|
Previous discussions are here:
===[[Borrowdale dance]]===
:[[Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (archive)]]
:[[Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 2]]
:[[Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 3]]
:[[Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 4]]
:[[Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 5]]
-----
I dont even know what this is but it only has 87 unique google hits so its probaly nn '''Delete'''--[[User:Aranda56|JAranda]]'' | [[User talk:Aranda56|watz sup]] 21:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
* '''Weak keep''' Given the scarcity of Web material about Zimbabwe I'd keep this as it's verifiable although somewhat localised see e.g. [http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:B5etkc0E8ugJ:www.delta.co.zw/home.cfm%3Fpg_id%3D69%26lnk_id%3D7+Borrowdale+dance&hl=en] [[User:Dlyons493|<FONT COLOR="#00FF00">Dl</FONT><FONT COLOR="#44FF00">yo</FONT><FONT COLOR="#99DD11">ns</FONT><FONT COLOR="#DDDD11">493</FONT>]] [[User_talk:Dlyons493|<FONT COLOR="#DDDD11">Ta</FONT><FONT COLOR="#00FF00">lk</FONT>]] 22:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and expand. It seems to be associated with musician [[Alick Macheso]] who also has the nickname of Borrowdale see [http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:UvPEMljArvkJ:www.herald.co.zw/index.php%3Fid%3D37415%26pubdate%3D2004-11-04+%22Borrowdale+dance%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en].
==Mormonism by country==
. [[User:Capitalistroadster|Capitalistroadster]] 00:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd dig it if I saw a category or articles that gave history/information on Mormonism as practiced around the world, a la [[:Category:Roman Catholic Church by country]]. Knowing how [[Catholicism in China|China treats Catholics]] I really wanted information on how China treats mormons. This would be a great expansion project for some dedicated editors. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 04:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. It looks to be real, and notable in Zimbabwe. - [[User:Dalbury|Dalbury]] [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 02:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:I don't know how China treats Mormons, but my guess is that there are very few. The LDS church has a policy of not proselytizing in countries where doing so is illegal, so my guess is that there are very, very few native Chinese converts. There are some branches in China, but they're all English-speaking, and my guess would be that they are primarily foreign diplomats and business people and their families who are temporarily living in China. [[User:Mveric|Mveric]] 05:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Looks to be notable in Zimbabwe. [[User:Denni|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]][[User:Denni|nni]][[User_talk:Denni|<font color=#228822>☯</font>]] 00:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
PS: This talk page is massive and desperately needs archiving. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 04:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
::And college students. I met a large number of Chinese students at BYU. While not all convert, there is a significant group that does get baptised. In addition, there must be some sort of "recognition" with an LDS temple in Hong Kong, but the church would not be allowed to prostelytize on the mainland... -[[User:Visorstuff|Visorstuff]] 13:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
== Largest Beef Ranch... ==
I was perusing the article and ran across the statement in the finances section, that the church ownes and operates the largest beef ranch in the US/world. Well that isn't true... The King Ranch in Texas is a 'bit' larger at 825,000 acres. http://www.king-ranch.com/index_ie.htm
I don't know how you would like to correct the information. I don't know if you can say that it is the second largest as there isn't a list of top 10 ranches out there I could find.
It is a very large ranch by any measure but not the largest.
:Agree we should change or clarify. Do you know which is larger in production? -[[User:Visorstuff|Visorstuff]] 21:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
==Freemasonry==
It is very interesting to find there is no reference in this article to Freemasonry, which is where almost all of the ritual in Mormon worship derives it's origin, even down to the under-garments and the symbolism thereof. Has anyone considered investigating this further, or is such discussion offensive to Mormons? [[User:Jachin|Jachin]] 14:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
... I don't think it's considered offensive, but probably inaccurate. It may be said that, but such a statement lacks any substantiation and is therefore not a Neutral POV. you can say that some people think that "Mormon" rituals derive from freemasonry, but you'd also have to say that Latter day saints themselves believe that their "rituals" come instead by revelation.
See also heading: "LDS && Masonry lytourgy/symbols" in Archive 5.
