Debate: Are Catholics Christians?

2008-10-18T19:25:10Z

Ultimahero: /* MAYBE? */

== YES ==

Absolutely. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ in a way that benefits their own personal spirituality. If a Catholic does this, he or she is most certainly a Christian. If he does not, however, then he is not. There are Catholics who are Catholics in name only, just as there are many Fundamentalists who most certainly do not behave in a Christ-like manner. Nevertheless, religion is a personal matter, not one for others to judge. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:18, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

No, Christian is not someone who "follows the teachings of Jesus Christ in way that benefits their own personal spirituality". Just because you follow Christ's teachings doesn't make you Christian. An Atheist could follow the example of Christ because he feels Jesus was moral person, yet deny Christ ever rose from the dead. Is that person a Christian? No. To be a Christian, then you must believe various things. (That Jesus rose from the dead physically, that salvation is by grace through faith alone, etc.) If you don't follow those things, then you're not a Christian. It's not about "behaving" in any particular way. Your own works don't save you. Jesus does. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Christ paid for sins so that we might strive to avoid sin, but realize that forgiveness is always possible if we truly seek it. You seem to make it sound as if we can sin and still be saved even if we don't truly repent, so long as we believe that Christ died for us. Do you believe that this is the case? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 00:45, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

First, sorry my response took so long. “Christ paid for our sins that we might strive to avoid sin”. No, that’s not how it works. Christ’s death does not open up a window of opportunity, that if we stop sinning, we’ll be saved. That’s not how it works. We’re saved by grace alone. Not by grace and works; just grace. Christ’s death takes away all our sins. All of them, including the ones we haven’t committed yet. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace you have been saved by faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.” We see here that it’s not based on our own good merits or our own ability to stop sinning. Salvation comes entirely through Christ.

Yes, salvation is possible for anyone. But it only comes by the grace of Christ.

Repentance is a result of salvation not a cause of it. Repentance by definition is to be worry for what you’ve done and to turn away from it. So, you must feel sorry and turn away from sins to repent. But, as I said before, we’re not saved by our ability to turn away from sin or do god. It’s all about Christ. So, yes, as long as we believe that Christ (God in flesh) died on the cross for sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead, then we can be saved. Regardless of our works. Note, that doesn’t mean we should keep going bad things. The Bible says that we become new creation when we’re saved. So we should strive to do good. But that is because it comes from thankfulness to God for what He’s already done, not because we’re trying to earn our way to Heaven.

But, in theory, you do argue that it is possible for someone who sins repeatedly to be saved, while someone who is virtuous can be damned? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, I don't believe that anyone is "virtuous". It is my Biblical belief that all people are sinners and all are inherently evil. (Ephesians 2:3). And everyone is a sinner (Romans 3:23). But, in a human sense, yes, there are "good" people, which I assume is what you’re speaking of. I also assume that the multiple sinner is supposed to be someone who has done great dead of evil, like murder, while the virtuous person has done relatively less evil. So, if the person who sins all the time and murder, rapes, steals etc. puts his faith in Christ, then he will go to Heaven and be saved. If the virtuous man who doesn’t sin nearly as much doesn’t trust in Christ, then he will go to Hell. It because it’s only through Christ that one can be righteous. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 11:05, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Jesus's Apostles were the first to be called Christians by Antioch citizens. The Apostle Peter became the founder of the modern day Catholic Church with his successor being Pope Benedict. What Catholic really means is Universal. This became the Univeral Church for Gentiles and Jews. Christian denominations are just seperate branches of the same tree, Jesus. The main difference being the seperate denominations don't adhere to the successor of St. Peter. To believe in Jesus as Lord, that individual has a special Grace from God. To know and believe is called Christianity.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:01, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: Absolutely. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:25, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== NO ==

This is a ridiculous question. Catholics believe a number of things that are completely contra-Biblical, like prayer to Mary or the ability to work for salvation. Salvation is by faith in Christ alone, and anyone who believes otherwise is doomed to spend eternity with Satan. --[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 23:21, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Some individual Catholics might be saved, but it's in spite of the Catholic Church. The official church theology is un-Biblical and not Christian. Jesus paid for all sins on the cross and we are saved by grace through faith lone. We're not "infused with grace" and able to work our way to Heaven. It's entirely through Jesus. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:35, 22 June 2008 (EDT) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:38, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Agreeing with the previous two comments. Some Catholics are saved, but in spite of their church rather than because of it. They may have been truely Christian once, but they have burried Christ beneath a mountain of doctrine, dogma, papal rulings, procedure, ritual, saints, demons and angels so thick that He can no longer be seen through the thicket of false teachings. Even the existance of a Pope is completly unbiblical. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== MAYBE? ==

Yes because of their willingness to follow Jesus Christ.

No when they don't express God's love to all--saying God hates someone because they live a homosexual lifestyle... but that's mainly just the ultra-conservative Catholics. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 23:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I think Christians are losing their ability to hate, and this is a bad thing. Hate, unpleasant as it is, can be a tool for good. Rightous hate drives people to fight evil, to oppose sin. Hate of sin is one of the things that gives Christians the will to try to end it. Without hate, there can only be tolerance or acceptance. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

::Are you trying to be ironic!!??? That's excactly what Jesus wanted us to do! --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 10:07, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Nate, that is an excellent point. Incidentally, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church does not condemn homosexuality, but merely indicates that homosexuals are called to a life of celibacy. As a Progressive Catholic myself, I prefer to believe that a person's most powerful spiritual compass is his own conscience, and that doctrine is nothing more than a codification of established belief. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:36, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

A willingness to follow Jesus doesn't save one. Our willingness to do good works or say a set number of prayers or go to church doesn't save us. Jesus does by His death nd resurrection. It's ll about Christian. And saying hmosexuality is wrong can be expressing God's love to people. God makes it clear from His word that He doesn't approve of homosexuality. Telling them it's wrong and warning them of the consequences can be very loving. It's like pushing someone off the trin tracks when the train is coming. They might not always like it, but it's for there own good. Christians can certainly be unloving in there presentation; we shouldn't insult people or call them names. But we do need to stand up for what's right.

Offical Catholic doctrine might not condem homosexuality; but the Bible does. It mke it clear that it's wrong. The most powerful moral compass a person has is the word of God. He tells us what's right and what's wrong. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

I know I've had a debate with you before over placing stock in Biblical authority, but on what grounds do you believe what you do about what the Bible really is? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 00:48, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Because the Bile is extremely reliable. There were 5600 New Testament manuscripts written within one hundred years of the original copies. That far exceeds anything that you would find in the ancient world. The New Testament is the most reliable document that we have from ancient times. In fact, the New Testament that we have today has been estimated to be 99.5% accurate compared to the original. And most of those difference are simple grammar errors. (Spelling errors, etc.) So I have extreme confidence in the Bible. Besides, we learn about Christ in the Bible. There is no where else to go. So believe contrary things about Jesus would be based on assumption, not our historical evidence. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I trust that copyists have been quite careful in their reproductions of the Bible, but the presence of spelling errors or grammar errors has nothing to do with whether or not we ought to place trust in the Bible as an historical source. I agree that historical evidence does support many claims made about the life of Christ, but this does not mean that it is exempt from the problems faced by any other historical documents. Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written many years after Christ actually lived, and that some of the Evangelists may have drawn on the work of the others in constructing their accounts. While this is not a reason to doubt general conclusions about the time in which Jesus lived, the places that he visited, the messages he preached, etc., it does not mean that we can treat the statements made as verbatim quotes. The dialogue in the New Testament is largely comprised of recollection, a notably unreliable function of the human psyche. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Well that's an assumption. We have the Bible and have the words of Jesus Himself. Now, you can say that He didn't really say things like that or that the Bible is just a recollection of what Christ said as opposed to actual quotes, but that's a baseless claim. There is absolutely no evidence to support your claims that Jesus didn't really say that. You are making a tremendous assumption. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 11:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

