Talk:Mormonism/Archive 1

From Theopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

To the Mormons who have been editing this article with LDS-typical "advertisements" and rebuttals to evangelical criticism, please realize that this is an evangelical Christian site. Discuss any changes you think should be made in this discussion page, not in the content itself. -Aaronshaf 15:44, 4 Mar 2005 (EST)

This article needs a lot of cleanup, as most of it has been basically edited by LDS members promoting their religion. -Aaronshaf 15:44, 4 Mar 2005 (EST)

Hate to say it, Aaron, but that's probably never going to stop. I'm on your side here, but having been Mormon once I understand what they are trying to do. They feel misrepresented from every side, and I can see how several of the statements you've made on this page could be interpreted as "antagonistic" rather than speaking the truth in love. I'd like a chance at giving this article a more neutral spin. Not that I want to back down from speaking the truth, but there are ways of saying "you're mistaken" without saying "you're stupid". I realize you never meant to say "you're stupid", but there are so many cultural differences between Christianity and Mormonism that it's hard not to step on people's toes. JoeyDay 16:19, 4 Mar 2005 (EST)
I'm not sure where the Polygamy section should go. I don't think it's really all that important, though. Perhaps it should go somewhere near the bottom of the article? JoeyDay 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (EST)
Under "abberant teachings". I'm also thinking that the first three summary paragraphs for the whole article should sum it all up--a summary designed for the reader interested only in staying 2 minutes to grab the pertinent data. In the process of making this article as loving as possible to LDS members, let us make the warnings regarding aberrant LDS doctrine very clear. -Aaronshaf 18:17, 4 Mar 2005 (EST)

Contents

The following needs cleanup, then can be re-inserted

Polygamy

Although the practice of polygamy is not an active doctrine in most Mormon circles today, it set Mormons apart from the rest of the United States during the 19th century. There are accounts indicating that Joseph Smith himself had 27 wives, though he publicly denied this many times. Because of his denials, many of the splinter groups headquartered in the eastern and southern states do not believe Joseph Smith ever taught the practice. If they do acknowledge polygamy as a teaching of Joseph Smith, they claim that it was a sin on Smith's part and was not a true principle given from God. These groups do not believe many of the doctrines taught by Smith in the last few years of his life, claiming that he had fallen away from the truth.

It was Brigham Young (with 56 wives) who, in 1852, first gave polygamy the push to become a semi-regular practice within the LDS Church in Utah. After a series of legal decisions made by the United States government toward the late 1800's, the church issued an official declaration [1] to end the practice of polygamy. The practice continued for several years in Canada and Mexico, but gradually came to an end. Today, members of the LDS Church are excommunicated if they are found to be practicing polygamy. There are several splinter groups in Utah who encourage the practice of polygamy while sharing many beliefs and doctrines with the LDS Church.

This addition by an LDS member was removed for obvious reasons -Aaronshaf 22:32, 15 Mar 2005 (EST)

It is well known, that throughout time, there have been many translations of the bible as it is today. As times have passed onwards, it has been translated between languages. The bible accepted by the LDS church, or the King James Version, was translated by a group of about 50 scholars, who would spend many days discussing the bible. However, in these discussions, certain parts would be removed, or other things may have been added, or certain words changed.

Because of this fact, certain books of scripture have also been removed, and others changed. Due to this change, certain doctrines may have been removed.

However, LDS canon, having been believed to be translated only once, would in theory, be more correct. Thus their eighth article of faith, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God." (Pearl of Great Price: Article of Faith 8.)

Recent Edit

I edited the outline only because I found it to go all over the place. Certain sections should have been sub-sections, and so I shifted things around. Also, the title of sections were to "specific" in that it only allowed for a certain part of a bigger subject to be discussed. For example, one section was something about temples and marriage. The main section should be "temples" and a sub-section be "marriage" (which is what I did). My goal was to make it more simple, as well as to allow for more specific writing to occur under more broad headings. Hope this helps. - JordanBarrett 13:05, 6 Aug 2005

9/14/2005

I removed the following:

"Although debatable, LDS are generally considered to be polytheists. Others would prefer to call them Henotheists since they claim there is an ultimate God amongst the many other gods that exist apart from him."

A proposed formula for presenting topics on Mormonism

Original Mormonism said...

Historic Mormormism has said...

Most contemporary Mormons say...

Some modern Mormons now say...