[[user:scrupulousbob|Scrupulous Bob]] 27 August 2005
:With as much information as there is on the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] in Wikipedia, it cannot all be contained on one page. The relationship of [[Joseph Smith, Jr.]] with [[Freemasonry]] is explored on the [[Endowment (Mormonism)|endowment]] article. The similarities that you have brought up are explored on the [[Mormonism and Freemasonry]] article. These things have not been ignored. [[User:Val42|Val42]] 20:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
... [Comment by Trenidor] I don't think it's in anyway related to freemasonry, All of the beliefs are contained in already published and readily accessable sources such as: The Church's Magazines, The Book of Mormon, the Docterin and Covenants, as well as the many Confrence talks and any published work by the church. All of which can be found on the LDS website. The Temple Garment thing is in the D&C, the fact of the matter is that most people don't realize all the things untill someone points them out, which is one of the reasons they are considered sacred.
==Perpetual Education Fund==
From what I know about the Perpetual Education Fund, it is primarily for use by poorer members in poorer areas of the world. Additionally, my perception is that it isn't meant for any members in the United States or Canada. Does anyone have information to support or refute my perceptions? I think that we should discuss it here and filter such information for placing it in the main article. [[User:Val42|Val42]] 18:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
There is an article in the Deseret News today about the Perpetual Education Fund. It says that the Fund has given 24,000 loans this year.
Regarding what countries funds have been provided to, Elder Carmack gave a lis: "Mexico, Central and South America, the Philippines, the Caribbean, Cambodia, Mongolia and India, with plans to expand into west Africa, central Europe, Russia, Tonga, Samoa and Fiji." http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,615154075,00.html [[User:Sreed1234|Sreed1234]] 00:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
== Third Paragraph/sentence deletion ==
I deleted the following sentence from the one of the introductroy paragraphs:
:Some Christian churches do not consider the Church to be a Christian church at all (see [[Mormonism and Christianity]]).
In reading the paragraph, which descibes some initial information about the LDS church, there is the statment out of the blue about how other churches view the church. Stating it without explanation or references is irresponsible. Though it is accurate, it is not the appropriate place in the article to bring up any type of explanation or a rebuttal. I agree that the concept belongs and is appropriately referred to later in the article, but it does not belong at the beginning of the article. The article on Catholicism, or most other church related articles, do not introduce counterpoint immediately, if at all, in the main body of the article. They are either referred to other articles or mentioned much later in the article. This topic is sufficiently important that it is an article unto itself and should not be introduced in the leading paragraphs. For these reasons I deleted it. [[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] 13:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
: Well, that paragraph starts with "''Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of [[Latter-day Saint]]s consider themselves to be [[Christian]]''", so I would disagree with your statement that it's out of the blue to mention that other churches disagree with the LDS self-assessment. Perhaps we could merge the sentences, so that the first line of the paragraph would read: "Members of LDS consider themselves to be Christian, although some Christian churches disagree...". If we only present the LDS opinion in the summary, particularly since it's quite disputed, I think we lose NPOV. [[User:Matt Crypto|— Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 19:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
::That would only make sense if we changed the sentence to "Members of LDS consider themselves to be Christian, although some churches that also consider themselves Christian disagree...". Which doesn't make sense. Whether we think Mormons are Christians or not, they think they are, and it's a fact that they think they are. Criticisms of the Mormons are handled just fine at the bottom of the article. [[User:TrustTruth|TrustTruth]] 23:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
::: Equally, it is also a fact that many do not hold LDS members to be Christians. You say that this topic is "sufficiently important that it is an article unto itself". Sure, but that only supports the view that the issue deserves a mention in this article. How about we write it like this: "''Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of [[Latter-day Saint]]s consider themselves to be [[Christian]], although some critics of the church do not consider the church to be a Christian church at all (see [[Mormonism and Christianity]]).''". That tells the reader very succinctly that 1) a debate exists and 2) where to go to find out about it. Otherwise the reader might very well be unware, after reading this article, that the LDS view was contentious. [[User:Matt Crypto|— Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 23:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