There is, however, a great deal of evidence to support the belief of many scholars that the books of the New Testament were written several decades after Jesus lived. I don't doubt that the spirit of Jesus' teachings was faithfully preserved by whoever authored the Gospels, but I think that it is also "making a tremendous assumption" to claim that we must believe these are actual quotes of Jesus unless proven otherwise. Historians must always keep in mind the circumstances surrounding the authorship of a document when evaluating its content. Now, many will argue that this is not the case with the Bible because it was divinely inspired, but on what grounds can one make that claim? Because the Bible says so? That seems to be an incredibly circular argument. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 13:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Are there scholars that say that the New Testament was written long after the time of Christ on the Earth? Certainly. But there are also scholars which say that the New Testament was written not long after the time of Christ on the Earth. Scholars debate many things, so just to say, "many scholars claim..." doesn't prove anything, since I can give scholars that will argue the alternative. Ultimately, a very good case can be made for the New Testament that it was written within a generation of the time of Christ on the Earth, by the disciples who knew Him, and in the places that Jesus traveled and preached. And, even if that you would dispute that, it is a fact that the New Testament is the most reliably translated document of the ancient world. So to claim that Jesus really didn't say those things verbatim, well, you have no proof of that other than your assumption that He didn't. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Alright, assuming it was written shortly after the time of Christ, how does this guarantee that the quotes are authentic? I am not "making the assumption" that they aren't, I am just wondering how you are making the assumption that they are. Historians generally err on the side of skepticism, not unwarranted acceptance. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 14:07, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Because the New Testament (and I suppose that were focusing on the Gospels in particular since we're talking about what Jesus said) were written by the people who knew Christ. His Apostles, like in the cases of Matthew and John, or those who were disciples who worked under the Apostles, like Mark and Luke. Because they traveled with Jesus and knew Him, they knew what He taught. Now, on top of that, you have to consider where the Gospels were written and who they were written to. They were written in the same places that Jesus had taught at. They were written in those same areas; Jerusalem, for examples. And they were written to the people who lived there, who had also been alive in the time of Christ. They had heard his teachings, too. So if the Apostles went around claiming that Jesus had said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), then it had better be true. Why? Because they were telling it to the same people who had already heard Jesus speak at previous times. They would know if the Apostles were lying or not, or if the teachings had stretched into fabrications. So these facts would necessitate that the Apostles quote Jesus accurately. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Two points: firstly, you are making the assumption that the Gospels were in fact written by the people that tradition purports wrote them. I will go ahead and invoke the opinion of "many scholars" once again (I can provide sources if you feel this debate has become too insubstantial) that the Gospels were not even written by those whose names are attached to them. Secondly, much of the doctrine that I have seen you invoke comes from other parts of the Bible, such as the letters of Paul. These do not even claim to be quotations of Jesus. How is it then that you base your vision of salvation on such a text? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 14:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Please do provide sources. Now, the unanimous opinion of the early church was that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Now, why would they lie? Three out of the four were minor individuals with no great reputation. If they wanted to lie about their authors, they would only do so if it was an attempt to improve their standing and bolster their reputation. So, if you were going to lie, you would attribute their authorship to more well-known individuals. Peter, Thomas, Judas, etc. That’s what later people tried to do. When the later “alleged” Gospels were written, they attributed their authorship to Peter, Thomas, Judas and other bigger figures. But that’s not what the earl Christians did. They attributed the Gospels to minor figures. The only logical reason behind this would be if they were really truly written by these people.

Are you saying that you don’t consider Paul’s work to be part of the New Testament? Luke, who wrote the Gospel by the same name, also wrote the book of Acts. And Acts details Paul’s early persecution of the church, his meeting Jesus and conversion, and his ministry. Throughout the book we see him working with Peter, James etc. Major figures in the church. Peter authenticates Paul’s writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). So Paul is a very legitimate figure to quote.

Oh, and just as a side-note, are you not going to further comment on the above "YES" section? I just ask because I keep looking at it and want to stop wasting time if we're not going to debate that anymore. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:57, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

"''his meeting Jesus''..." Where is this mentioned in the bible please? [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 10:26, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Paul's encounter with Christ and conversion on the way to Damascus is detailed in Acts 9. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:25, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2008-10-18T19:12:45Z

Ultimahero: /* The removed link */

User talk:Ultimahero

2008-07-05T02:04:51Z

Ultimahero: Oh, silly Andy.

==Debate==
Please quit wasting time doing debate and related edits and instead do quality edits to articles -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 23:27, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

It is okay to debate but more than 90% of your edits should not be talk see [[90/10 rule]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:30, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

==Roman Catholic Church==
Why do you believe that Catholics are only pretending to be Christians? I am a Catholic and I certainly consider myself a Christian. I understand that you may interpret the Bible differently from myself, but I consider that belief to be offensive and manifestly untrue.
--[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 21:37, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Never said that. Never said that Catholics "pretend" to be Christian. That implies that they knowingly lie about their faith, which I don't believe they do. I bet most Roman Catholics really do believe they are Christians, and I wouldn't doubt that some of them actually are. But that would be despite the Roman Catholic Church, not because of it. What I said is that the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian. Their official church theology is un-Biblical. (Prayer to Mary, Baptism necessary for salvation, being infused with grace so that you can work out your own salvation, etc.) As far as you go, I don’t claim to know whether your saved or not. You would have to explain what your thoughts are on how to be saved for me to be able to offer an opinion. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:18, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

I am slightly confused about your distinction between someone who believes he is a Christian and someone who actually is. I maintain that Christianity is about an individual's personal beliefs and personal spirituality, not the degree to which he or she is able to absorb the decrees of others regarding Biblical interpretation. I believe that the Bible must be understood in its proper historical, cultural, and literary contexts before it can be understood in terms of its spiritual implications. When faced with the inevitable fact that the Bible is a compilation of a number of different perspectives and that it contains certain internal contradictions, I believe that we must look beyond minutiae and focus on the bigger picture. One of the most salient ideas in the Bible is that of God's ultimate goodness, infinite love, and utterly unknowable nature. Such an omnibenevolent God would never condemn those who have chosen an "incorrect" path in life. A God that punishes and smites the souls of his own children is one that I cannot bring myself to believe in, and one that I believe is a superposition of Man's own primal instincts onto the realm of the spiritual and the unknown. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:47, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

The distinction between a person who thinks that he is saved (or is a Christian) and a person who actually is saved is Jesus. The truly saved person has Christ, the unsaved person doesn’t. There are lots of “spiritual” people. That doesn’t mean that they are saved. Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. would all claim to have a spiritual aspect in their life. Unfortunately, that won’t save them. According to the Bible, Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and no man comes to the Father but by Him. (John 14:6.) So, from a Christian standpoint and a Christian understanding of God, then anyone who doesn’t accept Christ is going to go to Hell.

The Bible is many different works; 66 books to be exact. But they are all inspired by God and contain no contradictions. Actually, I suppose I should claim this to be more accurate: The original manuscripts were perfect with no errors. As time went on and they were translated, a few copyist errors did creep in, but they were minimal at worst and did not effect the essential doctrines of the text. (Most copyist errors were grammatical, spelling errors, etc.) In fact, the Bible is 99.5% accurate in relation to the original.

I agree that God won’t punish his children. But the Bible says that His children are those who are saved. In fact, the Bible says that the sinful man’s father is the devil (John 8:44) and that the saved are God’s children through adoption (Romans 8:15).

Let me ask you something, though. You consider yourself a Christian, correct? Then how are you saved? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:35, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I believe that I am saved because of the ultimate goodness of God, as manifested in the sacrifice of Christ. I disagree with the notion that spiritual people are not saved. As I said earlier, an omnibenevolent God would not play games with those who were brought up from birth into a certain faith, even if that faith is not a specific sect of Christianity. Some would argue that other religions evolved from a sinful turning from God, and that these people are therefore living in sin. But if this is how they have lived all their lives, how would they know that their lifestyle is to be considered sinful? You might contend that this is the case because these people have not accepted the teaching of the Bible. But aside from faith, which is a value that was instilled in you at some point in your life, how do you know that the Bible is superior to any other religious text? Yes, the Bible maintains its own accuracy, but so does the Qu'ran. You believe that a Muslim will not be saved, but a Muslim would likely believe the same of you, because his faith tells him otherwise. Who is right? I believe that I can anticipate the answer.

You are right in saying that copyist errors do not affect the doctrines of the Bible. I was not referring to such phenomena; I was speaking of the fact that different parts of the Bible place emphasis on different ideas. A call to abstain from eating shellfish in Leviticus is not heeded by many Christian sects. The principle of "an eye for an eye" is seen by many to have been superseded by the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes. To follow every part of the Bible literally would be quite difficult.

This is not the point. You may be able to illustrate your claims with specific Bible verses, but I am not contesting your knowledge of the Bible's text. I am contesting your claim that there is one way to read the Bible. Christianity is fundamentally about love and a person's own conception of and relationship to God. This is something that comes from within, not from what another may tell you. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 20:04, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It good that you say the sacrifice of Christ. That’s true. But, do you have to work for it or earn it in any way? Or is entirely dependent upon Jesus? Do you have to believe in Christ to be saved? Can you clearly lay it out for me?

A generic “spiritual” person is not saved, at least not according to the Bible. I guess you could argue that the Bible is not superior to other religious texts (which is something I would dispute) but, if that’s the case, then why are you a Christian? I mean, if one isn’t superior to another, then what does it matter?

Why is the Bible better than the Quran? Well, Muslims believe that the Quran is the perfect word of God and if any word of it is false, then the whole thing is false. (That’s the standard they hold.) But look at the contradictions in the Quran. “Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted-Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs," (Qur'an 86:5-7). That is not accurate because the sperm is not located between the backbone ad ribs. It’s anatomically inaccurate, is therefore false, which means that all of Islam if wrong according to the very standards that Muslims hold. (One might argue that Christianity faces the same problems, but I would point out that we Christians don’t hold the Bible to that same standard.)

I already explained the whole shellfish point on the other page about that you mentioned it on. But, I’ll go ahead and re-make it just to be safe:

The law is split into three sections, civil, moral, and priestly. The priestly laws are no longer in effect because they were fulfilled by Christ. (Ex: In the Old Testament, animal sacrifice was necessary for sins, but in the New Testament, Christ died once for all sins.) The civil laws (eating shellfish, that sort of thing) have to be understood in the context of a theocracy. Obviously, we don’t live in a theocracy now, so they aren’t applicable. The moral laws are based on the character and nature of God. Ex: Lying is wrong because God can’t lie. And because God doesn’t change, the moral laws never do either. They are still in effect. Also, we see that the civil and priestly laws aren’t reestablished in the New Testament, but the moral laws are.

