources if we present enough information about the source so that the reader understands the bias.

The problem here is that, at the moment, we are not even committing original research and synthesis using primary sources. We're doing it using no sources at all. Gentlemen, it's time to go support all this blather with specific quotes from sources that talk about the similarities and differences between Mormonism and Christianity. I've put a {{citation needed}} tag on B Fizz's pet sentence. There are probably other sentences that could use sourcing but I figured we could start there and then turn our attention to the other sentences in turn. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be easy to find sources that state that Mormons hold the views that I have asserted that they hold. It would be harder to find sources that explicitly say "these views are similar to Christian views". But I believe both can be done. ...comments? ~BF izz 01:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Then, please do. It is synthesis to say "Mormons believe this about X" with a citation to source A and then say "traditional Christians believe something similar about X" with a citation to source Y leading the reader to the conclusion that Mormons and traditional Christians believe the same thing about X. To make such an assertion without being accused of OR and SYNTH, we really need a source that makes the assertion explicitly. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism and "Christianities"

Unless we come up with a definition of Christianity, we're headed toward an article that might well be titled "Mormonisms and Christianities."--John Foxe (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have to do either. Defining Christianity won't help us reach a consensus article because there are many possible normative definitions of Christianity. But there exists a recognized category of Christianity, called traditional or mainstream, for which there is a consensus. It is defined as the mathematical union of Catholicism ∪ Orthodoxy ∪ mainline and evangelical Protestantism. It is a diverse group, but I think that's okay. We don't need pristine simplicity on either side to situate Mormonism in relation to this traditional Christianity. COGDEN 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't be too thrilled with the title of the article being Mormonism and Christianities, I think the article scope should be just that. I am not convinced of COGDEN's assertion that there is a "recognized category" of "traditional Christianity" or "mainstream Christianity" although I admit to having used those phrases in the article text and on this Talk Page. The category is more likely Nicene Christianity, Chalcedonian Christianity or Trinitarian Christianity. I am not convinced that there is any other "recognized category" that is more than these. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Why we can't just define Christianity as "Nicene Christianity"? Taking that course would cover all major branches of Christianity before they became branches, and we wouldn't be faced with the embarrassing problem of having to claim that mainline Protestant churches actually endorse "traditional Christianity."--John Foxe (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism and Christianities is at least more honest than the current title. There is a body of thought that says there is an absolute necessity to contain specific doctrinal beliefs, i.e. the Trinity and everything outside of that is not really necessary to be called a Christian. This very narrow definition is supported by Evangelcials, Hank Hanegraaff comes to mind. Of course, Catholicism does not limit their concept of a fulness of the gospel to belief in the Trinity; the sacraments are an absolute necessity for salvation. Christianity is not monolithic; it was not monolithic in 325 and it is not today. Attempting to portray a "us vs. them" position in this article evades the far more realistic topic of a true comparative discussion about Mormonism within the context the Christian world in all its colors. -^StormRider 13:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to make the title "Mormonism and Christianities". That would just seem weird to most readers. Anybody who knows anything about Christianity understands that it is far from being a monolithic faith. I suspect that there are more diverse beliefs in the Catholic Church alone than there are in the LDS Church. It is absolutely critical that we identify what similarities and differences there may be between Mormonism and "mainstream Christianity" as a whole and then identify other similarities and differences between Mormonism and specific parts of "mainstream Christianity".

For example, Mormons have an ecclesiology that is different from any other Christian denomination but it's hard for a "mainstream Christian" to argue against it. It's not necessarily wrong; it's just different.

It is the theological differences that are the big sticking point. The addition to the canonical Scriptures is a big issue. But, even mainstream Christians don't agree fully on what the canonical Scriptures are. I think the big problem is that these additional Scriptures were written in a different era from the rest and assert the primacy of a "new prophet".

Which leads to soteriology. Mormon soteriology is different because Mormonism takes a different view of the relationship of God an man and of Christ. If you look at what the Catholic and Evangelical Lutheran Church say about Mormon baptism, the underlying message is that Mormon baptism is not intended to impart or symbolize salvation through Jesus Christ in the way that the Catholics and Lutherans understand it. I suspect the Presbyterians and Methodists feel the same way but their official statements don't focus on the issue as much as the Catholics and Lutherans do.

If we look at aspects of Mormon soteriology other than "salvation through Christ", the concept of Celestial, Terrestial and Telestial Kingdoms is another of those "not necessarily wrong; just different". Yes, many "mainstream Christians" would find the Mormon cosmology weird and even heretical but it's not as "outside mainstream Christianity" as the issues of Scripture and Christology. To put it another way, the Nicene Creed does not dictate a specific cosmology or belief about the afterlife other than that it exists and humans are saved through Christ. We should note that Catholics believe in Heaven, Purgatory and Hell. While these are not equivalent to the three Mormon kingdoms, the point is that there is room for a lot of diversity of belief about the afterlife.

