Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 4

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Older discussions are archived here:

Talk:Christianity and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive1

Defining Christianity

(cont'd from Archive_2

Well, schisms or splits within religions are always serious, because religion is serious. Nobody wants to deny that. Mormons don't claim to be Baptists or Catholics, nor do they claim communion with other sects. There is nothing new or unusual about that. What is new and unusual is that many Christians are despising their partisan titles and styling themselves as simply "Christians". This could be seen as dishonest and arrogant. When you are really a Catholic, a Lutheran, or a Baptist, it is denial of reality to style yourself "just a generic, plain old black and white Christian". Your heritage is colored and your Chritianity is not generic. There are good facets to Ecumenism, but one of its dangers is that it leads those who pursue it to deny their differences and their coloring heritage. The Mormonism vs Evangelical Biblicism section below demonstrates this idea. Hawstom 20:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are stuck on "ecumenism" as a key to understanding this issue. It is not. The most vigorous opponents of Mormonism are traditionally anti-ecumenical, and are zealous for maintaining distinctions. However, in contrast to groups like the LDS, gnosticism, pantheism, etc., a concord of Christianity is recognized. The article also recognizes this, in putting into Smith's mouth an acknowledgment that there is a "Christian world" to which his doctrine is very much opposed. Mkmcconn 20:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. :-). Thanks for pointing it out (about ecumenism). LDS are indeed frank about the whole Christian world seeing things differently. From the beginning, the basic understanding of the meaning of this sentiment was that the Christian world does not believe in modern scripture, apostles, ministration of angels, and priesthood loss and restoration. I think schisms over who God is came later and are actually less of an issue since none of us really has a perfect model of who God is and we all agree on His most important aspects--perfect love, perfect knowledge and wisdom, and full power. Hawstom 22:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Since what it means to be "perfect" and "full" is very much in dispute, I cannot agree with you that we are in agreement about the character of God. The existence of everything else rests upon the God of the Bible, but not upon the God of Mormonism. For this reason, it amounts to something very different, that God loves, and has knowledge, wisdom and power. In the case of the Biblical God, God's love for his creatures is ultimately without provocation, and entirely from himself. In the Mormon case, God's love is (if I understand what seem to be very plain statements) simply the same as human love, only a perfected form of it. The Biblical God does not see as a man sees, does not change as a man changes - in short, is not a man at all. \

I'm not being disagreeable; I'm trying to understand, and from my side I'm trying to inform. Mkmcconn 16:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes. In Mormonism, one of the names of God the Father is Man of Holiness. This is not seen as belittling of God, but as ennobling of man. God's Love is not seen as like human love at all, rather it is the Love (Charity) humans are admonished to aspire to in the Bible. In Mormonism, "I Am A Child of God" is the universal earliest lullaby of the child, implying that a Holy and Eternal Being is my prototype. Again, this is not seen as belittling of God, but as ennobling of man. In Mormonism, God's love for his children is without provocation (the Bible demands this belief). So again, you are right that Mormonism has its own understandings, but you are wrong in some of the assumptions of their import. I have a hard time understanding why you would think that Mormonism would teach that God's love is human-like, or that God is not fully sovereign and perfect, not growing nor learning new truths. Hawstom 06:32, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am a Child of God, and He has sent me here.
Has given me an earthly home with parents kind and dear.
Lead me, guide me, walk beside me, help me find the way.
Teach me all that I must do to live with Him someday.

Mormonism vs Evangelical Biblicism

It should be noted somehow, somewhere, that the "average" opponents of Mormonism, represented by the "anti-cult" groups for example, do not necessarily or self-consciously make any reference to the historical creeds of Christendom. Instead, they are self-styled biblicists, contending that the question should be settled, and is settled, from the Bible alone: concluding that Mormonism is not a contribution to biblical Christianity but rather a departure from it. While they frequently cite Church Fathers and the councils and creeds, they do not intentionally found their conclusions on these sources. Instead, they cite these in support of their interpretation of the Bible, which they set apart from and above Tradition. Mkmcconn \

You may be driving at another possibility for a solution. This page could be called Mormonism vs. Trinitarian Christianity? Hawstom 20:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In light of that, the article's focus on "third century creeds" needs explanation, I think. If many of these groups do not, at least consciously, acknowledge any direct indebtedness to Tradition - and instead only see concord with it in their independent conclusion - then shouldn't the Biblical argument at least be alluded to, as a contrast to what Mormonism teaches? Mkmcconn 18:54, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"At least consciously". Therein lies the rub. The biblicists in so styling themselves deny or mask a key part of their religious heritage. Both these biblicists and Mormons love Jesus of Nazareth. Both love the Bible. But while Mormons openly cleave to other scripture and deny the creeds, the biblicists refuse to confess their reliance on the creeds and centuries of tradition since Calvary. The Mormons aren't bad guys for "trying to look like Christians". It's the "biblicists" who have painted themselves into a corner by denying that theirs is a particular brand of Christianity. (unsigned post).