Some Christians might ignore Christ’s teachings in His sermon on the mount, but that doesn’t really mean anything. Just because individuals put them at a low importance doesn’t necessarily make them unimportant. The worth of a Christian doctrine is established from the Bible, not any modern day teacher.

Yes, there are different ways to interpret the Scriptures. But, some things are clear. When Jesus says “I am the way the truth and the life, and no man come to the Father but by Me,” then I think that’s pretty clear. Some parts of the Bible may be on the ambiguous side, but not when it comes to salvation. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:35, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I am a Christian because I believe that following Jesus' call to love humanity and do good by everyone, including my enemies, is the right way for me to live. I believe that salvation is union with God, the nature and mechanics of which no living person is able to know. I believe that damnation is the opposite; separation from God. You ask whether the sacrifice of Christ is enough, whether I need to work for my eternal happiness. In the sense that some believe that we are judged by our individual deeds, no, I do not believe that we need works for salvation. But in the sense that we can simply believe that we are among an elite group of elect and not work to truly become united with the spirit of love that is God, yes, I do believe that we need to put forth individual spiritual effort. This is why spiritual people are saved; the sacrifice of Christ was for all humanity. When Christ says that no man may come to the Father but through him, he is referring to the fact that his act of sacrifice is the ultimate embodiment of the love that every person must have for every other person. The Christian author C.S. Lewis wrote in one of his allegorical Narnia books that those who live in the name of Tash (a symbol for Satan) but live righteously truly live in the name of Aslan (a symbol for Christ). Some may implictly reject Christ in name, while unaware that they are living in a way that Christ would want them to live (minus such details as whether or not we pray to Mary), and in fact are accepting His message.

As for the Qu'ran, it would seem that if it were that simple to negate its validity, then no Muslim would still follow its teachings. Of course it is evident that sperm does not originate between the ribs and the backbones, but we are looking at this in a highly literal way. Perhaps the intent was more poetic. What is actually located between the ribs and the backbone? The heart. What if the intent was to show that Man is created from a drop of a substance far more precious than semen - love. What if it intended to show that a human life is born out of the essence of its father, out of his very heart? What beautiful poetry!
--[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 14:00, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

You say that spiritual people will be saved, regardless of whether they believe in Christ or not. You seem to be presenting Universalism, which states that all people will be saved. This is absolutely un-Biblical. People are going to go to Hell. That’s why Jesus said in Matthew 7:13,14 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” The path to destruction is wide and many people will find it! A lot of people are going to go to Hell, according to Scripture. This is what was meant when Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man come to the Father but by Me.” (John 14:6) The people who will be saved are those who trust in Jesus and what He has done. Anyone outside that camp, no matter how spiritual, will enter the broad path to destruction.

We are saved because of what Jesus did on the cross. He died for sins, and we have to put our faith in Him. That’s why Ephesians 2:8,9 says that we are saved by “grace through faith”, and why Romans 5:1 says that we are justified by faith. Faith is only as good as what you put it in. If you put your faith in anything other than Jesus, then your lost. Only those who trust Christ will be saved. That is the clear teaching of Scripture.

I don’t know what context C.S. Lewis was speaking in, but even if he did say that and mean it that way, so what? He doesn’t get to determine how people are saved. The Scriptures do. They tell us how we can be saved. Read God’s word.

And the Muslim quote is in a context of sperm, not a poetical allusion to the heart. But, even if it’s not, there are still plenty of problems with Islam. And Muslims who don’t trust Christ will go to Hell.

I know it’s not pleasant, but that’s the truth. That’s why we are told to go and spread the gospel (the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ) to all people. So that they can hear it and have an opportunity to be saved. You have to put your faith in Christ, or your lost. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:53, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for your views. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 15:56, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

It's not my view, it's the view from the Bible. You have to trust Christ. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:57, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I fully understand the stock you place in Biblical authority. I was attempting to end our discussion on a note of civil disagreement. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough. God bless, my friend. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

== The problem of hell ==

Good comments. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 05:47, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Catholics ==

Mr. Ultimahero,

I have to say that I share your disdain for Catholics. Some of their ideas are so silly, and it seems ridiculous that they have the audacity to call themselves Christians. --[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 17:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree that they are genuinely nice people, but being genuinely nice doesn't mean you get to be saved! --[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 17:01, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2008-07-04T19:20:48Z

Ultimahero: /* The Controversial Material */

==The Mountain Meadows Massacre==
Should something about that be included in the controversy?
http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/
That's a reference, but if that's not what you guys want, you can find myriads more by just putting "Mountain Meadows Massacre" into Google. [[User:ObiBinks|ObiBinks]] 19:44, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Arthur Conan Doyle and Zane Grey==
I said they "depicted the Mormons as 'bad guys'" but really that's putting it mildly. On checking these books again, "rabid anti-Mormonism" would probably be more like it. But I am reluctant to quote the passages that would support that view, as they are so virulent that I think even quoting them would be inappropriate. I think they're so "way out" as to be funny, but I expect a Mormon might not see it that way. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Cut from article:
::The Mormons, like other small denominations, have been the target of discrimination. Mormons are depicted as "bad guys" in Arthur Conan Doyle's 1890 novel, ''A Study in Scarlet,'' and Zane Grey's 1912 ''Riders of the Purple Sage.''

:Novels don't prove discrimination. This cheapens the claim.

:Anyway, I read ''Riders'' last year, and the Mormons in it were depicted as mostly a lowdown, lying, thieving gossiping, backbiting kind lot of people as well as a decent, hardworking, lawabiding, friendly lot. I seem to recall a saintly lady, who befriended the downtrodden and helpless, as being a Mormon. Correct me if I'm wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Oops, on the other hand I forgot about the bishop's conspiracy and cruelty.
::*The Mormons are represented as a sinister, powerful force of evil, and in this respect, the comparison with earlier myth - 'conventional captivity plot' - is again noticeable. Their sadistic cruelty, for example - as depicted in the foiled attempt at whipping Venters. Or another passage which mentions the gratuitous blinding of Lassiter's horse. [http://roddocs.org/zanegrey.html]

::My question is whether ZG was using the novel to tar all Mormons with one brush, or more to illustrate what can happen when ANY faction turns fanatic. I must learn more about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
They are depicted really barbarously in ''A Study in Scarlet,'' as rapists, liars, and murderers.... about as negative depection as you could have.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 21:14, 28 January 2008 (EST)

== "the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians. " ==

Re the statement:
:though in the 1970s the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians.
I '''really''' want to see a source citation for this before putting it in the article. What, exactly, did the church say in their own words? And was it, in fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as opposed to one of the small splinter groups? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

My suspicion is that they did not say "Mormons are not Christians" or anything close to it. They probably said something that some other group ''interpreted'' to mean "Mormons are not Christians." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

---

Well, you may be right. I can't find the exact reference, but it is my understanding that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints made it clear that they did not want to be affiliated with Christianity during the 70s, when Christianity was not very popular, but now that Christianity has become popular again, LDS Evangelists or Outreachers or whatever you call the people who stop you on the street to talk about Mormonism often say very early in their talk that "Mormons are Christians, too", when in the 70s they would not, and would make it a point to say that Mormonism was not Christianity. So, perhaps saying that they said "Mormons were not Christians" was a gross oversimplification, and for that I apologize, but the sentiment is similar. [[User:ChristianHero|ChristianHero]] 22:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

---

I think the reason people use the quote "Mormons aren't Christians" is because "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints aren't Christians" is too hard to say with a straight face.

Seriously, though, what the church said was that Mormons aren't PROTESTANTS. They consider protestants to be reformers, and that Joseph Smith was a RESTORER. They like Protestants, and consider Martin Luther and other reformers to have been inspired by God, but consider their church was a restoration of the same church that Christ set up on the earth, not a protest against the catholic church or simply an attempt to set up a church they felt was closer to what Christ wanted.