The most critical "sticking point" is Christology (a word that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article). For that matter, the phrase "Nicene doctrine" is mentioned once in the lead and not at all in the article. This is a major omission as it is entirely around the Nicene Creed and its Christology that one finds the major difference between Mormonism and Christianity. We should highlight this as the "critical sticking point". I feel confident that we can find sources to support this assertion.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe, as to your suggestion above as to calling it "Nicene Christianity", my main concerns are (1) that lots of people don't instantly understand what that means, (2) it places too much focus on the Nicene Creed, while the distinctions between traditional Christianity and Mormonism are more than just nonacceptance of the Nicene Creed, and (3) traditional Christianity is more than just the Nicene Creed. As to the problem of having to say that mainline Protestant churches "endorse" traditional Christianity, we don't have to do that because the beliefs of mainline Protestant churches (and Catholics, and Orthodox) are traditional Christianity.

Psueo-Richard, I agree that Mormon non-acceptance of the Nicene Creed is a crucial difference, but I don't think there is an academic consensus sufficient to characterize this issue as the "center" of the differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. There are many differences, and any attempt to normatively "rank" them based on centrality is pretty subjective and might vary based on whether you are a Mormon, Jew, secular, liberal mainline, or evangelical. For example, Jan Shipps, who is a liberal mainline Christian, ranks the Hebraic nature of Mormonism as one of its key distinctions. Harold Bloom, a theologically-liberal Jew, thinks the key difference is Mormonism's incorporation of gnostic thought. COGDEN 23:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is sufficient to state that "some mainstream Christians" consider the Nicene Creed as a litmus test for "being Christian". Whether scholars consider the Nicene Creed a "central issue" or not is a separate question. As for incorporating the views of Shipps and Bloom, I'm all in favor of expanding the article to provide a richer exposition of different views of Mormonism from the Christian viewpoint. I would normally favor incorporating Bloom's views but the title of this article suggests that those views may be out of scope. If you can make a plausible argument why his views should be within scope, I would give it serious consideration. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

COGDEN, (1) I don't think it matters much that people don't know what the Nicene Creed is—though presumably a lot more folks reading this particular article will. That's why Wikipedia has links. (2) It's true that the distinctions between Christianity and Mormonism go beyond the Nicene Creed, but it's better to be authoritative on a small scale than wander around in a fog bank. (3) I take a dim view of pretending that contemporary mainline Protestant churches are representative of traditional Christianity when they treat their own stated creeds as relics of the past with any seminarian claiming to believe them treated as reactionary and unalterably simple-minded.

Nevertheless, let me suggest that we can still make the article work most of the time by introducing the statements of the Nicene Creed wherever possible. That won't put the article on all fours, but I bet we can reduce the number of controversies.--John Foxe (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe's assertion about the Nicene Creed suggest a divergence with what I would like to propose for this article. I think we all understand that the Mormon rejection of the Nicene Creed is not the only difference with so-called "mainstream Christianity". However, it is a critical issue. That is, a faith cannot reject the Nicene Creed without provoking assertions of "having left the Christian faith". There are other issues of difference and some of these may indeed be with all of mainstream Christianity or just with part. We should discuss those other issues as well. All I want to do is make sure that the rejection of the "nature of God" theology embodied in the Nicene Creed is given prominence because AFAICT it is the issue that is most often mentioned. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization of the "Doctrinal comparisons" section

I was bold and reorganized the "Doctrinal comparisons" section. My rationale is that "soteriology" is not different from "theology"; soteriology is a part of theology. Thus, it makes no sense to have a section on "soteriology" that is different from "theology". One easy fix is to rename the old "Theology" section to "Christology" which I did. Doing that alone could do fix the problem although I think there is value in separating "Theology" from "Ecclesiology" rather than lumping them together under "Doctrinal differences". At the end of the day, mainstream Christianity has many views of ecclesiology and differences in ecclesiology alone would not separate Mormonism from mainstream Christianity. As the section notes, Mormons share some similarities with the Catholic Church in the area of ecclesiology. It is in the area of theology that the critical differences are to be found. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The term theology is often used broadly to cover soteriology too, but in its proper sense, theology deals specifically with the nature of God. Maybe "nature of God" is a better sub-heading. I don't think "Christology" is a broad enough heading. Technically, Christology covers the nature of Christ as a distinct person, and deals with issues such as whether Jesus was fully God, fully human, or both, and issues such as his virgin birth, his status as a prophet, Messiah, the Logos, etc. But the present section covers other theology (proper) issues, such as multiple gods, heavenly Mother, the Father and the Spirit, etc.

Also, I don't think the main heading should merely refer to "differences", as opposed to something such as "comparison", which covers both differences and similarities. Not everything within Mormon theology, soteriology, scripture, and ecclesiology arose out of a vacuum. The differences may in some cases be vast, and Mormonism may have moved onto something quite divorced from its origins, but Mormon doctrine is not without a Christian context. So focusing on the differences only, without the context, does not tell the full story. In this respect, I don't think Mormon ecclesiology is any different than Mormon soteriology, though of the four categories, Mormon ecclesiology is probably the least original. COGDEN 19:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, my major concern is that "theology" and "soteriology" not be two different sections. If you want to change the overall section title back to "Doctrinal comparisons" and put "Ecclesiology" back under it, that's OK. I also like "Nature of God" over "Christology" for just the reasons that you mentioned although I think it's important to mention the word "Christology" somewhere in the section. I'm in a rush to get out the door so I will leave the actual article text alone. I'd like to hear if any other editors have an opinion on this before changing the text again. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Mormon engagement with broader Christianity

