Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity: Difference between revisions

Older discussions are archived here:

• Archive 0, Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13

---

"Parameters of comparison"

I added a lot of text under this top sub-head. Although I think that it's important to describe these parameters, this text sort of wrecks the flow of the article. Flow is not something that the bottom half of the article pays any attention to - but this appears near the beginning.

What would you think of making this a footnote, instead? Would people read it? If they don't read it, will they misunderstand the article without it? Should this section appear above "general overview" (I don't like that idea). Are there other ways to work it in that you can think of, that make more sense according to the plan of the article's goal? What's your opinion? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to a footnote. Tell me if you think that's a bad idea. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is too much to be where it was, but I also think that as a footnote it is too long. I agree that the concept of the Trinity as first stated at the council of Nicea is the key unifying doctrine of 'mainstream' Christianity in the context of a comparison to LDS. I agree this needs to be explained, don't slap me, but I think what you are looking for is a definition of this 'mainstream Christianity' that we keep refering to in the article. <gd&r> 74s181 13:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I think that the careful insertion of the word 'Trinitarian' or 'Trinitarianism' at the right place in the overview comparison would accomplish this. 74s181 13:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I noticed that Trinitarianism redirects to Trinity, which self references via Trinitarianism. 74s181 13:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Kind of silly to make Trinitarianism the final target. It should be Trinity.

Have I ever resisted defining "mainstream Christianity"? I've resisted your efforts to define "Christianity"?

I know that the footnote is long. But you've got to admit, it's pretty helpful; eh? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How about modifying the second paragraph of the Overview Comparison from:

This contrasts with mainstream Christians who believe...

to:

This contrasts with mainstream (or Trinitarian) Christians who believe... 74s181 02:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You can do that if you want, but does this really add anything besides another word? Footnote #1 already defines "Mainstream Christianity" for the purposes of this comparison. Or, do you mean that you think this one word can replace what's said in footnote #9? Footnote #9 points out that this is an asymmetrical comparison. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to be helpful. It seems obvious that the definition of 'mainstream' is "Christian churches who teach the Nicean Trinity", but in both cases the definition is hidden in the footnotes, never clearly stated. What's wrong with stating it? 74s181 11:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I started writing a long winded response, but realized it was a waste of time. So I deleted it. Hand me a shovel, I'll go back to digging now. 74s181 11:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the link in that paragraph, from mainstream Christianity to trinitarian Christianity. I think that fits the spirit of what you were trying to do. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I just realized what you meant by 'asymmetrical comparison'. I suspect you've been trying to tell me this for some time, and I just didn't get it, I almost didn't get it this time because I was hung up on the phrase "...fullness of Mormonism..." which is a bit irritating. Anyway, I think you've been trying to say that there is no official "Church of Mainstream Christianity" to compare to TCoJCoLdS or even the LDS movement in general, so comparing a long list of doctrines is fairly meaningless. You once said that at some point I would feel pretty silly as I reviewed the discussion, I think that time has come. Anyway, I appreciate your gesture in using the word 'trinitarian' in the overview comparison. 74s181 14:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, almost. There is an "official church of Mainstream Christianity" - but that's not what's being compared; because in this context, it would be regarded as POV. We are not comparing an institution with an institution; but an institution with a general doctrinal consensus. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, what is the "official church of Mainstream Christianity"? 74s181 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

First a proverb: That in which the truth resides, is the angel of Christ's presence.

One of my favorite Eastern Orthodox aphorisms goes something like this: "Where the truth is not, I know not; but where there is truth, I know". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you are indirectly saying the church to which you belong is the official true church. But I don't think that is what you meant. 74s181 11:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is and it isn't what I'm saying, when I say that we can know where the truth is, but we don't really know where it isn't. So, we have many differences from the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the Lutherans, the Methodists, or whatever. But it is not doctrine, to say that they are not the true church in the same sense that it is doctrine to say that we are. They have the scriptures, they have the sacraments, they profess the mystery that God is one, and in those "things" they have all that is necessary to the discipline of faith. Whether they know or believe this or not is not for me to say. But, when we perceive them to be openly denying these "things", we keep separate from them; and, when they openly and understandably profess them, we are encouraged. I hear encouragement from many places, not just from my own church. After all, not everything that I might say is edifying, either; but when we speak the truth distinctly, it draws the sheep toward the same Shepherd. For whoever is in Him, He is our unity, our wholeness and our peace, even if we are in distress, broken, and confused. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

New 'spinout' article - Revelation (Latter Day Saints)

I've added another new article titled "Revelation (Latter Day Saints). It is structured similarly to the "Perfection (Latter Day Saints)" article I added last week, but from the beginning I've attempted to avoid confrontational statements and tone. My last attempt drew negative attention eight minutes after posting but Mark's suggestions saved the day. I've tried to incorporate the lessons learned (except for length, sorry!), and so far no problems with this one. 74s181 20:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If it survives, after a few days I will begin moving material there from this article. 74s181 20:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved some stuff from the Personal revelation section to the new article. Also removed some redundancy from the remaining commentary. 74s181 00:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Personage of Spirit

Main page: Talk:Mormonism_and_Christianity/Archive_12 § Indwelling.2C_Infilling.2C_and_the_Gift_of_the_Holy_Ghost

An issue was brought up on the Christianity board relating to the nature of God, and what is "a spirit". Can you be a spirit and have a body? What is the LDS view of spirit matter? Is spirit matter omnipresent? How are spirits created (organized)? Let's get some good references. Bytebear 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Bytebear. Also see the archived talk, to see the ground we've covered so far. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In the LDS view of things, the soul is the combination of spirit and body. At death, the spirit separates from the body and contains all the knowledge, etc. of the person before their death. At resurrection, a body made of purified matter will be reunited with the spirit such that not a hair will be lost.

I should also add that there is a scripture that talks about spirit being a refined form of matter, purified in a way that can't be seen. There is another scripture that states that to God all things are spiritual, and that all commandments are spiritual, even though we may perceive them as material (e.g., Word of Wisdom). wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Continued from /Archive_12

... One of the things that we have trouble with, is your materialistic view of things. It's as though you're saying our God is impossible (a trinity in one spirit, simple yet infinite, eternally unchangeable in being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, truth), but nothing is impossible for man. To our minds, the "what" of God is entirely erased by this, and the "who" of God is ascribed to an imaginary creature.

In many ways we admire the "who" that you speak of; because we recognize in whose image he is imagined to be. But it is not He. It is only made to look like Him, because it is made in the likeness of a mortal man. That's the way that it comes across to us, anyway. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, (side note) I'm really beginning to appreciate our exchanges on our topic because you're really pushing me to think about these things in ways that I normally dont and asking the deeper and more difficult questions, and that in turn is producing more fruit in understanding as I ponder and search these things through. So I thank you for that...

I think I understand what your saying in that last posting, but let me make certain. You're saying the LDS perspective is difficult because in the MC view, God transcends all kinds of natural laws (time, space, physics, etc), but it seems to you that we tend to be very naturalistic in how we view God and his sovereignty. In a sense, this is a valid criticism because we believe that God upholds and obeys and utilizes the Laws of the Universe in what he does for mankind. It is not in violation of physical laws, but in a higher manifestation of them (because he understands them perfectly). Hence the creation of the Earth and our solar system is often referred to as an organization rather than a creation ex nihilo (even as the Hebrew (Genesis 1:1) word translated as "created" in the old testament indicates a "fashioning" as a carpenter would fashion something out of wood). God did not violate natural law in this creation, but manifested his Mastery of all natural law in a way that only God can. Speaking about the influence of the Holy Ghost and comparing it to electricity, Talmage wrote:

There are powers and forces at the command of God, compared with which electricity is as the pack-horse to the locomotive, the foot messenger to the telegraph, the raft of logs to the ocean steamer (He's writing in 1920s mind you, so his examples are a little out of date). With all his scientific knowledge man knows but little respecting the enginery of creation; and yet the few forces known to him have brought about miracles and wonders, which but for their actual realization would be beyond belief. These mighty agencies, and the mightier ones still to man unknown, and many , perhaps, to the present condition of the human mind unknowable, do not constitute the Holy Ghost, but are the agencies ordained to serve His purposes.(The Articles of Faith, page 146)

. Therefore the fact that we believe that God operates by natural laws should not be construed as a diminishing of his sovereignty, but rather an affirmation that He is sovereign over all things, including the Laws and forces that exist in the Universe and that he utilizes and manipulates these laws in his dealings with mankind. Could he break them if he wanted? Yes. He is God. But where there is no need to break them and where such forces could actually be used to support his purposes, what wrong is there in His doing so? He is Lord over all things and has dominion over all things. I found this other quote (also from Talmage's "The Articles of Faith", which by the way I highly recommend along with his "Jesus the Christ" as a way to find answers to the deeper questions you seem interested in regarding the LDS Faith) which I think says what I was trying to say earlier in a much better way:(pay particular attention to the way he explains how the Holy Ghost influences God's creation while existing in time and space, and how the Father and the Son operate through him in their dealings with mankind):

The Holy Ghost undoubtedly posseses personal powers and affections; these attributes exist in Him in perfection. Thus, He teaches and guides, testifies of the Father and the Son, reproves for sin, speaks, commands, and commissions, makes intercession for sinners, is grieved, searches and investigates, entices, and knows all things. These are not figurative expressions, but plain statements of the attributes and characteristics of the Holy Ghost. That the Spirit of the Lord is capable of manifesting Himself in the form and figure of a man, is indicated by the wonderful interview between the Spirit and Nephi (see 1 Nephi 11)...However the Holy Ghost does not posess a body of flesh and bones, as do both the Father and the Son, but is a personage of spirit. Much of the confusion existing in human conceptions concerning the nature of the Holy Ghost arises from the common failure to segregate His person and powers. Plainly, such expressions as being filled with the Holy Ghost, and His falling upon persons, having reference to the powers and influences that emanate from God, and which are characteristic of Him; for the Holy Ghost may in this way operate simultaneously upon many persons even though they be widely separated, whereas the actual person of the Holy Ghost cannot be in more that one place at a time. Yet we read that through the power of the Spirit, the Father and the Son operate in their creative acts and in their general dealings with the human family. The Holy Ghost may be regarded as the minister of the Godhead, carrying into effect the decisions of the Supreme Council (i.e. Father, Son and Holy Ghost).(p. 144-145)

So I don't think we mean exactly the same thing when we say the Spirit dwells in us. We mean that his influence becomes a constant companion and compass for our lives. Abiding with us as long as we do not drive Him away by our disobedience and sin, for he is used to keeping good company and sin diminishes the persons ability to "tune in" their spiritual radios as it were. But sin we will, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and when we do, the spirit withdraws which becomes for us an indicator that repentance is forthcoming. When we repent in sincerity, this constant companionship returns and we continue, having recieved correction and instruction from God the Father and God the Son, through the instrumentality of God the Holy Spirit. On the other point, it is not that we are saying that mainstream Christianity's view that God is a Trinity is impossible, it is that we say that that is not who God has revealed himself to be through his prophets. Yet there is an important commonality in the two views that need to be recognized. All of the wonderful personal attributes associated with God (his love, omnipotence, mercy, kindness, generosity, paternal care and concern, , holiness, justice, truth, eternal nature, wisdom, goodness, etc) are exactly the same in both theologies. The distinction is what form this Being we call God takes. For the MC, it is One God manifest in three persons who are eternally distinct, yet are one Being in Trinity, and for the LDS it is One God manifest in three persons who are eternally distinct, and exist as three separate Beings that are completely united in all other Godly attributes (their personal and physical identities excepted). Mpschmitt1 11:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I very greatly appreciate these exchanges as well, and they confirm my usual experience that Mormonism has not taught you to be easily offended, or to hate even those who strongly condemn your teachings. For this reason I hope that everything I say only establishes you in these godly characteristics, and does not destroy whatever faith in the truth you have, but only strengthens it - even as I hope that you will find even purer light, and agreement with the whole Church in the truth that more fully accords with that which is brilliantly reflected in your Christ-honoring behavior.

You've written a lot here, that will take me some time to digest. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Mpschmitt1, as I think this through, I don't know where I can go from here if I continue along this vein - I'm trying to think of how we can keep the task of writing this article foremost, and I'm not sure that what I'll say can help that.

we believe that God upholds ... and utilizes the Laws of the Universe in what he does for mankind.

This would be an unremarkable statement, by itself. We would say that God is self-consistent. Whatever exists originates with him, and is appointed by him for his own purposes. It would be strange, and indeed no God at all, if "God" did not uphold and utilize what he himself ordained for his own purposes but only acted in contradiction to what he has ordained.

However, you add "and [God] obeys" these laws of the universe. Even this would raise no objection, if "to obey" simply meant, God is righteous - that is, he is consistent with his own being and character that imprint whatever he has made, including the "Laws of the Universe", which are a portrait of the power, rectitude and reason of his very self. Our objection arises from the strong impression that you think God himself is the product of these "Laws of the Universe" - as though he were the eventual, and highest realization of the potential within the once unformed cosmos: which you quickly deny, by saying "Could he break them if he wanted? Yes. He is God." It is not at all clear how he can contradict, in a fundamental way, that which constrains his very being.

And it's this inconsistency that gives us reason to hope that you don't actually in your heart of hearts believe what we point out as the epitome of unbelief. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This of course raises the question, "where did God come from?" To us, this is an irrational question - because it ignores God by definition. We answer it, "God comes unchangeably from God". We answer with a tautology, a disclosure of our basic transcendental precomitment: God is self-existent, and is what he is.

But to you, how can "Where does God come from?" be anything but a very real question, even if it is a "mystery" or "unanswerable". I do not see how you can say anything other than that God as he is, is "fashioned" 'as a carpenter would fashion something out of wood' - whether he is self-fashioned, or made by another hand, you cannot say.

What I'm saying is that, from our perspective, your conception of what God is, is atheistic. There are only beings that come into being, like the Father, or like you, because the Father was once as you are and has become what you may be. What sets him apart is the same principle that sets men apart, in an atheistic conception of what matters - he turned out to be a whole lot smarter, virtuous and more capable than anyone else - he just turned out that way - and maximized this potential until he gained an incomparably greater mastery over things than any of his peers (we'll assume he had peers), and therefore earned whatever he has.

And yet, as starkly pagan and atheistic this conception of God seems to be to us, we (or I anyway), cannot deny that it is an enlightened atheism. Regardless of how totally it ignores "what" God is, it cares very much about "who" God is and what he has done - and this makes a very great difference. Although you cannot explain how God became holy, we recognize what you mean when you confess that he is holy. Although you do not know from whence he learned love, you confess that he is love in a way that we can understand. Although you do not know that he is the source from himself of all that Christians call virtue, you nevertheless confess that he is overflowing with virtue - and accordingly, you want to be like him not just in power, but in humility, not just in greatness but in lowliness. You cannot have these things in you, without the wide-working grace of the true God, who is the light of all men.

And this is what we continually run up against, isn't it, in the conflict of "Mormonism and Christianity"? For our part, we believe that all light comes from "what" God is: because this is all of one piece with "who" he is and what he has done. But this does not appear to matter to you, and so your explanations of "what" are all a blur, frankly full of contradictions and idolatry: and thus arise the shrill condemnations from anti-Mormon literature.

But, wouldn't it be ironic, if that which does not matter to you is what keeps you in disagreement with us? I can't believe that. And that is why I've adopted the posture I have, in working on this article, to improve my understanding of what you really think is important, that keeps you apart. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to comment on these questions about the nature and origin of God, and the way he created and orders the universe. Much of what I’ve read and heard about MC belief seems compatible with LDS doctrine as far as it goes. I think that there is some misunderstanding on some points of LDS belief, both outside of and among LDS.

Keep in mind that what follows is my opinion, not official LDS doctrine, but I think it is in harmony with what Joseph Smith taught. President Hinckley said "I don’t know that we teach it.", this is true, it isn't in the curriculum. There are doctrines that are more important for us to understand at this stage in our development, but it's out there, so people are going to talk about it.

I'll first pull a few quotes from the King Follet discourse which is where the ‘unique’ LDS doctrines on the nature of God are outlined by Joseph Smith:

What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again...

Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end...

The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself...

Ok, let’s start at the beginning. God has existed eternally. He was not always in the form he is in now, but MC believe that God is spirit, not flesh, and that some aspect of God took on flesh in the form of Jesus Christ. LDS believe that not only did God exist in a premortal form as a spirit, but also that all mankind did as well. The ‘all mankind’ part is different, but not incompatible. That is, what MC believe fits with what LDS believe, as a partial truth. A key part of trinitarian belief is that God is unknownable, if we tone that down a bit to 'unknown' there is room for facts or doctrine about God that are true but not yet known. To be fair, MC state it as ‘unknowable’, implying, I think, eternally so, or, maybe MC believe that they are only unknowable during our mortal existance. If MC believe that we will learn more about God in our post-mortal existence then 'unknown' applies.

Additionally, LDS believe that God has always been and will always be infinitely superior to the rest of us, I think we agree on this, although most MC believe that we have no existence prior to mortality with the possible exception of certain Old Testament prophets, and that all except the Trinity are wholly the ex nihilo creations of God.

Now for the creation. The ‘holy grail’ of modern physics is the unified field theory, which says that everything we see is the result of a very small number of very simple particles and forces, interacting according to a very few simple laws. Some physicists go even further and say that even these simple particles aren’t particles at all, they are just manifestations of stress or tension between different energies and 'spacetime'.

So, let’s visualize God, infinitely more intelligent than all others, surrounded by this ‘chaotic matter’ or ‘element’. This isn’t matter in the sense that you and I know it. The laws that our physicists are trying to uncover didn’t yet exist. God looked around and saw how He could improve things for Himself and his fellow intelligences, increasing His and their joy and happiness. He came up with a plan, THE plan that would allow these lesser ‘intelligences’ (you and I) to follow Him, under His careful guidance. These doctrines are unknown to MC, but I think the most controversial part is the idea of God undergoing change. I say that He didn't change, His essence is still the same as it always was, infinitely superior to us and all others, but He did become more perfect or 'complete' by establishing and living the plan.

After planning He spoke, establishing the laws of the universe. The ‘pure principles of element’ obeyed. Matter as we know it was created, out of nothing, and yet, out of something. Thus, it was ‘organized’ according to the law He established, and the universe began, leading inevitably to the creation of habitable worlds. These ‘pure principles of element’ still obey Him. I think this is compatible with MC belief, might raise an eybrow among the more conservative denominations but wouldn't get you kicked out of the MC club, in fact, I think there are some MC who believe something similar to this.

But now the controversial part. Did God once walk upon a world, as a man? Yes, this is LDS doctrine. Did He also have heavenly parents, as we have heavenly parents, was He part of, but not at the top of an eternal pyramid? I don't think so. Supposedly, Brigham Young said this, maybe he did, maybe he didn’t, I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure that Joseph Smith didn’t say this. Whatever it was President Young actually said on this subject he later refused to elaborate, essentially saying that if the people would seek the spirit they would understand what he had said, and if they didn’t, further explanation would be of no benefit. Perhaps the Lord had called him to repentance as He did when President Young threatened to burn Salt Lake to the ground rather than let it be occupied by the US Army.

What do MC believe? Depending upon the denomination, they either believe that God himself, or a portion of God, or some manifestation of God, did in fact take upon Himself flesh, walked in mortality and called himself Jesus, the Christ. Why did He do this? So that man could become more like Him. I think we are in agreement on this, we just differ on how much 'like' Him we believe we can become.

Jesus said “…The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do..”, Joseph Smith interpreted this to mean that the Son had seen the Father “…lay down his body and take it up again…”. Ok, so MC don’t accept this.

So, IMHO, MC and LDS doctrines concerning the nature of God are significantly different in only three ways. 1) MC believe ‘three-in-one’, LDS believe that the three members are separate beings but one in purpose. 2) LDS believe that both the Father and the Son have physical bodies and once walked in mortality, MC believe that only the Son did so. I think this is minor compared to #1, really it is a subset of #1. 3) LDS believe that man is of the same type but inferior to God, MC believe that Man is wholly a creation of God. There are other differences, but none that are as universally offensive to MC as these. 74s181 04:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding spirit, LDS believe that 'spirit' is a more refined form of matter, that Jesus, and for that matter all of us possesed a body of spirit that resembles our physical bodies. Don't have the reference handy, sorry. 74s181 04:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But do you see how significant it is to us, that you start out saying "Keep in mind that what follows is my opinion, not official LDS doctrine"? What I'm saying to you is the catholic faith; and your opinion only sounds reasonable to the extent that it borrows from this catholic faith. Your view of what is "significantly different" is significantly different. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

From your perspective LDS "borrows from this catholic faith", LDS perspective is that MC doctrines, especially the Trinity are an incomplete distortion of the original, true doctrines. It seems that MC worship an Ideal, denying any physical incarnation, while LDS worship God, an actual being with all the attributes described by the ideal, including physical incarnation as one essential attribute. 74s181 06:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to realize that a religion is "reasonable" only if it conforms with your own belief. To non-Christians, the notion that we worship a common criminal that was killed in a degrading manner doesn't make sense and doesn't sound reasonable. Most of them wonder how otherwise intelligent and reasonable people can believe such ridiculous stuff. We, on the other hand, see nothing unreasonable about those beliefs because we have received a witness that they are true. Once that witness comes, then whether the belief makes sense to others or not, we accept it.

IMHO, there is no way to "prove" any aspect of religion. We can talk about what we believe, and we can construct what are (to us) logical "proofs" that our beliefs are consistent and correct, but those same arguments won't make sense to others who don't share our beliefs. That is why I believe that the only way someone will be converted to Mormonism (or any other Christian religion) is through the Holy Ghost. And yes, I believe that the Holy Ghost can convert people to other religions. Actually, I believe that the Holy Ghost is the only way to convert someone to any religion, but non-Christians wouldn't recognize / understand who the Holy Ghost is. I believe that the Holy Ghost is how God communicates to mankind. (Again, IMHO - not LDS doctrine) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 06:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill, you are right, only the Holy Ghost can convert. But I feel it is important to continue to 'dig about' and 'nourish' the ground 'by the way side' so that the seed can have a chance to grow before it is plucked up by the 'fowls of the air'. 74s181 15:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

74s181, even as you say "It seems that MC worship an Ideal", you know that this isn't even close; because you know that we are not "denying any physical incarnation". You know that we don't think God has to be made of stuff, to be real: that matter is one thing, and God is another. You know what is really at issue, is that we believe God and not man is eternal, and therefore life is in him not in us. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I'm glad you know so much about what I know.<g> Seriously, we may be getting somewhere with this. I said 'It seems that MC worship an Ideal, denying any physical incarnation', you responded, 'you know that we are not "denying any physical incarnation"'. My statement was not rhetorical, it really seems that way to me. Don't MC believe that all things were created out of nothing, or IOW, ex nihilo? If so, then what is the substance of God? Either He has no substance, or His substance is of a different order, not like ordinary matter. If He consists of matter at all, even matter of a different order, then who created it? I'm pretty sure I'm understanding this correctly, you said "You know that we don't think God has to be made of stuff, to be real: that matter is one thing, and God is another." So it sounds like you're saying that God is not matter, he is outside of matter. Like I said, it sounds like an Ideal, specifically, a lot like the Platonic Ideal. Or, to put it in a non-confrontational way it seems like the Platonic Ideal is a fairly close description of how MC view God. Maybe it would be fair to say this: MC believe that since man is a creation of God, he can never truly understand God. Any attempt by the created thing to describe the Creator must ultimately fall short, therefore, two differing descriptions of the creator may both be partially true and partially false. I can live with that, can you? This would put us in the position of trying to understand what the other is saying, without criticism. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you". I know I often fall far short of this, but I'm still trying, and I suspect that you are too. It is sometimes hard 'work', eh?<g> 74s181 12:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You are almost on the right track, despite a central misunderstanding, in recognizing that it is absurd to say that your thoughts are "not like ordinary matter", or that your reason is "matter of a different order".

What you do not acknowledge, however, is that this creaturely "idea" of yours, this inner man of yours, this intelligence, does not simply exist eternally, but is a copy created in the likeness of the Word which is God. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we believe that all things that are not God were created by God out of nothing. We believe that in speaking to things that are not as though they must be, even that which is not is compelled by God to become what he says it must be - for he is, in himself, irresistible truth. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't just "sound like" we are saying that God is "not matter". You may safely say that we are insisting that he is not matter. He is other than matter - if you mean by that that God is one thing, and all else is not God: including matter, but also including created spirits and intelligences such as yours. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You recognize that there is a similarity between what I'm saying and the "Platonic Ideal" - which for some reason is a cause of stumbling for you (who in another context would say that the same light is found everywhere). And yet, do you suppose that it is "the Platonic Ideal" that informs us that Jesus Christ is very God, the eternal Son to the eternal Father; that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary; that he was crucified, died and was buried; that he descended to the lowest strongholds of death, and rose again from the dead; that he ascended to the right hand of the Father; that he sent the spirit of the resurrection, the spirit of his Father, his own spirit, to indwell us; that He lives in us to guide us into the fullness of the truth; that he is coming again to receive us body and soul into his presence? If you think so, you attribute too much of the truth to Plato, and not enough to the Holy Spirit. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I often feel like you're looking down your nose at me, maybe I deserve it, but I'm really trying to understand what you believe. You said "...you know that we are not 'denying any physical incarnation'", which sounds like a double negative way of saying that you believe God has a physical incarnation, but then you said that God is not matter, He is other than matter. Maybe you mean Jesus Christ is the physical incarnation, but before Jesus was born there was none. Ok, I get that. I don't understand what you meant in your first paragraph, where you say "What you do not acknowledge...", but I'm getting used to not understanding many things you say, so I'll just let that go. 74s181 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I speak to you as I do because you have been patient to listen to me without hating me for explaining what we believe to be true. There are a lot of things that are very hard to say - but I try to put them in a way that will allow you to hear them without losing the love you've shown. It's an unfortunate side-effect, that this comes across as patronizing. I very much regret that, and wish I could do a better job, to relieve you of that unintended insult. I think at times I've allowed frustration to peak through the bars behind which I have imprisoned it. But I am encouraged, and moved to admiration, when despite the fact that you think I'm being a jerk, you try to understand me anyway. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You said "...even that which is not is compelled by God to become what he says it must be - for he is, in himself, irresistible truth." So, to put that in plain terms, even that which doesn't even exist cannot resist God's command to come into existence. This is a really interesting way of looking at ex nihilo creation, I have never heard it explained in quite this way. 74s181 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And by that same power, he says, "be ye holy, even as I am holy". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If by "...the same light is found everywhere" you mean that all truth is God's truth, sometimes distorted, but always of the same source, then I agree. Let me try to explain why I brought up this 'Platonic Ideal'. It was either Plato or one of his students who taught that behind every imperfect thing in this world there is a perfect, unchangeable, non-material idea or 'Ideal'. There is the Ideal of horse-ness, and then there are the actual horses, none of which quite meets the ideal, but each is representitive of it. In the case of God it sounds like you're saying that there is no physical 'instance' of God based on the 'Ideal' of God, there is only the 'Ideal', the unchangeable, immaterial embodiment of perfection. This is God, who, as the creator, is the source of 'horse-ness', and all other "-ness". He is not matter, He is the source of matter. He cannot be fully described or understood by His creations, in sort of a Goedel incompletness sense, because God, as the creator is 'outside' the system. You said I am "almost on the right track" am I getting warmer or colder?

Beyond man, who is made in God's image, there is God in whose image Man is made. To know the meaning of Man, you must seek to know God whose ways are past finding out. Therefore, not because of his inability but because of yours, he must reveal himself, for your sake, in human terms (terms suitable to him, because they are set by him: the terms of his own created image). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm trying to meet you halfway, I'm reading the Enchiridion of Augustine as you suggested, I'm up to chapter 16. I have learned some things that I hadn't previously known about MC belief, but so far it hasn't been the Rosetta Stone I had hoped for, it is not early enough, Augustine makes many doctrinal assumptions without scriptural reference. 74s181 12:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether you're reading it to find out what it says about what's important, rather than to decide whether it's true. The question you are looking to answer is not, "Is this true Christianity?" The question is, "What do Roman Catholics teach?" — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing I've gotten out of it so far is predestination. Augustine seems to be suggesting that some humans are destined to be saved and replace the fallen angels, others are not, but he also insists humans have free will. I saw something like this when I was reading about Calvinism, "Irresistable grace", right? I didn't realize that this was such an early part of MC belief. He also dances around the question of where evil comes from, explaining that some evil serves God's will, while not explaining where the evil that doesn't serve God's will comes from. Interestingly, LDS believe that although God did not 'create' evil, He knew when and how it would happen and thus all evil, including the fall, ultimately serves His plan. Anyway, I'm trying to keep an open mind until I get all the way to the end. 74s181 12:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Augustine is a very subtle thinker; and like all subtle thinkers, he is easily misunderstood. It is an awful mistake to think he's saying exactly what Calvinists say; but you're right that there is a strong family resemblance, there, so that we trace the lineage of what we say through him. I'm not sure that you should look so closely at details, like this, however. What I asked you to look for is the Roman Catholic understanding of how "Faith, Hope and Love" are "theological virtues" that refer directly to the Triune God. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading it for several reasons. One, you asked me to meet you halfway, I want to do so. Two, I was interested in seeing the relationship you said I would find between Faith, Hope, Love/Charity and the Trinitarian concept of God. So far I haven't really seen that, but I'm not halfway thru yet. Third, I was hoping that a thinker of this time period would help me connect the trinitarian doctrines back to the Bible, but Augustine already accepts the trinitarian doctrine as a given, other doctrines have footnotes and scriptural references (I'm not sure if these are Augustine's footnotes, or some later writer), but so far, not much on the Trinity. Anyway, I'm not reading it to decide if it is true, I'm sure there is some truth in it, I accept truth where I find it. I'm not that interested in what Roman Catholics think, but if it helps me understand what you think then it will be worth it. 74s181 03:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a rhetorical question for you. If God is all powerful, can he create a being like (of the same kind but not identical to) Himself? If He could create such a being, why wouldn't He? Perhaps the core difference between LDS and MC belief in the nature of God is that LDS believe that He could, and He did (us), while MC believe that He can't or won't. I saw a Muslim posting that said that two omnipotent beings could not exist because ultimately they would be in conflict. But if they were both also all knowing and fully perfect, they would always want the same thing, and see the same way to accomplish it, thus, no conflict, thus they would be 'one'. 74s181 12:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you meant to say what I think you just said. God didn't make another being like himself, but rather he made other beings who could become like himself. This is similar to how earthly parents have children who could become like them. Some do, some don't; some turn out good, some not so good. A big difference, IMHO. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I said 'like', and qualified it as 'of the same kind but not identical to' himself. I meant what you said, but I left the idea of 'parent' out to keep the question more generic, i.e., not necessarily tied to LDS belief. Sorry I wasn't more clear. However, if we look at what Jesus Christ said about himself we see a being who is nearly identical to the Father. 74s181 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is why eliminating equivocation is not the hurtful thing it appears at first to be. We need to understand what is different, if there's to be any hope of agreeing in more than empty and superficial similarity of speech. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill, you are half right, I think. There is no way to persuade anyone. But we're not talking about a rubik's cube or some other really hard math or science problem. "The word is near you; in your mouth and in your heart". In a sense we are all, already, convinced; but we are all, to some extent, unpersuaded. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

74s181,I wasn't suggesting dropping this discussion. I was merely stating that people naturally discount those beliefs that contradict with their own.