Nope, because Christian denominations that would not consider themselves 'biblicists' (e.g. Catholic, Orthodox, most Anglicans etc) note that Mormonism departs not only from what is contained in the Bible but also from the considerable heritage that non-Mormon Christianity shares. DJ Clayworth 20:15, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My question, "shouldn't the Biblical argument at least be alluded to, as a contrast to what Mormonism teaches?" concerns the other half of the non-Mormon argument. The article already covers those whose allegation against Mormonism rests on tradition; but it doesn't do much in explaining the opposition by those who barely acknowledge any debt to tradition at all, and instead oppose Mormonism as being, merely, anti-Biblical. (is the first paragraph Hawstrom's, and the second DJ Clayworth's?) Mkmcconn 20:39, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(is the first paragraph Hawstrom's, and the second DJ Clayworth's?) Probably. Only the second part was mine anyway.

No problem with writing something on the Biblical argument. No time to do it myself, but it should definitely be there. However I think you'll find that pretty much all Christian denominations hold similar views of Mormonism, because Mormonism disagrees with prety much all Christian denominations in the same way. The only exception would be non-trinitarian denominations, who constitute a tiny minority. DJ Clayworth 20:54, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is right, that they are a "tiny" group. Just think of the inroads that unitarianism, and types of materialism, have made into the mainline denominations. Add to that the various sects and movements, the cocktail religions, whatever-you-want/no-name religions, new age "churches", and finally traditional rivals like Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, etc. In the end, that accounts for hundreds of millions of "adherents". Conventional, trinitarian models of unity need not apply, to make non-trinitarianism a very sizable minority indeed. Mkmcconn 21:45, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if that was true. Certainly the official position of all the major denominations is Trinitarian. Half the movements you just mentioned no more fall under the Christian umbrella than Mormonism. DJ Clayworth 22:08, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Or, rather, they _all_ fall under the Christian umbrella, just as Mormonism does. It's this equivocation in the use of the word "Christian" that needs to be unravelled. Mkmcconn 22:11, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, what do you think of adherents.com and religioustolerance.org? Or just a good Google search on World Religions? Hawstom 23:05, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Those two sites seem to rely on each religion's self identification; they don't make any sort of independent judgment one way or the other. So suggesting them as "authorities" seems to be no different than suggesting we just accept each religion's claim at face value. And I think that non-trinitarians probably number no more than in the tens of millions. For instance, the no-name startup "nondenominational" or "emerging" churches would probably include a number of trinitarians among them, as well as non-trinitarians. Wesley 16:56, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The issue, Hawstom, is that clearly there is a divide between Mormonism and the rest of Christianity that is much more profound than what exists between two kinds of Baptists, or two kinds of Protestants, or two kinds of Trinitarians, or two kinds of believers in the Bible. As a Presbyterian, I acknowledge an indebtedness to, and trace my identity through, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I quote their fathers as my fathers. I know the family resemblances and lineage of the Protestant movements that diverged from mine; and I know who is near to me and who is far removed. Mkmcconn \

But Mormonism is something very different. They have other scriptures, other history, other prophets, other fathers, other salvation, other universes, other creation, other gods; it's silly not to acknowledge that there is an obvious sense in which these are two different religions. And yet, in some contexts we all call them both "Christianity". The article attempts to explain both, why some call Mormonism "Christian", and why "Christian" and "Mormon" in some contexts describes two different things. adherents.com and religioustolerance.org do not provide help toward that aim. Mkmcconn 17:47, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Right (and my apologies for failing to sign some recent comments). Good summaries. The only use of adherents.com and religioustolerance.org is in classifying Mormonism. Yes, it is currently a branch of Christianity. And as you point out, yes, it has other scriptures, other prophets, other fathers. Of course it doesn't REALLY have other salvation, other universes, other creation, and other gods, but it's okay if you want to divvy things up that way. The reality is there is one salvation, one universe, one creation, and one God for us all. If Mormons conceptualize beyond that, and IF it helps fulfill God's purposes for them, that is hunky dory. I think this article is looking pretty good right now. Mormonism is its own branch of Christianity indeed--not Catholic, not Protestant, just Restorationist. "By this shall all men know ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." Now THERE is some religion! Much more interesting. Hawstom 07:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Utah Mormons

I understand the concept behind this term, however, within the LDS Church it has a completely different connotation. Only one historian (and those who reference him) used the term to distinguish between the Missouri Mormons (CoC, Strangite, Hedrickite, etc) and the Utah Mormons (LDS, FLDS, PLDS, etc). However, I think the term is very misleading, setting up theat Mormons in Utah have a different belief set than those who live in Florida and Arizona, etc. Let's remove the term with something more POV. Most people don't understand the context. Any objections? -Visorstuff 08:24, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I understand your objections; since the LDS writers don't seem to object, your recommendation makes sense to me. Mkmcconn 23:46, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Somebody needs to coin a word that means "follower of Brigham Young". COGDEN 03:06, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

meaning

Cogden seems concerned that it is not neutral (!) to say that the LDS means something different than traditional Christianity does, in their account of Jesus. I have tried to point out that the interpretation, the meaning, is very different. He has surprised me by saying that this is a peculiar POV; and has surprised me further by telling me that the word I'm groping for is "ontology".