I've refactored this section's content into three more general subsections: Mormon similarity, Mormon cooperation, and Mormon interaction with other Christian denominations. The first subsection doesn't really fit in; its content (well, that which is retained) should be refactored to somewhere else where it fits in better. The other two have poor content that needs some serious work. I think there is potential for expansion (hence the {{expand section}} tag) on the explanation of how the LDS Church works with other denominations for welfare/humanitarian aid. ...comments? ~BF izz 18:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ankerberg and Weldon

I added some quotes from Ankerberg and Weldon who do a pretty good job, I think, in presenting the view of mainstream Christians vis-a-vis Mormonism. There's a great chart on page 52 that summarizes the differences in doctrine between the two faiths. My understanding is that it would be an infringement of copyright to simply lift the chart and insert it into the article. I think we need a way to present that same information to the reader in a way that respects copyright issues. Perhaps breaking up the chart into multiple charts and/or adding annotations to the entries would create a presentation different enough to get around the copyright issues. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the quotation adds to the article, and Ankerberg and Weldon is not a reliable academic source.--John Foxe (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is important to make the point that "mainstream Christians" consider Mormons to be polytheistic. Or, Whether that point is made by a citation to Ankerberg and Weldon or to a more scholarly source is not a big issue to me. Are you arguing that the assertion is false/inaccurate or that the source is "less than scholarly"? I really think we need some source that says "Mormonism says X" while "mainstream Christianity says Y". To be honest, I chose the first Google Books result that yielded such an assertion about the differing views of the nature of God. I had my doubts about the polemical tone of this source. If you can propose a better one, I am very amenable to changing to use the superior source. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm arguing that the source is unscholarly. We don't care if mainstream Christians consider Mormons polytheistic; we care what scholars of religion think. Let me suggest Douglas J. Davies, An Introduction to Mormonism (Cambridge, 2003), a boring, British academic discussion of Mormon doctrine.--John Foxe (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe wrote "We don't care if mainstream Christians consider...; we care what scholars of religion think."

I beg to differ. If "mainstream Christians" have a different view from "scholars of religion", that difference is notable and encyclopedic. In such a situation, both views should be presented with clear attribution to reliable sources so that the reader can determine who has which view. However, if they have the same view, then scholarly sources are certainly to be preferred over journalistic and apologetic/polemical publications. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read a review of Davies' book by D. Michael Quinn, who said it was the best analytical synthesis of Mormonism presented by an outsider. That's the kind of source I wish there were more of. A source that I've cited, but have mixed feelings about, is the Ostlings' book. Though the Ostlings are journalists, so the book is more a work of journalism than scholarship, which can be fine, but I'd much rather cite academic works like Davies. COGDEN 23:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The chart that Richard linked makes me hesitate to embrace this source...it presents a false dichotomy between "what Mormons believe" vs "what traditional Christians believe" by presenting opposites, when Mormon belief is often better described by both sides of the chart. For example, the "physically localized" vs "omnipresent" row; Mormons believe that God has a physical body, but being omnipotent, he is also able to permeate space with his presence/influence. I have no idea why the chart characterizes Mormon belief of deity as "mortal, finite"; that is completely wrong. Though sketchy, the chart is indeed a good illustration of the phrase "Mormonism differs from mainstream teachings about the nature of God". I don't think we need a citation for this in the lede since it is not disputed. References for this kind of content in the body wouldn't hurt, of course, but references in the lede are less necessary (WP:LEADCITE). ...comments? ~BF izz 17:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with removing the citation from the lead provided there is a more detailed exposition of the concept in the body of the article and that text is adequately sourced. I'm also OK with using other sources instead of the one in question although we should note that the use of POV sources is permissible if the objective is to document what that POV is (as opposed to making an assertion of fact). In fact, the question we should be asking is not whether this source provides an objective analysis of the difference between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity but whether it is a good exemplar of the evangelical Christian POV that is harshly critical of Mormonism. I think this sort of source can be useful in the article unless we can find a more neutral source that does an equally good job of presenting the evangelical Christian POV. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with using sources with a strong point of view. I don't really believe that anyone ever writes from a position of neutrality. What is important, rather, is (1) whether or not the reference is the kind of reference that is authoritative enough that it would be cited by academic writers, and (2) whether or not citing the material requires any degree of analysis or synthesis on the part of Wikipedia editors. Academic writers may occasionally cite polemical evangelical or Mormon materials in order to frame the debate. These sources are authoritative as to what the sides believe, but not authoritative as to anything else. Therefore, citing these sources almost always requires some degree of synthesis, because an academic writer can't simply take what these references say at face value. So that second prong is the main difficulty in citing sources like Ankerberg & Weldon, and that's the same difficulty we would have in citing something from FARMS, or Hugh Nibley. COGDEN 20:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There is little value in what other Christians say LDS believe. It is similar to saying that LDS are a better source to describe Catholic beliefs than Catholics. There are a pile (as in dung pile) of anti-Mormon literature that describe what LDS believe. The problem is that the information has nothing to do with LDS beliefs or doctrine and are the creation of very imaginative Evangelicals. Ankerberg and Weldon are not very good examples of mainstream Christians. Look at what they say about Catholics and it is immediately evident they are fringe critics.-^StormRider 13:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism a "Christ-centered" religion