Mark, if you want to understand why Mormons believe what they do, you have to put yourself in our shoes. Assume that you believe that the Book of Mormon is true, and because of that, you also believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet. As a result, you believe that the First Vision actually happened - that Joseph saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as separate individuals clothed in shiny white robes with what looked like bodies.

Now, assuming you believe the above, how would you reconcile this belief with the concept of the Trinity? When you have to choose between something that a prophet said and the result of a meeting that tried to resolve the different beliefs that had evolved after the time of the apostles?

If you accept the fact that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are separate individuals, then the only way to interpret scriptures like John 17 are that when Jesus says that he and his Father are one, he is talking about one of purpose rather than one physical/spiritual entity. This concept isn't obvious directly from the Bible, but if you believe in the First Vision, that interpretation makes perfect sense. That is why it is almost impossible for a non-Mormon to believe any of the Mormon doctrines - because you can't get there strictly from the Bible. However, you can easily get there from LDS scriptures. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 21:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think that this order of priorities is correct; and I'm hoping that this structure of belief will guide the structure of the article - never at any point, piece-meal comparing doctrinal differences, rather always being careful to reference the basic presuppositional point of departure.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say that the sense it makes is "perfect", I understand the order of thought, the priorities. The point of departure in the comparison of teachings about "what" God is, appears from the outside to be Joseph Smith; but boiled down, the supreme concern that causes the difference is not Joseph but the belief in the spirit of prophecy, interpreted as continuing revelation from Jesus Christ. If this is indeed what is important, would you say that it's the thing that is systematically significant throughout? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it makes perfect sense to me. ;^)

From what I have seen, I think that it is impossible to understand where Mormons are coming from if they don't realize that LDS believe that their leaders are prophets, and the role of revelation in the governing of the LDS Church as well as the personal lives of each member. Not only do LDS pray often for guidance, but they expect to receive a direct answer to their prayers, which essentially become their own private scriptures / religion / whatever. Amazingly, many of us end up at the same conclusions by using these methods. I assume that you haven't had access to the Church Handbook of Instructions, but over and over again, the guidance is for the leader to pray for guidance when making decisions.

Of course, it is not reasonable to expect non-Mormons to believe this is what is happening, but at the same time, it is important for them to accept that we believe these things. That is why we are not concerned when our beliefs contradict with traditional Christianity; we believe that God has told us something different. While we respect what mainstream Christians believe, and we accept that many Christians are very sincere, LDS have a high level of confidence that they know how gospel principles affect their individual lives. That is because we prayed for individual revelation, not an abstract / generic religious belief. At the same time, we allow others to come to their own solutions to these same issues. Just because I came to the conclusion that X is correct for me, at the same time I realize that Y might be correct for someone else. (Recall the comment that it is considered inappropriate to criticize the interpretations / conclusions of others.) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

However you put things, it always seems to come out as "Mormons are Christians too, but Gerizim is more holy than Jerusalem".

In this sense, Mormonism sounds quintessentially American (it occurs to me that "quintessence" is a particularly appropos term, for describing the LDS view of spirit). It's as though the CJCLDS were the final embellishment of the theme of, America is the New Zion. Should not the new city on a hill have a temple of its own? And since our light is its people, should not each person be a temple of his own?

I'm sure that you know, as Mere Christians, we pray for guidance continually. But we seek to be guided into the fullness of what has already been revealed - because although we have the Fullness of revelation, He is not fully revealed in us, and we must be guided into that fullness by remembrance of his death where our hope is centered. We do not believe that revelation is the same as guidance; but after we have been guided, it is made known in us what has already been revealed to us and which we apprehended by faith. Afterwards comes understanding and obedience; and that's when it is revealed in us to the world. It is for that purpose that we are in the world. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

But I'm getting side-tracked from my own question; Don't you think that this contrasting idea of revelation should be the primary topic of comparison, as you're leading me to think; or as you think about it, should it be something else? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have thought for some time that revelation is the crux of the biscuit. But what do we compare it to? Don't misunderstand, I'm not asking 'the question' again, what I'm saying is, LDS believe in revelation first, what do MC Christians believe in first? 74s181 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the LDS believe revelation is the most important thing, but have a different idea of revelation than MC: this is what selects it as being the most important term of comparison - because revelation is also the most important thing to the MC. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you all have done some deep digging in the time I've been gone :-) This is one of the best and most detailed discussions of both sides of "the divide" that I've seen in a long while. Kudos to everyone for keeping it so civil and scholarly. I've learned a lot just reading the threads. So many good points have been made by each of you. I did want to chime in on something that has still not been brought up, probably because it's too speculative, but I think it is a thought that addresses a point you made, Mark. You expressed your concern that our doctrine concerning God sounded like atheism because it seemed from your perspective to belittle the glory and majesty and incomprehensible holiness that you see in God to say that God became God by passing through the same process that we are passing through (or more correctly, that Jesus passed through). A few minor details that may help expand the perspective on this doctrine a bit... We know very little (if anything) from what we regard as the revealed word of God (our cannonical scriptures) about the details of eternity and precisely how many beings there are in the entirety of space who have come to the Glory that our Father in Heaven has. We know of a certainty (because the scriptures teach it) that Jesus Christ is one who received this same Glory and that through him, we may also receive all that Jesus Christ received being joint heirs with him. I put the following trail in a reference for one of the sections of the article a while back and I think it makes the case for deification from a Biblical perspective: Psalm 82:6 discusses people being gods and sons of God, which is quoted by Jesus in John 10:34. See also, (in this order) Psalms chapter 8 (man is made a little lower than the angels in this earthly estate), Romans chapters 8-9 (through Christ we are made heirs and joint heirs with Christ, being called children of God.), Hebrews Chapter 1-2 (Christ received by inheritance and what we can expect, being joint heirs, to receive as well. Christ is described as being above the angels in inheritance as also are "them who shall be heirs of salvation". Those who are saved have an ascendancy over the angels. In Chapter 2 Paul references Psalms 8), see also Revelation 3:22, and 21:7 (those who overcome through faith will sit down with Christ on his throne and "inherit all things". ). Reasoning this way from the Bible, we can see that there will be authority and glory received by mankind, if they prove worthy of it by truly accepting Jesus and following him, that they could never deserve themselves without the Atonement. Yet they will receive it. The throne that "those who overcome" receive in Revelations is not just some long bench in heaven where we will all one day sit down and sing old spiritual tunes, but rather it is emblematic of God sharing "all things" with us. I've always interpreted "all things" to mean "all things", including God's creative power and authority. At that point, because of Jesus Christ, the distinction between Creator and Creation becomes narrower. We will always be the children of our Father in Heaven, we will worship God and the Lamb forever and ever see D+C 76:21, but we will be like him. Our awe and reverence and love for God are in no way cheapened or diminished by the notion that he will one day raise us up, through his Son, to a state of Exaltation and call us Sons and Daughters, Kings and Queens. Quite the opposite. It is humbling and awe inspiring to ponder what Jesus won for us with his blood. Now hopefully I've set that out in such a way that the following two questions will make more sense for you of this doctrine and it won't sound so athestic:

1. If God can raise up His creation, through the offering of His Son to an exhalted state where we are truly "like him" (1 John 3:2), what happens next? Is it such a far stretch to say these creatures who have become immortal beings who share in God's power and authority are themselves gods and that they can then do as God has done for his own children?
2. If the first question may be answered in the affirmative, is it such a far stretch to say that we are at a certain point of an Eternal process that has existed from eternity to eternity and that will continue to exist from eternity to eternity, where Creation is elevated to Creator and creates new Creations who are then elevated and so forth?

That does not seem such an unappealing concept to me. It does not strike me as blasphemy either. In fact it seems to make perfect sense, especially if one considers that everyone who enters into this exalted state becomes one with the Father and the Son as Jesus is one with the Father. That strikes me as glorious and wonderful and entirely consistent with scripture. Jesus came to rescue us, but from what and to what? From sin and to exaltation. What is the purpose in God allowing us to inherit all that Jesus inherits if not to allow us to go on in Eternal Progression to complete perfection; to be as He is. He will always be our God. We will always be his children and indebted to him for our redemption. But if God desires to bless us with so great a blessing, can we turn it away?

Another point to consider is that, though we are raised through Jesus Christ to this state there is a distinction between Jesus' mortal life and our own. We were not conceived through the power of the Holy Ghost, and so were not the same as God's only begotten. No other man who lived on the Earth was a member of the Godhead. No other man was sinless and therefore capable of taking upon himself the sins of the world as he did. And no other man was described as God himself who condescended to dwell with man in the flesh as he is described in our scriptures (Mosiah 15,1 Nephi 11:16-28,Colossians 2:9). So I think there is an Eternal distinction between us and Jesus Christ. We are the creatures exalted by God because of Jesus' sacrifice to the same lofty state that the Father and the Son enjoy. Jesus is the Savior who made it all possible. Which is why we will worship him forever. But we cant diminish the magnitude of that supernal gift by seeking to make it less than it is. If God promises me that I will inherit "all things" because of what his Son did for me, then I'm inclined to take him at his word. Mpschmitt1 02:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My answer has to be another of those parable-like ones. The difference is in whether we become like the Father, through his Word and Spirit, because there is no other God; or, whether we become like God, by becoming like unto one of them. This is the subtle difference, an uncommon and inhuman subtlety, by which man is deceived into becoming a demon, becoming like the father of lies, who first taught man to discover the latter path by teaching him not to care about the difference, leading Man into death by means of a difference that Man could not perceive. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

…Mark one more thing on another point you made earlier regarding God an the Laws of the Universe…

There is a difference between saying “God won’t violate a law” and “God can’t violate a law”. I was trying to advocate the former and not the latter in my earlier statements, so I’m sorry if I didn’t’ make that clear. Let’s consider as an example that may make more sense from the MC perspective:

The Atonement of Jesus Christ was a necessary event; on that we all agree. Why? Because someone needed to satisfy the Law of Justice (Also one of the laws that govern the Universe. For God there is no distinction between moral and physical laws, for all truth is a part of one great whole.), so that the Law of Mercy (another law) could take effect. Could God have said, “Alright, if you repent, I’ll just forgive you…No need for my Son to suffer in your behalf. We’ll just do away with this whole Justice thing”? I’m sure he could have, and then he could have compelled us to obey him so that not one of his children would be lost. But that would be Satan’s plan, not His and it would violate another law: the Law of Free Agency or Free Will. God used the Atonement to satisfy the Law of Justice, rather than choosing to break it. So the point is that without Justice there could be no Mercy. If God were not Just, then He would cease to be a Just God, which would be extremely problematic, because he would cease then to be a Merciful God, and it’s a slippery slope from there. So God who has all sovereignty will not disobey the Laws of the Universe, because to do so would compromise his integrity. Rather he upholds those laws and exercises His sovereign Free Will in the use of those Laws, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of His children, which is His work and his glory (Moses 1:39). Mpschmitt1 13:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I would only re-iterate that, God cannot contradict himself. Whether you would perceive this to be a contradiction of what you have said, I can't tell for sure. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
2. That there is a distinction between "moral and physical laws" is evident in the fact that God can and does violate physical laws - by creation from nothing, by virgin birth, by resurrection from the dead - but He cannot violate moral laws; and thus, the necessity of atonement. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I wholeheartedly agree. God cannot contradict himself because to do so would negate his very essence and his integrity as God. It is simply not something he will do, but everything he does is the result of his will, so it is because he chooses in righteousness to remain self consistent. That is part of his very nature. Part of what makes him God. That Jesus shares in this is evident from one of his name titles: I AM. He is over all things in authority. On the physical laws front, I would say that he violates our petty conceptions of physical laws and manifests supreme mastery over them in a way that only God can. There are ways that only God can act on and manipulate matter, but from the LDS perspective, matter is eternal (the law of Conservation) and spirit is also eternal. The stuff our individual spirits (intelligences) are made up of are eternal as well. As I mentioned before, we don't subscribe to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, but view it as an organization of disorganized matter (the eternal stuff of the universe). If any of my LDS brothers feel, I've gone off the deep end in terms of sound doctrine here, please rein me in...But I think I'm still within the pale of (LDS) orthodoxy here...Though this is a very deep doctrine conversationMpschmitt1 00:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As I look over my answers here, I have a small feeling in my heart that I'm not fully spot on in the way I've represented everything, though I think much of it is a fair representation of LDS belief. I'm going to dig a little deeper on the topics related to this latter part of the thread and see if I can find some answers that I feel a little bit better about in my heart of hearts, for that's often my best compass. I'm not saying I've totally misrepresented, but I'm just asking for some wiggle room later on if I want to make corrections here...Mpschmitt1 00:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

But if righteousness is a result of his arbitrary will (like the decision to create the "Laws of the Universe"), then righteousness does not follow as a necessity, out of what he is as such, but out of his character because of who he is regardless of what he is: just like you make "good" decisions out of being a nice guy. With God however, he is good by necessity - he cannot be otherwise, he cannot choose: and for this reason, none is Good except God alone. This difference is subtle, but because it is so near the font from whence our differences arise, it is bound to be subtle. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

See? This is why I was asking for wiggle room. I actually agree with you about the inviolable character of God Mark, and you have confirmed that uneasy feeling I had about what I was writing being off a bit. I was afraid what I was saying was not stated correctly, so I'm glad you aren't letting me off the hook here. His integrity is such that he cannot and will not do anything but that which is good because he is the quintessence of Good. He is Righteous, Just etc. To perfection.Mpschmitt1 22:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. I want you to have room to wiggle, because it's not my intention to trap you. :-)

The Scriptures also call the Father the "only wise" (Romans 16:27), just as he is called the "only good". Is what is true of the Father also true of the Son? If it is, then why do the Scriptures say, "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men"? I only ask this because you've said that you are enjoying the hard questions. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think when we get down to a single column of characters, we should probably start a new section :-). That is an excellent question and a very fruitful one to ponder (I think that's always true of the tough questions, which is why I love them). I think the answer (and now we're into my own personal opinion, derived from legitimate sources written by LDS General Authorities), lies in a few observations about Jesus: He came forth from the Father but is not identical with the Father. He is his own person. The Father already had the fullness of glory and perfection that Jesus would receive from His Father by inheritance (Hebrews 1), but he also had glory before his birth. Not withstanding Jesus' pre-mortal role as Jehovah, the creator of heavens and Earth, however, before his birth, he was still but a Spirit and not a resurrected, glorified being like the Father yet. When he came to earth in mortality he had the same "veil of forgetfulness" (see Talmage quote below) that we all receive when we are born into mortality and had to learn the same way we all do. When he was born into mortality he still had to face every trial and temptation that we do and to learn as we do "line upon line, precept upon precept" (see Isaiah 28: 10, 13; 2 Nephi 28: 30; D&C 98: 12; and D&C 128: 21). The fundamental difference between Jesus and us in this area (and there are many fundamental differences besides) is that Jesus was without sin. Every time he learned a principle he kept it perfectly. His life and development were not encumbered by the ravages of poor choices. He had no need for repentance, but rather kept every principle he learned line upon line to perfection the first time every time, without exception. He was 100% obedient to the Father from cradle to tomb to resurrection. James E. Talmage (again, Mark, I highly recommmend his work to you for the kinds of questions you ask) had this to say about the development of Jesus

He came among men to experience all the natural conditions of mortality; He was born as truly a dependent, helpless babe as is any other child; His infancy was in all common features as the infancy of others; His Boyhood was actual boyhood, His development was as necessary and as real as that of all children. Over His mind had fallen the veil of forgetfulness common to all who are born to earth, by which the remembrance of primeval existence is shut off. The Child grew, and with growth there came to Him expansion of mind, development of faculties, and progression in power and understanding. His advancement was from one grace to another, not from gracelessness to grace; from good to greater good, not from evil to good; from favor with God to greater favor, not from estrangement because of sin to reconciliation through repentance and propitiation.("Jesus the Christ" pp. 111-112).

This is why John the Baptist (certainly a good man and prophet of the lord), did not even consider himself worthy to loose Jesus' shoe latchet. He knew that he was standing before God in flesh. As Joseph Smith wrote: "Who among all the Saints in these last days can consider himself as good as our Lord? Who is as perfect? Who is as pure? Who is as holy as He was? Are they to be found? He never transgressed or broke a commandment or law of heaven - no deceit was in His mouth, neither was guile found in His heart...When still a boy, He had all the intelligence necessary to enable him to rule and govern the kingdom of the Jews, and could reason with the wisest and most profound doctors of law and divinity, and make their theories and practice to appear like folly compared with the wisdom He posessed..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p67 and 392). Now when we talk about the glorified, resurrected person of Jesus Christ, that is an entirely different description. After his Resurrection and Ascension to the Father, he received a fullness (all things) from the Father. Which is why the Jesus described in the Bible as increasing in favor with God and man during his mortal sojourn, is the same Jesus described after his resurrection and ascension by Paul as having dwelling in him "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9). The "increasing" he did was simply part of the package of mortality, but he, unlike us, increased perfectly without a missed step, every step of the way. If it were not so, he could not be the unblemished sacrifice needed to wash our sins away. Once resurrected and beyond the bounds and conditions of this mortal life, Jesus returned with even greater glory to the lofty position he held before his birth in the Godhead, only now he had accomplished the work of salvation which his Father sent him to fulfill and had an imortal, glorified body, like that of the Father. Plus, because of his mortal experience he now knew first hand about the human experience and because he suffered what we suffer, he knew perfectly how to succor his people. (Alma 7:10-14) Mpschmitt1 19:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal revelation

I decided to start a new section for this discussion, since archive 12 doesn't quite fit. ;^)

I think that personal revelation is a significant difference between LDS and MC. I'm concerned, however, that your interpretation of what I said doesn't match with what I think I said. ;^) We use personal revelation not to get new teachings as much as how to apply existing principles into their own lives. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 22:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the new header. The discussion above was becoming very wide-ranging.

If you use "personal revelation" not to get new teachings, as much as how to apply existing principles into your lives, then this is called "guidance" by us, and not "personal revelation".

But if this is what you mean, it is not the same thing as what Joseph Smith claimed, or what you might (I'm still not sure I understand) be claiming for the President of the LDS. If they are only seeking to apply existing principles, then they would not have built on a new foundation; and you would be seeking to unite with us in terms of existing principles, instead of claiming new principles.

If that were so, we would shovel the dirt from our wheel-barrow into your own, so that you may share in our work of taking this witness to Christ into the world. We would do this, even though you claim to have a new way of seeking "guidance" and of bearing "witness" to Jesus Christ. But you claim you have no share in our work. You insist that we must abandon our wheel-barrow and accept what has been given to you. You have nothing we need to do the work that is given to us.

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The term personal revelation refers to receiving revelation for our own personal use. This is mostly for guidance, but can also allow a person to receive new principles, but only for their own use.

We also believe that members can receive revelation for guidance pertaining to their callings within the church. The first presidency is entitled to receive revelation for the entire church, such as can be found in D&C. Each individual may receive revelation for their stewardship. This is not only for church callings. A parent may receive revelation pertaining to their own lives and their children. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Then aren't we back to Gerizim and Jerusalem? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Gerizim is the mountain that was the center of Samaritan worship. The Samaritans were impure Israelites. They wanted to serve God, but they were rejected by the Jews and denied access to the temple, so they established their own temple and priesthood. "...yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." I guess you're saying that this is how you see LDS. 74s181 04:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Samaritans saw the Jews as punished and rejected by God, taken by God into exile in Babylon - and much as you see the tradition of the Christian church that developed subsequent to the death of Christ and his apostles, they rejected those things that were added to the Law of God subsequent to exile. They saw themselves as founded on the very ground of the promises, the true heirs of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But as Jesus says to the Samaritan woman, "you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband". The truth is that the Samaritans were the descendants of idolators, and they had had five gods before they claimed for themselves the LORD as their god. And yet, they had no covenant of marriage with the LORD, as the Jews do. Therefore Jesus said to her, "you worship what you do not know, we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"...Samaritans were the descendants of idolators" All Israel had been idolators at various times, so yes, the ancestors of the Samaritans were idolators, both gentile and Israelite. So were your ancestors and mine. 74s181 12:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"...they had no covenant of marriage with the LORD, as the Jews do" They were a mixture of gentiles and Israelites who escaped the captivity, their blood wasn't pure, but technically, the blood of Jesus Christ wasn't pure either (Ruth). But they wanted to be the seed of Abraham. John the Baptist said "Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Paul taught "And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." 74s181 12:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"...for salvation is from the Jews." What did the Jews have that the Samaritans lacked? The Samaritans had the scriptures, they could construct a building and call it a temple, they could worship and perform circumcisions, washings, and offer sacrifices according to the pattern given by Moses. But these ordinances were of no effect because they didn't have the authority of the Aaronic priesthood. The Jews at that time did have this authority, and thus, although their scribes and Pharisees were "whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones," Jesus acknowledged the priesthood authority that they had. He ultimately gave the authority of the higher priesthood to his apostles and other followers. Where is that priesthood today? Catholics and LDS claim to have it, Protestants deny that it exists, yet still ordain ministers, probably even by laying on of hands, and call upon them to perform ordinances of salvation like baptism. 74s181 12:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. " 74s181 12:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that, to enter in, they must enter through the covenant made with the Jews. Jesus is that covenant, and the Church is his covenant people. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What does the covenant of Jesus Christ have to do with the Jews, other than that Jesus was a Jew, and that the Jews killed him? 74s181 01:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jesus has everything to do with the covenant made with the Jews; but that has nothing to do with "the Jews killed him". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What was the point of all that? Whew! Anyway, my two cents worth on revelation. What LDS call personal revelation is probably fairly common among MC. A bigger difference is Apostolic revelation. LDS claim to have apostles with the same priesthood authority as those called by Jesus Christ and their immediate successors. LDS believe that these apostles receive revelations from God and speak with authority in the same way that Peter did when he received the revelation that it was time for the gospel to go to the gentiles: "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common... Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." But Catholics also claim this authority, they are accepted in the MC club, so it can't be this claim that separates us. 74s181 12:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is exactly that claim that separates the LDS. While LDS and others may all claim apostolic authority, most 'mainstream' Christians believe that such revelation will be consistent with what has been revealed before, whereas the LDS say that much of what has been revealed before is all wrong. Where mainstream Christians differ, they generally either differ over issues that came up many centuries after Christianity was established, or in some cases may disagree over what the historical practice and teaching has always been, such as infant baptism. Even in cases like this, all or at least most mainstream Christians agree on the importance of both Scripture and early church practice. The LDS appears to affirm Scripture but discard 1800+ years of 'personal revelation' and practice. Wesley 16:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"...such revelation will be consistent with what has been revealed before..." Let's take a look at that.

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:5-6)

"...What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common... Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10:15,34-35

Sounds like a pretty major change of policy to me, as directed by Apostolic revelation. 74s181 01:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between promise and fulfillment. The time came for all the families of the earth to be blessed by the blessing upon Abraham. Who would say that the fulfillment is a "change" from the promise that's been given, except those who either did not understand, or did not believe, the promise? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Wesley speaks correctly. To a large extent LDS ignore Tradition completely. What the great Councils said or did not say is irrelevant to what is believed to be true. Our orthodox brethren see these Councils as the inspired intervention of God declaring what is true. LDS see the Councils as simply councils of men that did not claim revelation and leaned on their own understanding or perception of God. More importantly, the acutal authority to act in God's name is viewed as lost prior to the great Councils taking place by LDS. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In ignoring tradition completely, you are not a lot different than me-and-my-Bible-Evangelicalism.

Here's the historical "model" in which I view things (which is a synthesis of numerous views - and is my "original research" in that sense): Rejection of infant baptism practically amounts to a hallmark of this rejection of tradition. The Restoration Movement was like a radical anti-tradition movement - it took the idea of the crisis of faith to its most radical extremes. What makes you different from other anti-traditionalists, though, is comparable to what distinguishes most of the new movements that arose during the Second Great Awakening - the idea that the visible church matters, and constitutes an authority into which the individual is incorporated (not just a voluntary association), and that this institution should be governed by Christ, through his word, by his Spirit of prophecy. Like the Seventh-day Adventists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christadelphians, Pentecostalism, and others: Second-wave (post-Campbell) Restorationism views the divisions among Christians as a crisis of Spirit and Truth - a crisis of authority. So, we have Ellen G. White, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, etc. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think any mainstream tradition views the councils as "inspired interventions" (in the sense of new revelation). We all view them as the ordinary operations of the Spirit of God in the heart of the church, applied to extraordinary circumstances. They are "inspired" in the sense that they bear witness to that original deposit of faith, which lives in us, and is our communion and our authority. However, Protestantism does not accept that even upon extraordinary occasions is the church to be presumed infallible on its own authority - but she is infallible in the authority given to her. So, Protestants direct our faith toward the word of God in the Scriptures, which we expect to see repeated on all occasions. It's when tradition agrees in the Scriptures, that tradition is the very word of God (according to Protestantism). Putting the Protestant view in terms that you can immediately understand, "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear." - Joseph F. Smith — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In contrast, the Catholic and Orthodox traditions are assured that there are things not written, of which the bishop is the trustee. For this reason, they direct our faith toward the stewardship, urging us to believe that the church has not lost, nor added to, anything entrusted to Christ's beloved disciple, who in humility formed in him by His grace, rests upon His breast. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I had in interesting thought this morning about the defining difference, so I'm going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks.

An easy choice would be to say that it is the LDS claim of exclusive authority, of being the one true church, of believing that those who are not baptized by proper authority cannot be saved. But most MC churches have made this claim in the past, and even if it isn't taught today, I suspect some MC still believe that their church is the one true church, and that everyone else is going to hell.

But here is the real difference. Baptism for the Dead. You see, LDS really DO believe that you cannot be saved unless you are baptized by proper authority, AND LDS believe that part of their 'work' is to baptize every person who has ever lived, so that ALL will have been baptized by proper authority. This doesn't mean that all receive Eternal Life, they still have work to do along with choosing whether or not to accept the baptism, but ALL will have the opportunity.

THIS is the dividing doctrine and I suspect it is a slap in the face to all devout MC, the idea that even while they are saying 'no' to the LDS invitation to "Come unto Christ", the LDS issuing the invitation might be thinking, "ok, maybe not today, but eventually, we'll get you". You see, in our missionary efforts we realize that some may escape the net today but we know they aren't forever lost. 74s181 01:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I hasten to add, as we have said in the past, that baptism for the dead is only an invitation ... it is not compulsory. The person for whom the ordinance is performed must decide whether to accept it or not. So, at least in my own view, I am not worried about converting anyone now because they can always choose later, even if in the next life. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

74, that is a rather novel thought process that leads to one thinking in a cynical nature of LDS motives or thoughts. I don't think I have ever shared similar thoughts. My thoughts, and I believe them to be orthodox in an LDS perspective, are more as follows:

We teach the Gospel of Christ because we are commanded to do so by Jesus Christ in the Great Commission.

We baptize for the dead for the same reason, we are commanded to do so. This work is restricted to our direct ancestors although in the past, and I suspect today, some are more zealous and pursue the work for those not in direct lineage. However, we believe that all will have the opportunity to be baptized and receive all other saving ordinances by merit of being children of God.

Exaltation will be achieved by more than just LDS. Given that each individual will have ordinances done, the gift of Exaltation is a function of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and a willingness to follow what truth each has found in this life.