:::This really is a fascinating subject, but its comlexity is one of the reasons I am against introducing it so early without clarification. Those that define the church as non-Christian use some pretty creative redefining of the term Christian to ensure that the LDS chruch does not meet their new definition. However, to the rest of the non-Christian world the LDS chruch is most definitely Christian (Even the name of LDS Church "screams" its affiliation). Most of the critique and the definitions used to make the LDS chruch non-Christian revolves around the church's rejection of the Nicene creed of 325; to do so is to reject orthodoxy and to reject orthodoxy is to be non-Christian d'apres the "orthodox" Christians. Just in stating these things can cause endless discussion. The objective of the article is to state what the LDS church is. How orthodox chritianity views the church is an important viewpoint, but it certainly should not be in the introductory parpgraphs. [[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] 00:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
:::: Why, then, should the LDS viewpoint be mentioned? This seems to be an obvious place to apply NPOV: you have a group who view themselves as Christian, and many orthodox Christians dispute this. We should present both views or not at all, surely? [[User:Matt Crypto|— Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 01:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
:::::I agree with that proposal. Let's just delete the statment that Mormons are Christian. Conversely, the LDS church does not have a "viewpoint" about being Christian, it is simply a statement of fact. The viewpoint or opinion is strictly that born by other churches---not a statement of fact, but rather their opinion of another religious organization. [[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] 02:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
HAHA, Matt - I think Orthodox Christians (Greek, etc.) do consider Mormons Christians, but other Protestant sects do not. Even the Catholic Church considers the LDS Church Christian, but heretical to the point of not accepting baptisms of the LDS Church. Perhaps you meant to say "traditional" or "Nicean?" Let's look at official statements from the various sects - Catholic won't because Mormon views of Christ are too heretical to accept, but does not state that Mormons are not Christian. -[[User:Visorstuff|Visorstuff]] 17:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I am actually pretty comfortable deleting the sentence (It has since been reverted, but I contacted Konrad and explained. I am hoping he will understand and revert his own edit). The name of the church and the topic makes it overtly clear that it is Christian. To debate the issue becomes a issue of definition for our dear friends the evangelicals and others of similar thought. I don't think it is appropriate to debate that topic int he first few paragraphs. Though I think it appropriate to state it clearly, if it makes them happy or think that it is somehow NPOV, I have no problems. Further, I still believe it is appropriate to discuss how other groups feel, but they should be handled on those specific pages.
I am often reminded of an analogy. Our mathmatical system is based on the number 10. If we write an article on a mathmatical system based on the number 7 does it make since to give the pros and cons of a 7 based system versus the 10 based system? Of course not!!! The system functions for their respective adherents. Why do we have some religious articles (the catholic chruch article springsg immeditely to mind) that simply state their story with no attacks, no need to state the opinions of every other religious system, but for the Mormon related articles (as well as others) it is imperative and somehow NPOV to state what every other religious system thinks? Principles of NPOV seem to be applied so willy-nilly...and thus become a joke.
How does the belief in Christ some how save all mankind...unless you are Mormon and then it has no saving grace what-so-ever. The saving grace of the Savior for Mormons is surprisingly inactive. To "turn it on" one must believe in the Trinity...a concept that was not explained by the Savior, but rather 325 years after Christ. These are disputes between mortal men that have absolute no eternal merit. [[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] 19:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I have to disagree. The fact that they consider themselves Christian is a fact. They also consider Joseph Smith a prophet. We include that without qualifying it. Although many don't consider him a prophet, the alternative viewpoints / criticisms are properly handled at the end of the article. Including a counterpoint to every church belief would be ridiculous, and I can see no reason to single out this particular belief for qualification. [[User:TrustTruth|TrustTruth]] 20:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
: Visorstuff, Orthodox Christians generally don't accept Mormons as Christians, unless it's as neo-Gnostic heretics. I would have thought you would have remembered that from earlier work on the article. That information used to be in this article, but it got removed at some point, thus leaving you and other readers with a false impression. The Catholic Church generally believes that it is the only "church", but recognizes other "ecclesial groups." At best it might recognize the LDS as such an "ecclesial group", though I don't know that this is true, and given your mistaken impression of Orthodoxy's stance I rather doubt it.