But saying you aren't a protestant isn't the same thing as saying you aren't Christian.[[User:JustMe|JustMe]] 12:26, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Question about scripture:==
Is the KJV of the Bible really the one used for scripture? Didn't Joseph Smith do some minor re-translating of certain passages of a Bible, and that version is used? (I may be mistaken that it's authoritative as scripture, though.) If it is the preferred translation of the Scripture, then that can't really be called the KJV, right? (Also, out of curiosity, what translation of the Bible do LDS for whom English is not their native language use? I hope that they don't try to translate the KJV into another language.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 18:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
: Yes, the Church uses the KJV of the Bible. There is a version published by the Church which includes ''footnotes'' to JST (Joseph Smith Translation) verses and ''footnotes'' for references to other LDS scriptures like the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenants and Pearl of Great Price but the main text is the unchanged KJV.
: I don't know about other languages - something for me to reasearch. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here's a statement from someone in the church "The goal of the typical Bible society, usually a collaboration of numerous different Christian denominations, has been to take a translated Bible to every people—a work which deserves our praise and gratitude. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not make translations of the Bible itself at this point, but chooses carefully a translation available in a particular language for use among its members who speak that language." [http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7717aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Lenet H. Read, “How the Bible Came to Be: Part 8, The Power of the Word,” Ensign, Sep 1982, 64] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks. I didn't realize that the Joseph Smith just added footnotes. I thought he had actually re-translated or re-written certain passages. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 00:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Let me clarify this issue. Joseph Smith did indeed re-translate certain verses. Those re-translated verses do NOT appear in the KJV text. They appear as footnotes in the version published by the Church. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
== The Mormon problem. ==

Joseph Smith, Jr., like L. Ron Hubbard, or Helena Blavatsky or Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy, or Mohammed, were frauds, mountebanks. Mitt Romney is a religious fraud; he is a polytheist who believes in gods from outer space, in other words, a religious whacko.
:I've never seen anything in Mormon literature about "gods from outer space". And Mormons certainly are not polytheists, and neither are Muslims. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right? Are they not all gods? (And if not, do they not believe that Jesus is divine?) At least, this is my understanding of LDS teaching. Am I mistaken? (I don't think the original commenter was calling Muslims polytheists. He was calling Muhammad a fraud.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::''They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right?'' Yes, we believe that Heavenly Father (God the Father) and Jesus Christ (The Son of God) have glorified, perfected bodies of flesh and bones; the Holy Ghost is also part of the Godhead but is a personage of Spirit in the form of a man.
:::''Are they not all gods?'' Yes. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 11:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes they are not all gods, or yes they are all gods? That's a bit of a confusing answer (to a poorly-phrased question, I guess). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 12:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yes, they are all gods. "The Church's first article of faith states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven." [LDS.org Gospel Topics:Godhead] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::If there are three gods, and they are each separate beings, how is that not polytheism? (Or, at least, it's not "certainly" not polytheism, since it does appear to be polytheistic, lacking some equivocation about how they're not really all god, or not really three distinct persons.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 15:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I was always just taught that the Trinity were three forms of the same being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:13, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::"They are distinct beings, but They are one in purpose and effort. They are united as one in bringing to pass the grand, divine plan for the salvation and exaltation of the children of God." [LDS.org ''In These Three I Believe'' by President Gordon B. Hinckley] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 15:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"? That Jesus is the firstborn son of an exalted "man" who became the "god" of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the universe. He "earned" godhood, and was then appointed by a counsel of other "gods" in the heavens to his high position as the "god" of planet Earth. The Mormon's god of this world was a man, like all men, who became a god. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they, too, shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world... See also http://www.carm.org/lds/ldsprogression.htm That isn't really "Christianity", is it? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:45, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::''What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"?'' You are presenting an incredibly simplistic viewpoint on the Subject. You are also going into detail about things God has only touched lightly upon. There is some 'fact' to what you speak of. But the details about it are not going to happen as you presented them. No one "earn's" their 'godhood'. After all we can do we still fall short of the necessary "perfection" to return to God's presence. Christ's atonement "makes up the difference", to coin a phrase. We are "saved" by the grace and power of Christ's atonement. There is a different phraseology used by the LDS faith and otheres as to what it means to be "saved". As far as what God has in mind for all of his children, please read Romans 8: 16-17.
::::::::::The LDS faith is not "polytheisitc". We worship God the Eternal Father. We direct our prayers to him in His Son's name, Jesus Christ. That is "monotheism" defined. God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost being separate beings and members of the "Godhood" does not mean they are the "God's" that should be worshiped. Jesus laid the foundation when he organized his followers. He instructed them to pray to the Father in his name. All that we do should be done in the name of Jesus, directed to the glorification of our Father in Heaven.

(reset indent)
According to ''Mormon Doctrine'' "there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus Gods." Joseph Smith: " "God himself, the Father of us all was once a man like us." (''History of the Church''). On salvation through Christ: "Believe in God, believe in Jesus, and believe in Joseph [Smith] his prophet, and Brigham his successor, and you shall be saved. No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith" (Brigham Young). Your comments are deliberate obfuscation. Also, the recent edits to the article, such as the extermination order, fail to mention the reason why it was issued, that Smith had raised a militia in Missouri that was attacking non-mormon settlers. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
==Origins of the church==

Cut from intro;

:, who claimed to have received a revelation of the Father -God-and his son, Jesus Christ 1820. Years later, he also claims to have recieved further instruction from the Angel Moroni

I see no need for jabs like this. Anyway, he started the church after a long and fruitless search for the "true" religion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's not a "jab". Smith claimed he saw God and Jesus in 1820, and claims that three years later, he was visited by the angel Moroni who told him about the golden plates.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the cut Ed. I totally agree. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite]] 14:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

When I read this stuff, I thank god I'm an atheist.

==Presentation of Mormons' relationship to Christianity==
It seems to me a little tendentious to lead off with the opinions of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Courtesy seems to me to requires call for a short summary of the Mormons' position on this first. Then we can proceed to the views of the (relatively liberal) Methodists and the (relatively conservative) Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptists.

(And I have to wonder whether, in this matter, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod truly speaks for "the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States," but if they said it I guess we can quote it). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:08, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Word of Wisdom==
The main article was changed to "Church members follow a law of health known as the Word of Wisdom that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, caffeine in general, and illegal drugs."
Hoji reverted my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=prev&oldid=175993 added caffeine without removing coffee and tea, as all three are correct]. All three are NOT correct. I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for over 30 years and I know that the Word of Wisdom does NOT include caffeine. Some Church members observe the practice of avoiding caffeine, but it is not Church doctrine. See this reference for the Church's official position.[http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=7a45055b23710110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1f476db0580a1110VgnVCM100000176f620a____ Obey the Word of Wisdom]. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 16:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:From my interactions with a Mormons (I live in an area with a large number of Mormons), I have always been told that caffeine is to be avoided, and drinks like Mountain Dew, Coke, Pepsi, etc. are out of the question. I am not a professional on the issue, though, and this was probably a community-specific regulation. You know more than I do about this, Crocoite, and I'll trust your judgement from now on. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the correction Hoji. I'm not a General Authority of the Church, but we can use the discussion page to clarify issues for the main article. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 22:54, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It has been suggested by Leaders of the LDS Church that caffeine should be avoided. Like people of all religions, different Mormons have interpreted those statements in different ways. Officially, (letter of the law kind of thing), Caffeine is not forbidden, and is technically not part of the Word of Wisdom. However, as it is a suggestion by LDS Church leaders, many (could I say most?) Mormons do not drink caffeine. [[User:Tirrian|Tirrian]] 18:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== redo ==

After reading this article, I would say a rewrite is in order. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 16:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:this article says nothing about the schism. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 16:37, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed, a rewrite is in order. Rather than edit warring on the article, can we please draft up sections here on talk? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yeah! Someone finally says something intelligent. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 19:17, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==Page Improvement; Article Neutrality; Information Sources; Offensive Content==

I am a lifelong member of the LDS church. I just found out about this website and was curious to see what the entry for my church looked like. Although I don't have time to do a complete rewrite, I do heartily agree that some serious work is needed, and I have spent a few minutes correcting some typos and trying to add some accurate information.

Although I understand that the creators of ''conservapedia'' apparently have some issue with ''Wikipedia'', one aspect of that website I hope they (and its contributors) respect is ''Neutral Point of View''. The accurate and unbiased description of a religion's beliefs should be allowed without disrespect and meanness. I may disagree with the beliefs of other religions, but I do not believe that gives me the right to mock or ridicule those beliefs simply because they are different than my own.

I caution the usage of and reference to "non-Mormon" websites as primary sources for explanations of LDS beliefs. Although they can be useful for comparisons of understanding and response, sole reliance on such sources can lead to the perpetuation of myths, increased misunderstanding, and outright prejudice. Often, the outside point-of-view can result in a description of beliefs so altered that even members of the church would not recognize it as their own. I have corrected several occurrences in this article, including the erroneous assertions that Mormons "do not believe in the diety of Christ" (?!) and that Mormons "believe in salvation through works". Where a group openly proclaims its beliefs, the honest scholar will allow the group to do so and may ''respond'' to them but will never ''misrepresent'' them.

The scriptural references I included are in no way an attempt to "prove" LDS beliefs, but rather are simply to indicate to the reader one of the sources of those beliefs, understanding that it is perfectly reasonable that one may have alternate beliefs or interpretations of the same.