I was glancing at The rise of Mormonism and noticed on page 15 that Mormonism is referred to as a "Christ-centered religion". I found this interesting and a potentially useful (neutral) phrase for describing Mormonism in this article. ...comments? ~BF izz 18:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Such a phrase isn't neutral unless cited to a reliable source.--John Foxe (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Also... it's unclear how much value the phrase has. Both Mormonism and mainstream Christianity are "Christ-centered" but as John has explained, the very meaning of being "Christ-centered" is different so the only real value of the phrase would be in a sentence like "Although both Mormonism and mainstream Christianity view themselves as 'Christ-centered', the definition of what it means to be centered on Christ is radically different between the two faiths." We already have a sentence that says much the same thing. Was there another context in which B Fizz wanted to use the phrase? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's the context I imagined it might be useful (both in the lede and article body, to describe the comparison of Mormonism and other Christianities). We don't dare flat out assert that "Mormonism is Christian", because it is only true for some definitions of "Christian". It is easier to assert that "Mormonism is a Christ-centered religion", since it is true for most logical definitions of "Christ-centered". Foxe, policies on neutrality and verifiability are orthagonal; neutrality is not defined in terms of verifiability. For example, Fawn Brodie can be used for verifiability, but her choice of words is sometimes far from neutral. ...comments? ~BF izz 21:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, in my opinion Mormonism is not "Christ-centered" and the association of the phrase with the LDS Church is POV. Of course, my belief means nothing if you can find a reliable (i.e., scholarly) source that endorses the use of this phrase in reference to the Church.--John Foxe (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can use the term "Christ-centered", but I'm not ruling out that there might be some other way we can neutrally and accurately note that Jesus is a central figure in the religion. I wish there existed a ready-made term reflecting a super-category of Christianity that indisputably includes Mormonism but not other religions such as Islam and Hinduism that give Jesus only a peripheral role. Whether or not Mormonism is regarded is "Christian", Jesus plays a central role in each tradition, because both traditions have converted Jesus the prophet into some kind of otherworldly figure of mythology and metaphysics. COGDEN 22:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

For COgden's description, I see no better term than "Christ-centered". I do not understand how Foxe, knowing so much about Mormonism, can possibly opine that Mormonism is not "Christ-centered"; it seems to me a fairly obvious fact, and not simply a Point Of View. Since the term "Christ-centered" is not in frequent use, it is unlikely that it will be misinterpreted (in contrast to "Christianity", which is widely used to mean various things). Foxe, as I said, I found the phrase in The Rise of Mormonism byRodney Stark, in the section "Introduction by Reid L Nielson" (the editor) on page 14. According to its WP page, The Rise of Mormonism was reviewed by the Journal of Mormon History. ...comments? ~BF izz 02:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

When googling the term, I found that Gordon B. Hinkley said this to Time magazine: "Our church is Christ-centered". ...comments? ~BF izz 02:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what the issue is with "Christ-centered": that term has baggage, and means more than its literal meaning. For example, people talk about "Christ-centered radio," or "Christ-centered curriculum," and they don't just simply mean that it centers around the Jewish messiah named Jesus. COGDEN 04:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you elaborate more on what baggage you think comes with the term "Christ-centered"? I don't see the difference in the examples you gave and saying the LDS Church is a Christ-centered church.

Fox's position has not changed; he is adamantely against the LDS Church. That is not a critique, but a self-described position. It appears thta B Fizz has already provided valid sources for stating that the LDS Church is Christ-centered. If others can provide a similarly valid reference for stating other churches are Christ-centered then it is appropriate to state it. If not, it would be violate synthesis to combine them as been stated above for other statements. If a reference supports the statement, personal opinion is meaningless and are thus disregarded. -^StormRider 13:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that "Christ-centered" is a normative statement that does not have its literal meaning. It doesn't mean that the biblical figure Christ plays a central role in the religion's theology. Rather, it means more pious than run-of-the-mill Christianity. Thus, it is a sub-category of Christianity, and a very normative one at that. So if we don't have a sufficient consensus to call Mormons unqualifiedly "Christian", then we don't have a consensus to call Mormons "Christ-centered," either.COGDEN 22:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that defines "Christ-centered" in the way you have presented, COgden? I don't see how simply stating that something is "Christ-centered" would imply that the thing also fits the description you have given. You said It doesn't mean that the biblical figure Christ plays a central role in the religion's theology. but I don't really see any evidence to support that. A "Christ-centered religion" would be a religion in which belief in Christ plays a central role (and probably not only in theology). I'm tired of trying to sidestep phrases that only might be interpreted the wrong way. "Christ-centered" seems about as straightforward as it gets. That is my opinion on the matter. ...comments? ~BF izz 22:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