: To follow up the mathematical system analogy, the [[hexadecimal]] article does compare and contrast that [[numberal system]] with the more common [[decimal]], and does so quite early in the article. This article doesn't need to spend a lot of time on this, but a simple sentence provides much useful information and should be near the article's beginning. [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 17:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Wesley, I thought you had said at one time that there was no "official" stance against the Mormon Church by Orthodox Church? Perhaps I am wrong, but didn't we search for an official stance? Against belief sets of Mormons, but not the specific organization? Also, you had told Hawstom at one time, "when I say "you are wrong" I do *not* mean or equate that with the claim "you are damned." However, you have said elsewhere that those who are not Christians are damned. I think it is right to say that Orthodox as a whole do not accept Mormons as traditional christians and that they are heretical. I fully understand your position that you consider Mormonism in a similar vein as Islam - that we are Jesus-based, but have departed from Christianity, believing that early christianity was apostate. You'd consider us an Abrahamic religion, but not Christian by standard definitions. Please clarify if I'm wrong here... My point above was that the editor used the term "orthodox christians" as compared to "traditional christians" in which case, by explanation should make more sense as it is. I do think that you think I believe in a "different" Jesus based on the same historical figure as the Jesus of traditional christianity. And perhaps that is true. I'm not sure if i have an opinion to that point. That said, do you consider ''me'' a Christian, based on my testimony of Jesus Atonement, and his grace that has made me whole? You know of my love for Him and I do consider myself "born again" spiritually, but not unaccountable because of that (as some american protestants believe, which I see as heretical). I think you may consider some Mormons Christians -- but heretical to the point of not accepting Church beliefs as having the ability to exalt or resulting in salvation. Please clarify...? -[[User:Visorstuff|Visorstuff]] 19:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
: No, there is probably not an "official" stance against the Mormon Church as such by name... or against [[Transcendental meditation]] or [[Mahayana Buddhism]] either. Lack of an official stance does not automatically imply acceptance or affirmation. When I was talking to Hawstom, I was trying to draw a distinction between criticizing or condemning a belief system or religion, and criticizing or condeming an individual person. My membership in the Orthodox Church does not guarantee me a place in Heaven by a long shot, nor does your LDS membership guarantee your salvation, but in broad general terms I believe that the Orthodox Church has most faithfully and fully preserved the truths revealed by God to humanity, whereas the teachings of Mormonism are comparatively rife with error, some of which have particular potential for spiritual injury or disease. The Orthodox Church is a hospital which may hasten my own healing, but my own stubbornness and sinfulness may yet win out. So we seem to agree regarding our ongoing personal accountability, and certainly in many other areas of what might be called moral and upright living. So I do not presume to judge you or anyone else personally. As I said to Tom, may God have mercy on us all, and show us His loving kindness. [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] \
: And as far as presenting a set of teachings without mention of opposition, that principle has certainly not been followed in the [[Trinity]] article, which has a substantial subsection covering dissent to the doctrine. I think that section should be there, as it's an important part of understanding the doctrine as it relates to who believes it and why, and who doesn't and why. [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 15:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't get over the irony of this: "Some Christian churches do not consider the Church to be a Christian church at all". Who certifies the "Christianity" of those "Christian" churches? Let's drop the "Christian" reference to those other churches in this article. If all churches are to come under equal scrutiny, it should be unbiased observers deciding who merits the "Christian" label, not other churches who assert the right to be Christian while denying that privilege to the Mormons. [[User:TrustTruth|TrustTruth]] 20:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
: I understand why you consider it ironic. Those other "Christian" churches are called that because they are visible in the course of history over a period of hundreds, up to two thousand years. So historically, Christianity was understood to mean one set of beliefs (however much internal controversy there may have been at times), whereas the LDS Church was organized (or restored) fairly recently. Frankly, I doubt there is such a thing as an unbiased observer. [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 15:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I can tell you for a fact that the Greek Orthodox Church views the Mormon church as being a cult, so do all other Eastern Orthodox Churches. The Catholic Church, most likely, calls them a cult, and so dose the majority of Protestant churches. – [[User:Zntrip|Zntrip]] 18:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
:One of the major problems with this conversation is the definition of "cult". Christianity was a cult during the first 300 years after the death of Chirst. Today, the term is used to describe some religious organizations such as affiliated with Jones, Manson and Koresh that resulted int he deaths of their adherents. Yet, in the same breath it is used to describe all other religions that are not orthodox. I find it to be the very height of hypocrisy for religious groups to use the term for all religions different from their own. There is nothing in common between those groups such as James Jones and Mormonism and yet our friendly "Christian" brother and sisters delight in using the same term to smear the reputation of the LDS church. Today, there is no common definition of the term "cult"; at best it means different from what ever "I" believe.