I don't blame you for being frustrated over this. But I think COGDEN and others of us are sincerely having a hard time finding the core truth of statements like "different...in their account of Jesus". Would it help to say that all of Christianity agrees on the Bible as a standard, but the branches diverge in different directions from the base of what is in the Bible? Most of Christianity uses various creeds, early findings on heresy, and other Catholic history to discipline their interpretations and extrapolations from the Bible, including the idea of the Trinity. But LDS reject the creeds, are not averse to the heresies, and generally dismiss the whole of church history after Constantine as "The Apostasy". LDS claim that the creeds and the accusations of heresy arose from a corrupt Christianity and are thus non-binding, and even in themselves corrupting. LDS reject the sacraments of the whole of Christianity based on their understanding of apostasy and priesthood authority. Partly in reaction to this, and partly because of LDS divergence from the creeds and their dismissal of Christianity as a whole, other Christians generally also reject LDS sacraments and do not commune as church brothers with the LDS.

Indeed there is a difference in ontology. But this is only peripheral to the story. The meaning of Christ's birth, life, death and resurrection is different. If they did not mean something different, they could join our churches without being baptized into the Trinity, we would be in communion with one another, free to intermarry without consequence. Please help me to understand the hangup that Cogden seems to have with acknowledging that there is a difference in meaning, in practically everything that Mormons say, even where there is a superficial sameness of words: Jesus came from the Father, was born of a virgin in the likeness of sinful flesh, was crucified for the sake of sinners, and rose again to receive the glory which has been his from all eternity, at the right hand of God. Mormons can confess the same thing, but mean something very different by their words than would be traditionally meant. Mkmcconn 16:19, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure? This concerns me (Hawstom). You recently said:

"Beginning with a constructed cosmos rather than all things called forth from nothing, and ending with self-fulfillment as the ultimate goal rather than the all-embracing glory of the only God: from start to finish the meaning is consistently different.Mkmcconn

The above concerns me (Hawstom) too. These are suspicions you sincerely worry about, but they strike at places in the human heart that simply cannot be institutionalized. You are getting to the point of speculating on the desires of a Mormon's heart. I propose that we set forth some golden question such as, "Is a Mormon just as likely to become a Christian as a Catholic or a Baptist?" What is it to be a Christian? The Founder said, "If ye have love one to another." What do Christians teach? The Founder said, "In that day...will say, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these..., ye have done it unto me." So shouldn't we be asking, "Does Mormonism lead its adherents to heaven in the way of Christ? Do Mormons learn to deny self and love God and all men? Or do Mormons become sons of Hell, odious and spiteful, and anti-Christ?" Hawstom

Would such outcome based judgements make more sense, giving the nod to self-labelling? What harm could come of that? Hawstom 23:14, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My aim here is only to try to understand Mormonism, and its claims, in comparison to traditional Christianity. Over and over, this is frustrated in two directions. First, Mormonism claims to be something entirely new, compared to traditional Christianity; this is followed immediately by attempts to sound like practically the same thing, and I get complaints about being offensive if I draw out any implications that clarify these differences. Logic, history, doctrine, all go blurry in a very distinctive way that I have not experienced with any other correspondents. I am judging nothing. But I admit that I find this exceedingly frustrating. Mkmcconn 01:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

God the Father is not Jehovah?