Finally, although I understand the original author's intent to point the reader to both supporting and opposing views, I found the "Mormon" and "Anti-Mormon" subheadings under the External Links section to be quite offensive. If consistency is a desirable characteristic of ''conservapedia'', this would necessitate adding an "Anti-Semitic" section to the Judaism article, which I (and I hope many others) would also find offensive. If a contributor would like to write an article about those who criticize the LDS church, or the criticism itself, then please take the time to do so, and provide a link to that page, and allow this page to be about the church itself.[[User:Doady|Doady]] 17:50, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:Doady, I am a convert to the church and I don't like the tone of this article either. Your comments are like music to my ears. Keep in mind though, at Conservapedia, we don't try to take a NPOV. There will be articles from a Conservative POV. And [[Wikipedia]] doesn't really have a NPOV - they just advertise that. WP articles have a [[liberal bias]] that we don't allow here [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

:Unfortunately this article has been edited by anti-Mormons and it is difficult to accurately portray the church. I encourage you to continue your improvements to this article and others here. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:25, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia smears the religious again ==

I am here because of wikipedia's prejudicial treatment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its members. Case in point is its article on Fawn Brodie, a woman who was the niece of one of the Church's presidents and yet still managed to apostatize and become one of the most embittered and destructive "anti-mormons" of all time. Simply put, wikipedia's article on her refers almost exclusively to another apostate in the citation of its sources, and has plenty of improvable comments that are derogatory toward Latter Day Saints. I have attempted several times to correct language in the article that I felt was unnecessarily negative or misleading. Every time I made a correction, even if it was nothing more than to clear up an obvious grammatical error, every single time the page was reverted back to its previous condition by the next day at the latest.

If wikipedia is going to present itself as an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, they ought not to shut down attempts by people like me to purge articles of bigotry and lies. I went so far as to make posts on the discussion page for the article, explaining my changes. One of the moderators claimed to sympathize and agreed that some of the wording was prejudicial sounding, but told me that my corrections were not good enough to stand as they were. I’m talking about correcting comments that did not have citations and therefore should have been afforded no more consideration than my corrections of them.

I have also stumbled upon two separate articles in wikipedia that contained nude photographs, and many more containing obscenities. It would not be hard to photoshop those photographs to the point that you could tell the person was nude but not have to see their privates. While it may not be possible to police the entire internet for pornography, surely a wikipedia page with its own moderator(s) could be bothered to keep their own page free of filth.

Consequently, I have independently come to the conclusion that wikipedia is not a quality encyclopedia, and that if you seek to remove anti-Christian bigotry from it, or have traditional American sensibilities, your voice doesn’t count.

Then I heard about conservapedia. I decided to check it out and find out if a Latter Day Saint could expect a fair shake here. I am glad to say that most of what I am seeing here about the Church and its members is fair and correct. In fact, my only complaint is that the articles are too short. That’s understandable given the relatively short time conservapedia’s been around. And at any rate it’s a far better option than moderator protected bigotry under the banner of a encyclopedia that you can edit.

This brings me to my last point. Since conservapedia is succeeding where wikipedia is cravenly failing, I decided to join. I intend to add my knowledge to it, particularly but not only in the areas of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I have one request: please be patient with me if my edits aren’t up to the standard. I am just starting out here and while I do not intend to break any posting rules, I can’t guarantee that in my rookie state I won’t overlook something. Thank you for your consideration.--[[User:ChetGustavson|ChetGustavson]] 16:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Racism ==

Right up until 1978 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints didn't allow black men in to the priesthood and it didn't allow black men and women to take part in the most important temple services. Even now the Church refuses to repudiate its racist past and has even been accused of trying to cover it up. Surely this is worth mentioning in the controversy section? {{unsigned|RM}}

== African Americans... ==

Claim is fully sourced. Please do not remove w/out discussion or a source for counter-claims. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 20:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:Those sources do NOT support your claim. There are no references to specific verses in the Book of Mormon that substantiate your claim. In addition there is this quote:
<blockquote>In the twentieth century, various Church leaders continued to offer possible reasons why a race of people was prohibited from holding the priesthood. One explanation, carried over from the previous century, stated that blacks were descendants of Cain, the first murderer, and therefore were denied the priesthood because of lineage. Another theory held that blacks were less valiant in the premortal existence and therefore had certain spiritual restrictions placed upon them during mortality (132). Priesthood denial was perceived to be one of these spiritual restrictions. But by mid-century, President David O. McKay stated, "There is not now, and there never has been, a doctrine in this Church that the negroes are under a divine curse. . . . It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed". </blockquote>
:Your edits are not fully sourced and have been reverted. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:12, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:(written before edit conflict)
:Actually, it's not. There's nothing I can see in either source to say that the Book of Mormon was the basis for the ban on blacks being priests. But now that there are sources, I can alter it rather than simply delete it. You are welcome to alter it back if you can provide evidence of the Book of Mormon part of the claim (and a reference to just ''where'' in the Book of Mormon this is said would seem to be appropriate also). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I don't get it. Weren't blacks excluded from the Mormon priesthood in early times? If it wasn't a [[doctrine]] per se, then it was a policy anyway: whether official or unofficial.

The point is that the practice has ended because, as their leadership claims, God told [[revelation|revealed to them]] that the practice was wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

==Material added by Ultimahero==
Ultimahero is an anti-Mormon who is adding a mixture of false, and true unsourced material to this article. Unless I see some sources for these edits, they will be deleted. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:01, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Which ones are false? I can source them all. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:52, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

# Both Jesus and Lucifer offered a plan for salvation. (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)
# Many Gods. (Mormon Doctrine, page 163; Book of Abraham 4:3)
# The Father has a body of flesh and bones. (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 38.)
# Mother Goddess. (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 143; Mormon Doctrine, page 516.)
# God and Mary had relations to produce Jesus’ physical body. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, page 115; Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 547; Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18; First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, God the Father, compiled by Gordon Allred, page 150.)
# The Bible is corrupted. (8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church; 1 Nephi 13:28.)
# All other Christian denominations are apostate. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 1, pages 5-6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, page 270; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 171, 1855; Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 167, 1858.)
# God resides near a star called Kolob. (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, page 428.)
# God used to be a man on another planet. (Mormon Doctrine, page 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, page 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 333.)
# God became a God. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345)
# Joseph Smith must approve of one for salvation. (Mormon Doctrine, page 670; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:289)
# Levels of Heaven. (Mormon Doctrine, page 348)
# Prophets are needed. (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 444-445.)

(I obtained all of the above sources from http://www.mrm.org/, and http://www.carm.org/index.html.)

I also removed a link to Mormon in the second paragraph, because the word “Mormon was referring to the Mormon people, and the link was to the Mormon Prophet. So the link made no sense.

The only thing I can’t source at this moment is about the fact that blacks were cursed for their neutrality. But give me some time and I’ll try to find it again. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:32, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Start with these:

:*Positions of Various Christian Groups -> "They beleive that they must have Joseph Smith Jr.'s approval to get into heaven."
:*Positions of Various Christian Groups -> "They believe that God the Father had relations with Mary to produce Jesus' physical body."
:*African Americans and the Priesthood -> "Mormons used to believe that black skin was the result of a divine curse. According to Mormon Theology, those spirit children which did not side with Satan or God in the pre-existence, but instead decided to remain neutral, were cursed with black skin."

:These are obvious false statements to me.
:*First, you are using anti-Mormon sources.
:*Second, Mormon Doctrine and Journal of Discourses are not valid references. You need to read this reference. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ldsdoct.htm Differentiating between valid LDS doctrine & opinions of its past leaders]
<blockquote>"A common anti-Mormon attack technique used by many conservative Protestants is to take a single past statement by a Mormon leader and treat it as a formal LDS doctrine that is binding on all LDS members today. In reality, there are many beliefs expressed by early LDS leaders that have been abandoned and are no longer recognized by the present-day church. Some, in fact, have never accepted as valid."</blockquote>
:I'm also going to involve another administrator here, because I'm upset with your anti-Mormon edits. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

“They must have Joseph Smith’s approval to get into Heaven.” On October 9, 1859, Brigham Young said, "From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are -- I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent" (Journal of Discourses 7:289).

Young clearly taught that you must have the consent of Joseph Smith to get into Heaven. Now, whether or not the Mormon church still accepts this is a different issue, and if you can show me documentation where they have denied or denounced this teaching, then great. I’ll gladly concede it and withdraw that point. But the fact is that Brigham Young was one of the most influential leaders of the LDS, and I have provided documentation as to his teaching on it. It’s up to you to give documentation to the counter.

“They believe that God the Father had relations with Mary to produce Jesus’ physical body.” I’m aware that this is a debated issue within the Mormon church. But I gave sources on it being taught by: Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, as well as the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve. Again, whether the LDS church still holds to this is debatable. But it was officially taught by influential leaders in good standing with the church. So, again, provide me documentation that the church today denounces these things and I’ll be more than happy to remove them.

I already stated that I don’t have the documentation for the “blacks were neutral and were cursed with black skin.” I’ll try to find, but if you wish to remove it, then that’s fair enough for now. Although, just to note, I didn’t add the quote “Mormons used to believe that black skin was the result of a divine curse.” This was already there, I added the sentence following it.

Now, as far as “Anti-Mormon Sources”, that’s not true. Granted, those websites may not agree with Mormon theology, but they are simply quoting Mormon writers and prophets. The sources in question are the Mormon men who wrote these things. The websites merely provide the documentation. So, unless your own prophets and writing are “Anti-Mormon”, then they’re not Anti-Mormon sources.

They are valid references. They are things that were taught by the leaders and prophets in the Mormon church. Mormons believe that prophets are still around today and whatever they reveal is the word of God, just as legitimate as the official theology. Again, if the quotes in question have been denounced by modern prophets then that’s fine. Give mw documentation and I’ll gladly remove them.