:Zntrip, tell me how many wierd things you have heard said about the Eastern Orthodox church and Catholicism? Do they cease being cults simply because of the numbers of adherents? How do we have such a vast array churches who all proclaim to worship Chirst and yet all believe something different. Yes, there are commonalities, but they certainly do not agree with each other on all doctrinal questions. From the mouths of some people I take the term cult as a compliment, but from the vast majority I take it to be the slur that it was intended to be. Regardless, say what you will, but one thing you can not ever deny is the name of the chruch proclaims the head of the LDS chruch and the Book of Mormon is here on earth today to proclaim to jew and gentile the divinity of the Jesus Christ. At the end, let's just leave it in God's hands who is "Christian". Remember it is not those who simply repeat his name that are saved, but those whose hearts have accepted Him and keep His commandmants. [[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] 23:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
:: Clearly, ''[[cult]]'' is a loaded term that carries a great deal of baggage in addition to its [[cult (religion)|original usage]]. Let's not use it in the article's introduction. Of course when it comes to the "Final Judgment" we'll leave it in God's hands who is "Christian", but I don't think there's a practical way to invoke God's help to edit this article. Fortunately, no one's eternal destiny hinges on the wording of this wikipedia article, so that's ok. :-) However, I think the central point of agreement is that the LDS Church is vastly different than most other denominations in both its beliefs and practices; the LDS Church thinks this, and so do most others. Can we agree on this much? [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 02:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
:::My good friend, Wesley, I always enjoy your input. My initial premise of deleting the sentence in question was how it did not fit into the introductory paragraphs. The article should be formated similar to the Catholic article; state what is so about the church and then refer to other articles that address those topics of contention. Why do we treat one church article on WIKI different from another. There certainly is no less "anti" conversation about Catholicism than Mormonism. I seek fairness, but it seems the rules of WIKI are applied differently. If contentious statements must be allowed in this article out of a debt to balance, then why is there no balance in the Catholic church article? I use the Catholic church article only as an example, which I happen to admire both the article and the church. However, the conversation is moot; the introductory paragraphs have changed significantly since this thread began and now we have an entire paragraph to appease those whose contention is the LDS church is not Christian. [[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] 16:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I disappear for a few days and look at the progress...very nice. I truly enjoyed reading the thread above. Wesley, there is no doubt in my mind you will be saved (so long as you live your stated views), and am glad I don't have to make those hard decisions. I'm grateful for liberal views in salvation and in a loving God who seeks to exalt rather than deprecate and destroy. I truly believe many more of us will be there than the average church-goer believes...God is not unjust or unmerciful.
That said, I agree with Storm Rider - how many other church articles put "detractions" or critic views in the summary paragraph? Definitely not Catholic, Baptist Methodist, Eastern Orthodox or even Jehovah Witnesses, but yet it does come in here. We are the exception to Wikipedia norms. This should not be so. -[[User:Visorstuff|Visorstuff]] 23:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
: That's a fair point. I don't think Baptists and Methodists generally receive the kind of flak the other groups mentioned do, but still... I guess the question becomes whether to remove such a statement from this article, or add it to the others. (Something like this has been added to the JW article more than once before.) What would such a notice look like; that a few denominations think they're (RCC and EOC) part of the [[Great Apostasy]]? And Visorstuff, thank you for your kind words. I would have thought I'd be in trouble since I lack the benefit of a Mormon-style baptism, unless someone's gone and played proxy for me or something. [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 16:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
::Wesley, you will have to pass on first before we play proxy for you, but we would be more than happy if that was a request? :) [[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] 17:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:::I think the statement needs to be added into the other articles, but not in the heading/introductions, unless it is core to current events - such as scientology. Even then I'd rather read from their standpoint first and then delve into the controversy. I believe that most people who come to Wikipedia religious articles come to understand what the religion believes and how it compares to what they believe. If this is true, we should always err on the side of burying the controversy until later in the article. I want to know what is core to Mormonism, Catholics or Methodists first, then what others think of them secondary. This should be adopted for all [[Latter Day Saint movement]] and other religous articles in my opinion.