COgden, I think what you are trying to say is that because there are LDS critics, groups of other Christians, that deny Mormonism is Christian, then it is impossible to say that the LDS Church is Christ-centered even though its leaders and members have stated such repeatedly. Because there are those who deny the LDS Church's Christianity does not mean that the LDS Church is not Christian. All it means is that there are those who disagree with the statement that it is Christian. What can be shown is that the LDS Church proclaims it is Christ-centered and other groups deny that it is Christian (a bit of synthesis, I think unless you have a reference that says the LDS Church is not Christ-centered.) The function here is to report facts not make judgments. It is fine to report the disagreement of others; but it is verboten to concur that one position is correct and draft language to respect that position. -^StormRider 05:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm just saying that unless there is a consensus, which there is not, the best we can say in this article is that Mormons claim to be Christ-centered. But why bother even saying that? It's like writing that Mormons "claim to be normal." The term "Christ-centered" is not a term that would be used in academia to categorize religions, because "Christ-centeredness" is a normative religious question. It is a prescription, not a description. Moreover, it is a sub-category of Christianity, not a super-category. Nobody, Mormon or evangelical, would call a religion "Christ-centered" that they did not already regard as "Christian".

Instead of "Christ-centered", something like "Jesus-based religion" would be more descriptive and less normative. The term "based" is a term of origination rather than centrality--plus, use of the term "Jesus" instead of "Christ" refers the reader more to the historical man, than to the disputed metaphysical ramifications of his Christness. COGDEN 08:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be OK to say that Mormonism claims to be a "Christ-centered" religion but only if used in the context of the source. This is what Time Magazine reported Hinckley to have said in his interview:

President Hinckley seemed intent on downplaying his faith's distinctiveness. The church's message, he explained, "is a message of Christ. Our church is Christ-centered. He's our leader. He's our head. His name is the name of our church." At first, Hinckley seemed to qualify the idea that men could become gods, suggesting that "it's of course an ideal. It's a hope for a wishful thing," but later affirmed that "yes, of course they can." (He added that women could too, "as companions to their husbands. They can't conceive a king without a queen.") On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, "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."

Thus, I don't think we can say without qualification that Mormonism is "Christ-centered" because the term is subject to definition and there is no standard defintion that is universally accepted. We could say that Mormonism asserts that it is "Christ-centered" but that's not really any more informative than to say that it is "Christian". There is other stuff in the quote and in the interview that may be useful but this particular phrase "Christ-centered" is only useful as part of the assertion that Mormonism claims to be Christian.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Another way around this: I don't think there is any dispute that the LDS Church, in the last few decades, has worked to emphasize, and focus itself around, the Jesus of its understanding. That's not very artful, but we could say something like that. COGDEN 21:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of Book of Mormon subtitle

Foxe twice has reverted my addition. Please do not revert this again until you have provided a meaningful explanation for your actions.

The source (which I didn't even put there) quotes Boyd K. Packer: "The Book of Mormon has been misunderstood. With the subtitle, it takes its place where it should be-- beside the Old Testament and the New Testament." So from a fact-checking standpoint, my addition is verifiably correct.

The reason I put it there is because simply mentioning the act of subtitling the Book of Mormon serves no useful purpose in this paragraph. It's just a factoid unless we include the additional explanation that the book was subtitled for a reason. ...comments? ~BF izz 23:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like a scholarly source, which Boyd Packer is certainly not. Of course, the point of mentioning the subtitle is that it's been used as part of the Church's recent (deceitful, in my opinion) campaign to appear more Christian.--John Foxe (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted Fox; there is no need for a non-LDS source and it is silly to make such a request. We are describing what LDS say about their own position. The thoughts of the paragon of neutrality, Abanes, or any of the other tribe of anti-Mormons have a POV, but are hardly scholarly. In fact, I scholarly and Evangelical are oxymoron.

Now, would you like to hold off on the personal diatribes or would you like me to continue in the vein you insist on mining? I am more than capable of poking a great deal of fun at Evangelicals because it is such a rich feeding ground. They have absolutely no reason for being; just ask a Catholic, the vast majority of Christendom. Evangelicals are a small minority. Sorry to break the news. -^StormRider 13:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Foxe, please stop reverting two things as if they were one. One issue is the purpose of the Book of Mormon's subtitle. The other is the "unanimous consent" issue.

Now, regarding the former. Foxe, you say that " the point of mentioning the subtitle is that it's been used as part of the Church's recent campaign to appear more Christian". When I add the phrase "emphasizing its intended place alongside the Old Testament and New Testament", doesn't it help to make clear exactly what you were saying? The LDS Church, by adding the subtitle, is essentially saying "look, the Book of Mormon should be viewed as Christian scripture, just like the Bible." Basically, I'm adding your description to the article, but with Packer's words. I see no reason why you would revert this. The "common consent" I can more easily understand why you revert, though I obviously disagree with its reversion, as I will explain in a new talk page section. ...comments? ~BF izz 17:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for deleting two independent ideas at the same time; when I first did it, I thought both phrases were inconsequential POV. (I'll discuss the first here and the second below.) I have no problem with the phrase comparing the BoM to the Old and New Testament so long as the phrase is prefaced by a description of the author, perhaps "LDS Church leader Boyd Packer." Otherwise, such a statement needs a scholarly citation.--John Foxe (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the change to the Book of Mormon, and its reasons, are important to mention, and are supported by good sources, though I'm not necessarily convinced that it needs to be in the intro. I think it's clear, and scholarly sources can confirm, that the change was intended to be part of the church's campaign to refocus itself more on Jesus (as Mormons understand him). COGDEN 22:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

How's this? Change to article body. I don't think anybody's suggested this be in the intro; I agree it's too detailed for the summary style of the lede. More sources and further explanation for the BoM subtitling rationale are welcome. ...comments? ~BF izz 00:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Unanimous consent to add to the LDS canon

See Standard Works#Adding to the cannon of scripture. Various LDS sources are used to support the statement that the LDS canon has been extended by unanimous consent. Foxe has stated that he feels the sources I have provided inline are insufficient to support this. I heartily disagree.