Is it the case that according to the LDS, YHWH ("Jehovah") and "Jesus" are the same person? If that is so, is it the case that "God the Father" is not the God of the Old Testament, called Jehovah, according to the LDS? Mkmcconn 20:40, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes. That is the systematic understanding among LDS. The general understanding is that God the Father has dealt with men almost fully through the Son, revealing himself only rarely to bear witness of the Son as in the baptism of the Lord. Hawstom 22:30, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tradition says in the Apostles Creed, "I believe in God the Father, Almighty, maker of Heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only son, our Lord" Whoever confesses this in agreement with tradition means that, the one God, who revealed himself in covenant with the Jews, is the Father of Jesus Christ. Apparently, this cannot be what Mormons would mean, even if they used the words of the Apostles' Creed. Do the LDS editors agree? Mkmcconn 22:46, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, I think. Mormons would probably say that the Father revealed himself almost always through the Son, and that in any given case the Son has the authority to speak for and as the Father. So I think Mormons would be willing to agree with the meaning of everything you said. For example, when Moses spoke face to face with God, Mormons would see that as a literal theophany--a Christophany. They would see it as a revelation of the Father via the Son, who is in His express image. Of course other Christians might envision this speaking face to face as figurative. Hawstom 23:19, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Let me re-phrase, then. Is Jehovah the father of Jesus Christ? I ask because, traditional Christianity holds that YHWH is the maker of heaven and earth, the only God mentioned as Creator and Lord; and Jesus is His Christ: "YHWH says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." Do you see yet, what I mean by "different meaning"? It's quite evident to me that what you mean is different. What is making this hard for you to say? Mkmcconn 00:05, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mormons would not nowadays identify Jehovah as the father of Jesus Christ. They would identify Jehovah AS Jesus Christ, and Michael as Adam. I'm not sure where that convention came from. I think the Mormon editors are readily agreeing that Mormonism has a different tradition. And if you ask any Mormon point blank, "I think Jehovah is God the Father, what do you think?" you will probably get the straight response "I think Jehovah is the Son." You shouldn't have any trouble establishing that difference. Does that help? Hawstom 08:33, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you; yes it does help. But, I meant the same thing in both paragraphs - the one you agreed with, and the one you disagreed with. Perhaps this will help you to have insight into what I mean, when I say that there is a profound difference of meaning. Mkmcconn 15:47, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe 2 things are making this "hard for" us "to say". 1) We are keenly aware of differences of terminology. We aren't trying to leverage them, but to span them. 2) It is said that in the LDS Church of Christ there are no theologians (then is COGDEN really a Mormon?). I think this idea is promulgated by some wise prophets who understand the obscure but simple doctrine that Christianity and life is not about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, but about loving one holy, able, loving, knowing God and your unholy, unable, unloving and unknowing neighbor. Perhaps in the bottom analysis, Mormons are uncomfortable being drawn to split hairs in these matters, though I acknowledge the first offense came from our camp, at least in perception. When Joseph Smith declared God had told him creeds were an abomination in His sight, and their professors were corrupted, it sure sounded like a call to battle. But I think the real message from God was, "Spending lives on creeds is an abomination in my sight, and doing it corrupts all who are made thereto to profess." Whether the creeds are the Apostles, the Nicene, or the LDS, debating them and wasting lives on them is apparently an abomination in His sight. What did the Founder of Christianity tell us to do to gain eternal life?

If theology means so little to you, then why perpetuate the offense that keeps you divided from the Christian world, by speaking against it and claiming that you have the alternative truth? No; this does not wash. Mormonism is a contentious creed and a doctrine set over against all other churches. There is no way to escape the implications of this, by retreating to private experience or by pitting the obedience of faith against faith itself. Mkmcconn 17:31, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What should we say? You have been frustrated by guarded cautious statements. But you are also dissatisfied by my intimate, open, and frank statements. I don't know how I can communicate more honestly and helpfully. I am not at this point attempting to hide any warts of Mormonism, and I think I am not unaware of differences between it and traditional Christianity. In the larger sense, I am maintaining that Mormonism is a Christian religion, and that the name of this page is not optimal. But for now I am simply and purely trying to answer your questions.

Symbolically the same?

I do not know what COGDEN means by "symbolically ... largely the same". The phrase is meaningless to me. The only connections that I can derive from it render the statement false. I had to remove it; but please explain yourself and perhaps we can agree to add it back. Mkmcconn 15:47, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is there a difference of priorities/values that is causing the problem? Is the Mormon seeing theology as secondary, and failing thus to grasp fully the angst of the Trinitarian? Hawstom 16:02, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Exactly so (ignoring the word "angst"). Where you say "theology", I would say "faith" (but "theology" seems to draw out the right kind of recognition in you, of what I mean).

For example, think about what the Catholic Catechism means, when it says,

Our profession of faith begins with God, for God is the First and the Last, the beginning and the end of everything.

I've chosen the Catholic document, because it does not directly represent my own tradition; but I thoroughly agree with what it says, here. The Christian's explanation of himself, begins and ends with God. As opposed to beginning with his own existence, and ending with his own exaltation, the Christian's story begins with God - and the goal of the Christian is God.

I hesitate to venture a comparison to the Mormon scheme of things. I can only try to inform you that it comes across as extremely alien. Mkmcconn 17:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

First, I am not sure I agree that it is a problem for you to find that somebody else's religion comes across as alien. That may be a key to the discussion. The Mormon is always a little surprised that you are worried that he believes differently. Second, the Mormon who (like I) listens long and carefully for years to the likes of Hank Henegraff, R.C. Sproul, and C.S. Lewis and learns the language and intent of the traditional doctrine in a spirit of sincerity still has difficulty validating the level of alienness you fear. So keep asking us questions. I can tell these editors here are not hedging, and I'm sure not. Maybe we will yet come up with the most elegant article yet written. :-D (I think more and more it should be called "Mormonism and Traditional Christianity")

You have misunderstood me, Hawstom. I am not bothered by differences. I am bothered by people who say or seem to imply that their differences make no difference. Read back through all I've said here, and I think that this should come across very clearly. At any rate, my goal under this heading has been to find out what it could mean for Mormonism and Christianity to be for the most part "the same" "symbolically". Can you shed light on that or, do you agree with me that the paragraph states the case accurately, without that phrase? Mkmcconn 20:26, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh. Well, I think that we might do better to dispense with the vagaries and go straight to history and examples. Maybe the interpretations are what are getting us in trouble. I agree that the word symbolically is of little use in that paragraph. And I agree that there is no reason to minimize the differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. I think Mormons will respond splendidly to discussions of differences; they just don't like being called cultists and non-Christians. And I think that is perfeclty fair. I am going to go be bold and edit the article. Hawstom