Some have thought if everyone will have their ordinances performed during the Millenium, why do this work now? We do it because we are commanded to and for no other reason. Interestingly, when you count the numbers of hours for each individual to have their work done you are talking about well in excess of six hours per person. This degree of work is prodigious. The hours in research, submitting the names, printing the names, monitoring the entire process, much less the actual ordinances themselves: baptism, endowment, and sealings. I suspect that six hours per person is very conservative. This is just work for the dead; when taking in all the hours of missionary labor annually we are talking about a monumental effort by such a small group of people committed to the cause of Jesus Christ and his Gospel. I digress, but it is a work that has always impressed me.

The point of the edit was to state a alternative way of looking at why LDS perform both missionary service and work for the dead. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I brought this up as a result of recent conversation. A co-worker and I were discussing the issue of why people think LDS are not Christians, he was going thru the list of things he had heard and believed, and was listening to and accepting my explanations until we got to this:

"Mormons think that only Mormons go to heaven, right?"

We've all heard this, and we know the answer, although we are sometimes reluctant to explain it. The answer is yes, but all will be baptised and confirmed members of TCoJCoLdS either in life or by proxy, so all those who lived according to the light they possessed will have an opportunity to accept the necessary ordinances and receive Eternal Life.

I beheld that the faithful elders of this dispensation, when they depart from mortal life, continue their labors in the preaching of the gospel of repentance and redemption, through the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son of God, among those who are in darkness and under the bondage of sin in the great world of the spirits of the dead.

The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God,

And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation. (D&C 138:57-59)

Unfortunately, the idea of 'one true church' is so offensive to most MC that they hear 'yes, but...' and ignore the rest. On the other hand, a few respond very positively to this doctrine, at least partially because they have asked themselves "What about those who died without ever hearing of Jesus Christ? Are they damned?"

So, why do we invest so much energy in missionary work among the living if all will have an opportunity after death? There is much that we do because we are commanded, however, we all know that "...he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant". So we think about why we are commanded to do certain things, we study, we pray, we meditate, sometimes we gain additional understanding. Sometimes that understanding is true, sometimes it isn't. In this case I haven't received a firm confirmation that the following is true, but I also haven't had a 'stupor of thought', so I share it with you...

IMHO, "proclaim the gospel" is the first statement in the three-fold mission of the church at least partly because it is late in the day, we have a huge work to do and "...the laborers are few". As Storm Rider said, it takes a lot of time to get this work done, we need all the help we can get. The way I see it, this is the goal. In order to 'redeem the dead', we need many, many saints who are worthy to serve in the temple. In order to 'perfect the saints' we need saints. In order to get these saints we 'proclaim the gospel'.

So now I ask my LDS brethren, am I completely off base here?

And I ask my MC brethren, is the LDS doctrine of baptism for the dead and all that it implies as offensive to MC as I think it is, is it the single most offensive thing about LDS?

If I am at least partially on the right track then can we get past being offended or uncomfortable and talk about how we can present this properly in the article? 74s181 12:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

74s181, we baptize for the dead - for ourselves who are dead in sin, in the name of Christ who died for our sins. Why would we do that, if the dead be not raised? That is our settled doctrine. I've no choice but to allow you to think it's undecided (among MC) whether I've given you the correct interpretation of the particular passage you're referring to - since there are various ideas about that (as you probably know). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that, Mormonism is so very adamant that the only sins by which any person is condemned are his own, but that your proxy performance of an ordinance becomes part of their acceptability with God; as though, righteousness is contagious, but sin is not. Naturally, as a Protestant, the practice reminds me of John Tetzel's indulgence box: when a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

Wasn't the sale of indulgences the straw that broke the camel's back? That is, doesn't the start of the reformation trace back to this practice? The foundation of this doctrine was the idea that there is an absolute line of righteousness, if you pass the line you make it to heaven, if you don't you either go to hell or spend time in purgatory. According to the theory there are many righteous people who far exceed the requirement. Their excess 'righteousness' is essentially deposited in a bank account controlled by the one who has the keys to bind and loose on earth and in heaven (Matt 16:19), according to Catholic belief this is the successor to Peter or IOW the Pope.

"...righteousness is contagious, but sin is not" - isn't that what the atonement of Jesus Christ is about? Christ paying the debt that we are unable to pay? Yet no matter how serious the sin that He takes upon himself, Jesus Christ remains unspotted and perfect. 74s181 02:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

LDS do not believe in indulgences. LDS believe that the only person whose righteousness can offset the sins of another is Jesus Christ. Baptism for the dead is not a form of indulgence, as baptism for the living or the dead accomplishes nothing by itself. A true conversion or change of heart of the person being baptized is also required, and of course nothing can be accomplished without the atonement of Jesus Christ. 74s181 02:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

For the rest, you're asking a lot of questions about how MC feel about LDS claims (as that seems to be the sense of "offense" that you intended) - which of course, I can't answer. Many might hear your claims and shrug. Many might be more interested. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking back on my three paragraphs, I can't read them otherwise than as argumentative. I am trying to avoid this; but it's counter-intuitive and it takes practice. I'm sorry about that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been way more than argumentative, I think I'm doing better now, but you've been very patient with me and I appreciate it. 74s181 02:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mark; attempting to determine how MC "feels" about a topic seems less than constructive. How do you feel about a beliefs or Sacraments in which you do not believe? Personally, I have a curiousity about the beliefs of others, but I don't know if I have ever been offended by their beliefs (speaking in a proactive sense, One believes in "something").

I am aware of people who are offended by the fact that Mormons want and do baptize people not related to a specific Mormon. For example, the Jewish people are highly offended when they find a Jewish person long dead has been baptized. This degree of offense seems rather rare. Most think something more like "what will those crazy Mormons think of next"; they basically ignore a belief and action that has no effect...does a false belief have any eternal impact? No. Does this make sense to you 74?

Though our actions have an impact on the lives of others, it it the importance of the ordinance that is primary. This type is best exemplified in the proxy atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ for each of us; it is common throughout Judeo-Christian history. Abraham's sacrifice of his son, Isaac echos this same type. Many orthodox pray on hehalf of others to other more elaborate rites.

I would also add that for me these ordinances, as well as those of other churches, are the attempts of man to faciliate others to enter heaven. Where LDS feel that baptism is absolutely necessary, most are not nearly so adament about ordinances. Conversely, they are absolutely adament that one must accept Jesus Christ to be saved. However, those who have not heard about Jesus Christ are just plain damned from the beginning (a good Calvinist thought). Some just leave those people in a kind of limbo where they just don't really know what happens to them. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"A good Calvinist thought": Actually, that's a wicked Calvinist thought. The good Calvinist says that the destiny of every soul that comes into being by the hand of God is in the hand of God. But we know that there is no salvation outside of Christ; and we speak, work and pray in terms of what we know. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a hard truth, but is it not a truth of Calvinist thought all the same? Or have I misunderstood the position of those who have never heard of Jesus Christ. I would not think of it as wicked, but the simple answer to the question for some Christians. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Truth is spiritual. One may know the facts, but be of a different spirit, and in this way fail to tell the truth. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to tell anyone how they feel, I was just going by previous comments made by MC here and experiences I've had when I tried to answer the question. Maybe it isn't the answer that's offensive, maybe it's just my sparkling personality that triggers such a negative reaction. 74s181 01:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So I guess we're back to revelation. I still think we can rule out 'personal' revelation, it seems close enough to 'guidance' as described by MC. The revelation that seems to be an issue is revelation that seems to contradict traditional practice or belief, like the revelation Peter received extending the gosepel to the gentiles. Mark says this is a bad example because it was a fulfillment of past prophecy, but I think it is relevant, I suspect there were more than a few Jewish Christians who were absolutely certain that Peter was wrong, and maybe even quoted the words of Jesus as evidence. LDS similarly claim that many of the revelations that MC object to as violations of tradition or Biblical scripture are fulfillment of OT or NT prophecy. Thus, a major point of difference, but is this the most significant difference? 74s181 01:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

1. The reaction of Christians, being offended, comes from the connection of such things as vicarious ordinances to the Gospel. Intercessory prayer, even prayers for the dead, most of us would understand. However the connection or comparison to the incarnation and death of the Son of Man, for our sake, seems to be close; and this introduces the idea that your view of the atonement may be a very low one after all - it adds more work to trying to understand you. I see now that that's what you meant by "offense". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
2. You're making a very good clarification here, 74s181. There undoubtedly were, and are now, Christians astonished that the "fullness" of the promise took away so much - Dietary laws, sacrifices and the rest of the temple ordinances, civil ordinances, cleanliness ordinances, festival days, sabbaths. It is as though the old heavens and earth had passed away. You're right to point to this as the example of a time when , without prophets, the people would perish.
   The apostles were necessary, in order to establish the times of fullness in complete agreement with the times of anticipation, the promises given through the prophets, the bedrock of God himself, which underlay the foundation. But this is why we do not need new apostles, because no building needs more than one foundation, so long as the builders align their work with that foundation. The church has its gift of apostles. It was not a dead gift, but a living one, and sufficient to support the church until the end of the age. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering the abuses that have been committed in the name of Christianity (and other religions), IMHO we need prophets now more than ever. We have numerous religions that claim totally different things, all using the Bible as "evidence" and all claiming to represent "true" Christianity. While I agree that there is no need for a second foundation, the problem as I see it is that the original foundation has been obscured with all the new building and remodeling that has taken place. It is hard to tell what parts are additions to the original structure and which sections of the building retain the original design. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Prophets are only messengers to those who believe. No prophecy can save from unbelief. As father Abraham, to whom the promise came, said to Dives, who misappropriated the promise through unbelief: "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them." — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I said, "No prophecy can save from unbelief"; but to be complete I need to add: we are saved from unbelief by prophecy, when by faith prophecy destroys unbelief. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

LDS view the role of prophets as shepherds, with Jesus Christ as the master shepherd. Personally, I think the modern metaphor 'herding cats' may be easier for us to visualize today than herding sheep, but it amounts to the same thing.<g> Anyway, LDS see the epistles of the NT as the attempts of the Apostles to herd the sheep in the right direction, as they continually were wandering off of the true path. LDS believe that when this prophetic authority was lost, the sheep continued their wandering behavior with no corrective action.

We see this herding of sheep today in the LDS church, the whole point of the twice yearly General and Stake Conferences and the monthly Ensign message is to try to keep the sheep heading in the right direction. The LDS Apostles today operate much as the Apostles did in NT times, the difference being that there are airplanes, magazines, satellites, etc. to help distribute the modern epistles.

Mark, please don't be offended by what I am about to say, it is a sincere question. Everything I see in the NT epistles is calling someone or some group to repentance, if you could show me scripture where one of the Apostles writes something like "aha! you've finally gotten it right! Good job, church of XXX, you'll need no further guidance from us!" then I might better understand why MC so strenuously resist the idea of the apostasy. There are a couple places in the begining of the Book of Revelations that come close to this, but even there it seems like what is being expressed is cautious, tentative approval. 74s181 14:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't worry about offending me. If you said you were on your way over to kill my family, I would be offended. If you say things that are hard for me to hear, that's not offensive. I appreciate the question. I'll ponder it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

POV edits

I just reverted a collection of edits by Tctwood. While some of them might have been fine, a number of them introduced same pov and argumentative issues that I would rather not see in this article. It is my hope that we can keep this article to simply stating what each group believes without any of the "yeah, but" type stuff that can be found elsewhere.

I plan to notify the editor what I did and why, and suggest that he try again is a more controlled and npov manner. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely about "yeah, but" type stuff. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Millennarianism/Chiliasm

This is a much more difficult area of comparison, but I think that there might be a way to do it within the parameters of comparison. Does the LDS think of the Millennial reign of Christ

1. as inaugurated upon the Ascension of Christ
2. as inaugurated since 1843 (or some other date)
3. as being prepared by the LDS now, and when the preparations are complete Christ will return and inaugurate his reign.
4. as in no sense actual until Christ returns to establish his earthly reign, except within the hearts of believers
5. or, some other order of events ...
   

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

probably #3 (prepared by LDS) is the closest. In literal terms, you could say the second coming occured with Joseph Smith's first vision. This event opened the windows of heaven, and other heavenly messengers prepared the way for Christ's ultimate return and reign. There is a lot to understand here, and probably the best place to start is the LDS concept of Jerusalem and Zion, which are not necessarily the same place. Independence, Missouri has a big part in the second coming, and there is a specific revelation about Christ coming to a temple there, as well as to the Jews in Jerusalem. I don't recall the exact order of things, and LDS don't focus on the details all that much. We don't try to calculate dates or give specific events coorelation with events of the Book of Revelation, other than some secific events in Joseph Smith's life. Still other revelations talk about the role of the Unites States founding fathers and their role in preparing a nation where the gospel could be restored. Particularly, look at the words of Moroni when he visits Smith, quotes scripture and says, these events are soon to pass. That should give you a start on your study. Bytebear 23:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Byte, would you really say that in "a literal sense" Jesus' appearance to Joseph Smith is considered the Second Coming? Do you have a reference for that statement? If so, the context should be reviewed. When Christ returns the Second Time, it will be in all His glory; every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotton of the Father, Savior and Redeemer of mankind.

I think you might be confusing restoration with the Second Coming; they are different. We know that Jesus appearred many times after his he rose from the tomb; those events as recorded in the Bible, those recorded in the new world in the Book of Mormon, Joseph's testimony, and others. However, none of these are considered the Second Coming. The other events that you are speaking of are also not the events of the Second Coming, but rather events that lead up to His return.

We believe that all Christians are preparing for the Millennial reign of the Savior; not just LDS. That thousand year period will not begin until He has returned and the evil one is chained and all his works halted. Byte, does what I write coincide with your understanding of doctrine? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Although there may be some LDS who think the second coming has started, I'm guessing most think of the second coming as when Jesus appears in the clouds with hosts of angels. (option 4) (At least that's the way I think of it.) IMHO, there will be no debate as to when it actually starts. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To understand my point of view, you need to understand the concept of dispensations. This is the dispensation of the fulness of times. it is unique in that it is specifically here to usher in the millenial reign of Jesus Christ. So, the events of this dispensation are specifically geared toward his return. That makes this dispensation unique. So, is his return the grand entrance? or is it like a thief in the night? It depends on your interpretation. Generally we consider the former, but some Biblical references are not about the millenium, but are about the restoration and this dispensation. So when looking at references to the "last days" we need to be sure of what we are referring to. We are called "Latter-day Saints" for a reason. Bytebear 00:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope that you can elaborate on this "reason". I assume that it's not simply because these days are later than earlier days, as today is later than yesterday: but that these are the "Latter days", in a sense untrue of some earlier time. Is that earlier time prior to the coming of Christ (so that all days since the coming of Christ are the last days); or, is there some later date, the First Vision, the calling of Joseph, the establishment of the quorum - or something else - that marks the beginning of the Latter Day"?

Our understanding is that the "latter days" are those that supercede what came before, and which cannot be superceded. Because, after the last days, there can only be the end of days. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Jews misinterpreted the scriptures at the first coming of Jesus Christ, they rolled all the prophecies together and said that Jesus couldn't be the Messiah because he didn't fulfill all the prophecies, not understanding that there would be a first coming, and a second coming. I think that some MC but also some LDS make a similar mistake today, forgetting that in addition to the second coming there will also be a third coming, after the 1000 year reign of peace, when the final battle between the forces of Good and Evil will occur, followed by the final judgement.

LDS and I think some MC look forward to the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth, and the 1000 year millenium during which Jesus Christ will personally reign on earth. There will be an 'event' at which time Jesus Christ will return in all his glory, but IMHO the building of the Kingdom will be a gradual thing that will mostly take place before the glorious return of Christ which will begin the millenial reign.

Regarding dispensations, LDS believe that apostasy is a cyclical event. God reveals his word to a prophet, they teach, the people are converted, and for a while live righteously. They then gradually fall away and truth is lost. Each time God sends a prophet to call His children to repentance, that is the begining of a dispensation. The dispensation lasts as long as there is prophetic authority and righteous followers of God. Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses represent separate dispensations. Christ spoke of this in the parable of the wicked husbandmen, Matthew 21:33-46, clearly Christ is the heir, the vineyard is His church, the servants who were killed were prophets. The wicked husbandmen are the scribes and Pharisees or in other words, the Israelites who are supposed to be the custodians of the church. The nation that the vineyard will be given to is the gentiles. Paul, of course, was the Apostle to the gentiles. LDS believe that Paul spoke of today's dispensation, the dispensation of the fullness of times, in Ephesians 1:10. This dispensation is different in that all things past will be gathered together in one, also, this dispensation will not end in apostasy.

I don't know which event 'officially' marks the begining of this dispensation, the last days, or the 'latter days'. It could be the First Vision, the restoration of the priesthood, the organization of the Church on April 6th, 1830, or the restoration of all the priesthood keys at the Kirtland temple as recorded in D&C 110. I would say the organization of the church. In any event, LDS believe it is underway now, that these are in fact the 'last days'. 74s181 04:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Latter Day" refers specifically to this dispensation. Some scriptural references talk specifically about this time: 1 Ne. 15:23, 18-19, Ezek 38:16, D&C 115:3-4 (where the church is officially named). Other D&C verses confirm OT revelations and that they in fact refer to this dispensation (D&C 138:44, refering to the vision of Daniel in Dan. 2). Other OT references may refer to days later in that dispensation, so we need to be careful understanding the prophecies of the OT, but the D&C does clarify some of the visions of the OT and NT revelations relating to the occurances that lead to the Second Coming of Christ. Now, see there I go saying "Second Coming" meaning the start of the millenium. So, Latter Days refers to the Last Days in most cases, and Latter-day Saints refers to the saints of this dispensation (as opposed to the saints of the NT- the Dispensation of the Meridian of Time). Note, that saints in both cases means simply church members, and not the Catholic definition of a saint. Bytebear 05:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This idea of a "dispensation" being an era of prophetic administration is very helpful. Is "prophetic administration" the right word? I'll try to explore this, to see if you can help me to discover what it is in Mainstream Christianity that compares to this. Thank you for your efforts to be concise. This helps a great deal.

Meridian of Time is an LDS term that I keep hearing, but I do not understand its significance very well. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ came in the 'meridian of time', his coming marked the begining of the dispensation of the meridian of time. 'Meridian' in this usage, refers to the middle or center or dividing time. The calendar is marked by the birth of Jesus Christ, we refer to years before and after his coming. LDS believe that the coming of Christ is approximately the middle of the whole time of the Earth, between the fall and the final judgement. 74s181 11:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Prophetic administration" is an accurately descriptive label. LDS view each dispensation as being associated with a particular prophet. LDS consider Joseph Smith to be the prophet of the dispensation of the fullness of times. 74s181 11:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps me to understand. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a few articles on the subject that might help in your understanding: Dispensationalism, Dispensationalist theology. It is not exclusively an LDS concept, but rather than a Christian theory, it is LDS doctrine. Bytebear 04:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good contrast, between "a Christian theory" and a "doctrine".

As you probably know, the 19th century is a very important period of time for the development and spread of this theory of dispensationalism. Prior to that time, such a theory would have been condemned by comparison to the Apollinarian heresy. Apollinarianism taught that there are two stages to the kingdom of Christ and of God - a human dispensation which passes away and a divine dispensation which remains forever (this corresponds to the Christology inherent in Apollinarianism, that the humanity of Jesus is a shadowy imitation of God that passed away when Jesus was deified). In a parallel fashion, the "kingdom of the Son" dissolves with the appearance of the kingdom of God, according to Appollinarianism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This was addressed by adding to the ecumenical creed, the words, "whose kingdom shall not end." — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am backing up the indents.

I will need to re-read Rough Stone Rolling. Bushman (the author) talks a lot about how Joseph Smith took ideas of the time, and rather than going with the flow of reformationism or traditional Protestantism, he took theories and ideas to a new level. The whole concept of temples, work for the dead, faith vs. works, and in this discussion, dispensationalism all came to him, not as theories, concepts and ideas, but as revelations. This is a huge difference between someone like Calvin or Luther who claimed no divine intervention. Bytebear 03:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a big difference; but it's certainly not the case that they didn't claim divine intervention - just not new revelation. If they claimed new revelation, they would have discredited themselves entirely. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reformation of doctrine

I suspect the above juxtaposition of the terms "Christian theory" and "LDS doctrine" might be offensive but I don't think it was meant that way, I think we can learn something useful from this. From the LDS perspective there are the doctrines that were spoken by Jesus Christ and / or earlier day prophets and are clearly spelled out in scripture, there are doctrines revealed to latter-day prophets, and then there are theories that are based upon those doctrines and / or upon less than clear statements by both earlier and latter-day prophets. Again, from the LDS perspective, some of the MC doctrines we have been discussing fit into the theory category because they have never been clearly stated by anyone with prophetic authority (Jesus Christ or the original Apostles as recorded in the Bible).

On the other hand, it seems to LDS that within MC these things are accepted as doctrines based more on tradition than on scripture.

Please help us to better understand the process of reformation within MC. In the following statements, 'X', 'Y' and 'Z' represent true doctrines, 'Q' represents a false doctrine.

1. The reformers claimed that 'Z' had always been true, was originally taught correctly, but then distorted by men into 'Q', until they (the reformers) recognized the error, explained it and corrected it.
2. The reformers claimed that 'Z' had originally been hinted at in scripture but not fully explained but but traditionally it was clear that if 'X' and 'Y' then 'Z'.
3. The reformers claimed that 'Z' had never been previously taught, but traditionally it was clear that if 'X' and 'Y' then 'Z'.
4. The reformers claimed that 'Q' had always been false, but due to the errors of men it was introduced as a false tradition, but clearly 'Q' is false because of 'X' and 'Y'.

Which of the above are accurate depictions of how doctrine is reformed within MC? I suspect more than one might be correct. Or, maybe there are other processes? 74s181 10:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what would be offensive about the distinction. Not everything we say or do is doctrine.

I'm not sure that any of what you suggest is what reform is about, if you're talking about the Reformation or the Counter-Reformation. The Reformers challenged the Church concerning what was taught for doctrines. They alleged that the "papists" were teaching that we attain to the presence of God by performing this act of penance, that gesture of sincerity, some other ritual of piety, like magical spells - as though the Spirit of God does not provide in Himself everything that pertains to life and godliness through the knowledge of God. It was as though the offices of the church had attracted people greedy for power, who knew nothing of what the Church had fought so hard for, and they were now teaching in the place of the knowledge of God an elaborate occult science of self-perfection, imposing this pagan doctrine on the people, demanding submission to their usurped authority.

For the Counter-Reformation's part, they were particularly concerned with rejecting the idea that Christ is a philosophy, not a life, which teaches for example, in Gnostic fashion, that some are carried along by doom into perfect knowledge, and the rest are lost. They mopped up some sloppiness, but they did not concede anything to the Reformers.

Anyway, all that's just my opinion. The point is, we are all sinners. Wherever we were/are wrong, we hope that God will show us. That's what the process of reformation is: mercy and repentance. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

When I first started typing this section I called it "Formation of Doctrine" rather than "Reformation", but decided that the response would probably have been something like 'among MC there is no formation of doctrine, all current doctrine was fully formed by Jesus Christ and taught by His Apostles". So I changed it to reformation. The point is, I'm trying to understand how doctrinal change occurs among MC. Clearly there is doctrinal change, things like indulgences, infant baptism, immersion vs sprinkling, priesthood hierarchy, all these things have changed over time. So how does this change occur within MC? Clearly there were some false doctrines introduced somewhere along the way, otherwise there would have been no reformation. How was 'true doctrine' separated from 'false tradition' in the past? Could it happen again today? Hypothetically speaking, if it were to happen today, how would it occur? We've talked a lot about how this works in the LDS church, how does it work in the MC world? 74s181 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the church has the fullness of the truth, in Jesus Christ, and is not in need of further revelation, she must be guided into the full confirmation of the truth. Changes are made to the understanding of the truth, but not to the truth itself. It is not the role of changes in doctrine to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to direct into believing the truth more fully. The difference between revelation and guidance is stark. St. John of the Cross speaks boldly about this:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say ... because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some novelty (something newer than God).

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Temple

Somewhat related to the above question, why does the LDS have a temple? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The LDS have several temples, but only a few are relevant to events of the restoration and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Look at the events of the Kirtland Temple, Nauvoo Temple, and Independence, Missouri (temple at Zion). (also events dealing with the state of Israel and the (eventual) temple at Jerusalem. Bytebear 23:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've not understood why you have a temple at all, though. Is it your belief that you are restoring original ordinances of the Church of the Apostles, or are these things that are new and only appear in the fullness of time? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, the temples are used to perform eternal marriages. Individuals can be married for time and all eternity, and the can perform the same ordinances for their ancestors, thus forming an eternal family. Although LDS can see some evidence that some of these ordinances were known and possibly practices in apostolic times, they certainly weren't common. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 00:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition, all work for the dead is performed in temples. This includes marriages (sealings) but also baptisms. Although we do not use temples in the Old Testiment manner -- we do not do animal sacrifices -- We do make additional covenants with God. This is in conjunction with two things 1- the law was fulfilled, so animal sacrifices were done away with and 2- all people can now be part of God's covenant, not just Israel. This means that the temple is open to all eligible members, and not just the priests of Levi. Bytebear 01:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the priests of Levi, note that men who enter the temple are still required to hold the priesthood and be worthy. The difference today is that worthy women are also admitted. 74s181 02:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it your understanding that the temple, and these priestly ordinances associated with it, are newly established for the Latter days? Or, are this temple and the ordinances associated with it:

1. Were in practice by the first Christians - but history, being distorted by the enemies of the full Gospel, has erased the memory.
2. Would have been in practice - and was anticipated to soon be fully developed - but failed to develop because the succession of Apostles had not continued as anticipated by the Apostles.
3. Legitimate even if because of persecution the Christian Temple had not yet been built - and should have been in continuous practice even if there is no temple - but the church became discouraged and failed to follow through.
4. ... or is there some other explanation for the lack of a Christian Temple in the early Church?
   — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

#1. The early Jewish Christians had access to the Temple of Herod and because they were for a time still accepted as Jews, they may have been able to perform some of the temple ordinances there. LDS believe that 1 Corinthians 15:9 is about baptism for the dead similar to that practiced by LDS today.

Baptism and other ordinances for the dead could not be performed until after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but other temple ordinances for the living were performed. LDS believe that Elijah held and exercised the sealing power, this sealing power was promised to Peter (Matthew 16:18,19), Jesus Christ administered the endowment to Peter, James and John on the Mount of Transfiguration as recorded in Matthew 17, Mark 9, Peter received the promised keys at that time from Elijah, who later gave these same keys to the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland temple (D&C 110). LDS believe that a form of the endowment was given to Adam as well as other OT prophets.

The endowment was also given to many members of the early Christian church. LDS believe that the various references in the New Testament to concepts like 'priests and kings', 'crown of righteousness', 'heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ' are all references to the covenants made during the endowment.

The ordinance of washing and annointing is received by LDS just prior to the endowment (I'm not sure if it is officially considered part of the endowment or not). This ordinance was recorded in the Old Testament as performed by Moses (Exodus 28, 29) and is practiced today in a modified form, for example, consecrated olive oil is used instead of ram's blood. Note also the parallels between current LDS temple clothing and the clothing given to Aaron and his sons to be worn as they officiated in the temple.

LDS believe that Abraham and other Old Testament prophets were sealed to their wives by the same sealing power and via similar ordinances as those performed today. Here is a quote from the Doctrine and Covenants:

David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord. (D&C 132:39)

So, the short answer to your question is that LDS believe that the temple ordinances are not new, they have existed since before the foundations of the earth and their practice is recorded in the Bible. 74s181 04:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is the complete and better answer. The arguments supporting it clutter up my vision - since it's your summation that I'm looking for. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Several related questions:

1. Do you have an idea of what the "pattern" was, that was shown to Moses, according to which the tabernacle (and temple) were built?
2. Are there multiple senses in which the Church is "the temple" - metaphorical, spiritual, as typified by the Temple ceremonies, some other sense? (please try to be concise)
3. Is Jesus in any sense a "temple"?
4. Is the Spirit in any sense a "temple"?
   — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Not sure what you're looking for here. The OT gives a pretty complete description of the physical layout of the tabernacle and the later temple of Solomon, but I don't think that is what you want. Maybe you mean pattern of worship? I think we have a fairly clear picture of that from the OT as well. Although there are some similarities it is different from what it became after the resurrection of Jesus Christ due to the ending of blood sacrifice.

2. The church is the bride of Christ. Personally, I have sometimes thought of temple worship especially the presentation of the endowment as symbolic of the consumation of the marriage between Christ and His church, this is why LDS are reluctant to discuss it, and are uncomfortable when others discuss it. I am not aware of any symbolism equating the church organization to a temple, although Isaiah equates it to the tabernacle (Isaiah 33:20; 54:2). This is where the LDS term 'stake' comes from, a stake is an organizational unit consisting of a number of wards and branches. The tabernacle was a mobile temple, so maybe that is the connection. It sounds like you have some specific reference in mind, I'd like to see it.

3, 4. LDS believe that the body is the tabernacle or temple of the spirit. Jesus Christ made reference to this in John 2:19-21, LDS believe that our spirits existed prior to our mortal birth, the body is the tabernacle of our spirit during mortality, and that body and spirit will be permanently joined in the resurrection. We believe that our bodies should be kept holy and pure so that we can feel the influence of the Holy Ghost, see 1 Corinthians 6. From what you have said I think MC believe that the actual person of the Holy Ghost dwells within the bodies of the righteous follower of Jesus Christ, is that right? As you probably already know, LDS believe that His influence can be within us, but not His person.