I anticipate that Foxe might argue that this statement is misleading, that the leadership strongarmed/brainwashed the membership into blindly accepting these additions. Whether "forced" or not, it was done by unanimous consent. It is not our place to determine whether this was "true" unanimous consent or not. We do not need to pass every phrase we use through the LDS critic's filter to see if they would approve. If critics have raised issues about the LDS leadership's actions in this regard, then we can mention that. But honestly, a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose. If it's wilted or genetically engineered or even entirely artificial, it can still comfortably be called a rose.

Foxe said in his edit summary that "Stalin was great on unanimous consent". If I were editing the Stalin article, I would have no trouble writing that he used unanimous consent for things. And then I would cite critics that said it was forced unanimous consent; there are doubtless many such notable critics. I'd probably use an "Although <unanimous consent>, <criticism>" or "<unanimous consent>. However, <criticism>." sentence structure. It's really that simple.

However, I'm not familiar with any critics that have harped on this particular point; even if the LDS Church is criticized in that way, it is obviously a lot less serious than the criticism of Stalin. Unless a really solid critic has a really solid statement against it, I'd even daresay it is probably not notable. ...comments? ~BF izz 17:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this unanimity even important to mention in the context of the text in question? I don't see why it's relevant. Also, technically, I think "without dissent" would be a better way to describe the adoption, because "unanimous consent" implies that everyone in the church consented, whereas all we know is that nobody among the tiny fraction of Mormons who attended general conference that year raised their hand in dissent. COGDEN 21:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with COGDEN about the phrase's irrelevance. The reason why I deleted it so readily with the BoM phrase was that I thought it simply unnecessary verbiage. Frankly, B, if you keep stuff like that in the article, the minds of other readers beside mine will turn toward the totalitarians.--John Foxe (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Unanimous consent is the mechanism used to change the LDS Canon. This mechanism is, I assume, different than most for selecting the canon of a religion. As such I found it notable to mention. Contrast this method, which appeals to the entire membership, to that of the Council of Nicea, where the respected theologians determined the Church's theological standpoint on various doctrines. I'm not saying one is better than the other; many LDS Church publications, such as Sunday School manuals, are not approved by unanimous consent. I find mentioning "unanimous consent" to be an unusual and insightful look at how the LDS Church works. ...comments? ~BF izz 23:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what you're arguing for is strange and will strike readers as strange. Besides no one thought "unanimous consent" necessary to mention in the Thomas Monson article.--John Foxe (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is, in part, to compare and contrast Mormonism with the rest of Christianity. That is why I find this detail relevant to this article: it illustrates a difference between Mormonism and other Christian denominations. Would it be less strange if we gave a more verbose explanation of what "unanimous consent" meant/means in this situation? Or perhaps we should include this detail, and other details regarding Mormonism's lay clergy, to the Ecclesiological comparison section? ...comments? ~BF izz 20:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's relevant, it could be mentioned in the ecclesiology section. The LDS Church makes decisions strictly from the top down (the opportunity to express ratification notwithstanding). While that style has be criticized as being too authoritarian, I've never seen anyone argue that the LDS Church style of governance either enhances or reduces its connection to traditional Christianity. Christianity is no more inherently democratic than was the Roman Empire.COGDEN 22:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism Explained - Andrew Jackson

OK guys, what do you think of Andrew Jackson? Specifically, what do you think of his exposition of the Mormon stance towards the Bible which can be found here? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked out this book from the library a while ago, thinking that it might be a good source, but I have mixed feelings. I think by and large, the book is a pretty fair explanation of Mormon beliefs, but there are a few passages, like this page you linked to, that might reflect a lack of academic rigor and/or peer review. For example, his statement that "Christians hold the Bible up as the only standard of their faith and practice" is decidedly not true with respect to Catholicism. And I read a few other passages where he basically equates Protestantism, and particularly evangelicalism, with "Christianity". The book's publisher, Crossway, is an evangelical ministry. That's not to criticize the book, because overall I think it is a pretty fair treatment, but I think it lacks peer review except by other evangelicals.