:::As far as salvation, I think first that God loves his children and will help them as much as possible to receive exaltation. As far as the logistics of salvation, God will make sure that gets taken care of for those who love him, whether by a Mormon baptism for the dead, prayers for those in purgatory or similar ideas, we can only speculate. There seems to always be an exception to the rules, doesn't there? I truly believe that God will take care of those who love him.
:::My opinion is that more people will be saved than the average mormon or christian believe. God will not condemn those who do not have access to the gospel. Even many Mormons and christians think that their religion is an exclusive club. We are not only "sinners in the hands of an angry god," but his loved childrem. But I'm not saying eat drink and be merry - we must live to the best of the light and truth we are given. I firmly believe that other churches have their purpose, and that I have a responsibility to share the gospel with others (which I do try). I learned a long time ago that a testimony in something, as well as faith in Christ is a spiritual gift - and for some reason some have a more difficult time receiving or even being offered that gift. I'm glad God decides, and I do hope to meet you there someday. -[[User:Visorstuff|Visorstuff]] 18:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
::I was jesting with Wesley, but to elborate on the concept of baptism for the dead...I have never considered that baptism for the dead makes one a Mormon or that it is the intention of Mormons to make all the dead Mormons, but rather through baptism one enters the Kingdom of God. I am continually surprised by some of the Jewish reactions to Baptism for the Dead performed on behalf of jews that died during the Holocaust. Some take it as an affront to the dead's "jewishness" and a belittling of their sacrifice on behalf of being jewish, but given that they don't believe in Mormonism and the intent is that all may enter into God's kingdom, who cares. It is as if one is offended that my Eastern Orthodox friend Wesley would pray for one's soul...who could possibly be offended by the good will of others. Though I am student of religion and admire truth regardless of where it is found, I am ever astonished by the actions of man towards those of differing faiths. God is the author of all truth and though I believe Christ has restored His church upon the earth, faith in His truths will provide saving grace for all. That is not to say that required ordinaces will not be required, but that a way will be provided for all to dwell in His presence.
::I agree with you Visor, one reads the articles to garner knowledge abou the subject. However, it is a perversion of the principles of NPOV that contrary or critical information must be introduced immediately in articles. Yes, it has a place, but it should come after much later or better yet, linked to articles that address the specific issue. If Baptists are so committed telling the world about the fraud of Mormonism, put it on the Baptist article. We already have enough articles, (Mormonism & Christianity, etc) that address critical differences between faiths. More information only meets the requirements of those with an axe to grind, rather than serve the readers. [[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] 20:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:This reminds me of a story told about Joseph F Smith (or was it Joseph Fielding Smith?) - apparently one of his children was born in a catholic hospital, and the child was immediately baptised at birth. His reaction, aside from being stunned by a mormon Apostle's baby being baptized catholic and initially being taken back was, "well, it can be washed off just as easily as it was put on" or something like that. Interesting reaction - I wonder what mine would be??? -[[User:Visorstuff|Visorstuff]] 21:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Storm Rider — All I said was that the majority of Christian churches do not view the Mormon faith as being Christian. That is simply a fact and can not be disputed. – [[User:Zntrip|Zntrip]] 05:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:Could you please provide a list of these "majority of Christian churches" with documentation that they reject the Christianity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[[User:AlexEagar|AlexEagar]] 09:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
[[User:Zntrip|Zntrip]], I am aware of only two major christian denominations that has taken any sort of an official stance against Mormons. The major one of these is the Catholic Church, which stated "The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith declared that baptisms in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are 'not the baptism that Christ instituted,'" according to the LA Times. The Catholic Church went on to say that one of the other points of doctrine they considered heretical was the idea that "God the father had a wife, the Celestial Mother, with whom he procreated Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit," which of course, as you have read on Wikipedia is a controversial topic, and disputed by many within the LDS Church.