---

Thoughts? -Aaronshaf 23:30, 14 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Although a good idea, I think this will clutter up the article in a lot of ways. I think this idea can be integrated in to each section that has already been presented (or maybe that's what you meant). JordanBarrett 00:05, 15 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Avoiding rhetorical flourish

"Mormons believe that all God's children have been born with the potential to become like Him."

This is really glib and obscure and unhelpful for the common laymen. The substance, not the rhetorical flourish, of LDS doctrine needs to be fleshed out. -Aaronshaf 23:32, 14 Sep 2005 (EDT)


Need introduction and summary

After scanning through the article and reading some of the above discussion, I decided to add my $0.02. I am no expert on Mormonism nor nearly so familiar with its intricacies as Jordan. But as an outsider looking at the article, I have a few comments:

1. The article is getting very long. This may be natural given Jordans extensive knowledge, and can be useful if the stage is set right -- which leads to my other two comments.

2. It lacks a needed introductory paragraph which precedes the automatic Outline and History section.

3. I personally would like to see a "summary" section which states Mormonism's principle beliefs in contradistinction to conservative evangelical Christianity. This should be designed as a quick overview that satisfies the casual inquirer and sets the stage for more detailed information which follows.

Just some food for thought as you move forward with the article. :-) Gomarus 11:17, 15 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Table

I added the table, but to be honest I don't know what I'm doing! :) I copied the html stuff from the Millenial Kingdom page, and tried to re-edit it to make it fit here. It's only a start, because things like The Fall, Sin, The Gospel, Heaven, and the like can be added to the table. Feel free to add whatever else. Is this what you guys were thinking? JordanBarrett 14:10, 15 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I think what you are doing will answer my thoughts quite well. Thanks for the effort. The Table will serve as a nice way to compare. But, brother, don't ask me how to do Tables. I'm lost there. Gomarus 14:34, 15 Sep 2005 (EDT)

David Paulsen

The following section has been temporarily removed:

David Paulsen, philosopher at BYU, has begun to verbally express that he believes God the Father and Jesus to be "uncaused beings" (note, something like this has yet to be published). Historically, LDS believe that God was once a man, who progressed and became the god that he is now. However, what Paulsen is saying - and what is new in his theology - is that neither the Father was never once a man. They have always been God in that they have always possessed every attribute necessary to be God, and never had to progress. Also, he affirms an Evangelical generation of the Son, rather than a literal birth of Jesus from Mother and Father God (see section on Jesus above for further details of the historical Mormon belief about Jesus). This would be new to Mormon theology. Again, none of his novel views or theology have been accepted as official church doctrine or has trickled down to any significant number of laymen.

Paulsen said he'd e-mail me soon with to clarify/correct. Then we can modify the paragraph and return it (if noteworthy). Mercy, mercy. Grace and peace. -Aaronshaf 11:19, 23 Sep 2005 (EDT)


New pages?

I'm wondering if we should start new pages off of this article, such as "LDS History", and "LDS Doctrine" where they can be described in better detail. This may help us consolidate and make the article shorter. What do you guys think? JordanBarrett 14:05, 27 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Sounds like a good idea, although I personally prefer "Mormon" to LDS. -Aaronshaf 14:37, 27 Sep 2005 (EDT)

What is the purpose of this page?

I'm just a visitor here trying to figure out the focus and scope of theopedia. This page is a good test to find out where we're really going. So here's what I think: a factual presentation of LDS beliefs belongs in Wikipedia or some other NPOV source. Not here. Because we have a particular POV, site visitors should not expect to see an unbiased view of every bit of LDS history or expect us to track every theological debate arising within the LDS faith community. So it may very well be a waste of time for us to try to maintain such data.

Now I'm not saying we have a license to distort truth (bearing false witness). Nor should we consider LDS theology so irrelevant to Theopedia that it needs no treatment here. But I would think we should focus this page around the questions it raises to a biblical christian.

  • Should Mormonism be considered a valid branch of biblical christianity? If not, why not?
  • Which key historical or present-day beliefs and practices of the LDS church are consistent or inconsistent with Biblical teachings?
  • What advice does the Bible offer when dealing with my LDS neighbors?
  • How has biblical christianity interacted with the LDS faith in the past, and how fruitful have these interactions been?