Setting the issue of "reliability" aside, and addressing just the merits of this passage about the Bible, I think he's accurate as to the Mormon view, but inaccurate as to the "Christian" view, at least if Christianity is defined to include Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism. COGDEN 09:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's more or less what I was hoping for. I only want to use it as a source for the Mormon stance towards the Bible. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't overly biased against the Mormon view. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

COgden said it well. See also Sola scriptura, which states "By contrast, the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches teach that the Scriptures are not the only infallible source of Christian doctrine. For them Scripture is but one of three equal authorities; the other two being Sacred Tradition and the episcopacy." LDS belief almost fits into the prima scriptura category, but I'm not quite sure reliable sources have ever said so. ...comments? ~BF izz 15:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There is, of course the very significant distinction that Mormons have a broader view of the "scriptura" than other Christianity. I think, in Mormonism, there are three schools of thought on the primacy of scripture (defined for this purpose as canonized Mormon scripture):

Orthodox view: Scripture has primacy, and is not to be contradicted, but of essentially equal authority are church teachings, tradition, and practice, all of which are considered to be part of the same continuum of "continuing revelation". This view is reflected in mid-1830s to early 20th century thought, and is widespread in contemporary Mormon thought. It represents a blurring between scripture, church leadership, and church tradition.
Authoritarian view: The doctrinal teachings and directives of "living prophets" have preeminence over (dead) scripture, and may supersede it at any time for any reason. The role of the Mormon is to "follow the Prophet" who, unlike dead scripture, will never lead you astray. This view was promoted by Ezra Taft Benson, Boyd K. Packer, and a few other influential mid- to late-20th century conservatives, and still reflects the most conservative wing of Mormonism.
Neo-orthodox view: Only canonized scripture has binding doctrinal authority within the church. Everything else is speculative or idiosyncratic. Anything outside the canon is not Mormon doctrine. This view has been promoted by a few scholars beginning in the late 20th century (also, I think Hugh B. Brown and Harold B. Lee advocated this view), and is the rough Mormon analogue to sola scriptura. The view emphasizes a distinction between LDS doctrine and LDS practice. It might be seen as a throwback to the early 1830s, before Joseph Smith's teachings took preeminence over his written revelations.

COGDEN 19:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

These sound like rough Mormon analogues to the Sacred Tradition, Episcopacy, and Scripture, as mentioned at prima scriptura. ...comments? ~BF izz 19:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Without a reliable secondary source that asserts the existence of these three views and makes a comparison to Sacred Tradition, Episcopacy and Scripture, we are left with original research and synthesis. The problem, as has been noted elsewhere, it is not in the interest of either Mormons or mainstream Christians to see the similarities. Only an objective viewer would be motivated to make these connections. Does such an "objective viewer" exist among our reliable sources? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to put this kind of material in the article yet, until it's clear that it is verifiable, but I'm pretty sure we can find sources that at least verify each of the three views exist. As to sources that compare and contrast any two or three of them, I'm not sure yet whether they could be found. But I don't think that supporting each of the three positions with separate sources counts as synthesis, given that all we would be doing is showing that these views exist notably within Mormonism. COGDEN 02:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I assumed it would be fairly straightforward to find sources that support the existence of the three views within Mormonism. Where the risk of performing synthesis and original research lies is in the comparison of these three views to their analogues in mainstream Christianity. This is one of those cases where it's fairly obvious that there is a correspondence (and the existence of it is unsurprising since Mormonism sprang from Christianity or at least from a common origin i.e. early Christianity) but it's not really appropriate for us to assert the connection without a reliable source who makes the assertion. It's frustrating but that's the way Wikipedia works. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that "that's the way Wikipedia works" is not set in stone. Wikipedia policy is decided upon by the Wikipedia community at large. The community is able to change the way Wikipedia "works", though there is wisdom in the current design of WP:V that attempts to minimizes chaos and encourage quality content. I made the comparison to mainstream Christianity in passing; but when similarities seem apparent to me, I am led to believe that some reliable source somewhere has probably already described it. Of course, I will not insist on any particular content's inclusion in Wikipedia unless I can provide sources for it, and I'm sure that Richard, COgden, Foxe, and Storm (et al) would say the same. ...comments? ~BF izz 17:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't usually add material to articles unless I'm at least 80-90% sure there is a source directly on point to back me up, or unless I already have a citation in hand. Otherwise, I think it's useful to discuss these issues on the talk page so we can collaboratively find out what the consensus is, or if there is a consensus, and then figure out what sources might support it. In my discussion above about what I perceive as three contemporary Mormon views about the scriptural canon, I think the existence of these views can be documented, but I don't know whether any source has actually compared these perspectives with their analogues in traditional Christianity (and #2 doesn't even really have an analogue). If not, then the material probably belongs in the Mormonism and Mormon doctrine articles. Or, maybe the only real point of comparison we can make is the fact that all variations of Mormonism believe in an evolving scriptural canon, whereas in traditional Christianity the canon is no longer subject to revision. COGDEN 20:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Evangelicalism and Christianity