The other church is the United Methodist Church, which generally similarly rejects Mormon Baptisms. Not the LDS Church, but the baptism itself. They also reject a number of other church's baptisms, so this is would not normally be as big of a deal. However, they also stated in a summary paper (not doctrine, but a paper), that Mormonism "does not fit within the bounds of the historic, apostolic tradition of Christian faith," and that Mormonism resembles (ironically) a "tri-theistic" rather than than monotheistic faith (ironically as that was a charge against early christians). This document was not voted on, but is generally consistent with Methodist belief.
The US (not world wide) Presbyterian Church stated "the theology and practices <nowiki>[of Mormons]</nowiki> set it apart from the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches"
Southern Baptist Convention has issued similar assessments of Mormon doctrine, but have stopped short at voting or stating officially or voting that Mormons are not Christian, while noting "vast differences" between the "Mormon version" of Christianity and traditional Christianity. One document I read stated that baptists "regard Mormons in the same category as Jews, Muslims." "All are viewed as non-Christians who are destined to spend eternity in Hell, and need to be 'saved.'" But I have not seen an official statement on this, only statments from convention delegates. However, the convention has been sharply divided on this issue. Even former President Jimmy Carter criticized some within the convention for saying that Mormons are not Christians. He said Southern Baptists "are trying to act as the Pharisees did, who were condemned by Christ, in trying to define who can and cannot be considered an acceptable person in the eyes of God...In other words they are making judgments on behalf of God. I think that's wrong." Other Southern Baptist leaders have similarly criticized conference members for making claims of this sort deciding and "judging who and who is not a Christian." Others have called Mormonism a "heresy," (to me that means their tangent beliefs in core doctrines make them in jeapordy of salvation, but does not mean they are not founded on the same set of beliefs).
Unless I've missed other more recent official statements, these are the official views. Please provide evidence to the contrary, and I'll gladly change my view on this, but I'm not familiar with evidence to the contrary at this point...
Now if you want to discuss official views of teh Mormons by country ogovernments, that is a much more lively debate. Should mormons be recognized in Russia as a religious group? Wow what a debate. They are constantly marred by the Russian Orthodox church, fought against for baptisms for the dead, and criticized by government leaders, but their farming instructions by senior missionaries and other social programs have assisted in rising food production in the former soviet state. The Church's document preseveration and BYU archeaology and research teams that have gone and preserved documents and sites. And then the welfare and humanitarian aid for church members. And the language transfer programs sponsored by church members and chruch affilated groups (english teaching, and other language teaching). There is too much at stake by the russians to denounse the LDS Church, but they sure would love to from a public perception standpoint. Even Yeltsin sent a special delegate to Salt Lake and the LDS Church in the late 1990s to make sure that relations were good with Church leaders (no such delegation has gone to any other church aside from the vatican that I've been able to find). And then on to other countries. Much more lively debate than official stances of Church's on if mormons are christians... -[[User:Visorstuff|Visorstuff]] 16:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:This information should be included in the [[Mormonism and Christianity]] article. [[User:Val42|Val42]] 18:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::Feel free to add - it belongs here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Christianity#Official_positions_on_Mormonism_by_traditional_Christian_denominations]
== What constitutes the 12 million members ==
Merrill J. Bateman, a member of First Quorum of the Seventy, appeared Wednesday [August 30, 2005] on KUER's RadioWest program to respond to The Salt Lake Tribune series "Mormons in Utah: The Shrinking Majority" published in July. In his interview with Doug Fabrizio, Bateman states: "The twelve million members are those who've been baptized and confirmed, or those who are children of record from zero to eight. So that's the total membership of the church."
As such, it appears that the 12 million number constitutes both baptized members AND "children of record".
[[User:TrustTruth|TrustTruth]] 20:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that if 'members of record' has always included such children, and - as I think the Church admits - the majority of such children are never baptized, then there are perhaps several million official members who have never been baptized.