I agree with Hawstom. But there is one lingering POV issue that still bothers me. I think there has to be an acknowledgement in the article (without POV minimization) concerning the things that are the same between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. Looking at it from a purely secular point of view, the difference is mainly the Mormon metaphysics of Jesus and the Godhead. But the history of Jesus (what he did) and the semiotics of Jesus (what he stands for) are largely the same. I thought that the language of secular philosophy was a neutral enough language to convey this idea, but apparently I was wrong. It appears that to explain the difference between the Mormon Jesus and the trinitarian Jesus without a POV, we have to use two different languages: (1) the evangelical language, and (2) the secular philosophic language. Under the evangelical language, we would say that the Mormon Jesus has a different meaning from the trinitarian Jesus, but there are superficial similarities. "Meaning", in the evangelical language, has to do with the place of Jesus in the Trinity and his transcendent qualities as described by the Nicene Creed. "Superficiality" in that language means the ancillary properties of Jesus that are not as important to his definition as the transcendent ones set forth in the Nicene Creed. That's one POV. In the secular philosophical language, we would say that the Mormon Jesus is metaphysically different (different as to who or what he is) from the trinitarian Jesus, but the history (what Mormons say he did) and the semiotics (what Mormons say he stands for) are largely the same. That's another POV. But apparently that statement isn't a neutral statement, because some trinitarians consider the words "metaphysics" and "ontology" to contain an implicit value-judgment about the importance of those differences, because they believe Jesus should not be within the reach of human philosophy. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) But honestly, I'm not sure if there is an elegant way to include both POVs, or if it's necessary or worth it. COGDEN 03:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I guess that my own peculiar concerns enter in here, COGDEN. The story of a controversy is not really accessible to those who are disengaged from it - and the language of disengagement does not shed light on why people struggle with one another. To really understand, we need to speak to one another in the authentic voice of the conflict - but with a different aim than simply to carry on that battle - to recollect, to recall. The product of this kind of speaking to one another is what makes our conflict suitable for the books (and encyclopedias): because this clash of visions does not take place somehow beyond us, outside of us; rather, it is present in us. To understand it, we need one another, in order to see ourselves. If this sounds too grandiose to you, and a poor fit for our little internet experiment here, then explaining myself opens me up to ridicule. But if you, like me, are disturbed to find that history bequeaths to you a heritage of a thousand fronts of warfare, then maybe you can understand why I am put off by the attempt to label all of this violence a matter of "metaphysics". Call it that, and you will have learned nothing. Mkmcconn 03:44, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but it seems like you are saying that when describing a conflict, there is no good point of view other than that of those entrenched in the conflict. Maybe I'm reading what you are saying wrong, but I think that telling a story from the point of view of the foot-soldiers is important, you also need somebody to stand back and tell the story from a neutral vantage point, as well. There is a dramatic theory that says that no story is complete unless it contains narrative from an distant perspective, in addition to the immediate perspective of the main characters. It's like the general's perspective as opposed to that of an infantryman. There's a lot to be learned from stepping outside the conflict. That's why I thought it would be helpful to add a secular philosophy POV, which looks at the conflict much differently than either you or I. COGDEN 22:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is hard to believe that you really want to exclude interviews of both the "footsoldiers" and the "generals", or even the in country press, and go ask the pointy-headed pacifist pundits in San Francisco, to see what they think. Are you a "secular philosopher", COGDEN? Do you really believe that the irreligious mind is neutral about religion? And anyway, asking the combatants to take a step back, and to reflect on their passions with the benefit of hearing the other side, is what I'm talking about. That is the only kind of neutrality that amounts to anything real. What you are talking about is the farthest thing from what matters to me, in wanting to understand this or any other issue. In short, your insistence that that perspective is best which cares about the issues least, does not have my trust. Mkmcconn 01:31, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are the histories really the same? Would Mormons agree with traditional Christians that Jesus existed in the very beginning of all things, that all things were made through Him and that without Jesus nothing was ever made? If they agree, is it because they think nothing was ever created because matter itself is eternal?? Conversely, Mormons think that Jesus visited North America not long after His resurrection, and that He visited Joseph Smith in the 1800s and imparted some new revelations. Traditional Christians don't believe in this rather tangible bit of the history of Jesus' comings, goings and doings. Here are two vast differences between traditional Christians and Mormons in the actual, "tangible" history of what Jesus did. Incidentally, the Christian view of Jesus' involvement in Creation is eloquently expressed in an icon that shows a traditional robed Jesus standing on nothing in "outer space" with an outstretched hand, creating the stars. Wesley 05:15, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was waiting for things to loosen up a bit, before trying to tuck in that bit, Wesley. Do you see where it belongs? Mkmcconn 05:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