Concise enough? 74s181 12:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. Sorry; but my head was starting to swim. I'll get back this issue; but for now I should say that the "pattern" shown to Moses in heaven is pretty uniformly understood to be the incarnate Word, the Son of God. You can imagine then, how idolatrous it would seem to us, to call a building our temple, or to continue the sacrifices after Jesus died. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by ilolatrous, but remember that the Jesus, the apostles, and many of his disciples were all Jews, and they continued to worship and sacrifice in the temple. Recall the incident when Paul took someone that others thought were a gentile into the temple to complete a nazarite vow. (Acts 21: 26-30) There are plenty of other references to the disciples worshiping and teaching in the temple.

While it is understandable that you can't accept the purpose of our temples, but hopefully you also understand that we believe the LORD commanded us to build them. I should also point out that, while we believe that many (if not all) of the ordinances currently practiced in the temple were also performed anciently, that doesn't mean they were exactly the same. The overall intent was similar, and so your term "pattern" applies very well there. One obvious aspect is that the ancients were looking forward to the Messiah, while we know who the Messiah is and are looking back as well as forward for him. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 08:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I do understand, that you desire all to be done in faith. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked and couldn't find any reference to pattern other than the pattern of the tabernacle, the ark of the covenant, the candlesticks, the pattern of worship, that is, the patterns of physical things or practices relating to the worship of God. Hebrews 8 & 9 was about as close as I could find to something that might be interpreted as you're describing. 74s181 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you shared my view of things, you might say that you see it everywhere. But what do you think is meant by John 2:21 or, what is meant by the "Father's house" (John 14:2)? Or, what do you think is meant by this:

1Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. (Isaiah 66:2)?

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

John 2:21 - Yes, as I said above, the body is the temple of the spirit. 74s181 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

John 14:2 - "In my Father's house are many mansions..." refers to heaven, and in LDS belief, refers to the different degrees of glory. 74s181 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Isaiah 66:1,2 - Isaiah is both wonderful and frustrating. Wonderful because he prophesies of the coming of Jesus Christ, writing in so many layers, the same prophecies referring to multiple events at multiple times, frustrating because:

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. (Isaiah 6:9,10)

Anyway, I think Isaiah 66 refers to the last days. I read the first part of this chapter as a description of conditions prior to the restoration. I interpret the question in verse 1 "...where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?" as a lamentation that there is no temple on the earth, no place where he can "...make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined.", no place where he can "...destroy... the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations." (Isaiah 25:6,7) 74s181 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Isaiah 66:2 - as great and powerful as the Lord is, he will have respect for those who are humble. I think this may also refer to Joseph Smith and his role in the restoration, "...but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word". I said, multiple meanings at multiple levels. 74s181 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that he says, "to this man will I look", rather than "to this people..." or "to these men...". The prophecy anticipates the coming of a man in whom God will dwell, who will be God's "resting place" (which recalls the Sabbath, which was hallowed by God's "rest"). This anticipated man will be in himself the house of God, who is of course the Messiah. But God has already said that what he has made is unsuitable for his dwelling - for God does not dwell in that which is "made", but in himself (He is his own house). Therefore the man anticipated in the prophecy is not "made", but God incarnate. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This could be a reference to Jesus Christ, but given the general context of the second coming or last days I don't think that fits, because Jesus Christ isn't strictly speaking a 'man' at this point, and he doesn't "...trembleth at my word". Also, on closer scrutiny I see that the word 'man' is in italics in my KJV, I'm pretty sure that means that this word isn't actually present in the original Hebrew, it was added by the KJV translators to make it easier for the reader to understand. Checking one of the parallel Bible web sites I see that this is true, it doesn't say 'man' or 'men' or 'people'. Given what I have learned about Isaiah, we could both be right, this could be both a prophecy about Jesus Christ, and also about Joseph Smith, but like I said, the context seems to be strictly 'A.D.', more second coming than first. 74s181 12:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The word, 'man', is interpolated. It was added by the translators because someone speaking Hebrew would understand it that way. But removing "man", the interpretation remains; like saying "I gave my house to him (or, the man) who gave me the price I wanted".
Maybe you could explain in what sense "we could both be right". If I'm right, this is a prophecy concerning the new heavens and the new earth, embodied in Jesus, who is the original and new Temple, the Son of God and Man, the Word of God who tabernacled among us and showed us God face to face John 1:14. If from your perspective we're both right, then Joseph Smith is both, God and the Savior of the world. I think you're on safer ground saying that I'm wrong, and the passage doesn't mean what I've said. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, interpolated, I understand that, but doesn't that mean that it could also be plural, i.e., men? Or, is there enough context in the original Hebrew to be certain of the singular? 74s181 02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In any event, I re-read Isaiah 66, trying to view it in the context of prophecy of the first coming of Jesus Christ and there are too many things that just don't fit. Admittedly, there are also a couple things that might fit first coming better than second coming, but overall, it seems much more oriented towards the last days and the second coming. 74s181 02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The way we could both be right is that Isaiah's prophecies often refer to multiple events, this one could refer to multiple persons. LDS believe that Isaiah prophesied of Christ's birth and of his second coming, sometimes the same passage will refer to both at the same time, in any event they are often intertwined. This is partly why the Jews didn't recognize the Christ, he didn't fulfill all the prophecies, because some of those prophecies referred to the second coming. 74s181 02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

By multiple meanings you mean like "a virgin shall conceive ..." that sort of thing. No, man being interpolated doesn't mean it can be plural - but that doesn't mean that the singular can't refer to a plural, by synecdoche. Language is as flexible as you need it to be, if you don't want to be pinned down by words. Anyway, you seem to be telling me that you don't believe that it's through union with Jesus as the true and living temple, that the scriptures say, "you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." 1Pt 2:5 But is there some other sense in which you agree with this scripture? Do you believe yourselves to be "living stones" in a "spiritual house" in any sense at all? Do you see that if it's not by union in the body of Jesus that you are a "spiritual house" and a "holy priesthood" (by the Holy Spirit who indwells the body), this explains to us why you have a Temple made with hands? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"a virgin shall conceive" - I'm not aware of any multiple meaning in that particular verse, there was only one Immanuel. However, note that in that particular chapter Isaiah is prophesying events that are both near and distant to him in time, especially the desolation spoken of at the end of chapter 7.

"...union with Jesus..." I believe "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us..." (John 17:21), by following the example of Jesus Christ gave of obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

Mark, are you saying that the tabernacle built by Moses, and the temple built by Solomon relate to the being of Jesus Christ in the same way that the blood sacrifices relate to His atonement, and that because He has come there is no longer any need for a physical temple in the same way there is no longer any need for blood sacrifice? I'm not saying I agree with this interpretation, but if this is close to what you believe then some of the things you have been saying make more sense to me. In any case I would still like to see some more specific scriptural references to this, I think the relationship between the animal sacrifice of the Law of Moses and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is made pretty clear, but I don't see anything that really says He replaces the temple... aha! Ephesians 2:19-22, is that it? "In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord" Is this what you mean? I've probably read this a hundred times and never saw it in quite that way. I still don't think that this means there is no other temple, it does say 'an' temple, not 'the' temple, but you've given me something new to think about, thank you! 74s181 11:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

---

(3, 4) "MC believe that the actual person of the Holy Ghost dwells within the bodies of the ... follower of Jesus Christ" Yes, 74, that's the way we see it. His body (the people of God) is the temple of our body (on Sunday, for example), and his spirit is the temple of our spirit, because our bodies are the temple of his Spirit. As you say, under 2, there's a kind of bride-chamber intimacy about the topic of the temple. These are the pearls of our faith; and there is a point beyond which we cannot discuss them, because they cannot be appreciated by way of discussion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

1 Peter 2:5

I don't know the official LDS position on 1 Peter 2:5, but my interpretation has nothing to do with the temple, but rather a metaphore on Christ being the cornerstone of the church, and that we must be as stones in our belief. Nothing more than metaphore. The people of the church act as stones building the church. It also gives an interesting twist to meaning of Matt 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." LDS believe not just that Peter is the rock, but that the church organization, and its members are also the rock. The keys mentionioned in the next verse are critical in LDS view, as this is the only thing that makes this church "true". Another church can teach the same beliefs, use the same scriptures, and have the same organization, but if they lack the keys given to Peter, they are false. The keys were given to Joseph Smith by Peter, James and John as part of the restoration. This is simiar to the Catholic view that protestants are false because they do not have the authority from Jesus that was given to Peter and subsiquently through the popes. See LDS Bible Dictionary - Peter Bytebear 05:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would add that I have frequently heard LDS speakers refer to the rock in 1 Peter 2:5 as the 'rock of revelation', in reference to verse 4, "...for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven". This also fits with the idea that as members receiving personal revelation we form part of the structure or building of the church, but that we rest upon the higher authority of the apostles, which in turn rests upon Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone in the same way that the stones of the wall of the church rest upon the foundation stones which rests upon the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). It also fits with the parable of the houses built upon the rock and the sand. The rock is the rock of revelation, the sand is the doctrines of men. 74s181 11:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the reference to the rock of revelation is actually in Matthew 16:17-18, not 1 Peter. But you all probably knew that was what I meant. 74s181 12:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

To both, this is very interesting, and it's something I've never noticed if it's been told to me before. Do the LDS not refer to the church as "the body of Christ"? If they do, what does that mean to you? Is that also "nothing more than metaphor"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The church is not the body of Christ, but when one is baptized, the individual become part of the body of Christ. The term can be used synonymous with members as used in 1 Cor 12:27 "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." When baptised they make promises to be Christlike in all their dealings. Weekly the communion sacrament re-emphasises this in the prayer: "O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen." (D&C 20:77) Bytebear 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is very interesting. So, you think of being the body of Christ as being extensions of his purpose - a unity of will and purpose. Is that right? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct, It also gives insight in the nature of God. John 17 quotes Jesus as saying "that they may be bone, as we are one". The Father and Son are one, and the body of Christ is one. We are to be one, even as they are one, not in physicality, but in purpose. And according to verse 22, we will be given the same glory from the Son that the Father gave to the Son. Christ shares his glory with us. Bytebear 21:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And yet, it appears that he "shares" it in a way that nevertheless leaves you apart from him - so that there is one glory of the Father, another of the Son, and another of you: as though what he does is not for his sake alone.

This is not how it is with us. There is one glory of the Father (as God), the same as of the Son (as God), and that is our glory by being united with the Son: that is, not our glory but his. As the Scripture says, "my glory I will not give to another". Isaiah 48:11 — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that LDS somehow think they diminish the glory of God somehow, then you do not understand LDS theology. We know we are one with Christ because we will be like him, glorified through him. He and the Father are not diminished, and our glory will not take away from theirs. But we are promised Glory, that is clear, and that glory is equal to God's. How is it you think LDS diminish God? Does having equal glory diminish God? Or is that the most wonderful gift given by Christ? I think we see our rewards much differently. But I think MC shortchanges itself to avoid perceieved blasphemy. It is the same blasphemy that Jesus was accused of by the Jews. I could go on about the nature of Jesus and how he relates to the Father, and I believe it is the same relationship we have with the Father, the only difference is that He made it possible for us. We could not acheive total oneness with God without His sacrifice. Bytebear 23:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem taking your word for it, that you do not think that you are diminishing God's glory; and even so, I do not claim to understand LDS theology. But according to our understanding of the Isaiah passage, if God were to share his glory as God with another, it would be diminished by the sharing. Therefore, he says twice: "For my own sake, for my own sake". This is why the Scripture says, "Christ in you, the hope of glory". He does not share his glory, except as he gives himself, for his glory cannot be shared with another without being diminished. But by being in Him, our glory is his unshared glory. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is one of those symantic moments. The glory of God, the Glory of Christ, the glory of Man are all different and I nor Jesus ever attempted to take away the glory of the Father. But, Jesus did receive exhaultation, meaning the glory of God's being, his essence. Jesus did become as the Father, glorified and perfect. The glory of God is not the same as the glorification of man. We will be glorified, and become as God is, the same being and essence. We shall be like him. But we did not create the earth, we did not attone for our own sins, and we did not breathe life into Adam. That glory is all Him, and that is why I think we are much like Jesus in our glorification, in that He said it was all glory to the Father, and not to Himself, and yet he was glorified. Does that make sense? Bytebear 23:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth." D&C 93:36 We cannot take away the truth of god or diminish his light or intelligence. But we can add to our own light, by knowing truth and gaining intelligence. We do that by following Jesus Christ. Line upon line, precept upon precept, until we are perfected in Him. (See Matt 5:48; 3Ne. 12:48; Isa. 28: 10, 13) Bytebear 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm never more convinced that we don't understand one another, as when I'm told that our difference is semantics. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To Bytebear, I think that you'll find this small adjustment is reliable: Catholics do not say that the Orthodox, the Anglicans, or the trinitarian Protestants are false - they say that they do not represent the unbroken succession of bishops. That's obvious with Protestants like myself. That doesn't make us "false" - it shows that our tradition is of a vastly inferior pedigree, and our customs are not full. We've let most of the discipline go, claiming it was corrupted. Analogously, would you entrust yourself to a surgeon who only knows from books, not from doing operations, and calls the medical schools "quack"? Wouldn't you rather have one who has all the right certifications, representing the fullness of training and professional trust? The names "Catholic" or "Orthodox" mean, to have the right credentials for possessing the fullness of the truth and trust. To be "Protestant" is to say, all the truth in the world is nothing apart from faith and understanding. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I should add, for clarity, that there are many things in which the divided groups accuse one another of being false - allegedly not only of custom, but of truth itself. What those things are would be interesting in comparison to the LDS; however, since our differences can only be understood in terms of things Trinitarians profess to have in common, the comparison to the LDS on particular points of difference among the "MC" is not as straight-forward as it appears at first. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is probably one of the hardest things for LDS to understand, and probably not universally agreed upon by Catholics. I am just beginning to understand the concept of the (lower case c) catholic church, and how much of protestantism considers itself "one church".

To LDS, it is either you have it or you don't (meaning authority from God). We see from a logicistical point of view the it's either Catholics through Apostolic succession or Mormons through restoration. Protestsntism doesn't claim authority in the same sense so they are not even players in the "authority" game.

But the second part of the issue is truth. LDS believe the have correct answers to doctrinal issues, and their interpratations come from God through revelation, and thus hold more weight. But there are still mysteries, and we do not know all that God is to yet reveal (see Article of Faith 9). This is why LDS can get into deep doctrine, that others call heretical, and still say "we don't teach that", because LDS don't know the whole story themselves.

LDS feel that other churches also have truth but time and scisms have caused some of that truth to be lost (much of it before the 4th century, in the establishment of the Catholic church itself). Protestants are held in high esteem for standing up for truth and against the corruption that they saw in the Catholic church, and they opened the door for a restoration. Without Luther there would be no Smith.

Reading Matt 9:14-17 where Jesus says "Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved." This can be a parable of how God restores truth to people. Rather than holding on to Catholic concepts, the LDS Church is a new bottle, completely independent of any existing church. Bytebear 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

1. players in the "authority" game: Protestants see the succession of authority differently, but historical succession is nevertheless important: Anabaptist/Baptist/Charismatic groups are the exception. But, numerically these groups are growing much more rapidly, and with that their historical-discontinuity perspective is gaining in prominence over the more catholic Protestant view. Schism has become the norm; and their liberal ideas of unity are taking the place of the older, sounder, doctrinally-oriented ideas (this is my own observation and opinion).
2. standing up for the truth: Protestantism stood against the equation of custom with truth, the obfuscation of truth by sophistry and cultural adulteration, and trusting man more than God. We did not attack the tradition of truth, however.
3. Without Luther ... no Smith: Smith is a product of Protestantism turned against the tradition of truth. When Protestantism burned against the tradition of truth as such, it produced many unfruitful branches in addition to the LDS.
4. new wine .. new bottles: Where there is a new creation, it is a new vessel. We did not deny that the Catholic Church was that new vessel; but being filled up with the wine of the new covenant, they should have discerned the Lord's body, they should have purged themselves of the world's leaven, but instead - like men drunk with the wine of wrath - they were subject to judgment when they purged those for whom Christ died (this also is my own perspective and opinion).
   While all would agree that disunity is a scandal, each has its own idea of how the Lord will confirm his word, "that they may be one", to reveal his glory in us. What we all know is that mere unity, except in the truth, is not the glory of God but a tower of Babel. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the "tradition of truth". This is an interesting concept to me. Also, this seems to add a new division: Catholic Church, Protestants who follow the tradition of truth, Protestantants who do not (Anabaptist/Baptist/Charismatic), and others (Restorationists like LDS, JWs, Adventists). Although protestants may feel they are of the same tree, I have often heard Catholics reject these branches claiming Apostolic succession. LDS see (please do not take offense) the whole tree as dead, and that it died a very long time ago with the death of the apostles. A dead tree cannot grow new branches and as such, a new tree had to be planted. (Wow, a lot of metaphores today- no wonder Jesus used parables so often.) Bytebear 17:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The figures of speech that we use aren't mere metaphors, if they are solidly true. It's better, if they are true, to call them figures of speech - shapes of speech that concern things without material shape - things of Spirit.

A living branch is known by its fruit. Fruit with seed in it is not dead. If there is life in Protestantism, it is evidence that there was life in Catholicism, from which we came. The "tradition of truth" is the life that is passed on. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Also in my opinion, the Restorationists are nothing but a permutation of "Protestants who do not follow the tradition of truth". This is evident in baptism. When you don't baptize your children, you are saying that you reject the idea that truth is passed on by tradition. It is a way of saying that, the truth is found only in what each new generation affirms. Obviously, since many of them nevertheless honor father and mother by their faith, they are less convinced of their own individual sufficiency, or of the independence of the child from mother and father, than their baptism otherwise would seem to portray. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

LDS do not look at generational traditions, but rather dispensations (per our earlier discussion). We are open to the idea of rejecting 1500 years of tradition if God reveals it to be false. Similar to your comments on Babel. Just as a people can be united in a false concept, they can also be generationally united in a similarly false belief. Yes the Trinity is very old, and fairly uniformally believed, but we claim the right to reject it as false based on revelation. We also grant you the right to claim it to be true (see Article of Faith 11). Only the Holy Spirit can confirm truth, and we are greatful that God has allowed a restoration through a prophet, as opposed to a confounding of tongues, or a great flood. Bytebear 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your allusion to the flood is apt; especially in the context of talking about baptism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To 74s181, your idea is closer to what I would have expected. It is only by participation in Christ that you make the claim to be a Christian. After the purifying gospel had been preached in the power of the Holy Spirit, he offered his own body as the atoning sacrifice for sins. In his body, through the veil, the sprinkled blood of the covenant spoke on our behalf before the face of God; and our forgiveness was declared when our high priest emerged from the tomb. If his body and his blood are offered for you, your sacrifices are acceptable through him, and you have no need of a Temple made with hands. If you have his Spirit, you are living stones of the living temple, you are the body of Christ, and you have no need of a Temple made with hands. These things are solid to us. They are our foundation on rock. If they were only metaphors, our faith would rest on something insubstantial. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Going back to 1 Peter 2:5, the image of the church as a set of stones is greatly expanded upon in the Shepherd of Hermas. In a vision (or actually a couple different visions I think), the shepherd sees angels gathering stones to be used in building. Some are fit for use immediately, some are not currently fit but are set nearby in hopes that they will become fit, others are discarded entirely. This is a simplification, the vision describes the various stones and their prognoses at length. It's well worth reading.

The church fathers also use the image of building when talking about doctrine: we may explain certain teachings differently or expand on them in certain ways, but we (hopefully!) only build on the existing foundation, never taking away from it or laying a new foundation. Of course, the rub comes when we ask whether a teaching like the Trinity, or the distinction between God's essence and energies, is a 'new foundation' or just a new way of explaining the old. Wesley 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a great metaphore. Does God act as architect, or do the stones decide where they go themselves? With Jesus as the corner stone, you can still build some pretty crazy structures. LDS believe the prophet acts as Foreman geting architectural designs from God directly. When a member or group strays, the prophet is there to herd them back into the fold (to use another metaphore), and make sure the building is sound. The foundation is Prophets and Apostles, with Jesus as the cornerstone (Eph 2:20). Just as Christ is alive so are the apostles and prophets. Living prophets are crucial to the existance of the church. The verse is not interpreted to "those" apostles (meaning the original 12) but current living apostles. See also Amos 3:7. Again, this goes to authority to speak for God. Jesus is not here, but he is still represented on the Earth by living, breathing individuals set apart by God for the purpose of acting as special witnesses of him (see D&C 107:23). Bytebear 17:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jesus is not here: Here is a difference. We say, Jesus is risen and he is here, in His church. But he acts in freedom. We can't make him act. He will act to confirm his word when and how he chooses, to fulfill all righteousness and to crush the enemy's head beneath our feet. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I should add to "he is here", and he is coming again. When a church stops remembering his death until he comes, it stops living by faith. Jesus is in the church, but what the church is won't completely be disclosed until we see him. Jesus is present, so that we know that when he appears we will be like him; but for now we "see in a mirror, darkly". We are God's children now, but what we will be has not yet appeared. 1John 3:2 — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And how on earth do you discern whether a modern apostle is truly speaking for God or speaking contrary to God? If it's up to each individual to discern (perhaps based on the Holy Spirit enlightening each one directly individually), then it appears that you have only managed to make each individual their own pope, with not even a strong desire for uniform doctrine or practice. These things are hard enough to achieve when they are viewed as desirable. If you read the Shepherd of Hermas, there it is chiefly the angels evaluating and directing where each stone is to be put; this can serve as a nice dose of humility for us all. But the Orthodox Church (along with most Christians) continues to proclaim that Jesus is here, in his Church, and (for the more sacramental of us at least) in the Eucharist. Wesley 17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"...how on earth do you discern whether a modern apostle..." First of all, it is important to recognize that when a GA speaks at General Conference, it is considered canon by LDS. This is how we maintain uniform doctrine (in the areas that are important) and practice. We are, however, supposed to gain our own testimony of what we have been taught. This is based on a witness from the Holy Ghost, both directly and indirectly.

A direct witness is pretty clear cut. If the speaker is talking about something that I need to understand better the Holy Ghost will 'nudge' me and I'll pay closer attention, looking for what it is I'm supposed to learn. It's hard to describe, it's a little different for everyone. Sometimes I'll be listening to a talk I've heard several times but one time it will be different, I'll have that 'Aha!' moment and I'll understand something in a new way. Once in a great while there will be that life changing epiphany as I realize the Lord is talking TO ME and no one else, or at least, that is how it seems, and given that the Lord knows me, you, and everyone else, and has told the speaker what to say, then it is true. 74s181 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Indirect witness from the Holy Ghost works like this. I have a testimony by the Holy Ghost that the Prophet is called by God, and performs His will. In this sense, Jesus Christ is here in the church, directing it day by day thru His Prophet. Anyway, the Prophet is inspired to assign certain people to talk. Those people then seek inspiration on what to say and how to say it. If they say something that fits directly with all we have already been taught, no problem, we end up knowing something we didn't know and / or we're inspired to do something better. If they say something that seems wrong, then we go back to our testimony that the Prophet is called by God, and study the scriptures, pray, fast, etc. until we gain a testimony by the Holy Ghost that we are wrong and that what we have questioned is true after all. There are a few who are offended by a particular message and can't or won't resolve their concerns, sometimes they become less active, in extreme cases they might even leave the church, that's pretty rare. 74s181 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, this process works and the LDS church is not the 'free for all, everyone believe what they want' that you may think it is. Most LDS don't concern themselves with the deeper questions where you've seen some inconsistency among the LDS editors here, sometimes I feel like a 'closet theologian'.<g> Most accept what is taught without digging around the periphery, they have their testimony of the gospel, they're busy trying to live the doctrines they've been taught, and they're confident that the answers to these more esoteric questions will be revealed and taught in the temple or published in the Ensign when the time comes that they need to know these things. 74s181 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

But don't you agree 74s181, that there is much depth in the standard works that many members don't scratch the surface of because they don't seek for it? I agree with you that speculation is dangerous and we should often take Joseph Smith's advice and cling to the trunk of the tree rather than pondering the exact coordinates of Kolob (goodness knows I've seen ~ as I'm sure you have ~ people in the wards I've been in who go way off the deep end doctrinally and end up thinking that their more enlightened than everyone else because they believe some "incomprehensible mystery" :-) But if you can find support for deeper understandings of things by a more dilligent study of the scriptures, I don't see anything wrong with that. No need to be a closet theologian as long as you can back it up with good solid scriptural evidence from the standard works (or writings of modern day Apostles and prophets).Mpschmitt1 02:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is much depth in the standard works, but I have seen what you have seen. I teach the gospel doctrine class in my ward, there are definitely people who focus on a particular idea and seem to want to turn every discussion into a discussion on 'X'. By 'closet theologian' I mean that yes, we can and should all seek personal revelation from the scriptures and conference talks, but if we really do come up with something 'interesting' we are encouraged to keep it to ourselves unless the spirit manifiests otherwise. It's the last part that is tricky. When someone in my class asks a hard question that isn't in the lesson manual it is hard to not share what I have learned. I did so once, it made some people uncomfortable. 74s181 10:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If not in the Eucharist then, not in the Church: since that's where we declare his presence. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on Christ's presence in the Eucharist? Is it related to transubstantiation? Bytebear 18:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Transubstantiation is an explanation in philosophical terms, which Protestants reject as an obfuscation of faith. As we have groped for other explanations of what we believe - since we have rejected the explanation provided by tradition - we have exposed subtle differences in belief. All explanations of the Eucharistic presence are Christological in their implications; and that's why we have focused on these subtleties so intensely: to the cynical amusement of those who think we're making it all up anyway ;-) You can read more about that in Real Presence; but the article is not fully explanatory (can any Wikipedia article be so? I doubt it). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I would say LDS would not fall into that category. It probably has less to do with the Eucharist than it does with the nature of God and Jesus. We believe Jesus to have a physical body and as such, if he were really present, he would be physically there. The Holy Ghost however is ever present with those who believe and are baptized. After baptism, an ordinance of laying on of hands is performed and the Gift of the Holy Ghost is given to the new member. So His presence is always there, whether in the Eucharist or not. LDS do not believe in transubstantiation and use the sacrament as a symbol of Christ, and not a literal presence.

I think these discussions are helping me understand how this article can be organized and I am already forming some topics in my head that can be well documented and understood. What is great is that it is a learning and cotrasting discussion. I can see a non-Christian coming away from this with a better knowledge of both theological viewpoints, which should be our goal. Bytebear 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that it's giving you ideas for the article, and for your focus on the goal, which keeps these discussions profitably directed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Before adding an edit; I pray that your Easter was a joyous celebration of the resurrection of our Savior. I still am a bit overwhelmed by the this favorite of celebrations. Wesley, the veracity found in the speaking of an apostle or prophet can only be confirmed the the power of the Holy Spirit. Truly we teach all to seek thta confirmation of Spirit so as to allow us to bear witness of the truth discussed. When does the Pope speaks as a pope and not as a man? Though this has been much discussed within Catholicism, it has not had as much attention within the LDS church. We are counseled to only bear witness to those things we know to be true (not bear false witness; we must know of their truth to bear witness). If we don't receive a confirmation of the Spirit we would first look to our own lives to determine that we are in union with the Spirit. For me personally, when the prophet speaks or gives counsel, I listen. This topic hits close to home because I have concluded that the general authorities of the church are just men...that strive to follow God. This does not mean that they are perfect or that their words are free from the taint of their own thoughts. I am not sure I am explaining myself on this topic well. There are so many levels to ths conversation. For example, when I receive a calling to teach or to lead a group. That calling is believed to be issued by the direction of the Spirit. What happens if it was not? Nothing, I would strive to fulfil my calling and the Lord would support me until released from that calling. The Lord will always bless those who obey first; is not obedience the first law of the gospel? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To "partake of the divine nature" through the promises, we are told, "add to your faith". Therefore, faith (not "obedience") is the first law of the gospel; and love is the goal of faith. Faith working through love will not be unfruitful, according to Peter (2Pt 1:3–10); and the knowledge of Him directs us into a complete sufficiency.— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We all put emphasis on those passages (and interpretations thereof) that tend to support our views. For example, a possible response to the above is "If you love me, keep my commandments." Frankly, I think we would all agree that the first law of the gospel is "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God ..." The reality is that neither faith nor obedience can stand on their own (IMHO). As James says, "faith without works is dead"; the inverse is also true "works without faith is dead." IMHO, our motivation and actions should be based on our love of the Savior. I would hope that is one area where MC and LDS can all agree. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As is evident throughout this very interesting discussion, we can all agree on the words, but mean very different things - just as, we can use different words and mean very nearly the same thing (as Wesley shows by repeating what I meant in different words than I am accustomed to using). I see the difference between James and Paul in the latter light, rather than the former: same faith, different words. And as Peter said, concerning Paul, there are some who use the same words, but have a different faith. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Similar to what's discussed below, Bill; not to put too fine a point on it, but strictly speaking our motivations and actions are not based ultimately on our love for the Savior, but on our knowledge of the Savior. We don't know from ourselves what love is. This is why we need the grace of Christ within us. Our motivations and actions are based on faith. As I said to start this paragraph, I don't think you meant to deny this, and speaking loosely we would say what you said. But speaking more carefully, our faith would be expressed as "We love because he first loved us". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do no disagree with anything that has been stated above. However, I would say context is different. Let me explain myself and why I have stated that obedience is the the first law ofthe Gosepl or better stated the first law of heaven. How does one obey; by repenting, by accepting the will of God for our life and subsuming our own (this is the first minute steps of faith is based upon obedience), love I see as the same thing. This law is not the same thing as the commandment stated above. A commandment is something that is obeyed; thus obedience is often said to be the first law of Heaven. This should also not be confused with Grace; Grace saves, obedience is but the first path taken to respond to the call of God. Does this make better sense? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Faith is the first principle of the gospel (see Article of Faith 4), but I think what Storm is saying is that laws are different than principles which are different than commandments. Context is the key in this discussion for sure. Bytebear 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to run ahead of you to a conclusion; but I would still say that sanctification is not adding to obedience, but adding to faith. This is what we understand Paul to be saying: "Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works." As the proverb says, "Desire without knowledge is not good"; and this is just what Paul testified, "I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge." The knowledge of Him directs us into a complete sufficiency: that is, faith. Romans 10:2 — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I should learn to keep my mouth closed. Faith is an active force; it is not done to us, but rather we actively chose to believe, we hope to believe. These, IMHO, are actions and choices that demonstrate obedience. This is not a discussion that juxtaposes Faith and Works, but rather is more like the hand in the glove. Obedience is not the burden of the believer, but the fruit of those who hear the sweet invitation of Jesus to "Come unto me". As I first wrote that comment about obedience I suspected it would "catch" people wrongly; however, it does not lessen the truth found in it. It does not conflict with the great words of Paul to the people of Corinth, "Faith, Hope and Charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." Paul's statment did not belittle Faith or conflict with even your words. Context is so vital and this medium of writing complicates the ease that would normally flow with face-to-face conversation where quick clarification would be present. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark, if I understand correctly, according to Calvinism faith is 'done to us', right? I don't think there is a firm consensus among MC on this, unless it is the consensus of grace, that is, grace happens, and faith, salvation, desire to do good works is the result.