--[[User:Tobeyjaggle|Tobey]] 21:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
If you are familiar with MIS (the church's membership database), you'll notice that when they reach the age of eight they are removed from membership roles if they are not baptized within their eighth year. However, if their parents are still members, their names are kept in MIS (not as members, but part of a family who has a member) with the parents until they are 18. Non-Baptized spouses are also included in the system (but not as members). If I remember the designations for these are "Child of Record," (0-8) "Unbaptized" (9-18) and "Non-Member" (18+). They used to have an "unaccountable" designation as well for those with disabilities who don't need to be baptized, although I've not seen it recently (no "unaccountables" in my last ward that I'm aware of), and they'd also be included with "Child of record" in my opinion. Church statistics are more accurate than most other denomination's "estimates" and the computer system designates and distinguishes quite easily. The Catholic Church for example bases theirs on country statistics - if a country is deemed "catholic" then 90+ percent is counted as being catholic - even if they are not, or if they have had their names removed. See this recent thread [http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php?p=2440] and resulting discussion. Also, Tobeyjaggle, I think taking into account the lifelong religiousity of members (~70 percent go inactive at one point in their life according to a study by Stan Albreict, only up to 10 percent actually have names removed) but most will come back at some point in their life - and we are looking at 4 million who self-identify - that means that is about a third of members right now either self-identify as mormons in other studies (Incidentally, duringthe last census I was labeled as "Christian" not "Mormon") or ''can'' self-identify as mormons (I do not believe that Saudi Arabia's and India's census allows "Mormon" as a designation nor do some prominent catholic and protestant countries) than the church's 12 million is very accurate. I've more specifics on how I got the 4 million and 30 percent figures in other places. A decent link to look at on this topic and religiousity of Mormons can be found on this exmormon site [http://www.aimoo.com/forum/postview.cfm?id=418550&CategoryID=121363&startcat=1&ThreadID=2165734] -[[User:Visorstuff|Visorstuff]] 21:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
== Edits by 71.38.227.189 ==
These have been reverted several times by several different people, all for the same reason: although they may well form the basis of worthwhile additions to the article, they are stated in strongly POV terms. -- [[User:Just zis Guy, you know?|Just zis Guy, you know?]] 10:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
== Preparedness? ==
I believe that many people associate the idea of "Emergency preparedness"/"Disaster preparedness"/"Temporal preparedness" with the LDS. I didn't see anything on this in the entry.
Would it be appropriate to add a quick note (perhaps in the section <a href="
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Other_practices
">Other practices</a>?) (Or conversely, is it in the entry already and I missed it?) -- 14 October 2005
== Serious Analysis??? ==
''Copied from [[Wikipedia:General complaints]]''
That wonderful, in-depth analysis has again been referred to in the article. Most recently by Saint17 and an anon, 67.186.207.85. First of all, the survey was conducted by dialing 50,281 homes in the 47 contiguous United States. Second, it is already referred to towards the bottom of the article. Third, what the survey postulates is "Some groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses appear to attract a large number of converts ("in-switchers"), but also nearly as large a number of apostates ("out-switchers")."
PLEASE NOTE: the survey does not say more are leaving than are joining the LDS church. It is limited to 48 states whereas the LDS church is worldwide; in fact there are more outside the US than in the US. If you are not going to read the survey/study, it is best not to attempt to refer to it. [[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] 15:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Article on the LDS church has a large factual error
Overall I am impressed with your article on the LDS church. HOwever, at the very beginning of the article when you are listing the basic beliefs of the church, of the 'Largest sect' as you call it, headquartered in Salt Lake city, you are incorrect in including the practice of Plural Marriage.
The church no longer practices plural marriage, nor does the church endorse the practice of plural marriage today. Those members who engage in this practice are excommunicated from the LDS church. I refer you to the Church's official website www.lds.org
(below is an excerpt taken from the Official Church website) In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley made the following statement about the Church's position on plural marriage: "This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. . . . If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church."
At various times, the Lord has commanded His people to practice plural marriage. For example, He gave this command to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon (Doctrine and Covenants 132:1).
In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that the leaders of the Church should cease teaching the practice of plural marriage (Official Declaration 1).
This issue should be placed in the article's discussion tab or errors might be fixed (edited) yourself, with discussions or references where appropriate. This page does not concern content of articles. --moxon 18:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
| 