Why should the article care so much about the Evangelical viewpoint? It is a minority in Christianity and is certainly no orthodox vis-a-vis Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Shouldn't we focus on the majority position first and leave the fringe for...fringe conversation? It is strange treating this group as if it is the majority opinion when they have so many conflicts with true Orthodoxy. -^StormRider 07:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV demands that all viewpoints be presented. Besides, what is portrayed as the "evangelical perspective" is not necessarily restricted to the evangelicals. Do you believe that Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox Christianity have a different view? I presented the evangelical view first because that was the quote that I found first via Google Books. If you or any other editor have other viewpoints to present, please do so. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's true that evangelicalism is a minor view within Christianity. So when we compare Mormonism with traditional Christianity, any distinctive evangelical views should receive only minor prominence, if the differences are relevant at all. (I wouldn't say that evangelicalism is fringe within the context of Christianity.) But when the article discusses interactions between Mormons and traditional Christians, evangelicals play a prominent role, because they are the ones that care the most strongly about keeping Christianity ideologically "pure", and about "saving" Mormons and others they regard as "cultists". So we should definitely discuss evangelical views about Mormons, but this discussion should not be in the part that compares Mormonism with Christianity—rather, it should be in the part that discusses Mormon vs. evangelical discourse. COGDEN 09:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV demands that all major views be discussed; Evangelicals are hardly a major viewpoint within Christianity; it is a very small minority. I agree with COgden that any direct comparisons should be under a section that addresses just the interaction between the two specific groups and not Christianity as a whole.

It all depends on the Christian topic. Authority, Sacraments, Gifts of the Spirit, etc. will find that Mormons and Orthodox stand unified against the heresies found within Evangelicalism. We should not be writing the article on what source we find first; that is called quote mining and denotes that your position is agenda driven rather than a neutral, scholarly approach to the main topic of the aritcle. IMHO, that is exactly the kind of writing style that produces so many weak articles on controvercial topics. Don't write to meet your agenda; approach the topic from a neutral position and the result will be a well-written article. -^StormRider 13:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Spare me the lecture, StormRider. There are so many holes in this article; it doesn't matter which order they get filled in first. Are you arguing that, because Protestantism is a minority compared to Catholicism/Orthodox/Anglicanism combined that we cannot contrast Mormonism to it? Are we required to somehow distill only the common elements out of all branches of Christianity? How dare we do that? Doing so would be original research. I challenge you to provide a sourced list of such "common elements". There is no such animal as "mainstream Christianity" that can be defined. It's just a convenient locution to describe an amorphous beast. The only valid approach is to consider each branch in turn to the extent that we can find sourced comparisons. If such comparison comes from an evangelical source rather than a Catholic or Orthodox one, what does it matter as long as the points being made represent this thing that we are calling "mainstream Christianity"?

Besides, this objection to evangelicalism seems to be more on principle than actual substance. Is there anything that I've added to the article that you specifically object to as being non-representative of the relationship between Mormonism and this amorphous beast you wish to characterize as "mainstream Christianity"?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

While StormRider has a point (the Evangelical point of view should not be equated to "mainstream Christianity"), Richard also has a point (it doesn't matter what order the holes are filled in). Richard, your edits are a welcome improvement, imho. NPOV is an irritating policy to deal with when we are incrementally improving an article; it will inevitably be out of balance at some point on the journey to Good or Featured status. But I'm sure we can manage to slug through it. I ask you both to be patient and try to embrace the incremental improvement framework that is Wikipedia.

As a side note, Richard's elaboration on "no such animal as mainstream Christianity" suggests support for splitting this article into "Mormonism and Evangelicalism", "Mormonism and Christian Orthodoxy", or other such subarticles with clearer scope. If anyone finds enough content to create such a subarticle, then by all means do so, and then this article can include a section summarizing and linking to it. ...comments? ~BF izz 17:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Pseudo-Richard makes a good point with respect to Protestantism as a whole. Since Mormonism arose within the context of the American Protestantism of the Second Great Awakening, Protestant views from this era are disproportionately relevant to Mormonism. The views of this era are sometimes called "evangelical", but what we now know as modern Evangelicalism is of later origin. So I think a big part of this article is situating Mormonism in relation to the Protestant era from which it originated. I think it's also important to compare Mormonism with Catholicism, because the Book of Mormon was anti-Catholic on several levels. Yet later in his life, Joseph Smith developed a respect for Catholicism and was aware of some of the similarities with his own faith. Modern Mormons also have an affinity for Catholicism that they do not have with Protestantism. COGDEN 20:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen editors such as StormRider suggest similarities between Mormonism and Catholicism but it has always seemed like OR to me because I haven't seen this in the literature (of course I wouldn't claim that I'm that well acquainted with the literature). Can anyone provide a source to backup this assertion? It would be great to put it into the article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

a big part of this article is situating Mormonism in relation to the Protestant era from which it originated - this is a very good point. Not 100% of the article, and not necessarily "big" as in long, but a significant part. We should also make clear to the reader exactly what we are comparing Mormonism to each time a comparison is made (or a statement near the beginning of a paragraph/section to establish the context). I also agree with Richard; I'm sure we can at least find Mormon sources that support the assertion. It is of less interest to critics to draw similarities between Mormonism and Catholicism. ...comments? ~BF izz 18:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Foxe removed part of an edit I made comparing Mormonism to Arianism. I went looking for sources that compared the two, and found How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God, by LDS author Richard R Hopkins. I discovered Foxe was right; Hopkins illustrated many key differences I was unaware of (where Mormonism appeared more like orthodoxy than Arianism). This source may be useful for comparing Mormonism to otrhodoxy, Catholicism, and Evangelicalism. It's not as scholarly as would be ideal, but at least it's something. ...comments? ~BF izz 18:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not any more difficult to find a consensus concerning what historic Christianity is (especially as over against Mormonism), than it is to find a consensus concerning what Mormonism is. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)