The LDS view is different, It is outlined in the A of F but I think it is most clearly taught in the seed of faith sermon in Alma 32. Not much time right now, so the short version, you probably prefer that anyway <g>. LDS teach that the difference between belief and faith is that faith is belief which has become strong enough to motivate the believer to action. Knowledge comes after faith, when LDS say "I know 'X'" this is something beyond faith.

Anyway, the path is: Desire to believe -> belief -> faith -> 'experiment upon the word' or works -> grace (confirmation of faith) -> nurture (more works) -> knowledge of a particular doctrine. Continual nurture (works in the form of study, prayer, acts of charity, etc.) is needed to maintain 'knowledge', the higher faith.

If want to understand the LDS view of the relationship between faith and works, and if you never read anything else in the Book of Mormon I recommend you read Alma 32. It was while reading this chapter (for probably the 20th time) that I came to know that the Book of Mormon was true, that it was exactly what it claims to be.

O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good. 74s181 12:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

To understand the LDS you must understand this. We believe in personal revelation. After we come to know something, nothing else matters. 74s181 12:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

according to Calvinism faith is 'done to us', right? What on earth would it mean to have faith "done to us"? No. Grace is "done to us", and my believing is formed by and according to that grace. As Christ has two natures, so Calvinism believes that God works and man works - but sinful man cannot contribute from himself to his own salvation. The sinner is "poor in spirit" - a beggar, who has nothing of his own to offer. By the Spirit, he knows his poverty and, in the Spirit he asks the Father for the Spirit and, from the Spirit he lives by faith. I can't tell if this changes what you would say or not. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I made the comment because Storm Rider had just said that faith is not done to us, and I thought that the MC or at least the Calvinist idea of Grace was exactly that, something God does to you. I'm not being critical, I'm just trying to understand it properly. Your last comment sounds like you said faith is not done to us, but then you said grace is done to us, and believing / faith is a result of that grace. So, until God decides to save us, there is nothing we can do, we cannot believe, we cannot have faith. Once God does decide to save us, there is nothing we can do to prevent ourselves from believing and having faith. I don't think this is what you meant, but this is what it sounds like to a LDS who was raised on the doctrine of Agency (Mormonism). 74s181 22:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In thinking I said, "Once God does decide to save us, there is nothing we can do to prevent ourselves from believing and having faith." I suspect that you might be ignoring that I said, "God works and man works". It's true that, if God grants us a willing heart, we do not will against being willing; but that's not because he takes away our free will. Rather it's by setting us free to be willing to be free. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking these questions because 'grace' and 'works' are allegedly a sticking point between LDS and MC belief. The statement "God works and man works" is exactly how LDS see it, I wasn't ignoring it but was trying to understand just what MC mean by grace. "Rather it's by setting us free to be willing to be free." From this it sounds like the function of grace is to free us from the burden of sin and make it possible for us to desire salvation, prior to the application of grace we are in bondage to sin with no hope. Is that close? If so, I'm still looking for the objection, as this also sounds just like LDS belief. 74s181 14:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the only real difference is that LDS insist certain 'works of obedience' are required in addition to Jesus Christ's grace and our own faith. See the third and fourth Articles of Faith:

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. (Or, in other words, God works and man works)

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Grace already having been given, followed by faith which is exhibited by works of obedience) 74s181 14:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose another possible difference is that LDS believe that this aspect of grace (granting hope, freeing us from bondage) was universally applied by the atonement (Ephesians 2:8,9; 1 Corinthians 15:22). Perhaps MC believe that this form of grace is an event that happens to us individually sometime during our lives, and we either accept or reject it? That would explain a lot of the objection if it is a correct statement of MC belief. 74s181 14:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Law of Moses = God's true church?

After all the discussion above about Moses, the temple, and the 'patten' shown to Moses, I have a question for Mark or any other MC that might be lurking.

My question is, what do MC think about the Law of Moses in general and the religion practiced by the Jews during the life of Jesus Christ in particular? I realize that there probably isn't a full concensus among MC, but I think a discussion of this may still be helpful to our understanding of each other.

1. The Law of Moses was God's true church for Israel but isn't true today. Because God makes people differently at different times, He gives people of different ages a different Gospel.
2. Moses taught the word of God as he understood it, but his understanding was flawed from the begining, so Jesus Christ had to completely replace the incorrect Law of Moses with the true Gospel which was considerably different from what Moses taught.
3. Moses originally taught the fullness of the Gospel but over time his original teachings were corrupted, Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law and to correct errors in doctrine.
4. Moses originally received the same Gospel that Jesus Christ taught during his mortal ministry, but the people weren't ready so a lesser law was given to prepare Israel for the coming of Jesus Christ.
5. Something completely different from the above. 74s181 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And a related question, what about the prophets of the Old Testament after Moses, did God really speak to them and command them as recorded in the OT, or did they just receive strong feelings or 'guidance' and record it as God speaking to them? 74s181 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A very good question, 74s181; I think you'll be intrigued by what the consensus would say. I'll have to wait until I have more time, though; it could grow very lengthy, without concentration. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll throw out a preliminary answer to get things started. The Orthodox clearly believe that Moses and all the 'OT' prophets were inspired by the Holy Spirit, 'speaking forth' (i.e. prophesying) God's word. Many prophecies are regarded as having at least two meanings, one for the immediate situation or 'near future', another that foretold or foreshadowed Christ's coming. Thus the burning bush foretold Mary's giving birth while remaining a virgin, and Moses' outstretched arms during the battle signified our victory through the Cross, as did the tree thrown into the bitter water to make it good to drink. David is called a prophet because of the great number of Psalms that apply to Christ. The icon of Christ's resurrection shows him pulling Adam and Eve with him out of Hades, along with some representative 'righteous ones' from the Old Testament. The Law was given to prepare us for Christ; Christ came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it. Thus we still have a pattern of worship to follow that is given to us, we don't worship haphazardly or in the manner most entertaining to most of us. We still have a priesthood and an altar, though now we offer the "bloodless sacrifice" of the Eucharist, as the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom calls it. And we continue to make heavy use of the Psalms, as God's people did before.

It's also interesting to note the many righteous figures in the Old Testament who were not descendants of Abraham, including Melchizedek, Ruth (an ancestor of Christ and a Moabite), Balaam (a true prophet of God working for an enemy king), and others. Things aren't always as black and white as we might imagine them to be. Wesley 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Good comments, Wesley. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just want to add that one vivid confirmation that Moses and the prophets were true servants and prophets, is that both appeared with Christ on Mt. Tabor with Christ during the Transfiguration, all three of them literally glowing with what Gregory Palamas much later called the divine uncreated light of God. However you interpret the light, it's clear that all three were very godly to say the least, and did not contradict one another. This on top of the many passages where Christ quoted various scriptures to explain what he said and did, the books of Romans and Hebrews in particular validating the Old Testament while affirming Christ's work and explaining it in the light of the 'Old'.... I'll try to stop now. Many many excellent books have been written already on the subject. :-) Wesley 18:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going to put an LDS spin on it because that event reminds me of another event recorded in LDS history:

He called me [Joseph Smith] by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

...

After telling me these things, he commenced quoting the prophecies of the Old Testament. He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi; and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus:

For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble; for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

And again, he quoted the fifth verse thus: Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

He also quoted the next verse differently: And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.

In addition to these, he quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ; but the day had not yet come when “they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people,” but soon would come.

He also quoted the second chapter of Joel, from the twenty-eighth verse to the last. He also said that this was not yet fulfilled, but was soon to be. And he further stated that the fulness of the Gentiles was soon to come in. He quoted many other passages of scripture, and offered many explanations which cannot be mentioned here.

Joseph Smith History 1:33, 36-41

I find the parallels in the calling of prophets compelling. Bytebear 22:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's no wonder, in light of such claims, that you cannot believe us. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so easy to believe in angelic messengers 2000 years old, but not 200? The answer was given by you: tradition of truth. Your tradition denies even the posibility of the events of the restoration, and therefore, they must be false. Bytebear 23:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, our tradition denies the possibility, because what Joseph was told is that what had come before would be superceded by preparation of a new earthly priesthood, and the outpouring of another spirit. If we don't believe that Christ is present in the church, how can we know? Maybe what Joseph heard is not true, but maybe it is! But if we believe in the church, there is not a whisper of doubt that Joseph is a false prophet, like Muhammad, and that his prophecy subordinates what was established through Christ to what was established through Joseph.

Perhaps we can agree completely in this then: that line of the creed which says, "I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy catholic church; the communion of saints", is not the subtractable thing that anti-catholic Protestants eventually made it out to be. Just as you can say that believing this keeps us from believing Joseph Smith, we would say the same thing, and for once both of us would mean exactly the same thing. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that. The creeds aren't rejected by us because they are not true in their acknowledgement of Jesus Christ, but to the church. We believe the church that Christ established was lost before the creed was ever written. Bytebear 23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please tweak that second sentence, so that I can see more clearly what you mean. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Bytebear, it's not only a matter of trusting angelic messengers 2000 years ago vs. 200. The gospel of 2000 years ago continues to be confirmed by miracles and angelic messengers today. The Holy Fire continues to appear every year in Jerusalem at Pascha. So it's just as much a matter of which modern day messengers and miracles to believe. When I was a charismatic/pentecostal evangelical, it was popular to think that only our tradition had any experience of miracles or other active works or gifts of the Holy Spirit. It's now clear that something in addition to startling appearances, miracles, or even nice sounding teaching is needed.

In the passage you quoted, it appears that Joseph Smith attempted to alter some Bible passages to support his view, by putting them in the mouth of Moroni. In claiming that Joel 2 was not yet fulfilled, he flatly contradicted the words of Peter in Acts 2, to say nothing of the later experience of the church in succeeding centuries. The rudiments of credibility are starkly missing. Wesley 16:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wesley, I would have to disagree with you regarding the fulfillment of Joel's prophesy; it remains unfulfilled. The verse reads:

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come.

Verses 19 and 20 are certainly not fulfilled, nor has it been. It is obvious that you were focusing on the first part of the prophesy. I do not see any contradiction to what Joseph said; would you agree? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is because we've seen 17-18 fulfilled, that we know that what we are looking for in fulfillment of 19-20 will be in continuity with what we've seen with our own eyes, and know - that the Spirit of God has been given, with power. Since we've seen the rudimentary elements of the world being over-ruled by the coming of their creator, we know that to trust in him rather than in those things is what is required of us by this scripture, to lead us away from the envisioned destruction. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

When did the "charismatic/pentecostal evangelical" movement begin? Had it reached full flower in the 1820's? I know some aspect of this was present at that time among some Christian groups, but I don't know the full history, had people really start prophesying, and seeing wonders in heaven by then? This is a sincere question, I really don't know the history of the pentecostal movement that well, I know that things like this happened in New Testament times, but later the orthodox church said these things were past, and clearly, Joel is speaking of end times and events leading up to the second coming. So, had any part of this prophecy really been fulfilled when Moroni spoke to Joseph? 74s181 10:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue was Wesley's statement that Joseph "flatly contradicted the words of Peter" and "rudiments of credibility are starkly missing". There is no contradiction; partial fulfillment means unfulfillment of Joel's prophecy and Peter was not saying it had been fulfilled completely. Joseph's words did not contradict Peter and remain credible in this situation; to state otherwise is not truthful. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

74s181, the modern 'charismatic/pentecostal evangelical' movement didn't really begin until the early 20th century, usually dated to around the Azusa St. revival. But people were prophesying on the day of Pentecost, the New Testament itself records many people seeing visions and dreaming dreams (esp. Peter, Paul and John), and there are accounts of that happening all through the history of the church from then until now. It's a myth that only protestant pentecostals experience signs and wonders, a myth that I used to believe myself. Storm Rider, I will admit I thought that Peter was more clear in saying Joel was fulfilled that day. Going back, I see that it was only implied. He did quote the passage to explain what was happening, and he could have easily stopped a few verses earlier had he meant to. The sun had in fact just recently been turned to darkness, when Jesus was crucified on the Cross, so we also have fulfillment of that part. In his fifth homily on Acts, John Chrysostom states that the rest of the calamities refer both to the coming judgment and to the capture of Jerusalem in AD 70, particularly the blood and fire etc. So while it still seems clear to me that this is largely fulfilled at least in great part, and has been viewed as such by most of the church throughout history, I can see how someone looking at these verses in isolation from anything else might suppose they were not yet fulfilled. Wesley 17:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wesley is correct in regards to signs of the Spirit. Since the time of Christ there have been many instances of workings of the Spirit. The Apostasy was a loss of authority, not a period where the Spirit did not interact with individuals. Wesley, LDS focus on the last verse of the passage in Acts, "before that great and notable day of the Lord come". This is viewed as a prophecy of the last days. We would say that the burning of Rome was not a sign of his future return; a 2000 year notice would seem to lose its value. We would also say that it has yet to be fulfilled. I am familiar with Chrysostom's opinion in this regard, as well as many others that would agree with him, but I think we would find other Christian theologians who would disagree; not just LDS. One thing that is evident is that all Christians await the day of His return. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In regards to whether Acts 2:17,18 had already been fulfilled at the time Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith, didn't one of the early councils condemn those who claimed 'gifts of the spirit'? Weren't these gifts routinely supressed and denied by MC until the time of the modern pentecostal movement, which, according to Wesley began in the early 20th century, long after Moroni's appearance to the Prophet Joseph Smith? Wesley also said it was "a myth that only protestant pentecostals experience signs and wonders", aren't these 'gifts of the spirit' still denied by many MC today? 74s181 13:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So, did Moroni contradict Peter? I don't think so. In order to understand what Peter meant when he quoted Joel we have to place the event in context. In Acts chapter 1, just prior to his ascension Jesus said that the twelve should "wait for the promise of the Father", and that they would "receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you". At the end of Acts chapter 1 a new Apostle is selected to fill the vacancy created by the fall of Judas. Then, in Acts chapter 2, on the day of Pentecost, "they" meaning the twelve, "were all filled with the Holy Ghost" and there was an outpouring of spiritual gifts, including speaking in tongues. Jews from many different lands reported to others that they had each heard the twelve speak in their own native languages. Some of the Jews responded to this incredible report by accusing those reporting of being drunk. In response to this, Peter paraphrased the section from the end of Joel 2. 74s181 13:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I said paraphrased. In the KJV, Joel 2:28 says "And it shall come to pass afterward...", but Peter said "And it shall come to pass in the last days...". I checked a parallel OT with 10 different renderings, all use the word 'after' or 'afterward', none say 'in the last days'. What is the significance of this? Let's go back to the prophecy of Joel. The LDS KJV chapter 2 heading says it is about the Second Coming. The MC online parallel Bible that I use says that the 'after' refers to after the return from the Babylonian captivity, but Peter's usage suggests that this prophecy also refers to other times or events, specifically to the events on the day of the Pentecost. Additionally, in the Book of Revelations, John references some of the same elements as Joel in his description of the opening of the sixth seal (Rev 6:12), including elements from the section quoted by Peter. I think this confirms that this is also prophecy of events yet to come. 74s181 13:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So, whether or not you accept the account of Joseph Smith concerning the visitation of the prophet Moroni, I think it is clear that the prophecies recorded in Joel, paraphrased by Peter, re-prophesied by John refer to events of various times including times far in the future from Peter and John. So, when Moroni quoted Joel and "...said that this was not yet fulfilled, but was soon to be" there is no contradiction. 74s181 13:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the subject of the article (remember the article?<g>), I see a recurring theme repeated in this discussion of Peter, Joel, and Moroni, and for that matter, in the discussion of the OT prophets and the doctrines and practices they taught. MC and LDS interpret many Biblical scriptures differently. I don't know if it is possible for either of us to step outside of our particular box and honestly consider the other's interpretation as possibly more valid than our own. Mark commented on this some time back, it is a question of Faith, we believe certain things, we accept a certain basic premise, and this colors everything we read in the scriptures, both for MC and for LDS. Can either MC or LDS objectively examine the other's interpretation? I don't think so. I think the one thing we can agree on is that the scriptures were not written to be understood by reason alone. So, what can we say about this in the article? 74s181 13:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing

Please do not edit in between other edits. It makes it very difficult to follow new edits. It is much easier to follow each edit; if you feel it necessary to qualify your new edit as a response to a comment above, please do so. Also, this is such an active page with so many edits that archiving is done far more than normal. I generally like to keep at least one month, but given the length of this page and the manner in which edits are made, archiving too difficult and result in very aggressive "moving". My apologies in advance. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't allow editing between paragraphs, replies are often hopelessly separated from one another. Allowing the product of the conversation to lay out in an intelligible way is much more important in the long run. Follow new edits by looking at the history, rather than by telling people where they can and can't reply. But, this is a very, very old difference in preference. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that it has been close to impossible to follow all of these discussions, especially because of all the indenting and answers in the middle of a discussion. It is like being in a room where multiple conversations are going simultaneously ... it is too easy to get whiplash trying to follow all that is going on. ;^) Perhaps we should start new topic headers when the discussion starts to branch. We could include a brief quote to refer back, and maybe even a quick link in the main discussion to where the branch discussion starts? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark, if you interpreted my request as "telling", I apologize. As I wrote it my purpose was only to make a request. I do not perceivethat I have the ability to tell or command any editor on Wikipedia anything. However, when editing transpires in a chronological order, IMHO, the flow of the conversation is inclusive. When the conversation is done otherwise, it is too easy for other editors to sense that they are not in the conversation. Further, I suspect that we have more readers than participants.

BTW, the last archive probably did not remove as much material as it should have. Prior to making a new archive page, maybe we could simply add to the last one made? Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you interpreted what I said as a rebuke, I apologize!

I like the idea of post-editing conversations, prior to archiving, to add new headers. The branching paragraph is copied under the new header - a link is made to the section from which it was copied and to which the branch proceeds. It's a bit of janitor work, but it does make a more readable and usable product. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (198.145.202.34).

We get into tangents and when we do, we should create subheadings. This is an easy way to branch off the various converations. I made such an attempt with 1 Peter 2:5. it also gives you a little [edit] link so you can make edits easier. Is this a reasonable solution? Bytebear 20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that works. If the editor who finally archives the discussion has the time, he might go through and add these helpful sub-heads, reformat the indents, and do what he can to make the archive readily readable and more helpfully indexed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Avoid argumentation, accentuate comparison

Please see this diff for an example of how argumentation, instead of comparison, clutters up the flow of the article and introduces elaborate explanations of POV out of turn. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but we can't have it drift to far the other way either. The advocacy of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew is still present and feels lopsided without the LDS perspective (since this portion of the section is specifically about revelation). I've tried to even this out, but if you don't like that, I say we trim it back to the sentence that ends " in the church according to his promises."Mpschmitt1 00:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about "drift", and do not aim for "balance". Aim for neutrality. It shouldn't matter to you, if your side either seems to be winning or losing. If you don't think of this project as for the purpose of argument, but for clarification, you will see what I mean. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good call, Mark. I like the way you fixed it. Mpschmitt1 17:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me so. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He is not here, but is risen

A simple and sincere question, prompted by the suggestion that He is not among the LDS and the statement "But the Orthodox Church (along with most Christians) continues to proclaim that Jesus is here, in his Church."

LDS believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross and was resurrected on the third day. He was raised with a perfected physical body immune to injury, physical pain and death. He appeared to his apostles on numerous occasions, He was touched and felt, He ate with them:

And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

And he took it, and did eat before them. (Luke 24:36-43)

LDS further believe that He still posesses this body, it is a physical body, and when it is said that He will come again and rule over His kingdom, LDS understand that to mean that he will physically be present on the earth, he will be physically visible to all. Today his influence can be everywhere, thru the Holy Ghost. But when someone says "Jesus is here", LDS look around and say, "where?".

So, do MC believe that He still posesses this body? Clearly when MC say "He is here" they don't mean He is here in the physical sense, and if His spirit is here but His body is not, doesn't that deny the resurrection? 74s181 10:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jesus is, was, and always will be God. Therefore, He is always omnipresent. It is impossible for Him to be absent. As the Psalmist said, whether we flee to the highest heights, the lowest depths, or the farthest reaches of the earth, God is still there. To suggest this doesn't apply to Jesus is (for MC) to deny his divinity; however if Jesus was once not God but later became God (or a god?) in the LDS view, then perhaps this doesn't bother the LDS. But Matthew ends with Jesus' words, "...lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Also, many MC believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus.... as it was when Jesus himself instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, so there is undeniably a bit of Mystery here. But saying Christ is with us now, even when we don't see His body, does not deny the physical resurrection any more than Jesus' presence at the Last Supper means that that bread and wine was not His body and blood. And yes, we believe that Jesus still has his body, having united human flesh with divinity. (Angels, demons, Satan, etc., are of course not divine and not omnipresent, despite being bodiless. Having or not having a body isn't really the issue.) Wesley 16:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I know this has nothing to do with this article or with Wikipedia, but I just have a doctrinal question: from your POV, Wesley, would you say that Jesus is present in the mind of Satan? In other words, can we look within the evil heart-of-hearts of Satan and find the presence of Jesus? And if so, what's he doing there? I'm serious: not trying to be facetious or start an argument. COGDEN 18:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't pretend to understand these things, but there are certain things that we are given to believe. When God spoke into the darkness, "let there be light", there follows what seems to be a moment of impossible confusion - before God "separated the light from the darkness". The Triune God is everywhere, over all, through all, and in all; so that Satan has the truth not only surrounding him, but also governing him, and even within him - because he also is a creature of God. Lies contain the truth. The scriptures call it "the mystery of lawlessness". At the final judgment, God will discern one from the other, by separating light from darkness, but until that great Day there is a seemingly impossible confusion - until the liar is cast out forever to burn in darkness, finally entirely subjected to Him that he deceitfully denied. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Mark. I'm not at all certain that this is dogma, but there is at least one opinion within Orthodoxy that compares God's love to a river of fire. Those that love God in return are blessed by it, but those who reject God's love or try to flee from it are tortured by it. Satan would appear to fall into the latter category. (This is in contrast to the idea that Hell is separation from God.) It's also interesting that some, but by no means all, saints in history are known to have prayed for everyone's repentance, including Satan's. That Satan might repent is certainly outside the realm of dogma or certainty, but there are those who have hoped and prayed for it.

Clearly, when we talk about "inviting Jesus into our heart" we are not being literal, or referring to whether Jesus is omnipresent. He clearly knows everyone's heart intimately, bad or good, whether we want him or not. Typically when we speak of Jesus' presence in our heart, or the indwelling of the Spirit, we're talking about our attitude and welcome of Him, and of his active presence and grace in our hearts and lives. So although Jesus is omnipresent, His grace and work is presumably not actively at work in Satan assuming Satan remains unrepentant; Satan presumably retains free will in this regard, and God does not force his obedience any more than he forces ours. (Again this is largely opinion, not entirely dogma.)

Do the LDS believe that God the Father is omniscient and omnipresent? That Jesus is omniscient and omnipresent? Wesley 23:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a tough question. There is no specifics other than they both the Father and Son have distinct and separate phyisical bodies. Clearly Jesus isn't limited to the normal physics as he appeared suddenly to some desciples, walked on water, etc... Some LDS folks theorize that God is outside the realm of time, which leads to the possibity of being omni-present while still having a physical form. In short, it's a deep and mysterious issue. As for omniscient, LDS do believe God knows everything about everything past and future. As to whether Jesus is "in our hearts", we believe that the term is figurative, but that the Holy Spirit can and does touch our heart in a very real sense as a witness of truth and light. The D&C verse often quoted regarding this concept, to me is elegently simple. 68.4.225.72 02:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Several points of clarification. LDS believe that the Father, and the Son are now and have always been 'gods', even before they possessed physical bodies. Brigham Young and maybe other past prophets said some things that might be interpreted to mean that God the Father himself has heavenly parents, personally I don't think so but I don't know for sure, it is definitely a 'mystery'. In any event, I think most LDS believe that the Father is God over all. It is doctrine that He does all things through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who created all the worlds before his time in mortality. Therefore, LDS also believe that "Jesus is, was, and always will be God". 74s181 15:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Omniscience. LDS believe that all three members of the Godhead are all knowing. No argument here, although I have heard some say that only the Father knows the hour of the second coming of the Son, even the Son himself doesn't know. I don't have an answer for this one. 74s181 15:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Omnipresence. LDS believe that all three members of the Godhead are one in purpose and that their influence is everywhere, thru the Holy Ghost. Although They are not physically in all places at all times nothing escapes Their knowledge or influence. Therefore, Jesus Christ is with us, in a way similar but infintely superior to the way that a person at the other end of a phone conversation is with us, but if he was physically here there would be no way to not know. Here is an LDS doctrine you may not be familiar with, it is that no mortal thing, man, animal, or plant, can stand in the presence of God the Father or the glorified Jesus Christ (God the Son) and live, unless he / it is transfigured or protected by the power of the Holy Ghost. 74s181 15:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Satan's repentence - I think that Alma said it best:

Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all-searching eye. (Mosiah 27:31)

Does this mean that Satan will repent? In Philippians 2:10 Paul included "...and things under the earth". I think this means that Satan will confess his error. He may even be forgiven to some extent, but will never inherit a kingdom of glory. 74s181 15:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Mark and Wesley. At first glance, that seems quite different than standard LDS doctrine (taken from the Book of Mormon), where there is an idea of "spiritual death" which means separation from God (i.e., what happened when Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden). The most standard LDS views of God and Jesus today would say they are not omnipresent. Nevertheless, Joseph Smith's views about the nature of God were constantly changing, and there was a time when his revelations seemed to say that Jesus has some sort of presence was everywhere, within all people, including Satan. An 1829 revelation says that Jesus is "the light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not." (D&C 6:21). In 1832, a revelation said that Jesus was in the sun, the moon, the stars, and the earth, and that he is the "light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things." (D&C 88:7-13). This was long before 1843 when Joseph Smith first taught that God and Jesus had physical bodies, but LDS adherents today still accept the idea that there is a "light of Christ", although they generally make a distinction between Jesus himself, which is not omnipresent, and his "light", which apparently is. COGDEN 18:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting points; however, I am not surely it is fully accurate of the LDS position. I consider the following statement by Elder Hugh B. Brown in General Conference April 5, 1964, "For ourselves, we reaffirm our conviction that God is real and personal, that Jesus the Christ is His only begotten Son. We rejoice to proclaim to the world that He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent." Another statement would be by Robert Millet in his book entitled Alive in Christ: The Miracle of Spiritual Rebirth: p. 68-69, "Yet individuals cannot come to Christ until they recognize their own plight--their utter inability to change on their own—--and humble themselves before him who is omnipotent, omniscient, and, by the power of his Spirit, omnipresent." Even better would be Joseph Smith's own words Lecture 2, paragraph 2, "God is the only supreme governor and independent being in whom all fullness and perfection dwell; who is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient." Many, many other quotes can be offered by David O. McKay, J. Ruben Clark, Hugh Nibley, and others that would directly conflict with the position you have noted that he is not omnipresent.

As an aside, Cogden, in my own mind I have never separateed Jesus Christ from His light. I have always believed they are Him. We do discuss His light, that it is in all things and gives conscience to mankind, that voice that even a child hears that says something is wrong. To be honest, I have never put much thought in thinking that God and His Son are not everywhere. I guess it really has never been a question. Hope this helps to clarify the LDS position on this issue. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See also the archived discussion, at Indwelling and Infilling and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, as well as its continuation above, at #Personage of Spirit. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

When LDS scholars and apostles like Hugh Nibley and Bruce R. McConkie use the word omnipresent, they are using the word a bit differently than most other Christian scholars. A good example of the use of omnipresent is set forth in James E. Talmage's Articles of Faith, in which he said:

"God is Omnipresent: There is no part of creation, however remote into which He cannot penetrate; by the power of the Holy Ghost, the Godhead is in direct communication with all things at all times. It has been said therefore, that God is everywhere present at the same time; but it is unreasonable to suppose that the actual person of any one member of the Godhead can be in more than one place at one time." (p. 42, 1899 edition).