I’m not making “Anti-Mormon” edits. I’m simply quoting Mormon leaders. But, fine. If you wish to involve another administrator, then by all means, please do. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:27, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:*(interrupting) You said, ''I’m not making “Anti-Mormon” edits. I’m simply quoting Mormon leaders.'' Neither is true. You are making '''primarily''' anti-Mormon edits. And you are not "simply quoting" but using old position statements as if they were still in force. The burden of proof is on you (not Dean) to show that any nasty-sounding information is true. Dean need not document a denunciation: on the contrary, you need to document an avowal. Failure to do so will result in reverted edits. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:53, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I agree with you that it's inaccurate for him to describe his edits as "non anti-Mormon". They are, but there's nothing wrong with that ''as long as they are true''. I don't agree that the burden of proof is on Ultimahero to show that they are still in force. If Ultimahero has claimed that they were once the case, then the onus is on him to show that they were. If someone else claims that they no longer are, then the onus is on that person to show that they no longer are. To put it another way, if, hypothetically, President Bush says that Iran is evil ''and has never recanted that'', then what evidence can be produced to show that he still believes that? If he's never recanted it, then that is actually a ''lack of evidence'' that he has recanted it, and nobody can cite a ''lack'' of evidence. Rather, if someone thing's that he's recanted it, then the onus is on ''that'' person to show that he has. Otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that it's still the case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

While it is proper to bring up differences of opinion, as much as possible any discussion should be done with the utmost of respect realizing that this is a sensitive area and that good people can have differing points of view. Perhaps it would be appropriate to put together a small section touching upon various beliefs held by the Mormon Chuch during its journey, but also acknowledging that the same beliefs are not held today (where that is true) and keeping the focus on the beliefs of the Mormon Church as they currently stand. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:17, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, and this will be a lot of work, but to be a '''trustworthy''' source of information on the LDS church, we'll have to do just that. In addition, if there are '''modern''' controversies about what the historical beliefs and practices were, then we might do well to adopt the NPOV policy of another (larger) online encyclopedia.

:This will require supporters and opponents '''both''' to tone down their combative rhetoric; I'm not saying that either side has been more hostile than the other; both sides need to be sympathetic to the other for the process to work. Both sides need to be open to allowing the opposing side to make its case or present its views.

:I've had a lot of contact with Mormon missionaries throughout my life and have always found them sincere and forthright in explaining their beliefs. Whether I agree with those beliefs or not, I feel it's important for me to '''learn''' what those beliefs are; even more valuable to '''understand''' why they hold those beliefs and how those beliefs affect their lives. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:47, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

No, my edits are not “Anti-Mormon”. I’m quoting Mormon prophets and presenting what they taught. I’m simply quoting men like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith (All Presidents of the Mormon Church) as well as many other Mormons in good standing with the LDS church. I’m not adding anything to there quotes, nor attempting to establish new doctrine based on them. I’m not insulting Mormons or calling them names. I’m just quoting them. So unless those men (Smith, Young, etc.) are anti-Mormon, then my edits cannot be anti-Mormon, because it’s coming from their mouths. If someone were to come to me and say, “Well, Jesus taught ‘X’,” I would not call that anti-Christian. That’s just reiterating what the beliefs are.

And I have given ample documentation as to these teachings. I didn’t just make baseless claims, I backed them up. Now if these teaching were denounced, then please provide my the documentation and show me. I’m not aware of any retraction by the LDS church on these issues. But I’m certainly eager to learn. If there is something there, show me. We do know that the Mormons have changed positions over the years. They once taught polygamy, now they don’t. So maybe they have changed here as well. But you have to understand that it is now up to you to provide documentation to the counter. I adequately demonstrated how these doctrines exist, so must show if there has been some change on these positions.

I have no doubt in my mind that Mormon's sincerely believe what they do. I have no doubt that there are numerous Mormons who are genuinly good, in a human sense of the word. And I in no way am trying to be confrontational or argumentitive. I am merely trying to adding things in that Mormons have beleived historically, and to factually contribute. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I readded my material about the differeces in beleives. If there is documentation that these positions are no longer held, I'll be more than happy to withdraw them. Otherewisw, it seems unfair to leave them out when I can show that they have been taught. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:59, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the way you have presented information. For instance the additional information on what Mormons believe, if I understand it correctly, comes from beliefnet, a site that is not Mormon. There may be further explanation of the Mormon religion that is not included. And while I can understand that you weren't pleased that your original work was simply removed, you should also be respectful of the fact that Dean is an elder in the Mormon Church, and as such, is intimately knowledgable of current Mormon teachings and beliefs. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

"Beliefnet"? I don't know what that is, and certainly didn't use it for my material. Now, I quoted Mormon leaders on their positions.(Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc.) So these men would certainly know what Mormoln doctrine is. Now, as I've said, there may indeed be furtehr explanation that is left out. But it is now up to the objector to provide the evidence that these things aren't taught. It makes no sense to leave my material out based on the fact that it's "possible" that counter-material exists somewhere. If it's there, show me, and I'll be gladly agree that it gets taken out. But you must show me first. And I do respect that DeanS has been in the church a long time. But that doesn't mean that he knows more than anyone else about it. There are many people who don't know what they beleive. (I'm not saying that this necessarily applies to Dean, just that it's generally true.) So if he or you or anoyone can document these things not being taught, then fine. Otherwise you have no leg to stand on. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:References shouldn't just be on the talk page. I want to see you incorporate the reference information that you have here, including any quotes, into reference forms on the article. I see belief.net predated you. Not having followed this article, I was unaware of that. Since there were no references on the main page and that was the last source quoted, I assumed that was your source. As far as Dean not knowing what his church teaches, please. I don't know whether or not you are religious yourself, but I am a regular church attender and it would be very difficult for me not to know what my church teaches when I hear sermons week in and week out. If Dean says that is a misrepresentation of Mormon belief, then what he says the Mormon Church believes will be included into the article as well. And don't tell me that he doesn't know any better. If he has been an active member for many years and never heard these things, then it's not something they actively believe or else he would have heard it. I would imagine the truth will fall somewhere in the middle. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::L.T., many "anti-cult" advocates will claim that a church they hate lets most members believe one thing while having stronger teachings for the more deeply initiated. You don't get to hear about the stronger more "authentic" teachings until you get into some sort of inner circle. They seem to think this is common knowledge and that the burden of proof is on the church to demonstrate that they don't "keep two sets of books" theologically. This is nonsense and won't be tolerated here.

::I'll say this one last time, and those who refuse to accept it can just go join another project: we trust Dean to tell us what his church teaches. The burden of proof is on non-Conservapedians (such as our recent visitor U.H.) to prove that obscure or outdated teachings are current and valid. One more word out of line and he's gone - I have no more time for this nonsense. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure he's making that insinutation Ed, but certainly in either case as an elder Dean would be "in the know". I am also aware that sometimes churches, especially in their early history, can go through change. We shouldn't ignore Mormon history, but we also shouldn't force that to be current Mormon view when the present might be quite different. And of course, any discussion that takes place here should be held with respect for those who follow this belief whether or not the people stating their views are Mormons or not. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I specifically said that I wasn’t necessarily implying that Dean didn’t know what he was talking about. It’s just that in general a lot of religious folks don’t know what they believe. (If you keep up with things and study as you’re supposed to, then you probably will be well learned. But most people don’t read their Bibles like they should, which leads to ignorant church members, and this is what I was getting at.) Also, an individual church might teach many things that go against the mainstream denomination. So it just depends. Ultimately, I’m not saying that Dean knows everything or nothing. I don’t know what his knowledge level is. I’m not commenting on that. Again, Dean, or anyone saying this isn’t Mormon belief, needs to give adequate source material to support that claim. Someone whose been in the Mormon church before could say that Mormonism teaches that God is a purple unicorn, and we would not accept this based solely on the fact that the said individual attends an LDS church. (I know that’s a ridiculous example, I’m just trying to demonstrate the point by exaggerating to an extreme.) I don’t doubt for one second that Dean is an intelligent, honest man. But he stills needs to source the info, like the rest of us do.

I don’t “hate” the Mormons or their church, Ed Poor. I do indeed think that Mormonism is a false religious system, yes. But I don’t hate them. Most Mormons that I’ve met are genuinely nice folks. It’s just their theology that I have a problem with. Next, I’m not a “recent” visitor. I’ve been here contributing for many months now. Now I have shown that Mormons have taught this in the past. I’ve well documented it. Is it still taught? I don’t know of any current Mormons leadership which has disavowed the teaching or said that they now don’t follow it. (Which they have done in the past on other issues, so I’m assuming that they’ll be consistent.) Finally, I didn’t know that I was “out of line”. I’m just providing material that is factual, as far as I know. If anyone can show me to the contrary, I will support it being taken out. I’m not sure what you want. I’m not trying to be rude or call names, and I’m being as factual as I can. So I don’t know what else can reasonably be expected of me.