(responding to Wesley): Actually, Mormons would agree with the statement that "Jesus existed in the very beginning of all things, that all things were made through him, etc." The main difference you are referring to has to do with what "all things" are, and what it means to "create"--ontological questions where Mormons and others differ. I'm not saying that there are no historical or semiotic differences. It's true that the part about Jesus visiting the Americas and visiting Joseph Smith is unique; but that's additional history that most Christians don't know about or don't care about, except for the context of asking whether that history is reality or fiction (an ontological question). AS far as what Jesus said and did in the Americas, he didn't do much that he didn't also do in the Old World. The point is that regarding the traditional history of Jesus in the Old World, there isn't much disagreement. And the part about Jesus visiting Smith isn't really the history of Jesus, its the history of Joseph Smith. I don't think you would disagree that visiting people is something Jesus does (or at least did), as he did with Paul and half the pentecostals I know. COGDEN 22:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am developing quite a lot of respect for Mkmcconn, and I am touched by his (your) phlosophy of conflict. I have detected sensitive sincerity in his comments, and I find it a delight to explore these issues with him. I think you two are expressing a lingering hesitation in the back of my mind, too. Of course Mormons tell or believe a lot of history that traditional Christians don't believe. That is what the new scripture implies. That is what the new priesthood dispensation implies. We all believe in the Bible, but it is only a jumping off point. Some deny that fact, but Mormons are quite explicit and frank about that fact. Maybe that is why there is promise in backing off the vagaries and just stating the obvious differences, sans the Christian/non-Christian/cult debate.Hawstom 06:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mkmconn said: "The Christian's explanation of himself, begins and ends with God. As opposed to beginning with his own existence, and ending with his own exaltation, the Christian's story begins with God - and the goal of the Christian is God." This idea keeps cropping up. It concerns me, but I keep forgetting to ask about it. OK. Given: The Mormons have well-known scripture that says "For behold, this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the eternal life of man." So maybe that is tripping you up. But all of good religion is about the Believer's goal being God. I don't even begin to understand where a sentiment that Mormons aren't squarely founded on that fundament of religion could originate. It almost sounds like you are really doubting that Mormons are believers. This is dangerous territory to tread in. If a man says he is a believer, it is not wise of me to plumb the depths of his heart to make sure. That is between him and God. Again we are getting way too esoteric. Some of these things you simply cannot know for sure about me. You have three options: 1) you can suspect the worst, 2) you can assume the best, or 3) you can leave it in the hands of God. Hawstom 06:46, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't doubt your faith or sincerity, Hawstom. What you believe is different, and the difference it makes matters. In our view, the eternality of matter militates against the whole spirit of creation. Creation ex nihilo teaches the absolute soverignty of God, and man's absolute dependence; and this is so much so, that I think I can say that if so much as a particle were not created out of nothing, there is no God as we conceive of him. Every creature has its being from God, and God alone has being from himself without beginning or end, absolutely unique. Mkmcconn

In our understanding, God is our absolute origin, and our end is God just as absolutely. Our belief is that salvation brings us as near to God as we are to our own self: just as we received our self immediately from him, by the breath of his mouth. Mkmcconn

You deny these building blocks, which are basic to our worldview. In their place (no doubt I'll get something wrong, but here it is ... ) you have a corporeal deity who began (as you have begun); but is without beginning (just as you are). A masterful architect and builder, a genius beyond all reckoning (who is your tutor) and a Father of incalculable experience and immeasurable compassion (whose example inspires you to become like him). I do not doubt that you believe that God is the beginning and the end, relatively speaking. But surely you see that no matter what, what you believe in is infinitely different. Mkmcconn 17:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I understand that these things are make-or-break according to your worldview. It's just that your worldview is a POV, and there are lots of others within and without Christianity. The farther you go outside of Christianity, into the realm of Hinduism, Buddhism, Ancient Egyptian religion, and atheism, the smaller these differences appear, until from some perspectives it looks like we're splitting hairs. I still think that among those distant perspectives, secular philosophy is the most neutral perspective, because any religion can, and usually does, adopt philosophic ideas such as Being, Substance, Origins, and Physical. COGDEN 22:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing neutral about secular philosophy applied to issues of religion. The use of philosophy in the Christian religion has always been an extremely hazardous enterprise, which in most cases has produced results which are the cause of profound and enduring misunderstandings. When you add to this the qualifier of "secular", you really are off the page. Mkmcconn 22:59, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, the point here is not that these things are "make-or-break", but simply that they are of the fabric of biblical Christian belief as it is traditionally understood. Mormonism replaces this element of what is believed; so that, by "creation", "creator", "origin", "beginning", and "end", etc. something very radically different is meant. What I'm driving at for the article, is some kind of summation of these differences in context, in which the story of Christ is understood. To say that the story of Christ is the same, in tradition and in Mormonism, is to read their stories out of context; because in fact, they mean something very different. I am trying to pursue this without getting side-tracked into any discussion of which faith and salvation is right. On the other hand, it does seem to me that the discussion is unavoidable, of which version is more traditional; and likewise (but much more problematic), of which is more dependent upon the Bible. The aim of this discussion would be, to put in context the refusal of major communions of the Christian churches to recognize Mormonism as Christianity, as represented in statements and actions (although all recognize that Mormonism, sociologically, is a phenomenon of Christian religion); as well as, to put in context the recognition of Mormonism as Christian, by some pluralistic ecumenical bodies. Mkmcconn 22:16, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It sure is hard to find and read all your edits. I have to use page history to find them. I wish Watchlist did a better job of catch all instead of just the latest edits. I totally agree with all you said above. This is going to be good eventually. And we know one reason that the Churches might not commune is that Mormonism won't commune with a single one of them.