The distinction is that current LDS doctrine is that Jesus is "present" everywhere only in the sense that he can see everywhere. But no current LDS writer that I know of goes beyond that, or uses terminology like Joseph Smith's 1832 revelation (i.e., that Jesus is "in all things" and is "the law by which all things are governed"). On the other hand, in order to reconcile the 1832 revelation with Smith's teachings just before he died, LDS writers have made a distinction between Jesus and his "light". For example, Boyd K. Packer said (and this is fairly representative of what you might find taught in church meetings) that "from [Jesus] emanates the Light of Christ to all mankind." (Ensign, Apr. 2005). So it is not Jesus that is in everything, only the "light" that "emanates" from him.

Also note that there is a school of LDS thought that the "light of Christ" is not, actually in all things. I don't know if this is a minority or majority view, but Harold B. Lee said that the light "goes out" when you commit the "unpardonable sin" (implying that the light is not within Satan). Packer, in the above quote, took the opposite view, apparently stating that the "light of Christ" is always present and cannot leave. COGDEN 00:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that the LDS usage of the word 'omnipresent' is all that different, when you take into the account the difference between the LDS Godhead and the MC Trinity. I think that we can say God is omnipresent without qualification because 'God' consists of three beings, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. If the Holy Ghost is omnipresent then God is omnipresent, thru the influence of the Holy Ghost. 74s181 01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I said in the archived discussion, which seemed to be received as being helpful, that what you call "omnipresence" is called "ubiquity" by us. But the unresolved question I had, which is the issue you are focusing on now, concerns the sense in which the Holy Spirit is omnipresent in himself - which is in some sense different than how the Father is omnipresent in himself. This sense, which is expressed by the term "personage of spirit", looks to be the key to that distinction between the Father's own omnipresence and the Spirit's. Do you agree? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Omnipresence, con't

The concept that Satan is beyond the light of Christ has been a topic of discussion, but I have never heard the church declare an exact position. It appears that it has been a topic in other churches, with some conflicting positions. As for me, I assume that the evil one has chosen and there is no chance for because he has committed to fight against our Father in Heaven.

I still do not separate the Light of Christ from Christ. LDS theology is clear that Jesus has a body of flesh and bone; he can be found in a place. However, that does not mean that the Light of Christ is confined to that single place. That would be a mischaracterization of our beliefs and drawing parameters that do not exist. I think you would find the current prophet be quite comfortable with Joseph's statement and would state it as fact today. I would also say that LDS do not spend a lot of time attempting to define God in these terms; suffice it to say that He is God and is all-powerful, were He not so, He would not be our God. At the end of the day our beliefs are quite simple. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. Satan failed his first estate, and will never have a physical body. This is LDS doctrine, unless something has recently changed that I am unaware of. The 1/3 of heaven who rebelled against god were denied their "first estate" which means they will never be born and receive physical bodies, and therefore never progress. We, on earth are those who kept their first estate and have been, or will be born and given a physical body. We will all be resurrected and keep our bodies forever - In Adam all die, in Christ shall all be made alive. If we are judged worthy, we will receive our second estate, which is exhaultation or eternal life. IS there a wiki page on first and second estates? This is a very LDS concept, because it has to do with the pre-existence and how our choices there determined our existence here. Satan and his follewers lost all hope for salvation before the Earth was created. Anything beyond that, like his spirit matter will be "recycled", or that he will somehow be forgiven, is pure speculation, and extremely fringe ideas. It goes against standard LDS doctrine. Bytebear 04:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Cogden or I have said anything that contradicts your statements. The focus was the Light of Christ and Omnipresense, with a small side topic of, "does it "touch" the evil one". This has been a concept that has been discussed by theologians since the beginning; albeit a passing one. I concur with you Byte, Satan rebelled and was caste out of heaven; his choice put him in a place not where the Light could not touch him, but where he totally rejects the Light in its entirety. However, this is pure speculation and nothing more. I am reminded of the temptations of Jesus and what Satan desired most was that Jesus bow down and worship him. The fact that he could conceive of Jesus bowing to him indicates a pretty self-deluded soul. I think I have had enough of talking about him; let us focus on Jesus Christ and our Father in Heaven. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would expect to find "first estate" and "second estate" in Plan of Salvation, but they're not there. 74s181 10:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I agree that the "light of Christ" is not confined in space, but that fact shows that there is a distinction in LDS theology between Jesus and his "light". If Jesus and his "light" were the same thing, or part of the same "substance" (as MC would say), then Jesus would physically exist everywhere, and there would really be no distinction between MC and LDS theology as far as Jesus is concerned (putting aside the fact that he, the Father, and the Holy Ghost have separate "substance"). And I think it's likely that this is what Joseph Smith understood circa 1832. But modern LDS writers (based on Joseph's 1843 teachings) don't say that Jesus is in everything. They say that Jesus is in one physical location, and that (1) there is a separate thing called his "light" that "emanates" from him and fills all space, and (2) there is yet another separate thing/person/medium called the Holy Ghost by which Jesus is in communication with all of space (possibly excepting, in both cases #1 and #2, Satan or sons of perdition). COGDEN 17:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not advocate that the concept of the Trinity and the Godhead are one and the same; there are major differences. However, there are also significant similarities and in this instance I see similarity. Within MC theology it gets very complicated and I need Mark or Wesley to step in here to correct me, but Jesus currently has or manifests himself with a resurrected body. However, this physical body/manifestation does not separate him from the Father; they remain one substance. The difference is that in LDS theology we do not have a concept of "substance" that is generally taught. Further, the Father and the Son have physical bodies. This does not mean that LDS deny the Spirit of their nature, which you seem to be proposing. What I undertsand you to say is that because LDS believe that Jesus has a physical body and can be found in a single place, we somehow believe that when Jesus is standing in front of us his Spirit or Light can not be elsewhere. I am completely unfamiliar with that teaching; you may be extrapolating a thought that does not exist.

We don't even believe that about ourselves as evidenced by the function of the resurrection. We, the creation of God, have a spirit and a body that death separates and through Christ is reunited at the resurrection. That does not mean we are two separate beings; we are one being with two parts. Note that we begin to enter deep water here that has not been greatly explained in LDS theology. However, we know in the Bible that Christ also had a Spirit and a body and they were reunited at His, the first resurrection. The difference between our Savior and us is that His Light/Sprit can be felt everywhere (I am ignoring the issue of the evil one at the moment because there is no concensus anywhere in Christianity) whereas our spirits are infinitely less than that. We may need to agree to disagree or this may just be an issue with semantics; regardless, I do not see any conflict within LDS doctrine or current teaching that would lead me to think that we deny the omnipresent nature of the Father and the Son. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

But what about the LDS doctrine, taught by Joseph Smith in the 1840s (and arguably discussed in 1829 in the Book of Ether), that spirits are made of physical (albeit more pure and refined) matter? Jesus' spirit body, like his physical body, has one location. I don't know of any modern LDS writers suggesting that the "light of Christ" is his actual spirit. They say that the light "emanates" from the body of Jesus. But even if it were his spirit, it would seem to be limited to one location. Of course, nobody has ever explained, to my knowledge, why the Holy Spirit can be everywhere, but normal spirits are limited in space. It seems reasonable to me that if the Holy Spirit could be everywhere, then Jesus' spirit could also. But then again, the influential scholar James E. Talmage, at least, thought that even the Holy Spirit was limited to one location, but that only his "influence" could be felt everywhere. COGDEN 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Within MC theology it gets very complicated and I need Mark or Wesley to step in here to correct me, but Jesus currently has or manifests himself with a resurrected body. However, this physical body/manifestation does not separate him from the Father; they remain one substance. — Storm Rider, that's correct. The Son does not "change" into a man - he becomes a man. This difference between "change" and "becoming" is significant. Therefore, as the Eastern Orthodox more consistently emphasize (to our embarrassment in the West) at the moment of Christ's conception in the virgin's womb, Immanuel is Man become God. This is why the East almost always speaks of Mary as "Theotokos" - God-bearer, mother of God (a phrase of witness that is a particular scandal to the Muslims, among whom so many of the Eastern Orthodox are situated). — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

When Jesus Christ is raised from the dead, God is not changed; rather, the Son of Man puts on the glory of God which was his from the beginning; and he sends the Holy Spirit from the Father, who goes out from him without in any sense at all being separated from the Father or the Son. Therefore, in receiving the Spirit we receive the Son, and the Father - so that we are "like him", in the sense that we partake of a nature which does not belong to our human nature, and therefore we are called "sons of God" by adoption. You're right that it is, as you say, "very complicated" - or the simplest thing imaginable, depending on how you look at it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That is, indeed, very complicated. That raises another question I've always had: Are members of mainstream Christian churches who don't understand the above complicated metaphysics in the same boat as Mormons, who, according to this tradition, also don't understand the correct metaphysical nature of the Trinity? In other words, aren't Mormons just like your average Joe Christian who sees God as a white-haired old man sitting in the sky and looking down on creation? If being a Christian requires a correct understanding of the nature of God, then why aren't simple-minded or untrained Protestants, or Catholic peasants from the 500s who thought God was essentially the same as Thor or Jupiter, non-Christian? COGDEN 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to leave the impression, though, that Man is not "changed" by the resurrection from the dead. God is not changed, but man is changed: for now, we have "become" living, we have "become" imperishable by the deposit of the Spirit who is in us - but we are earthen vessels, and many of blessed memory have fallen asleep. At the resurrection, we will be "changed" from dead to living, from what we have in ourselves to what we cannot imagine from ourselves. So, we are not discouraged that for now we see as in a mirror, darkly, the likeness of Christ in one another. If we said that we now see him face to face, it would not be from faith that we say this, and with the loss of one another we would then suffer the pain of loss instead of hope - because faith concerns that which is not seen. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

From the "Paschal Hours" that we pray in the week following Pascha (Easter), one troparion (short hymn) says: "In the grave bodily, but in hades with Thy soul as God: in Paradise with the thief, and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit wast Thou Who fillest all things, O Christ the Inexpressible." And from the "Hymn to the Only-Begotten Son" that's now part of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, "...[you] deigned for our salvation to become incarnate of the holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, and became man without change; ..." I'm about to give up trying to either compare or contrast that with LDS doctrine or opinion, as the latter seems to be all over the board. For instance, I fail to see how Jesus can be God for all time in LDS teaching, and still believe that "as man is, God once was..." or how to reconcile various conflicting quotes from LDS spokesmen. I'm sure MC theology looks no less confusing from your side though. Wesley 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

An extraordinarily beautiful troparion, Wesley. I hope never to forget it. Cogden, our smallest children lisp such praise. We do not imagine that they understand. We only know that they are in the name of faith, the church, and if we are diligent we teach them how to examine themselves in terms of this faith according to their capacity - or else, through misunderstanding as they grow older, you can see how it could seem to them to be an occult incantation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In case you're interested, and even if you're not, LDS children sing: "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 some day." I think the LDS children understand what they are singing. 74s181 01:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This is helpful. It sounds as though the children are taught to learn from their fathers what their Heavenly Father is like. Therefore, you are teaching them that God is understandable, because we understand our fathers. Is that pretty close? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be the exact antithesis of what LDS are teaching their children. They are teaching that there is a loving Heavenly Father that will always be there for them. He is not some stern, imposing figure in yonder heavens with thunder bolts in his hands demanding obeisance. That is not God to the LDS people. He is our God, our Creator, and our Father. He loves us, He seeks for us to come unto Him in humble prayer. He is our everything. The charaterization that he is some "mortal man that grew up on another world; perfectly understandable and no better than us" is a gross mischaracterization that anti-Mormons have cooked up. Sadly, far too many Christians have become parrots and only repeat what they hear without any understanding of Mormonism. This is not pointed at you, but the silly Father I was listening to on Catholic radio today. Few things are worse than posing as if we know something, when in reality we know nothing. When will we learn to just say, I don't know? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Although LDS would agree with the essence of what you are saying, it is not the message of the song. Rather than explain in my own words I will quote short excerpts from "The Family: A Proclamation to the World".

I am a child of God - "...Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents". 74s181 05:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

He has sent me here - "...His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. ". 74s181 05:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Has given me an earthly home, with parents kind and dear. - "Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. " 74s181 05:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cogden, perfect intellectual understanding isn't required; otherwise, even the 'doctors of the church' would be sunk. But the hope is that, through frequent participation in corporate prayer and general immersion in the life of the church, people will learn to tell 'this is like what we pray in church... but that other thing isn't.' Much like bankers learn to recognize counterfeits chiefly by studying and being familiar with real currency. And this is a case where icons make it easier for people to properly visualize God, even peasants. One's beliefs can be consistent with the ancient Christian faith without having to be overly detailed or intellectualized, even if one doesn't have the mental capacity to give intellectual assent to much of anything. Frankly, I rather doubt that the peasants of the 500s thought that God was the same as Thor or Jupiter. Computers seem at least as likely to provoke superstition. (Ever seen a program that was "possessed" or an OS that was determined to thwart you, or a peripheral that hated your guts and refused to cooperate?) Wesley 16:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Brother Cogden, I believe the Church does teach that the Light of Christ and the Spirit of Christ as the same thing. Lowell L. Bennion stated, "The Spirit of Christ will be and will abide with us. Whenever we practice Christian principles, and particularly with faith in the Savior, his Spirit comes into our lives. It is a Latter-day Saint teaching that the light of Christ is given to every person as he enters the world. As we are responsive to it, through faith and Christian living, the Spirit of Christ will play an ever larger role in our feeling and action, lifting us above our limitations."

The Book of Mormon teaches, "For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for everything which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. . . . Wherefore I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ. (Moroni 7:15-16, 19.)

Lastly, Erin Eldridge stated, "Spiritual feelings can nag and create incredible discomfort. They may seem, in times of struggling with temptation and sin, to be a curse, a nemesis. The truth is, there is no greater Friend. The stirring is Jesus Christ. It is the light of Christ, the hope in Christ, the Spirit of Christ. Be it ever so dim or so bright, it dissipates the darkness and illuminates the Truth."

Friend, we may differ on many things within Church History (not in fact, but in priority); however, in this issue I believe the Church is unequivical that the Light of Christ and the Spirit of Christ is the same thing. Joseph spoke true, these men have spoken true. I would still submit that you are attempting to apply the understanding of man to God; if you do so your thinking will come to naught. You can not understand Him. Also, I agree with you that Spirit has matter or substance, but you may not assume that this substance is limited by the same laws of a body of flesh and bone. The Spirit of God, of Jesus, of our God is omnipresent. Because of iniquity one may succeed in becoming unfeeling to Spirit for a time in the case of mortals, I suspect permanently in case of satan; he I believe to be beyond redemption by his own choice. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Glory of God

There has been some discussion about MC vs LDS concept of glory. I want to try to explain the LDS perspective a little better, and see how it is different from MC view. 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that MC believe God does not 'share' his glory by giving us a portion of it. Men only have glory to the extent that they merge or become one with God. Ok, I can see why MC believe this, there are some Biblical passages that could be interpreted this way. 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

LDS have a different view. Because we believe that we are literally 'children of God', we also believe that some of us will grow up and become 'like' God. However, unlike parents and children here in mortality, LDS believe that the child can never surpass or even equal the parent, God the Father is God The Eternal Father in all respects. 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Now for the idea of glory. If we become 'like' (again, similar but not identical to) Him, then part of that 'likeness' is glory. Peter said of the righteous under shepherds: "And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." (1 Peter 5:4) 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Does receiving our own 'crown of glory' diminish the glory of the Father? LDS believe that exactly the opposite is true, that as His children achieve Eternal Life and receive their own 'crown of glory', His glory is increased. To understand how this works we need to talk about what LDS believe is the purpose of creation. I could give you the single verse that you've probably heard many times before, but it doesn't fully express the LDS belief in the infinite power and majesty of God when it is taken out of context. So, here it is, in context:

And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?

And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.

And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.

And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.

And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.

And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. (Pearl of Great Price, Moses 1:30-39) 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What a description of the infinite goodness and greatness of God! What a statement of selfless love! Although I suspect that MC will reject this quote from the LDS Book of Moses out of hand, I hope that you will at least read it and think about it. Other than the source, I don't think that there is much if anything objectionable to MC here, and I am pretty sure there is nothing in it contrary to the Bible. 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

LDS believe that all who have ever lived on the earth will inherit glory. Some greater glory, some less (1 Corinthians 15:38-44) but any glory we receive only adds to the glory of the Father. Thus, although LDS believe that it is our Father's plan for us to become like Him, none of His children can ever equal Him, because any greatness, glory, or honor that His children achieve throughout all eternity only adds to His greatness, glory and honor. 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I want to address a specific objection to this idea that Mark brought up, from Isaiah 48:11. I want to put this in context:

For my name’s sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off.

Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.

For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another. (Isaiah 48:9-11)

First of all, do you see the relationship between this and "for this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."? The Lord here is saying that he is temporarily tolerating the wickedness of man, and refining him for His own sake, for His own glory.

Mark brought this up in reference to the idea of God sharing His glory. In Isaiah 48:11 God says that He will not give his glory to another. As a LDS, I look at this and immediately think, 'war in heaven'. The war in heaven is Biblical, mentioned in Isaiah, Luke, Revelations, maybe elsewere. Part of the reason that Lucifer was cast out is hinted at in Isaiah 14:12,13, but a more detailed account is given in LDS scripture:

And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. (Pearl of Great Price, Moses 4:1-4)

Now, back to Isaiah 48:11. As nearly as I can figure out, the phrase "...and I will not give..." is translated from a Hebrew words that implies a full or unconditional transfer, not sharing. So, God is not talking about sharing his glory. As I said, I think he is refering to Satan's plan whereby all would be saved and God's glory would be given to Satan. The MC commentaries I looked at say that this refers to God's unwillingness to let His glory be had by idols or other false gods. This also makes sense, refering back to Isaiah 48:5. 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So, this is what LDS believe about the purpose and glory of God, and the glory that we may receive. I think that there are more similarities than differences here, but I think that this is a topic that belongs in the article, I'd like to see how what I've explained fits or doesn't fit with what MC have believed about LDS, and I'd like to see how MC belief is different, with scriptural references if possible. 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We share the glory of Jesus Christ - we are conformed in ourselves to his image, if like him we do not speak from out of ourselves, like him giving no cause to be hated by the world, like him in sharing in his suffering, then we share in the glory of Christ. We do not share the glory of God. It's he who is glorified in us, not we ourselves. Christ has two natures, not one nature that passes through different phases of glory; therefore the glory which man obtains in himself is not the same as the glory which God has in himself. It is the deification of man to have God glorified in him; it is the shame of man that, instead, he makes himself out to be a god. God opposes the proud, and gives grace to the humble. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In other words, our glory is not "like" God, but "the same as" God. The glory with which we are glorified is God Himself. If we "shared" his glory, it would be diminished, because we are not God. We "participate" in the glory of God himself, by sharing in the humanity of Christ: we are not "merged" or "mingled" with God, just as Christ's humanity which he shares with us is not merged or mingled. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Mark, I'm going to try to summarize what I understood from what you said. 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The glory of God and the glory of Jesus Christ are different. 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Man may share in the glory of Jesus Christ but not in the glory of God. 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused by these statements. 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"It's he who is glorified in us, not we ourselves." I said something similar, but I don't think you mean what I meant. 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"It is the deification of man to have God glorified in him..." 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"God... gives grace to the humble." - Sounds like grace is a reward for humility, I don't think that is what you meant. 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"...our glory is not "like" God, but "the same as" God." - when I said "like" I meant of the same character or type, but not equal to. I think you meant something else. 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"...we are not "merged" or "mingled" with God..." - is this because we can only become 'one' with Jesus Christ, and not with 'God'? 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"...as Christ's humanity which he shares with us is not merged or mingled." - do you mean, not merged or mingled with God? 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing my questions I'm begining to think that my failure to understand some of your statements on glory is linked to my lack of understanding of the nuances of the MC Trinity doctrine. Mark, without granting any support or approval, would you agree that it is easier to understand the LDS Godhead doctrine than the MC Trinity doctrine, or maybe the LDS Godhead doctrine seems as mysterious to MC as the MC Trinity doctrine does to LDS? That would be really interesting if true. 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Sounds like grace is a reward" - It is a reward, but it is not based on deserving. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

LDS believe in grace. We do not believe that we can ever merit salvation on our own efforts, but we do believe that grace is a reward from God for obedience to his commandments - "...for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23), or as LDS often say, we do all we can, then Jesus Christ makes up the difference. 74s181 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The difference might be expressed this way: We cannot add anything from ourselves for our salvation because, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"We cannot add anything from ourselves... flesh and blood cannot inherit..." Yes, this is what LDS believe as well. On our own we can do nothing at all, because the gap between us and God is infinite. This is why an infinite atonement was necessary. However, LDS also believe that Jesus Christ gave commandments for us to follow, and if we follow them, we will be rewarded with grace. 74s181 11:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think we are pretty close, maybe this will help. Back in 1977, Boyd K. Packer gave talk titled "The Mediator" which included an excellent explanation of the LDS belief concerning how grace fulfills the demands of justice and mercy. I have heard this parable many times since then. I don't know if it is original with him or not, but it truly encapsulates what LDS believe about justice, mercy, grace and the atonement, and I'd like to know how close this comes to what MC believe. 74s181 11:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There once was a man who wanted something very much. It seemed more important than anything else in his life. In order for him to have his desire, he incurred a great debt.

He had been warned about going into that much debt, and particularly about his creditor. But it seemed so important for him to do what he wanted to do and to have what he wanted right now. He was sure he could pay for it later.

So he signed a contract. He would pay it off some time along the way. He didn’t worry too much about it, for the due date seemed such a long time away. He had what he wanted now, and that was what seemed important.

The creditor was always somewhere in the back of his mind, and he made token payments now and again, thinking somehow that the day of reckoning really would never come.

But as it always does, the day came, and the contract fell due. The debt had not been fully paid. His creditor appeared and demanded payment in full.

Only then did he realize that his creditor not only had the power to repossess all that he owned, but the power to cast him into prison as well.

“I cannot pay you, for I have not the power to do so,” he confessed.

“Then,” said the creditor, “we will exercise the contract, take your possessions, and you shall go to prison. You agreed to that. It was your choice. You signed the contract, and now it must be enforced.”

“Can you not extend the time or forgive the debt?” the debtor begged. “Arrange some way for me to keep what I have and not go to prison. Surely you believe in mercy? Will you not show mercy?”

The creditor replied, “Mercy is always so one-sided. It would serve only you. If I show mercy to you, it will leave me unpaid. It is justice I demand. Do you believe in justice?”

“I believed in justice when I signed the contract,” the debtor said. “It was on my side then, for I thought it would protect me. I did not need mercy then, nor think I should need it ever. Justice, I thought, would serve both of us equally as well.”

“It is justice that demands that you pay the contract or suffer the penalty,” the creditor replied. “That is the law. You have agreed to it and that is the way it must be. Mercy cannot rob justice.”

There they were: One meting out justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail except at the expense of the other.

“If you do not forgive the debt there will be no mercy,” the debtor pleaded.

“If I do, there will be no justice,” was the reply.

Both laws, it seemed, could not be served. They are two eternal ideals that appear to contradict one another. Is there no way for justice to be fully served, and mercy also?

There is a way! The law of justice can be fully satisfied and mercy can be fully extended—but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time.

The debtor had a friend. He came to help. He knew the debtor well. He knew him to be shortsighted. He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. He stepped between them, faced the creditor, and made this offer.

“I will pay the debt if you will free the debtor from his contract so that he may keep his possessions and not go to prison.”

As the creditor was pondering the offer, the mediator added, “You demanded justice. Though he cannot pay you, I will do so. You will have been justly dealt with and can ask no more. It would not be just.”

And so the creditor agreed.

The mediator turned then to the debtor. “If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?”

“Oh yes, yes,” cried the debtor. “You save me from prison and show mercy to me.”

“Then,” said the benefactor, “you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison.”

And so it was that the creditor was paid in full. He had been justly dealt with. No contract had been broken. The debtor, in turn, had been extended mercy. Both laws stood fulfilled. Because there was a mediator, justice had claimed its full share, and mercy was fully satisfied.

Each of us lives on a kind of spiritual credit. One day the account will be closed, a settlement demanded. However casually we may view it now, when that day comes and the foreclosure is imminent, we will look around in restless agony for someone, anyone, to help us.

And, by eternal law, mercy cannot be extended save there be one who is both willing and able to assume our debt and pay the price and arrange the terms for our redemption.

Unless there is a mediator, unless we have a friend, the full weight of justice untempered, unsympathetic, must, positively must fall on us. The full recompense for every transgression, however minor or however deep, will be exacted from us to the uttermost farthing.

But know this: Truth, glorious truth, proclaims there is such a Mediator.

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim. 2:5.) (Boyd K. Packer, “The Mediator,” Ensign, May 1977, 54)

Kind of long, I know. I started to paraphrase it, but thought it more appropriate to find the original talk and quote it here. So, what do you think? I see one possible difference, the idea that "It will not be easy, but it will be possible" may not fit with the MC concept of grace. Mark, you said "It is a reward, but it is not based on deserving", so it seems like you are agreeing that even though we cannot possibly earn salvation by our own efforts we still must do something. Perhaps the only difference between MC and LDS, or, for that matter, between evangelical and Catholic is how much we believe we are required to do in order to receive the reward of grace. LDS believe we are required to do "...all we can..." 74s181 11:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"we can only become 'one' with Jesus Christ, and not with 'God'?" - Jesus Christ is one person. We share in his humanity, we participate in his deity. God does not change into a man, man does not change into God. Jesus is God in full possession of humanity; and Jesus is humanity in possession of the fullness of God. But God is not changed, man is changed by sharing in the humanity of Jesus - because we are otherwise not in possession of God. His own humanity is not changed, because he is without sin: so that he is the exact likeness of God in flesh, and he is the express image of God as God. The humanity he shares with us is the same as ours in every way, except without sin, because he is truly man. The deity that he shares with God is the same as God's in every way, because he is truly God. Therefore, by union with him we share in his humanity, and partake of his divine nature - but not by sharing his divine nature (because we are not God). Therefore, we are one with God indeed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So, Jesus Christ is the 'bridge' between human man and divine God, and we partake of his divine nature thru our human connection to Jesus Christ, is this right? 74s181 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You have said it. That is, through his human nature given for us, his body and his blood, we partake of his divine nature. We already have humanness; and yet there is nothing good in ourselves. What we need is what we do not have - which is in him - and that is the righteousness of God. We receive this by believing into His death, just as we were baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to be raised with him by that faith - that is, to be raised by the Holy Spirit who has the same unshared glory as God has. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Would you agree that it is easier to understand the LDS Godhead doctrine(?)" — Yes, I recognize that what I'm saying is hard to understand. I can't attribute my grasp of it to myself, however. I'm speaking from out of the faith of the church, into which I was baptized.

"Maybe the LDS Godhead doctrine seems as mysterious to MC ... (?)" — I really doubt that. There's nothing particularly difficult to follow, in the LDS view. However, there is a fascinating mystery, concerning the LDS Godhead: what obsesses me is trying to understand why Mormons will often say that they are saying the same thing, or almost the same thing, that we are saying. I do not understand what compels you to do that, at all; and it is as great a mystery to me as the Trinity is for you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I will try to explain the mystery. As I'm sure you've heard many times, LDS believe that the doctrine they teach are the original doctrines taught by Jesus Christ and his original Apostles, and that the doctrines taught by MC are a distorted versions of this true doctrine. Therefore, when LDS look at MC doctrines, they are looking to see the doctrines that they know are true hidden within the doctrines taught by MC. I suspect MC view things in a similar way, that LDS doctrines are a distorted copy of the original true doctrines taught by MC. On a personal note, I think we learn more if we can find common ground, it seems that communication becomes easier . The most important common ground between us is Jesus Christ. Mark, I know that you and I got off to a bad start, it was my fault, you have been very forgiving and I appreciate it. 74s181 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You've been very apologetic, but I have not been offended; and yet, if you mean that you are now enjoying the conversation more, because you are not offended by me, that's a reason to be grateful. Thank you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

You are perceptive in thinking that we look for things that are "hidden" from you within the things you believe. This is exactly what we do, because faith has to do with things not seen. They are the things that you do not understand, that are our common ground; because it's your understanding that prevents you from agreeing with us in the truth. Our faith concerns things not seen, not understood ...