And so forth. But hey, I may be totally misreading the purpose of this site. Gladed 15:59, 27 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I think you have a valid question and make a good point. I await responses from Aaron and Jordan. BTW, if you are registered (which I encourage you to do), you can simply sign your name and date with "four tildes". Regards, Gomarus 14:47, 27 Sep 2005 (EDT)
I think the purported "NPOV" policy of Wikipedia is good but often ends up non-factual... its content is often the result of a power-play between editors who have particular interests. See the Wikipedia articles on Mormonism for a really good example of this.
"Biased" does not necessarily mean unfactual. You need to be biased toward logic and the purpose of language and views on epistemology (assuming humans can have correspondence with the truth) to even be factual. I personally believe you need to have a Biblical, personal relationship with Christ to have the best, most factual view of Mormonism, and for most things in life. Another example: I can't view and appreciate and describe the Niagra Falls in the best way without being a worshiper of the Creator of Niagra Falls.
Describing for the reader various debates within the Mormon organization/culture I think helps one get a feel for Mormonism, a better feel than one would get from a simplistic/naive description of historical or official doctrine, descriptions that potential converts (or internet surfers) are often unhelpfully given. Considering the Mormon claim that they are the one true sect and ecclesiastical organization, and that the doctrinal diversity outside their camp points to their attractiveness, giving factual descriptions of the landscape of Mormon theological beliefs is important. When dealing with a Mormon individual, it is important to keep the various original, historical, and contemporary developments in mind, because the Mormon today is affected by and connected to all of those aspects.
When considering joining the organization, one should have the most helpful purview possible, not excluding the original, historical, and contemporary issues. That's my two cents. Grace and peace in Christ! -Aaronshaf 15:00, 27 Sep 2005 (EDT)


Hi Aaron, glad you weighed in. Good point about distinguishing between being "unbiased" and presenting facts.
It is true that Wikipedia sometimes fails at NPOV but this is the exception not the rule, which is why Wikipedia is popular and successful. But in matters of faith it is probably impossible to write in an NPOV fashion that will please most readers. We might see arguments such as "The LDS believe in a created God", from person A, not because Mormons typically hold this, but because person A wishes to discredit Mormonism. "No we don't," says person B with the intent to defend Mormonism from the obvious conclusions of its theology. And the war rages on with no objectivity in sight, really because nobody has agreed on an epistemological basis in this field.
That's where a site like this can be a beacon of light. Because we can contrast genuine Biblical theology from the false statements that appear in other systems by showing how the Biblical notion of God is self-consistent, in agreement with scripture, etc. I am suggesting we exploit our freedom from the myth of NPOV. If we focus first and foremost on providng a full and complete exposition on the history of Mormonism and its theology we may miss the value we can provide. God bless, Gladed 15:59, 27 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Hrm... I'll get Jordan's helpful table back up there which draws clear Biblical distinctions. Breaking up this article into smaller pieces will significantly help prevent bogging down the reader. Thanks for the input! -Aaronshaf 16:16, 27 Sep 2005

(EDT)

Gladed, I appreciate your thoughts and your desire to improve the site and the article on Mormonism. I think you make some valid points - ones that we should take and we should all run with. However, instead of revamping the article, I would rather split it up in to multiple articles. Here's why: I feel we would harm the reader who knows nothing about Mormon doctrine - whether they be Christian or whatever - if we give them a snippet into LDS doctrine, refute it with scripture, and leave them at that. Battling LDS beliefs is not that easy. If we give an article that says to use this verse and that verse and you'll be fine, then I believe we will have failed. If we can give an article that presents Mormonism in a concise, and yet full picture so that the reader goes away saying, "ooohhh! That's why they believe that! And this is what the Bible says and here's how I can try and help the Mormon's understand it" then we've done much better. I'm under the conviction that we are much stronger when we understand how the other's mind works, why it works that way, and so on. If we don't know what we're up against then we could waste time battling ideas/beliefs that are either a waste of time, or that we have made simplistic when they are actually something we need to spend more time understanding. Sorry if I'm not making sense. What are everyone's thoughts? JordanBarrett 16:29, 27 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Adam and Even

Haha. What a way to type. -Aaronshaf 16:20, 28 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Seeking the truth by an inward feeling

When I used the phrase "special revelation" in that section, I did not mean to refer to the type of special revelation that Reformed Christians think of (scripture, etc., which is contrasted with general: creation, etc.). I mean "special" as in private, abnormal revelation. What phrase would be appropriate for this? -16:23, 28 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Nevermind, all I had to do was add the word "private". -Aaronshaf 16:39, 28 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Yeah, I was thinking "personal" or "private". I have, however, met LDS who claim to receive Special Revelation in the Reformed sense of the term. Interesting. JordanBarrett 16:53, 28 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.theopedia.com/Talk:Mormonism/Archive_1"
Personal tools