Mkmcconn, you said. "In our view, the eternality of matter militates against the whole spirit of creation." I share COGDEN's reaction. Namely, that is fine, but what if in the Mormon view the eternality of matter doesn't militate thus? You see, religion isn't just some game where we argue about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Nor is it some twisted puzzle that we have to get just right or it all falls apart. Religion is about finding and pleasing God and fulfilling the measure of our creation. It is about denying self and loving God and neighbor. Our (your and my) doctrines of God and creation aren't strict reality; they can't possibly be. So why get tripped up on the fact that your neighbor's model doesn't match yours? Sure, there are dangers. Doctrine does matter. Getting some things wrong will hobble our growth and eternal happiness. But what if the Mormon view of the eternality of matter doesn't hobble our glorifying God? Would you then argue against it? And would you be so bold as to meanwhile presume to know for certain whether or not it does? I will grant there are dangerous heresies, and I will grant that some Mormons have believed some of them. For example, the Mormon apostle Bruce R. McConkie preached a sermon on 7 deadly heresies (apparently existent among the Saints) in which he explained the danger of believing that God is progressing in knowledge and perfection. "How could one have perfect faith in a being who is still a work in progress?" said he. Yes, Mormonism is different, and we should say so. Yes we do have different ways of thinking about God and eternity, and the article can say so. Hawstom

Perhaps we are arriving at an understanding of a key difference. To you, believing correct theology is all important. To a Mormon, faith, hope and charity are all important. To you, a Mormon is hopelessly lost unless you can get him to see the error of his theology and become "a Christian". To a Mormon, nobody is hopelessly lost unless he fights against God. To you, God sees fit according to his purposes to save only some. To a Mormon, all men will be judged according to their thoughts, words, deeds, and the intents of their hearts. The differences are fundamental and deep and real, but to Mormons they don't matter as much because Mormons have a most liberal view of salvation. Perhaps we could explore that in the article. It is a sorely misunderstood point. You see, Mormonism (see D&C 76) teaches that nearly all the children of God will inherit Heaven. Only those who rebel in the face of the glory of God will fail to be redeemed. All others will either be received immediately into paradise to await a most glorious resurrection (these are they who obtained a forgiveness by faith in this life), or will be cast into the darkest abyss of hell to suffer until their redemption and resurrection. So to a Mormon, you are not a hopeless hellbound heathen, though I fear that is what a Mormon is to you. And that is perhaps why we tend to see differences as less important than you do. Whew! How's that? Hawstom 10:03, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Again, the answer is, if doctrine is so unimportant then, why adhere to a contentious doctrine? Remove the offense, and do not pit the obedience of faith against faith itself. What is being said here belongs somewhere in the article. It really is the crux of the matter. Mkmcconn 15:47, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with two sentiments. Why adhere to a contention? And this is the crux of the matter. On the first, I think Mormons would rather not contend, though we can't avoid the reality that we sent the first volley as I recently portrayed in the article's opening. On the second, we think we have very good standing with the Bible on our understanding of salvation. If you were to ask the Founder (I never heard nor used that name for our Lord before, but it suits this article well) what you need to do to gain eternal life, He would say, "Well, you know the commandments. Keep them." And if you pressed Him further, He would challenge you to sacrifice a part of you you never thought you would have to lay on the altar. That is the admonition of our Founder concerning salvation. The whole body of his Mortal teachings and life testified that the duty of man is to sacrifice all to sit one day at His right hand. The Sheep and the Goats, the Ten Virgins, The Sermon on the Mount, and on and on. His consistent and unifying message was "Follow Me". So what would we expect of a person who believes Christ and esteems Him as the Son of God? Fruits. Hawstom

So here is difference for you: Mormonism follows more closely the teachings of Christ, Peter, and James on salvation, while traditional Christianity follows more closely the teachings of Paul. Mormonism teaches that God is extremely liberal in His views and boundless in his mercies, will offer every possible chance to every soul to have eternal joy (without diminishing the reality that this life is the time for men to peroform their labors), and has placed the eternal souls of men in this Schoolhouse/Time/Space/Universe simulator for their eternal betterment, while traditional Christianity teaches that God at his sole discretion has created ex nihilo billions of souls, to destroy some and bring only some to eternal joy for His glorious purposes. It is not honest or generous to deny that there is a very solid biblical foundation for certain key differences between Mormonism and those who accuse it.