"... what no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words. (Alma 32:26,27)

74s181 01:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

To take this idea a little further let me give a specific example. LDS believe in the literal account of the flood. Noah, who was a prophet, taught his children many doctrinal truths that were not recorded in Genesis. His descendants went off in all directions and repopulated the earth, taking with them the things they had been taught. Over time these teachings were distorted into the various religions in the world today, both Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic. So, when I read about the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation I see a distorted version of the true doctrine of premortal existence, mortality, spirit world, judgement and resurrection. LDS and MC are much closer in belief than Christian and Hindu, I suspect in the eyes of a Hindu, LDS and MC are nearly indistinguishable. 74s181 11:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

With each breath he breathes, the heart of man is caused to know that he is somehow "alive" in a way that other things are not. This is what disturbs him, and stirs his imagination, to wonder, to search, to study, to calculate, to ask or to despair of asking, for what it means to be "alive". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"when I said "like" I meant of the same character or type, but not equal to. I think you meant something else" — Yes I do mean something else. I do not mean "equal to" - if in any sense you are thinking, of the same magnitude but different in any respect at all. I mean, "identical" - exactly the same in absolutely every respect. But to understand what that means, you would need to believe that the one person of Jesus is God; and that his humanity was not changed into God. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This idea that Jesus Christ has this separate, dual nature is something new to me. Is this pretty much standard MC belief? 74s181 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is definitional of "MC" belief, yes. He was as we are exactly, in his humanity, except in sin: but he is unlike us entirely in being God. When he suffered, he was exactly as we are in our condemnation, except in deserving condemnation. And therefore, he is identical to our salvation - he is our salvation, as such, into whom we believe. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

He has two natures - distinct, not mingled, but not separate - in one person: unlike us. When he was glorified he revealed that, he is in himself what we cannot be in ourselves; but if we are like him in his suffering, we become sharers in what he is in himself in his humanity, and the glory of God that is impossible for him to share without denying himself becomes our glory. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

Obviously, there are many ways to misunderstand this. But we are saved through believing in Him, and this becomes our understanding, as opposed to understanding Him. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Led by prophets

Hey Mark, here's a question I've always had. Perhaps you can shed some light. The fully developed concept of the description of Jesus that you share here is something that has evolved (or "come to light" piece by piece if you prefer that terminology) over centuries of Christian history. Certainly there are many centuries in between today and say 200 AD, during which time these concepts like the duality of the nature of Jesus Christ, the nature of the Godhead, the expression of the trinity as "One God in three persons who are eternally distinct", and other doctrines were being hashed out by the clerics and scholars. Certainly God cannot condemn these people for not having exactly right, especially without Apostolic direction and authority. To this day not everybody in MC agrees on the minutae, but some follow a "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty and in all things charity" kind of philosophy based on the statement from Catholic humanist George Cassander(At least I think that was his name). If I understand you correctly though from that last sentence, it is essential to believe in Christ, but not essential (or possible to fully comprehend him). So my questions are these:

1. How do you know what the essentials and non-essentials are without prophetic direction? John Locke thought the only essential doctrine was to believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God and the Savior of the world. Earlier and later theologians had distinctively longer lists. Some say Baptism is essential others that it's just a symbol of a committment, etc. This is what troubles me most about the MC perspective. Where is the firm anchor doctrinally? Some would answer the only authority needed is the Bible, but since scripture is not of any private interpretation, whom do you trust to make a proper interpretation and why? How do you determine the essential doctrines from the ones you can disagree on without dividing over? Okay, so that's like 5 questions :-)

2. I've been studying the new testament for about a month now (I rotate through the standard works of LDS scripture) and John 17:3 struck me as important to what has interested me for about a year now (I've been doing an in depth study of what the scriptures have to say about the nature of God and the destiny of man). "And this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent". So life eternal has something to do with more than a list of good works that you can trot out at judgement day, or a list of facts that you can know about Jesus and the Father. This scripture seems to imply that we must have relationship with deity. And my second question...How can we claim to have a relationship with deity if he doesn't teach us by direct revelation and scriptural authority who he is? Jesus said if any man came unto him He and His Father would come and make their abode with that man. So herein is a conflict. The Latter-Day Saints say that God has revealed himself through prophets for all of time and continues to do so. The Mainstream Christian perspective says that God deposited the yardstick for all matters theological in the Bible and the Bible alone. Latter-Day Saints like other Christians claim biblical authority for their teachings. Not all who call themselves Christians agree on the nature of God in all the details. But if we truly have a relationship with God, won't he take us through that process of knowing him better and better until the perfect day? If we are sincere (as I am and as I believe you to be) won't he take us through the experiences we need to clear out our false ideas and come to truly know him? I don't think God will condemn us for not fully comprehending him, but I do think he wants us to know him and understand who and what we worship(See D+C 93). Where there are still shortcomings in our understandings what other way but through his servants the prophets (Amos 3:7) will he see fit to reveal himself? Why would he do it any other way but by prophetic revelation confirmed in the heart of the believer by the Holy Ghost? (again, probably another five questions here, sorry :-) Mpschmitt1 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

1Q Since the ideas that express this doctrine have changed, the doctrine itself has changed; and people have different ideas of the doctrine - so, which idea is the one that saves: all of them together, one of them in particular, or some of them and we don't know which ones?

1A The answer to the first question is, we are baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth. Since we are not saved by our understanding, but by the faith into which the church is baptized, it's not really so much a matter of figuring things out like a philosophical puzzle (although I realize that's what it looks like), as it is agreeing in the faith. What we "figure out" is how all the things we are given to believe agree with one another. It doesn't bother us not to understand. It only bothers us to misunderstand. The doctrine changes in order to eliminate misunderstanding.

2Q Without controversy, the LDS believe that prophets prophesied concerning Christ. Do you see the advantage of having a living prophet to help you to clear out the false ideas and direct you to the right ideas, as God gave prophets to Israel?

2A1 It's hard for us to understand why you think as you do about prophets. Such prophets did not lead their generation. Exceptions you might think of prove the rule: Moses (whose generation died in the wilderness, and he died after being permitted to see the generation that would follow him), Samuel (who anointed the king, because the people did not listen to him), John (who baptized Jesus and was beheaded by Herod the king), Joshua and the judges who were prophets for judgment and death, not of life, etc (this would get unnecessarily complicated if we went through all the apparent exceptions, to show why they prove the rule). David and Solomon were prophets of their generation to the living, but I do not think that you want a king other than Jesus. As evidenced by the fact that they often perished at the hands of their own generation, or else their generation perished, or else they did not speak concerning their own generation, we know that prophets spoke for the sake of a later generation: one that would live. So, "leadership by present-day prophets" is, in Old Testament terms, practically a contradiction in terms.

Not so if you understand the concept of Greater and Lesser prophets, and again it has to do with dispensations. Prophets who begin dispensations are Greater prophets, like Adam, Moses, Abraham, etc. Other prophets are Lesser prophets, called to continue the work, but not necessarily to restore truth, as that is what the Greater prophet are for. The distinction isn't meant to be condescending to the Lesser prophets, but to distinguish them and their work. So Brigham Young, although he did great things, was a Lesser prophet in this sense. So would David be considered a Lesser Prophet, although he did great things, he was not the prophet of a dispensation. We assume that after Adam's death other prophets took his place and led the people, as they did with others. Peter was chosen by Christ to continue after his ascention. We assume there were many prophets that we do not have record of. In fact, we believe there were MANY prophets out there. We have the record of two tribes, Judah in the Bible, and Joseph with the Book of Mormon, but there may very well be records from all 12 lost tribes that we simply have not found yet, or rather, that God has not revealed. The Book of Mormon says that Jesus continued to visit others after his visitation in the Book of Mormon and perhaps extablished his Gospel in various corners of the world, but those events were either never recorded, or have been hidden until such time as to reveal them. So prophets are abundant but we simply do not know about them unless they do a great thing. So Joseph Smith was a Greater prophet and Gordon B. Hinkley is a lesser prophet. In 4000 years, and assuming the limited or lack of record keeping of the day, Hinkley would proably not even be known of, but Smith (and probably Young) would have his stories told. Bytebear 01:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

2A2 So, you had Joseph; but Joseph is dead. Now you have the General Authority, but you don't have to listen to them if they contradict Joseph. We have Christ as our prophet, who proving the rule was put to death in his generation, but rose from the dead as our king, so that those for whom he intercedes as priest are the generation that lives, who are led by the prophets. Therefore, to add anything to Christ by later prophecy is to add only misunderstanding while the prophet lives, and afterward the dead has authority over the living. We believe that this is not a benefit to the living. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Parable of the sailors

I came up with this parable/analogy last night (based on another one shared a while back by whom I can't rememnber) which makes what I'm asking a little clearer (and I know how fond you are of parables :P). I liken the process by which the modern trinitarian concepts came to be to some men on a boat:

A certain group of men decided to take a journey back to Iceland from whence they came and on the day they were to set out on their trip, they were waiting on the docks for the man who had the key to the very secure lead box in which they stored the compass. Unfortunately this man never came. They waited another day or two, and then decided since the ship had very thorough captain's logs, they would strike out on their own. They did alright for a while. They were able to stay along the shore line and match the descriptions in the captain's logs to what they were able to see. But then they had to go out into open water. After a few days at sea, they became disoriented. It was cloudy overhead and lacking a compass, they could not determine which way was North. So they took a vote on which way was North, cast the detractors overboard, and ended up in Australia. (The captains log is the scriptures, the compass is prophetic direction and the gift of the Holy Ghost, the ship is the church, the men are members, the captain represents ecclesiastical authority)

Now. I just wanted to make a few observations on what you responded. To your first point: I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but I'm not sure where that leaves me in your view. If you can't say which baptism is the correct form or by which authority it should be performed, how can you know you've done it right or if it was necessary at all. Either I'm saved or I'm not. Either I can fall from grace or I can't. Either I've got a correct understanding of who God is or I haven't. Either we are predestined to salvation or damnation, or we have free will and we can choose life or death. I don't consider any of these issues to be minor and I have a hard time figuring out how some of them came to be issues that the modern Christian communions could agree to disagree on, while being united in their condemnation of the "cults" like my faith who don't agree with what they decided are essential doctrines. I don't consider understanding the Nature of God to be a philosophical puzzle at all, so I think we agree there. But that is exactly how this subject has been unpacked by theologians within historic christianity for over 1800 years. Rather, I think it is about God teaching us who he is and us forming a relationship with him and with our Savior. To your second point: The fact that people don't listen to a prophet and follow his counsel does not negate his prophetic calling or status. A prophet is not measured by whether all people avail themselves of his gift. I'd say the prophets of the new testament (among whom I include the Apostles) and the old testament alike, and Joseph Smith all exemplify a common trend. Light stirs up darkness. Preaching a truth brings persecution and often times martyrdom. In a similar fashion, though the Lord has provided modern day prophets like Gordon B. Hinckley et al, the world as a whole is not listening. Only 12 million people are members of the church out of the world's entire population. So I'd say it's exactly similar to Moses' day. As a side note, our modern day General Authorities like President Hinckley, his counselors and the Twelve are every bit as authorized as Joseph. They are not beholden to his teachings if the Lord corrects something he taught, but the scriptures he revealed are scripture, so yes those are binding doctrinally. But I want to make it clear that every prophet since Joseph Smith has, in the LDS view, been equally authorized as a prophet, seer and revelator, and we uphold their teachings in official capacities like General Conference as doctrinally sound and binding. My point earlier about being able to dismiss extra scriptural teachings of general authorities still applies but it refers more often to the books General Authorities write wherein they make it clear that they are writing as men from their own experiences and opinions and not as prophets in an official capacity as setting forth official doctrine. Mpschmitt1 09:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the ship analogy, good job! 74s181 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you said "Now you have the General Authority, but you don't have to listen to them if they contradict Joseph." But this has occured. An example is the King Follett sermon. Joseph Smith introduced what are probably the most controversial doctrines LDS believe in this sermon. Later prophets such as Brigham Young and Lorenzo Snow also spoke on these doctrines. But more recent prophets have taught that we haven't mastered the fundamentals and shouldn't waste time speculating on what Joseph, or Brigham, or Lorenzo said or didn't say about the origin of God or other matters that are not needed in carrying out the three fold mission of the church. So, yes, it is possible for past prophets to make minor mistakes, and it is possible for later prophets to correct those errors. (just to be clear, I'm not saying the mistake was the doctrines themselves, but rather the manner of teaching them) 74s181 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I say the following only in light of what you ask under the following heading - because otherwise I would not feel it necessary to say it. Your lesser prophets tell you that if they don't understand what Joseph has written or said, then what Joseph has written or said cannot benefit you. Therefore, because Joseph is dead, your living prophets cannot assist you in anything except what they understand from what the greater prophet has said. Joseph Fielding Smith urges you that neither he, nor you, can go beyond what is written. We are urging the same thing - only we are urging you, that the dead Joseph Smith cannot benefit the living; Jesus Christ is risen, therefore let not the living envy the dead. Your own dead prophet testified according to the words of glory, "this is my beloved Son, hear ye him." Listen to your prophet, and stop listening to the dead. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is also possible for situations to change, and for the Lord to want His people to do something one day that He doesn't want done on another day. When Wilford Woodruff issued the manifesto officially ending plural marriage I'm sure it seemed to many that he was contradicting what Joseph had taught and was cannonized as scripture. Some still believe this is true today, thus we have the various 'polygamy' groups. But 12 million (and growing) LDS continue to believe that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Spencer W. Kimball were prophets, even after the various controversial changes. 74s181 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Prophetic infallibility means that if we follow the prophet we will be safe, the Lord won't allow the prophet to lead us away from Him. If the Lord were to allow a prophet to teach something that isn't exactly right, something that might even be a stumbling block for some, it would be because it is part of His plan for His children to be tested in that particular way. A couple of examples (note that I'm not saying that these were at all false doctrines when they were in force), plural marriage was a trial both when it was introduced and when it was ended, witholding the priesthood from those of African ancestry was a trial for many (including me), and became a trial for some others when it was ended. President Wilford Woodruff said: "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.) 74s181 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean... Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" There have been changes in practice within the Lord's church in the past, and there will be changes in practice in the future, but the core fundamental doctrines of the atonement, faith, repentence and baptism will never change. 74s181 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both, for your replies. They both directly engage the view I explained, and went a long way toward clarifying your own views. That is the quality, even if it can't be the style, that we should try to reproduce in the article. I am particularly intrigued by your parable of the sailors, Mpschmitt1, as an answer to the Parable of the wheel-barrows. It is both, thoughtful and illuminating - so, I reformatted it, decorating it for special attention, as something requiring meditation. I hope you don't mind this breach of wiki-etiquette, touching your comments - but I have left the content the same. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I reread the parable of the wheel-barrow yet again, and I still don't understand. Your other comment tells me that this has something to do with sharing the gospel, but I don't get it. Oh, well. <g> 74s181 00:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of seeming to want to either annoy or intrigue you, it's written in such a way as to frustrate interpreting it, unless you know what it means. As I say that, it sounds very annoying, or obnoxious - as though I'm trying to spell-bind you with something mysterious: disregard it as badly written, then. But what I told you it means is sincere, even if it's a fraction of its meaning: we can work together on this article. That should be an encouragement to both of us. Otherwise, what I wrote isn't important. This parable, on the other hand, should be more important to you in my opinion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Only, I would also caution that, argument rather than explanation will not be reproducible in an article concerning comparison, without violating the rule of pretended neutrality. Although it is helpful to clarify what you do not believe, it is important to focus on what you do believe. This will help us in working together, not only to maintain focus on comparison (focusing on faith, rather than attacking one another's faith), but also will keep us from one another's throats, so that we can ignore the other's misunderstandings or uncharitable distortions (as they will seem to us). So, if I perceive a comment as an attack, I will simply ignore it, until or unless I can obtain insight into how what you have said is a clarification of what you believe, rather than a declaration of what you don't believe. Make sense? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I especially like about the parable, that you chose "Iceland" for the destination. As you probably realize, "Iceland" is an inhabited place, although it has the name of a place uninhabited by the living. This corresponds to your view that heaven has the name among the uninformed, that it is uninhabited by any but God and disembodied souls (if God or souls exist) - which belies the actual case, that heaven is filled with intelligences and souls of men returned to their original home, and Jesus Christ who has been bodily resurrected. You say that these souls at sea came from there, and the purpose of the journey is to return, body and soul, to where your life originated - although those who know nothing but the name of your destination assume that it is not an inhabitable destination. Very good. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If I were to quibble with the parable, though. I would say that the destination to which the misguided sailors finally arrived, should be "Greenland" - which is an uninhabitable place, although the name indicates that it is a habitation. After all, we are comparing views which disagree concerning whether the name, or the place regardless of the name, is our proper habitation. Do you see? If you do, please adjust the parable, to indicate this. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I will consider the Greenland ammendment :-), but I like Australia if only for the southern location of it (driving home the point that a vote on which way is North does not settle the question of which way truly is North). God exists and is who he is. We either approach describing him accurately with words, or we walk in the other direction because we are reasoning rather than receiving revelation directly from him. We have finite minds and limited capacities, God does not. So any true words we use to describe him are merely the brush strokes in a beautiful painting, but God is not the painting itself. His glory, majesty, truth, righteousness, love, and character will always transcend being able to be adequately circumscribed with mortal words. Our God is either one being manifest in three persons who are eternally distinct, or three beings that are physically distinct but one in the oneness described in the Lords great Intercessory Prayer in John 17, or we are both wrong and God is something else (I don't subscribe to options A or C personally, but you know that). I first heard a shorter version of this parable I shared from Truman Madsen quoting a general Authority who's name escapes me still, so I can't take full credit :-). I wanted to return to something you said earlier, Mark so that I can clarify something as well. I'll quote you here so you don't have to go searching:

(Mkmcconn) Wrote: 'I say the following only in light of what you ask under the following heading - because otherwise I would not feel it necessary to say it. Your lesser prophets tell you that if they don't understand what Joseph has written or said, then what Joseph has written or said cannot benefit you. Therefore, because Joseph is dead, your living prophets cannot assist you in anything except what they understand from what the greater prophet has said. Joseph Fielding Smith urges you that neither he, nor you, can go beyond what is written. We are urging the same thing - only we are urging you, that the dead Joseph Smith cannot benefit the living; Jesus Christ is risen, therefore let not the living envy the dead. Your own dead prophet testified according to the words of glory, "this is my beloved Son, hear ye him." Listen to your prophet, and stop listening to the dead.'

. I wanted to just clarify a few points here:

1. There is no such thing as "lesser prophets" in LDS belief. I hope I didn't mislead you there. Gordon B. Hinckley holds all of the rights, keys, powers and priviledges that Joseph did as have all Presidents of the church in between. It is not that they don't understand what Joseph has said. I'd venture to say that they understand his teachings much more deeply than lay membership. The point is (and I think this is what 74s was trying to get at too) that they encourage us to focus on the trunk of the tree and the doctrines essential to salvation rather than the interesting nuances and details Joseph and his successors chose to share in their talks and lessons, many of which were never ratified as official church doctrine or position. If a lay member fascinates himself with extra-canonical records from church history, but never reads his scriptures and misses out on a deep understanding of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, there's a real problem there, and it usually leads to their becomming the kind of Mormon that anti-mormon writers love to cite as exemplary Latter-Day Saints (hence the reason we are often seen as so "kooky" ~ though you might think I'm pretty "kooky" too :-). One of the primary responsibilities of a prophet (and I think you would agree that this has always been the case) is to raise a warning voice to God's people and steer them towards truth and away from iniquity. As I look over the records of Church teaching throughout it's history and study the writings of the prophets in those sources that are considered cannonical and doctrinally binding on the Church, I see a continual thread of consistent reinforcement of core doctrines, the majority of which most Christians would not find repulsive in the least. What tends to happen in Anti-Mormon literature is that the fringe ideas and teachings of some early leaders receive entirely too much weight, the the sound, official, cannonical doctrines too little, and the entirety of Mormon teaching is not viewed in context. When you study all of Mormon doctrine in light of itself and in light of Biblical teaching, it's not nearly as scary as the polemicists make it out to be.Mpschmitt1 14:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Which brings me to my second point of clarification:

2. The Joseph Fielding Smith quote (on my talk page for anyone who wants to read it again) should not be misunderstood. He was not saying that we cannot go beyond what is already written in the sense that we cannot receive more revelation, he was saying that no General Authority of the church has any right to teach his own opinions and personal convictions on a subject if those opinions and convictions run contrary to the scriptures or to doctrine that has passed through the proper channels. No official official doctrine or position of the church on a given subject is made so simply because a General Authority woke up one day and decided to say something. All doctrine becomes doctrine when (and only when) the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have arrived at a unanimous conclusion on the matter, through prayer together (in much the same way the new apostle is selected in Acts 1). Often such declarations are also presented to the membership of the church for a sustaining vote (wherein the membership is sustaining the decision of the leadership).“Every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member … must [agree] to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other...Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men.” (D&C 107:27-29)Mpschmitt1 14:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

This kind of clarification is conspicuously absent from much of the Anti-Mormon literature I've seen, and often completely ignored as the writers of such literature accuse Mormons of believing that Adam is God and lives on the moon with people who dress like pilgrims (okay so that's an exaggeration, but you get my point :-). Just the fact some General Authority was supposed to have said something somewhere, does not make it binding doctrinally on the Church (especially when one considers the reliability of some of these sources from a historical viewpoint). That is Joseph Fielding Smith's point. Being a prophet or an apostle to does not preclude the right to have personal opinions on matters where the Lord has not revealed counsel. Paul makes this same point and distinction in 1 Corinthians 7 verses 12 and 25. God gave us the ability to reason things through, and if we get off track or where he needs to be more specific, he will reveal that through the proper channels.Mpschmitt1 14:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Now in saying all of this let me also point out one other thing. There are many writers and thinkers in MC, particularly in the Evangelical movement for whom I have a lot of respect and admiration (David Jeremiah, James Dobson, C.S. Lewis, Martin Luther King JR., Chuck Swindall, R.C. Sproll etc). I hear a lot of truth in what they teach and I am often uplifted by the sermons and lessons of theirs I hear on the radio. My belief in the propetic callings of my Church leaders does not preclude me from recognizing the truth in what others are teaching. Quite the contrary, from Joseph Smith to the present, Church leaders have encouraged us to treasure up every truth we learn no matter where we learn it and to let the Holy Ghost do his job of teaching us truth from error. In studying the teachings of these Mainstream Christian leaders, I find much goodness in them and I see and applaud the good that they accomplish in their ministires. But studying what they teach has taught me something else. There are many more commonalities and touching points between the two doctrines (LDS and MC) than are often acknowledged. If it were not so, listening to one of David Jeremiah's sermons would be a painful experience for me rather than the delight that it is. I share all this because I want the degree of respect and admiration I have for many in the MC denominations to be known. Had I not received the testimony I have of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ from the Holy Ghost, I would most likely be involved in some Evangelical ministry myself. I recognize the zeal and goodness many MC people and I rejoice in it. But I have received that additional witness and cannot deny it, and feel like Paul to describe myself as a "prisoner" (in a good way) of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:1, Ephesians 4:1, 2 Tim 1:8, Philemon 1:1-9). I am His and solely His.Mpschmitt1 14:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mpschmitt, I'll read what you've written later; but for now, it might be enough to say, the only reason I wrote what I did to 74s181 was to emphasize once again that the reason that your arguments are unpersuasive is because of what we believe - not because he gives bad facts or reasons badly at all. No matter what he argues, given what I believe it comes out as complete nonsense when I hear it; obviously, it works the other way too. So, what I'm looking for is clarification in terms of what you yourselves believe, not arguments for why I should believe as you do - in order to avoid arguing with one another. The difference is subtle; but for one thing, clarifications are usually much shorter (74s181's paragraph was a clarification, but I responded with an argument). Also, clarifications do not suppose that the solution to our differences is found in pointing out things in the other's beliefs of which the opposing party is himself supposedly ignorant (see the section below). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to talk to you more about your parable, as a clarification of your beliefs about us. I'm out of time right now, though. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let me continue the parable a bit to add some more depth to it:

When all the ship arrived in Austrailia, there was a terrible storm blowing and beating against the ship. Since the crew had completely lost their bearing at this point they assumed they had arrived at their destination and because of the storm they couldn't see the kangaroos. The ship was much closer to the land than they thought and smashed against the rocks breaking into a number of pieces and throwing the men into the not as icy as they expected waters of the Austrailian coast. They all swam for shore and awoke the next morning on the beach tired and disoriented. When they examined their surroundings (and saw the kangaroos), some of the men became angry with the captain. "We've been misled!" they exclaimed, and they left the captain where he was, walking down the beach. As they walked, they began noticing pieces of the ship all along the shoreline. So they began gathering all the wood they could find and talking as they went about how they were going to get back to Iceland. But they couldn't all agree completely with one another. One thing was certain, Iceland was where they wanted to be. They began to argue with one another quite fervently and different camps developed, each with their own incomplete pile of wood. Each camp took a vote amongst themselves about which way was north, built a smaller boat out of the wood they had in their posession, and set out on their journey.

This how I see what happened around the 15th and 16th centuries when people had just about as much as they could take of oppression and opulence from the Historic Church and began to strike out on their own. While it was the best thing that happened to Christianity in centuries because it opened the way for the reading of scripture by the common man, it was not without it's own problems. It did not take Luther long to turn from oppressed to oppressor after he gained a little authority, for example. For another example, Calvin introduced doctrines that were quite harsh and (in my view) not consistent with the true character of God, and was himself responsible for many a persecution of heretics. Poor Erasmus had some good ideas and he was lucky he wasn't born a few decades later, or he might have been burned as well during the Counter Reformation. So what I see throughout the history of Christianity (from about 200 AD on) is a pattern of Common people aching and striving for simple faith in Christ, having some successes, and corrupt men gaining the predominance of theological thought and ecclesiastical power. It's only in the recent developments over the past 100-200 years, with Evangelical Christianity, that I begin to see belief systems emerging that ring truer to what I would call true Christianity. If that's not Apostasy in it's quintessence, I don't know what is. The whole notion that the true nature of God can be decided by the votes of councils (who were also responsible for other doctrines like the cult of relics and the priviledge of riches in obtaining eccesiastical authority and heavenly reward), is to me out of step with Biblical teaching. God has always been a revelator. Why would he stop when such an important question needs to be answered? Why would he leave us on our own during the most tumultuous and wicked time the earth has ever seen when every other important period had Prophetic declaration to guide and instruct? To me the Latter-Day Saint perspective is the only tradition that adequately answers these questions. A vote doesn't settle the question of which way is true North. True North is true North. The compass (revelation) is how we know where it is. How can we let a vote settle the question of who God truly is? Am I over simplifying here? Does the "mainstream Christian" perspective allow for revelation from heaven and divine guidance in a different way? Mpschmitt1 01:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a 'different Jesus'

Let me start by saying I hope what I am about to say won't be offensive, but I feel like we're dancing all around the truth. I think we've built up some good will, and that is important, but I also think we need to get to the point. So, here goes. 74s181 03:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We clearly disagree about the relationship between the members of the Trinity or Godhead. And yes, the doctrines Joseph Smith and some of his successors taught concerning the origin of God can be confusing, even to LDS. 74s181 03:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

However, to be blunt and to the point, the phrase "a different Jesus" is MC propaganda. LDS doctrine concerning Jesus Christ is not "...all over the board" as Wesley has suggested, in fact it is very clear, well documented, and very close to MC doctrine. Wesley quoted from two different hymns or poems, the first could be in the LDS hymnal, and I think there are probably many MC who would join LDS in disagreement with the doctrines expressed in the second. 74s181 03:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been "...all over the board", so let's focus on one thing and see if we can drive it to ground. I am not proposing the following as part of the article, but I think it may be the most efficient way to get to the bottom of this particular myth. Please feel free to edit the table as you see fit. 74s181 03:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

LDS believe Jesus:	MC believe Jesus:
existed as God in spirit form before his birth	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
created heaven and earth	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
born to virgin Mary	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
lived sinless life	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
performed many miracles, including raising Lazarus from the dead	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
gave many commandments and instructions to his followers	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
said to Peter "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
prayed to his Father in the garden "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
was arrested, tried, scourged, crucified	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
said to the thief "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise"	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
said "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" and died	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
spirit ascended to paradise with the thief while his lifeless body lay in a borrowed tomb.	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
spirit reunited with body, arose from the dead on the third day, appeared to Mary and said "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father"	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
appeared to the apostles, dined with them, and showed them many things not written in the Bible.	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
promised his apostles that the Holy Ghost would soon come upon them and then ascended to heaven while an angel prophesied that he would return.	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
paid the debt demanded by justice and offers salvation thru His mercy to all who will accept it, even though none deserve it	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.