The religion of James, Christ, Paul and Peter are all the same from where I stand. "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." (James 4:17) "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matt 19:26) "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– " (Ephesians 2:8) "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade--kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time." (1 Peter 1:3) Salvation is God's doing, and not at all deserved. Call that illiberal if you wish, but I'm not to be blamed if I do not understand you. Would you say that it is Calvinism especially, to which Mormonism sees itself a contrast? Mkmcconn 03:19, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind reply. I really am agreeing with a lot you are saying lately. I unfortunately will have to research Calvinism if you would like, but I think I agree with what you are saying. I hope you understood I was just saying that it appears that the teachings are divided, and that the different camps follow different individuals. But of course Peter and Paul would never have disagreed publically, as hinted in 2 Peter where Peter says Paul was hard to understand and some people twisted his teachings in the wrong direction. On Calvinism, again I am drawing a blank, but maybe we should bring up that Mormons make a special distinction between predestination and foreordination that, in LDS-speak, affirms the agency of the human soul. That is a huge part of Mormonism that probably has trouble with Calvinism.

It sounds as though opposition to Calvinism is not self-conscious, at least for you. So, that does not appear to be a productive direction to go. Mkmcconn 15:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

New intro

Well, I was bold and edited. Personally, I think it is only a start. The direct and expositional approach could be caried right down instead of getting eventually lost in vagaries. We can proceed right through the later developments in Mormonism that raised even more eyebrows (though not more intensely). Or maybe sticking with the early earthquake I presented is the right thing. In the future, I will try to be more bold and less of a talker. Hawstom 21:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think that the introductory paragraphs are improved, more engaging, more informative. They are somewhat redundant at points. Perhaps you can fix that? Mkmcconn 23:35, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I also like the edits, and hope Hawstom will continue. COGDEN 03:10, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

oneness verse

This reference seemed to fit awkwardly in the context; so, I've removed it until a more appropriate way of fitting it in can be found (if needed). Mkmcconn 22:50, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This unity is thought to be reflected in Jesus' prayer for his disciples in John 17, that they would be "one," even as he and his Father were one.

early mormon trinitarians?

The article contends:

When the Latter Day Saint movement was founded in the early 19th Century, most early Latter Day Saints came from a Protestant background, believing in the Jesus of the Trinity.

I suggest that this is not easily supportable. While certainly most of the early LDS were Protestant, it does not follow necessarily that they were Trinitarians. Socinianism and other types of Unitarianism were extremely prevalent, especially in the birthplace of Mormonism. Trinitarianism was very much on the decline in many of the churches, hand-in-hand with the prevailing currents of the time, to reject the existing forms of Christianity. Mkmcconn 22:58, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

I agree with your comments Mkmcconn - until the around 1832, most were not necissarily trinitarian in 1832 there was a large influx of conversions of reformed baptist who definitely were trinitarian. However, prior to 1832 - the vast majority of converts came from New England which was deeply divided on the subject - centuries-long debates within both the puritans and pilgrims about the 'oneness' of God led many, even in the New York and Pennsylvania areas to be deeply divided. However, most of the bulk of pre-exodus (1846) Mormons came from England, Wales, etc. and had a trinitarian background. Those from the states, except the reformed baptist converstions, were most likely not completely trinitarian, although the churches' official doctrines taught it. Your statement that Trinitarianism was likely not the predominant view "especially in the birthplace of Mormonism" is correct. However, most of Mormonism converts did not come from that area. Outcome of your point is the same, just different way of getting there. -Visorstuff 22:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

earliest offense

Wasn't polygyny, not the fact that "Mormonism rejected the creeds and sacraments of all other branches of Christianity", the earliest cause of offense? That, and the Nauvoo state seem to figure pretty highly as the chief cause of fear and eventually violence. Otherwise, can you find proof that theological conflict was any stronger against them than against many other anti-traditional and utopian sects that were springing up all over at the time (perhaps none with the success parallel to the LDS - if that can account for special opposition)? Mkmcconn 23:46, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not really. Polygyny didn't start until the 1840s, by which time there had already been bloodshed and an extermination order expelling them from Missouri. Probably the first serious cause of offense was Mormon theocratic aspirations, which disturbed the people of Missouri immensely, because of their growing political power. There were some problems before that, however, possibly on the level of that experienced by other anti-traditional or utopian sects, but who knows: according to Smith's history there was quite a lot of serious early conflict, though it's hard to verify it historically. COGDEN 03:16, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifying Mkmcconn 03:23, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think all we have to go on for the 1820's, during much of which Joseph Smith lived with parents in Palmyra, are 1) the accounts of Joseph Smith, his mother, his brothers and sisters, Martin Harris, the Whitmer Family, and Oliver Cowdery and 2) the earliest recollections of detractors of Smith. With all that, the record isn't really all that sketchy, though it is hard to verify history. I think is quite safe to say the current first paragraph is an accurate narrative. I tried to play it safe. For example, I placed the First Vision "circa" 1820. Hawstom 05:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)