74s181 03:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This kind of comparison is interesting, in that it disguises the difference. It does not explain why you have words that belong to us, but you do not belong to us. But, because you say that in former times God revealed himself through his Son, but in these latter days God has spoken to us by a prophet, we have our own idea of whose words were taken from whom. And this is why we urge you, since these words do not belong to a different Jesus, do not differ with us. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But you see, this is the same question in different form, that I've "scolded" you for asking in the past. It's the "what is a Christian?" question. I wish that I could help you to see that, your efforts to find an INDIFFERENT definition of "Christian", "Christianity", "Jesus", etc. are all what we call "stealing". We can talk to one another profitably, if we talk about what we believe. This is different from talking about what we have "in common" - you will find us to be extremely jealous, in that regard, and we will make no progress together. — — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Mormons think much about the exclusivity of the term "Christian". Reading the word "steal" completely bewilders me. If I were to analyze it, I would say MC has hijacked the term and use it only to cause a wedge. Mormons are glad to agree that we are not mainstream. We are glad to admit we are not trinitarians. We are glad to admit we are not Protestants. But we are completely baffled when we are told we cannot claim to be Christians. We don't want to be part of the MC, or the "catholic" tradition. We don't want to blend in. But we do want to be acknowledged as followers and worshipers of Jesus Christ. It's simple for us, but MC wants to complicate it by fencing in those who they don't agree with. Mormons are happy to call you Christians, and even Jehovah Witnesses or other heretical groups, as long as they are following Jesus, even in their own way. It has to do with light and truth. Everyone has some degree of light, and others have more. Eventually we will all be given the opportunity to accept the full light of Christ. We will choose our fate, and be judged fairly, so for us "Christian" is not an exclusive term. And we look to the Bible for the definition, which has no mention of the nature, trinity, or doctrine of any kind to be a Christian. I often hear the thought that the church is not a Christian church, but that some members may be Christian. That is the most rediculous thing I can imagine. Everything about the church, from baptism to the weekly sacrament is focused on our affirmation of Jesus Christ as our personal savior. Again, the exclusive nature of MC doesn't baffles me; it's that you call this exclusive wall "Christianity" when in fact it is "catholic" or "trinitarianism" or "creedal" beliefs. I am sure you could do a whole article on this topic. Bytebear 06:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I it may seem like I am asking the same question again but I am trying very hard to stay away from that particular question. In our discussions here we have identified some things that are clearly different between MC and LDS belief. I'm not trying to box you or anyone else into a corner where you might be forced to admit that LDS are Christians. 74s181 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is find closure on one common topic of discussion about LDS. There is a blind spot here, it seems that MC have certain beliefs about LDS, and that no matter how much we try to explain what we actually believe, MC will not consider even the possibility that some LDS doctrines might be the same as MC doctrines. 74s181 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing that triggered this particular attempt is as good an example as any. Wesley said "For instance, I fail to see how Jesus can be God for all time in LDS teaching, and still believe that "as man is, God once was...". I read this and I am shocked and amazed. Isn't this a true statement within the framework of MC trinitarian doctrine? Isn't Jesus God? Didn't He exist for all time and create all things? Didn't He take on mortality and walk on earth? Didn't He suffer hunger, fatigue, pain, sorrow, just as we do? Wasn't He once "as man is"? Yes, I know that MC reject the second part of the couplet, fine, we disagree on several other doctrines. But to reject what seems to be so clearly doctrinally correct to the MC, just because it is described using a portion of a phrase spoken by an LDS prophet, isn't that a blind spot? 74s181 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it all goes back to the First Vision? 74s181 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

...all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith History, 1:19)

Some MC hear this and say, "Yes! That's exactly right!". Others, especially those who are part of the MC establishment hear this and take it as a personal attack. I suspect that reformers like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc. would be more likely to agree than to disagree with this statement, in fact, I suspect they have embraced this statement and all that goes with it and are now LDS, Joseph Smith certainly implied this. 74s181 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So, where does that leave us? Can't we agree that we agree on anything? Mark, you said that we can't do this, that we can only talk about what is different. But it looks to me like what you're really saying is that you can't. 74s181 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You say, "I am trying very hard to stay away from that particular question". Maybe so, but under this heading you step right into it. Your religion is founded on not agreeing with us about Jesus - reading back, see how long you've gone, on and on about how what you believe. When have I objected? Hasn't it been a profitable way of working, to simply describe what you believe, and we have done the same? I don't understand the compulsion to ask us if we recognize which part is the true part, of all the lies. Why do you ask us if we agree that, Since there is a true part in the lie, then isn't the lie essentially true? The honest, non-argumentative answer is "no".

How does this approach help the article? Why would you want to fill an article of comparison with pages of argument? It makes no sense to me. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the debate is about you, it's about us. How do we react to the MC position? Some have said the chruch is changing to be more welcomed by MC, but I think any changes like changing the logo or adding "Another testiment of Jesus Christ" to the Book of Mormon is not to bridge the gap to MC, but rather to emphasize what has always been true, the focus on Jesus Christ. In other words, the church doesn't really worry about what MC believs, and frankly neither do the members for the most part. The issue is the term "Christian". You say it's your club, but we say it's Jesus' club, and all are welcome. Bytebear 17:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  For weeks and weeks it's been shown that when you simply share your beliefs, and we share ours - there is a we. We get to talk about our comparable beliefs concerning Jesus Christ, according to our different faith - similarities in x, are different in a compared to a₁. If only we don't attack one another's faith, we can each talk about his own faith and how they compare from each perspective. It is frankly with profound sorrow that I hear these things, but at least it is a pleasant sorrow when my reward is that I learn more and more how to love you.
   But this is not what some LDS want to talk about. They want to talk about how much "in common" we have, how much "the same" we are. There is no we, in that respect. They think I'm just being stubborn, but I am not. They think it's just a matter of building up enough good will, but it is not. I am the same person I was yesterday, and my attitude toward you is exactly the same - and yet, while yesterday, when you were describing your own beliefs, I could praise God for the truth that is in you, today you would be astonished by the lengths I would go to burn the bridge, crush the cinders, defile the dust, and flush anything that you offer as "common ground" between the religion of Joseph Smith, and the faith into which I've been baptized. They are asking me to judge from myself what is good and what is evil. By the grace of God I will not do it, and neither will anyone else who believes in the catholic and apostolic church, to be guided by the word of God written on our hearts. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Mark, if you wack me in the head with a 2x4 enough times I guess I will finally get it. I thought that I was begining to understand what MC believe, and I assumed with all the explanations, questions, answers, and so on that you were begining to understand what LDS believe. Not that you would acknowledge that all I believe is true, or vice versa, but I thought that at least we were getting past some of the propaganda. 74s181 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then Wesley quoted one hymn which, as I said, would have been at home in an LDS hymnbook, and another which I think wouldn't even be found in many MC hymnbooks, and said: "I'm about to give up trying to either compare or contrast that with LDS doctrine or opinion, as the latter seems to be all over the board. For instance, I fail to see how Jesus can be God for all time in LDS teaching, and still believe that "as man is, God once was...". Huh? Haven't we just been talking about this? 74s181 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then, Mark, you praised him. Later, you told me that you never intended for me to understand the 'wheelbarrow' story, in fact, it was "...written in such a way as to frustrate interpreting it." 74s181 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd better do a sanity check. So I posted the table above, trying to draw from things that I thought you or Wesley had said you believed that LDS also believe, and throwing in a couple obvious LDS-oriented, but still Biblical scriptures. I tried really hard to avoid the 'Christian' question. I even tried to clarify what I was doing. And how did you respond?

"...today you would be astonished by the lengths I would go to burn the bridge, crush the cinders, defile the dust, and flush anything that you offer as "common ground" between the religion of Joseph Smith, and the faith into which I've been baptized. "

Well, at least you called it a religion, and not a cult. So, how am I supposed to interpret this? It seems like you are saying that no matter what LDS believe, it can't be the same as what you believe. Not in the slightest. Even if it IS the same, you swear an oath that you will deny it.

So I get it. I'll back off, pick up my shovel and go dig for a while. But I want to leave you with a parable of my own. You might want to hold onto that dust. You see, I think you've inherited a really nice garden, hundreds of years old. It's well manicured, carefully planned and organized, with geometric flower beds, carefully shaped bonsai trees, not a tree or flower or blade of grass out of place. And you've built a really nice path thru your garden, using only the finest cement, carefully preparing the gravel bed below it so it won't settle and crack. But there's one thing, and this is the reason you might want to hang onto that dust. You see, as carefully as your path along the wayside of the flowers and trees was planned and as firm and unyielding as it might seem to be, there's a lot of common dirt and clay between it and the true bedrock. And as a result, someday when you least expect it, a crack will appear. And when it does, you'll want to have those defiled ashes handy to stuff in the crack, because you wouldn't want an unplanned seed to happen along, land in that crack and start to grow. No, that wouldn't fit with the garden plan at all, would it? We all know what happens when the right kind of seed starts growing in a crack in the sidewalk. 74s181 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I say unto you, it is well that ye are cast out of your synagogues, that ye may be humble, and that ye may learn wisdom; for it is necessary that ye should learn wisdom; for it is because that ye are cast out, that ye are despised of your brethren because of your exceeding poverty, that ye are brought to a lowliness of heart; for ye are necessarily brought to be humble.

And now, because ye are compelled to be humble blessed are ye; for a man sometimes, if he is compelled to be humble, seeketh repentance; and now surely, whosoever repenteth shall find mercy; and he that findeth mercy and endureth to the end the same shall be saved.

And now, as I said unto you, that because ye were compelled to be humble ye were blessed, do ye not suppose that they are more blessed who truly humble themselves because of the word?

Yea, he that truly humbleth himself, and repenteth of his sins, and endureth to the end, the same shall be blessed—yea, much more blessed than they who are compelled to be humble because of their exceeding poverty.

Therefore, blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without stubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe. (Alma 32:12-16)

I know that I don't have all the answers. I look for truth where I find it, and depend upon the Holy Ghost and the prophets, both ancient and modern, to herd me in the right direction. 74s181 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And now, my son, I dwell no longer upon this horrible scene. Behold, thou knowest the wickedness of this people; thou knowest that they are without principle, and past feeling; and their wickedness doth exceed that of the Lamanites. (Moroni 9:20)

Where's my shovel? 74s181 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're starting to see why Joseph is two men, to me - the man who saw and believed so much, and the man who was so blind that he thought he was alone. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never found it cute or honest to hide meaning in incomprehensible drivel. When conversing with others who repeatedly use the method I find it sad; when one tries so hard to sound wise or intelligent, the effort fails miserably.

I rejoice anytime I can worship Jesus Christ with others; regardless of church affiliation. In discussing Jesus and worshipping Him, He makes us one, He makes us “We”. Do any of my beliefs prevent me from doing so? Of course not! Do we lose something by discovering what is in common or what is different? I can’t think of what. Does it help to ridicule the beliefs of other Christians? In all my years, I have never found that to be a tactic worth employing.

I think we are doing too much talking and not enough writing. The discussion seems to have worn out its usefulness. 74, I suggest you not give up, but just edit the article. Seek not to overpower the article with LDS beliefs, but never back down from writing cleaning and plainly the beliefs of the LDS Church. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is nothing profitable in ridiculing beliefs, or for that matter in ridiculing one another. Talking seems to help writing, if it prevents turning the article into a tract for the LDS, or for the Creed, or something that is not what either one believes. It is this latter despicable thing, for which I harbor so much contempt. Avoiding that shows the way that two people who disagree with one another can describe the same thing. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We are one accord on rejecting writing that is only a tract or descibing that which is false of either LDS or the many other Christian churches. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on potentially controversial new topic

I thought that the purpose of an article's talk page was to try to reach consensus on controversial topics and thus avoid edit wars.

I thought we were moving towards a consensus in several areas, then some things were said that made me think I might be wrong. I tested the water on one topic, it went badly. I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from what happened other than to not try to reach consensus with MC on certain topics, so I've let that one go.

We've been encouraged to focus on editing the article. I have had another topic in mind for some time. I suspect it will be highly controversial, possibly even more so than what we just went thru. But I think it is a useful topic. I'm not sure that we will be able to find citations to support it, so it may never come to pass, but before I start doing a lot of research I'd like to run it by the LDS editors of this article and see if they think it is worth pursuing or if I should just forget about it.

Here it is. Many LDS believe that there are significant parallels between Jesus Christ's founding of the church, and Joseph Smith's restoration of it. I've been thinking about this idea for some time. I thought about it as a separate article, but I couldn't come up with a concise title. I think it belongs here, as a section of the M&C article. Something like 'Historic parallels'.

So, what do you think? As I said, I suspect it might be too controversial, but frankly, I don't really trust my judgement about that right now, that is why I am asking for other opinions. Like I said, I haven't looked for references. Given the amount of discussions I have heard among LDS I am sure that references exist, but we may have to go beyond conference talks to find them. I think this may have been discussed in a Gospel Doctrine lesson when we were studying the Doctrine and Covenants. There are LDS books on just about any topic you can imagine, I'm sure there is something on this one. So, assuming that there are decent references to cite, is it worth including? Or, should we just leave it alone? In any event, it will be a while before I can do much more than research on this as I am more concerned about the condition of the First Vision right now.

I said we've been encouraged to edit the article. I'm not trying to start a big discussion here, I'm looking for few short comments, pro or con, before I decide what I want to do next. 74s181 21:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's an important part or consequence of LDS doctrine, then it belongs. If it's debatable whether it's important to either the LDS or those being compared, then it's debatable whether it belongs. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I've heard much about that concept, so I'm not sure it is doctrinal. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a few examples of these parallels would help. LDS believe that the Christian community of Joseph Smith's time was very much in the same state and responded to Joseph Smith in the same way as the Jewish community of Jesus Christ's time responded to Him. That is, the Jewish community had the outward form of God's true church, but had added to it, distorted it, and had lost the true heart of it. When Jesus Christ told them what they were doing wrong, they rejected him and called him a devil, eventually putting him to death. Similarly, the Christians of Joseph Smith's time had added 'doctrines of men' and lost or distorted other doctrines of the true church that Jesus Christ had established, and when Joseph Smith as a prophet of God told them what they were doing wrong, they rejected him, called him a devil, and eventually put him to death. 74s181 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Another example. There are OT prophecies that refer to the birth and mortal mission of Jesus Christ, but only if you approach them from a believing Christian perspective, as the Jews read and believe these same scriptures but insist that Jesus was not the Christ. Similarly, there are NT prophecies that refer to Joseph Smith and the restoration, but only if read from a believing LDS perspective as the MC read and believe these same scriptures but insist that Joseph Smith was not a prophet and didn't bring the 'times of refreshing' and 'restitution of all things'. 74s181 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Another example. Jesus Christ was the Only Begotten of the Father, was God himself, and lived a sinless life, and died as an infinite sacrifice to pay for all our sins, obviously Joseph Smith was none of these. However, there were interesting parallel events in their lives and their missions, as well as some interesting dissonances. 74s181 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Final example, parallels in the organizational structure, message and methods of Jesus Christ and His first Apostles relative to the existing Jewish establishment, and the same for the early LDS movement relative to the existing Christian establishment. The article already talks about some of these, but if we added a 'parallels' section then that would be a logical place to move and expand on these things. 74s181 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure if we start working on it we can come up with more examples. Obviously, if we can't cite LDS authorities speaking or writing on these things they can't be included in the article. But before spending that effort, the question is, does anyone care? Is this interesting or useful information? Or is it going to cause more trouble than it is worth? Based on recent experiences I'm inclined to believe the later. 74s181 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards not going down that road, but maybe the best thing would be for you to create the section and then once we see it in action, we might be able to better assess whether it belongs. I think though that if you approached it from comparing similarities between what the Saints experienced in the early days of the Church to the persecutions in the early days of Christianity there might be more fruit there. There are parallels between how the Apostles and other early Christian members rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name (Acts 5, Luke 6:22-23, and how LDS folks, then and now, view suffering for the cause of faith. (4 Nephi 29:29,Helaman 3:33-35,D+C 122). That might be something that would fit better in the article, and there are some overlaps in MC history where the persecution was actually coming from the MC community itself. Certainly there are similarities worth noting between the persecution of Church in the 1800's and the Church in the early Apostles day, and the very similar reactions to persecution evinced in both groups. I've been wanting to explore the persecution the Church received early in it's history and explain how that has progressed to the present day where there is a lot more toleration appreciation and love from those in the MC community, despite the differences. I'd like to talk about the Library of Congress symposium on Joseph Smith and the more good-will sentiments coming from Evangelical leaders like Ravi Zacharias and Richard Mouw as evidence that Latter-Day Saints are being treated much more civily in our modern era than in times past. Mpschmitt1 13:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

More than half the article is already filled with things that are frankly, barely relevant - no, worse than that, it is PURE CRAP. I strongly urge you, not to add more things that are barely relevant. More precisely, we do not have room for more explanations of why Christians should believe in Mormonism. This is what has always been wrong with this article, and always will be wrong with it, until this approach is eliminated entirely.

PLEASE stick to explaining Mormon beliefs considered in their own light, and we will explain MC beliefs considered in their own light, on comparable issues. PLEASE stop trying to help the other side to see things from their point of view - that is called "Evidences", and it is relevant to the Apologetical task, and not to this article. You should ONLY be trying to explain your perspective in such a way that the other side stops misunderstanding it. You should STOP adding more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and MORE "content" (arguments) - as though rattling on and on about your perspective is what is missing from the article: that is EXACTLY what is WRONG about the article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And please, please begin to understand this: when we stop misunderstanding what you believe, this does not necessarily mean that we will begin to understand things as you do. Please, please understand (I am getting weary of explaining it), your goal cannot be to try to help us to understand: we cannot understand you, because we do not believe what you believe. I will NEVER understand why you follow a prophet in order to follow Christ. Are you hearing me? It is gibberish to me, and the more you go on, the more nonsensical it sounds. Please stop trying to help me to understand it. I don't want your arguments. I only want your explanations. Please stop pushing your point of view. Is there not even one of you who gets this? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill! Help! — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what parts are real crap, so I'm not sure how to help. As I've said before, religious beliefs only make sense to those that believe them; to all others it is utter nonsense. And while I agree that you will (probably) never believe what we believe, I would hope you could get to the point where you understand why we believe what we do.

Think of during OT times. People asked prophets what God wanted. During NT times, many of the followers of Jesus thought he was a prophet. (The concept of the Messiah being divine was never considered.) The idea of listening to a prophet is basic to Judeo-Christian beliefs. You do it yourself when you read the NT - each of the authors were prophets.

I hope by now you realize that we really, really, do believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet. I can also tell you that I have felt closer to Jesus since becoming a Mormon than I ever did as a Catholic, or when looking at various Protestant churches. I think you believe that Joseph Smith and our other leaders get between us and God, but we don't perceive it that way. They provide insight, but each of us are responsible for our own personal relationship with God.

Having said all that, I must admit that the concept discussed above certainly isn't core, significant doctrine. IMHO, it is more the kind of doctrine taught in the foyers rather than the classrooms. ;^) It is easy to find correlations after the fact, and some of the above arguments sound a lot like some of the scriptures that Christians point to as a prophecy that Jesus fulfilled, even though they were never considered Messianic by the Jews. I think this article would be best served by sticking to the main differences. To try to cover all differences is far beyond the scope of a single article (or a single book, for that matter.) I would prefer that we talk about fewer major important differences than try to cover a lot of less important ones. The goal (IMHO) is to allow the reader to understand the differences between Mormons and Mainstream Christians. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I have never, never, never, never doubted that it is your belief that Joseph Smith is a real prophet. You have made this even more abundantly clear than I could even imagine. It is astonishingly clear. But it does not help to clarify, to give even further evidences of why you think he is a prophet. I get it.

We know that the LDS has a very open view toward those who disagree with them. This has a lot to do with your view of where truth resides: that is, in ordinances with proper authority, in a priesthood, but especially in works of kindness. Why do you need an entire section showing how appealing this solution is? It's as though saying it again and again makes it seem more true, to you. This is what that CRAP section does, "Traditional LDS attitudes toward those of other faiths". Understand me, I don't begrudge you the argument. Let it be said, 'Mormons believe that doing works of kindness is vastly more important than "theology"'. Say it twice, or even three times if this is right and it's why you are proud, but don't say it so much that it becomes a sermon. Delete the section. It is crap argumentation in the context of a neutral comparison of religion. It is POV pushing. It does not belong.

Now we are being asked, once again by 74s181 who consistently does this, if we might have consensus (by which I suppose he might mean, a vote somewhere down the line), on whether it would help to compare the calling of Jesus with the calling of Joseph Smith. Is there no limit to the urge to argue for Mormonism? Can it never simply be described for the purposes of comparison? This article is not called "Mormonism Vs. Christianity". Please get them to stop doing this. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Mark, I sometimes ask for consensus before adding controversial material to the article, that is what the talk page is for. No, Mark, you're not being asked to consider anything, I was asking the LDS editors if they thought this was a topic worthy of inclusion. It isn't. So, that's it. 74s181 03:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that things have been hectic for me and I haven't been keeping up with all the changes recently. I don't know where that section about attitudes towards other faiths came from, but I agree with Mark that it doesn't belong. It might be appropriate for a paragraph or so, but that section was way too long, IMHO. I decided to be bold and delete it. When we first started this recent set of additions, the expectation was that some of them would shake out and we would keep the more significant ones. I think this might be a good time to think about trimming this article down more. IMHO, we should be stating what the various views are, not trying to prove and/or justify them. Details are fine in footnotes for anyone who wants to follow up on any point, but I believe the main article should be more concise. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 04:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your deletion of that section, I'm glad you did it. I was thinking about doing it myself but I was afraid to do so without asking for consensus first. Hopefully, no one will be offended. 74s181 13:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Storm Rider mocked me for sounding wise, I made myself a fool and this is what got your sympathy and attention, to do what I've been asking you to do for months. This is not how it should be. I don't want to have to do that again. Let me reason with you as grown ups, with all our faculties and resources directed to what I believe is a vitally important topic. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

When I read this though, it puts too much on him. It worked out for the betterment of the article, that he showed me a way that succeeded. So, he should know that I hold nothing at all against him, since he helped me to see the way to help; and I won't bring it up again. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for article sections

I think it is time to trim this article down to the essential, important differences between LDS and MC traditions. I would like to recommend the following criteria:

• Each section should identify significant differences between LDS and MC
• Each viewpoint should be presented concisely; footnotes are fine for providing reasons for differing beliefs, but the emphasis should be on comparison, not proof / justification / whatever.
• Viewpoints should be balanced. If one side has significant beliefs, but the other side doesn't, then perhaps that section should be deleted. The purpose of the article is to compare the two, and if it is a one-sided comparison, then it probably doesn't belong here.
• The overall goal of the article is to allow the reader to understand the differences between LDS and MC beliefs. Obviously, it should be NPOV.

Does anyone else agree with this approach? Do you think I'm off base somehow? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 04:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I definetly support making the article more concise, which means deleting material. I am not sure that it should only address those areas where there is "conflict" or overlap. The beauty of both bodies of doctrine is found in what they profess to value most. I think there is some value in juxtoposing main beliefs, which may include both similar and dissimilar.

For MC organizations Mormonism is a cult and only marginally Christian; this needs to be explained why this position is held. Also, it should address why Mormons feel they are Christian. Though I believe this is addressed to a degree, we need to make sure that it is adequate.

Further, many of the statements should really just be linked to other articles where they are more fully explained, rather than going into detail. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all except the 3rd point - which is an important one. Imbalance is impossible to avoid: because we are not making a symmetrical comparison. If it is important, it belongs. It may belong for the very reason that it is NOT important to the contrasting view. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. I proposed something similar about a month ago, see Prep for re-organization. Although your specific 'planks' are different, I think the goal is the same, come to a consensus on how we are going to handle the structure of the article, independent of any consensus on particular topics. I hope you succeed, and for that reason I will not be participating further in this particular discussion. 74s181 13:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming others also agree, perhaps the next step should be to identify what various editors consider the essential / most important sections of the article. Once we have somewhat of a consensus (and I hope 74 participates in this), we can work on tightening up the sections we keep, and either completely delete the other sections or reduce them to a sentence or two. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

74s181, I will be very disappointed, after working so hard to gain your cooperation, and you have been so patient to put up with so much of my pleading and lecturing. According to the measure of the work I've put into recruiting you, I will be disappointed if it's now that you decide to walk away: just when I think we are arriving at the same understanding of our task together. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And to all the LDS, please accept my sincere expression of admiration, that even as you have begun to perceive the danger of working with someone like me, you have tried hard to think the best of me despite appearances, and you have not attacked me. Even when you have attacked me, you have restrained your anger, and you have tried to be patient: and indeed, you have put up with a great many things that have offended you, when you could have fallen into mocking me, which would have sabotaged our task together. Thank you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly withdraw the point about balance. Certainly if one side thinks something is very important but the other doesn't, that is worthy of a section. What I was trying to eliminate are sections that aren't really that important to either side. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your intention, and appreciate your desire to be fair. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Most Important Sections

Please list what you think are the most important sections from the article. Please keep in mind that (IMHO) the purpose of the article is to allow the reader to compare LDS and MC views. You are also encouraged to include what you think are the least important sections - in other words, the sections you think should be deleted. The text for the deleted sections might be moved to articles on those specific articles, so deleting a section from this article doesn't mean that work will go to waste. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed the only humble opinion, because the topic is "Mormonism and Christianity". Anyone who does not subject himself to the topic is not being humble. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As an example of how "imbalanced" the comparison is, how important is it to the LDS that there is only one true institution of truth, one visible church? You can perceive that this is also very important to Trinitarians, but not in a symmetrical way. The Truth we uphold is One, and therefore although the Church consists of many, we must be One. Yet, we are many and not one. For us then, this is a very profound mystery, and a cause of stumbling. For the world, it is a cause of scandal, because they cannot know that we are disciples of Christ if we are many but not one.

Modernism attempted to resolve this problem, by providing rational things upon which we may objectively agree - things verifiable, testable and knowable. They relegated "faith" to a realm apart from "fact", in order to establish unity on the foundation of "fact". Post-modernism now is denying the objectivity of the realm of "fact", and is attempting to establish unity on the foundation of "faith" regardless of "fact". But the Trinitarian churches who have not departed from their foundations have answered, The faith in which we must unite is the fact of God; and the fact in which we must unite is the faith of God: because fact and faith are one. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You might also perceive that this is different from Fundamentalism: which is Modern. This is Trinitarianism: which is Tradition. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Christianity restored

The opening paragraph ends with this sentence:

However, Latter Day Saints have been clear that they do not consider themselves a branch of the Trinitarian tradition, and therefore reject trinitarian interpretations of sacred scripture and their familiar Creeds, in favor of what they believe to be the restored Gospel; that is, Christianity restored to its original authority, structure and power.

My impression is that at least some LDS writers wish this expression of what they "reject" to be less final and total, than this sentence indicates. Is this right? If so, could the sentence be repaired by saying something like this:

The Latter Day Saints have been clear that they do not consider themselves a branch of the Trinitarian tradition, and therefore reject trinitarian interpretations of sacred scripture and their familiar Creeds, in favor of what they believe to be the restored Gospel; that is, Christianity restored to its original authority, structure and power. Nevertheless, the LDS affirm that, apart from the Trinitarian creeds, that which Mainstream Christians affirm is faith in the same Christ proclaimed by the LDS, except without the priestly authorization and prophetic power that is appropriate to that proclamation.

Is this a more exactly correct affirmation of the LDS position? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In our view, this would express more completely the great power of the delusion which belongs to anyone who would presume to add to the fullness of the revelation of God, which is the Son of God himself. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You do make me laugh! Yes, I like your word-smithing and believe that it improves the sentence.

The last comment is an excellent example of how you can be offensive, but without any realization that you are offensive. For example, if I said, "the fact that MC proclaim the heavens closed and that God no longer speaks to man is exemplary of their house of faith being dead and lifeless. How does one say that God no longer speaks to humanity nor cares enough to speak?" It would be best for you to hold those comments to yourself; the alternative is possibly create a sitution where others speak bluntly in reply. You may be accustomed to the quality of conversation, but it would sure to offend other editors of more sensitive composition. Does this make sense? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand. I cannot change this, unless you want me to disguise what I am saying with parables. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll take your advice to heart, concerning how to deal with you. It would be better if I just let you know that what I say about our beliefs has an accompanying interpretation of your beliefs; and what I say about your beliefs has something accompanying it which concerns our beliefs. Then, if you want to know, you can ask. This would be more polite, and would probably be less likely to be taken as offensive. So, I'm sorry for being inconsiderate of feelings, and I'll seek improvement in that regard.

As for what you say about our "house of faith being dead and lifeless", there is a sense in which this is true. That is, the sense in which you think yourselves alive, we are dead, and we die daily. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your meaning, but I think you would find some LDS that would consider organized religion outside of the LDS church to be dead to the Spirit. I reject that premise; it is a fallacy. I know too many Christians that are alive in Christ Jesus to ever believe that the Spirit is confined to a single organization or people.

We each grow and learn about religions to the degree we have an interest to learn. In some we find an abiding respect and appreciation; in others we find less appreciation. It is polite to keep offensive characterizations to ourselves. In the sharing we can only cause unneeded pain. It should be understood that we are limiting this conversation strictly to Wikipedia. Here our objective is to report facts in the article and to discuss how best to write an article that is both difficult and complex. How we talk about the religions of the world outside of Wikipedia is a personal matter; even then I would urge prudence. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If I'm prudent it's to spare your feelings. If I'm bold it's to spare your life. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominations for deletion

I suggest that God and the natural order and Confession of Sins be deleted. They are minor points, and IMHO not worthy of that section. There are plenty of LDS who are creationists, even though the LDS church is neutral concerning evolution. As for confession of sins, there is so much difference between Catholic and Protestant beliefs, that I'm not sure the comparison really adds much. (I seem to recall that I added those sections, so hopefully nobody will be offended by that nomination. ;^)

I would also like to see more balance in the sections within Differences in doctrines and core beliefs. I believe that there should be a brief description of the two views, along with links to more detailed articles. What we have now is a long description of LDS beliefs, followed by a paragraph or two about the MC viewpoint. The LDS portion should be trimmed back severely, and I would like to see links to MC articles where possible. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 12:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a re-write of the Core Beliefs to make it consistent with the non-argumentative procedure of comparison which has been followed at the start of the article, and is abandoned in Core Beliefs. It's as simple as 1,2,3

1. Find the central point of comparison
2. Explain the LDS point of view
3. Explain the MC point of view

As an editor of a controversial article on Wikipedia, you are the announcer for a boxing match.

1. Ladies and gentlemen, Wikipedia is pleased to present for your boxing entertainment! the match of the century! a title fight!
2. in this corner, weighing 180 years! with 12 million members! fighting tonight, the card says, "with original structure, authority and power", the fastest growing religion in the world: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints! The LDS, ladies and gentlemen! The LDS.
3. In the opposing corner, weighing no one agrees how much (the crowd laughs)! with who knows whether there are any real believing members at all (the crowd laughs)! fighting tonight bloodied and beaten from a previous bout! fighting tonight, the card says, "in divided garments", for whatever good that'll do (the crowd laughs)! the supposed champ and contested claimant to the title (the crowd boos)! The Mainstream Christian! The MC, ladies and gentlemen! The MC.

Thank you for coming, Good night.

We do not fight, here. The hour to fight has not yet come. All we do is compare. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)