Learn Together, I certainly hope that I have not given the impression of disrespect towards Mormons. I’m not at all trying to disrespect them, and hope I haven’t come across that way. I simply am presenting things that are historically true. If they aren’t currently taught, then I would think that certainly some church council or Mormon President would be available somewhere that has denounced them. I just haven’t seen any of that, so I can’t assume that they have. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:You show disrespect toward Mormons when you assume that old teachings are current. You have proof that LDS '''used to''' teach or practice certain things. You offer no proof that they still do. You merely argue that the existence of old stuff should be taken as evidence of its currency. That is not a trustworthy argument.

:On the contrary, if the old stuff is current, it should be '''very easy''' to show that it is. Your refusal to make any effort to do so, combined with your repeated argument of having no need to do so, disqualifies you as a writer on this topic.

:You are hereby banned from this article and this discussion page. You may bring up issues related to LDS on any other talk page where it has already been addressed. I value you as a writer, but not on this issue, until you agree to adhere to my concept of [[burden of proof]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:57, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

::He has provided "proof." the question is whether things have changed. It is logical to assume that they have not, unless there is proof of a change. How is he supposed to prove that it ''hasn't'' changed. If there is nothing to say that it has, then he will not have anything to find, and you will continue to say that he has no proof. The burden of proof here lies with those who are trying to prove that it ''has'' changed. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 09:16, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, I think it's pretty evident that you can't ask someone for evidence that something hasn't changed as a criteria to accept their initial evidence. That was a bit silly. I don't think we should just sweep away the information provided, but I do think we should use our own resources to help us construct the article in a way that is true to both the history and the current philosophy of the beliefs of the Mormon Church. I believe we want the article to read in a respectful fashion and where there are differences between traditional Christianity and Mormon beliefs, these differences should be presented in a non-judgmental way. Hopefully we can all agree on this. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:49, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: That is a wonderful sentiment Learn Together. Striving for an article that addresses religious topics in a respectful fashion where the differences between Christian and whatever that other religion are is treated in a non-judgmental way would go a long ways to increasing the reputability of Conservapedia. Is there any chance that [[atheism]] and [[agnosticism]] could be unlocked? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:30, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Editorial standards==

My position (as a site administrator) is that a member in good standing of a major religion should be trusted as to what its current teachings are. If there is a dispute between church critics and church members about "what is currently taught", then I say we have to go with what Dean (aka Crocoite) has said - whatever it is; I'm not going into detail right now, but I will if need be.

I have no doubt that early Mormon doctrine and practices involve a significant number of things that most modern Christians would repudiate. [[Polygamy]] is the most obvious one; race discrimination against blacks is also important. If Dean says LDS no longer accept these, that's good enough for me. Same for any other point '''unless''' clear proof is shown that contradicts what Dean has reported.

I intend to truncate the article severely, removing any disputed information. The burden of proof is "ultimately" on church detractors (pun intended). We simply cannot assume that a position taken several decades ago is still maintained.

Scientific theories change. It was not much longer ago than the early days of LDS that biologists and doctors believed all sorts of crazy things about infection. The [[germ theory of disease]] is less than a century and a half old. There is [[plate tectonics]] to explain [[continental drift]], and all sorts of new ideas in physics.

Although some churches keep their theology static, others do indeed change. I trust contributor Dean to report these changes faithfully. We are all about trust here, and if anyone is going to contradict a sysop speaking about his own church, he'd better bring solid proof. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:You may trust a member of the church, but I don't think that as an '''encyclopedia''', we should just take someone’s word. I'm not saying that Dean is untrustworthy, but rather that we need documentation to whatever is put in. To remove material without sourcing it would be a "poor" (see, I can be clever, too) way to do things.

:The fact is I have given sufficient documentation on the what is taught. Unless someone can give documentation to the counter, then the facts should remain. Polygamy is a great example. You said that the LDS church once taught it, and now doesn't. That's true. And it can be well documented that they stopped this practice and disavowed the teaching. So why can’t someone give sources on all these other facts, if they are no longer taught? The burden of proof is on the person saying that something has changed. It's not on me to show it's remained the same. Ho do you prove that things haven't changed? If they haven't changed, then by definition there would be no new info to cite. But if it has changed, then there should be things to point to and source.

:I don't distrust Dean. But you don't simply trust an encyclopedia just because it says something. You expect it to back it's claims up with documentation and sources. If it doesn't, then it's worthless. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:"''... a member in good standing of a major religion should be trusted as to what its current teachings are.''": I believe that this is assuming too much. I couldn't tell you all the details of my denomination's official stances on things, and I'm quite sure that my minister would have different views that the denomination on some points, so I wouldn't expect to learn all those positions from his preaching.
:"''We simply cannot assume that a position taken several decades ago is still maintained.''": Neither can we assume that it's changed. In fact, if it was said last week, we can't assume that it's still maintained ''this week''! But in both cases, the onus is on the person claiming that it's change to show that.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

== Non-encyclopedic Material Here ==

It's inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not "Christian", and the entire [[provocateur]]-like section here is going to be deleted. There are obvious reasons for this, but I'll give just one reason: it leads to bigotry against a group of people.

This is a fair warning to provide some time for discussion before the deletion occurs. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:As far as my knowledge goes, the page never claims that Mormon are or are not Christians. I could be wrong, but I don’t see that anywhere. There is a section on what positions various Christian denominations hold. Also, there's a section claiming, "Mormon beliefs that are different from traditional Christianity”, and it goes on to list the differences. But all of these things are factual and can be sourced. I understand that it doesn’t make everyone feel good, but are we not allowed to talk about things that are true just because they might upset someone? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why is it inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not Christian? Surely ''if'' it is not Christian, it is correct and proper to say so? And how is it okay to say this of an ''individual'' (such as Barack Obama) but not of a church?
: Further, why does it necessarily lead to bigotry? It's possible to respectfully disagree with Islam, Hinduism, atheism, etc., without being bigots, so why not with Mormonism?
: On many of the pages that I tend to frequent, to do with the creation/evolution issue, editors put in pro-evolutionary/anti-creationary material, and as long as it's factual and civil, I let it stand and point out the problems, rather than censor it by removing it. Why can't this article be handled in the same way?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I would like to ask you to reconsider. If there is some way in which the information needs to be rewritten in order to be respectful to the Mormon Church then I say we do that. I also do not believe we should take a position on what is right or wrong, but simply present factual differences. But since above all else we endeavor to show truth, then I don't believe simply removing the knowledge of differences is the way we should go. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:01, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree, I believe that we need to take a stand for what is right. As for the issue of whether or not the Mormon church is Christian, read Galatians 1:8-9. I cannot agree with calling a church "Christian" if they add to the Gospel. As for the material, If it is factual, it should stay. I don't think that it is disrespectful to Mormons. The info is '''MUCH''' more accurate and encyclopedic than a large portion of the Barck Obama article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:29, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I've read the above comments, but there's no getting around the fact that describing an entire church as "non-Christian" is inappropriate for this type of site. Such claims lead to contradictions, falsehoods, bias, and invite ulterior motives (like people who have axes to grind against a particular church). At a minimum, Christianity is a personal choice and it is inappropriate to attempt to label a large group of people as "non-Christian" unless they describe themselves that way or it is undisputed.

That said, the sincerity of a particular politician's claim (like Obama's claim) about his own beliefs should be questioned, particularly when the evidence is abundant that his claim is self-serving and contradicted by other evidence.

So the bottom line is don't rant and rave here about how you don't think someone else's church is Christian. I'm sure we could find other people wanting to rant and rave against your church in the same way, and we're not going down that slippery and destructive slope.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:39, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Again, though, I don't know of anywhere that the article makes the implicit claim that "Mormons aren't Christians". It just shows differences between the LDS church and Christianity. All are sourced facts. What's wrong with fact? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:44, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: Claims by outsiders about a church's doctrine are inherently unreliable. The statements in the entry are not from the Mormon Church itself and were probably developed or promoted by someone who dislikes that church for some emotional or perhaps even closeminded reason. We're not going to allow such an inherently unreliable approach to be taken here. Find a Mormon Church leader to tell us what its doctrine is, if that's what you want. But you haven't done that, and I doubt you will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:04, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't mean to be offensive when I say this, but you didn't read the previous discussions on this talk page, did you? I never cited a bunch of non-Mormons as to what the LDS church believes. I quoted Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith, (all Mormon Presidents) as well as other Mormons in good standing with their church. I've given documentation about what these men believe from their own mouths. They are the ones making the claims about their doctrines and theology. So, unless Mormon leaders are an unreliable source for Mormon doctrine, then I think that they should suffice. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: This issue has become muddled. It appears that the following has occurred:
:# Ultimahero created a debate page "Debate: Are Mormons Christians?", and argued for the affirmative. An hour later Ultimahero was blocked for "violat[ing the] 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk" and the debate was deleted on the grounds that it was "posted by account that has been blocked, no other debaters". The debate was recreated by other editors (which, if nothing else, showed that others ''did'' want to debate it) and several times, and deleted again each time for various reasons (including that it was "non-encyclopedic", which is odd given that ''all'' Conservapedia debates are "non-encyclopedic" by virtue of them being debates, which encyclopedias don't have).
:# Ultimahero then started editing this article, ''but made no claim that Mormonism was not Christian''.
:# Skipping various other discussions, Andy then claims that "It's inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not "Christian", ''despite this not being what Ultimahero had done in this article''.
:# While Ultimahero addresses the point that the article doesn't claim that Mormonism is not Christian, three administrators disagree that it's wrong ''in principle'' to claim that a given body is not Christian. That's not to say that it's ''not'' Christian. In order to decide that, one needs to determine what "Christian" means. It's clear that Mormonism is not an Islamic cult, nor a Hindu cult, and arguably it is a ''Christian'' cult. So really, whether it is Christian or not is not the issue. The issue is whether that question can even be ''discussed''.
: So we have two distinct issues being mixed up here. Now, on to specific responses to Andy's comments:
:"''it is inappropriate to attempt to label a large group of people as "non-Christian" unless they describe themselves that way or it is undisputed''": I don't think anybody is suggesting labelling the individuals in the religion as non-Christian, but (potentially) labelling ''the religion itself'' as non-Christian. Are you happy to label the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and the Ku Klux Klan as "Christian"?
:"''...a ... politician's claim ... about his own beliefs should be questioned, particularly when the evidence is abundant that his claim is self-serving and contradicted by other evidence.''": ''If'' the evidence about a religion is abundant and self-serving and contradicted by other evidence, why should the same not apply to an organisation?
:"''...don't rant and rave here...''": Excuse me? Are you accusing three of your administrators of "ranting and raving"? (I'm not counting Ultimahero, because he wasn't arguing that point.) Rather, we are making reasoned arguments, and getting an insult in return.
:"''I'm sure we could find other people wanting to rant and rave against your church in the same way, and we're not going down that slippery and destructive slope.''": As I've already pointed out, people already do criticise my beliefs (including "ranting and raving"), and I respond with reasoned arguments, not censorship. Why is this particular belief protected?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:12, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Just as a side note, the page on [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] says this:

"They use the Bible as their holy book, including the New Testament, but draw conclusions that do not match mainstream Christian thought, including denying the Trinity and denying the divinity of Christ".

So, why is it okay to make the claim that the [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] are considerably different than mainstream Christianity (which is substantiated by showing their denial of the Trinity and the deity of Christ), but it's not okay to make the same claim about the LDS church, even though they would deny both the Trinity and the deity of Christ as well? (Mormons would say that they affirm those beliefs, but they define both differently and actually hold views that are indeed against mainstream, historical, orthodox Christianity.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:43, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] has done nothing to deserve being blocked. He is not in violation of the 90/10 rule, and has violated no other rule. He should be unblocked. As for his position, there is nothing wrong with it, and I agree with him. If you are going to block him for it, (even though we do '''''not''''' block ideologically) you may as well block me too. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:16, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

If that is not encyclopedic, then much of the Barack Obama article is worse. Should I go clean it up? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:21, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, Obama is attempting to President and acquire power over all Americans. What he says, what he believes, and if and how he lies to advance his goals are relevant and should not be deleted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:: So factual information about the mormon church is irrelevant because it might be offensive to some people, but extremely questionable material is Ok in the Obama article because he is running for president? That doesn't make sense. If Mormons are just Christians like everyone else, then why do they try to convert us? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:55, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
::: Yes, Tim, we should clean up the Barack Obama article. After all, he's only trying to be the President of ''America'' and have power over ''living Americans'' for ''four to eight years'', whereas the Mormon church is trying to be the presiding ''world'' religion and have power over ''all living and dead humans'' for ''all of history''. (That may be a rather loose description, but no looser than the claim about Obama.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:35, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Stating what the differences are between two groups is not "bashing" them. There is such a hypocrisy here. Like it has been mentioned before, we can leave everything in on the Barack Obama page, even though there's a lot of questionable material there, but this page, which is factual and has been sourced, can't remain because it's "bashing"? Well anytime you make a comment that isn't flattering it could be called "bashing". (Even if the statement’s true.) This is simply taking facts out because someone doesn’t like them. That’s all this amounts to. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

==Comparison with the mainstream==

Churches like JW and LDS are on the outskirts of traditional American Christianity. Certainly a large proportion of American Christians consider them '''non-Christian''' due to theological differences over the [[Trinity]] and so forth. It is against site policy to directly label them "non-Christian", though, so let us as writers working under a common leader agree how to collaborate.

I suggest we continue to categorize Mormons in the [[:Category:Christian Denominations]] while courteously informing our readers of any documented disputes over whether LDS is Christian or not. The point is not to hide the dispute, but to refrain from "pointing a provocative finger". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:If the information that shows the differences between the Mormon faith and traditional Christianity is to be removed, then how will our readers know that there is a difference at all? Say there's a difference but not be allowed to say what it is? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:23, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

::How much doctrinal difference is allowed from [[traditional Christianity]] before a denomination is considered a [[sect]], a [[heresy]], or *shudder* a [[cult]]? And who decides? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:33, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Let me start by saying are you aware you changed the subject? I was not asking for any classification of what is a cult and who decides, only the right to be allowed to bring up differences from traditional Christianity without judgement. That being said, generally the doctrine of the trinity is considered to be a core doctrine. Christ as fully God and fully man dying for the sins of the world and through His sacrifice all can be saved. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:21, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Whilst Conservapedia might not want to take a position by labelling them as "non-Christian", how is labelling them "Christian" any more acceptable? That's still taking a position, and one that many Conservapedia supporters find objectionable.

"Cult" has a pretty-clear definition, so to suggest that it is hard to determine if a group is a cult is incorrect. I see that our article on that needs some work, though.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:23, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:I don't believe we should take a stand either way. Conservapedia is a resource for all conservatives, and Mormons as a group are very conservative. The difficulty, of course, is that many other conservatives do not have the same view as Mormons do in regard to their relationship with Christianity. I believe we should allow the differences to speak for themselves, but do not apply labels declaring one way or the other what category the Mormon faith should fall into. I don't see that as being our place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:01, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only that, but the Bible itself makes it very clear that there are certain things one must believe in order to be a Christian. (The deity of Christ, His physical resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, etc.) Cultic groups and non-Christian churches will deny these teachings. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:32, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Controversial Material==

Look, I understand that this stuff creates a lot of controversy. But, the fact is I can source all of these things from Mormon leaders themselves. No, if can find me a source to the counter, then that's fine. But if you can't, then you have no leg to stand on. Simply removing it because it hurts somebody’s feelings is a poor excuse to make those edits. Prove the point, or let it go. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:07, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:I understand your frustration, but we don't edit war here. While I would like to see your information reinstated and looked at in more detail by those who have more intimate knowledge of the Mormon faith, you must also understand that it's not vandalism to remove it and it wasn't wise to put that in the title line. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Oh, but it was vandalism. Lets be honest here. If I went to another page, lets say the [[Atheism]] page or something on [[Liberals]], and I went to a section that was completely factual, fully sourced and perfectly relevant, and I just removed it without any good basis. What would that be called? Vandalism! So of course it was vandalism if it’s done here. Oh, but I forgot, we don’t look at it that way. Vandalism is not based on '''what''' is done, rather '''who''' does it. If someone else removes perfectly factual, relevant, and sourced material, it’s vandalism. But if an admin does it, then it’s “constructive editing”. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Once again, a wonderful sentiment. Could you please unlock the atheism page? Apparently, finding quotes of various historic figures and attributing them to the entirety of a group is not appropriate. Likewise, contributions from someone who is familiar with the subject matter rather than someone who has an axe to grind (so to speak) would go a long ways to moving articles from being hatchet jobs (pun intended) to something isn't completely one sided. Above, there was the comment of "Claims by outsiders about a church's doctrine are inherently unreliable," - that is assuming, of course, that atheism is a religion. I understand that Conservapeida wishes to be a source of knowledge, but when articles are so one obviously one sided it leaves people looking for information other sites that may not be in agreement with Conservapedia. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Unless the sysop who protected the article is no longer available, only that sysop can unlock it. You'll have to bring it up with him. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:08, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Ultimahero, it is obvious to me that you have an ax to grind against the Mormon Church. Why aren't you ranting and raving about how the Democratic Party once supported slavery for blacks? No, you've singled out the Mormon Church without explanation or justification. It's not doing you any good and it's not fair to treat one entity in such a blatantly one-sided manner. Give it a rest and ask yourself why you don't complain in a similar manner about the Democratic Party and countless other institutions. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
: He wasn't ranting and raving. Again I point out that if it's not fair to "treat one entity in such a blatantly one-sided manner", why are so many entities, such as Barack Obama, treated in such a blatantly one-sided manner? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:28, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy, no offense, but when you say things like that you show your utter ignorance on the subject. I have an “ax to grind against the Mormon church”? I’ve “singled out the Mormon church without explanation or justification”? Really? That’s come as news to me. Makes me wonder why I spent all that time debating Atheists, homosexuals, people who doubt the Bible, Liberals, etc. I‘ve also been debating about the Roman Catholic Church while working on this page. (Just check my edit history.) Seems to me that my interest is debating anyone who isn’t Christian. So please don’t make claims that demonstrate that you have no idea what you’re talking about. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2008-07-04T19:19:48Z

Ultimahero: /* The Controversial Material */

==The Mountain Meadows Massacre==
Should something about that be included in the controversy?
http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/
That's a reference, but if that's not what you guys want, you can find myriads more by just putting "Mountain Meadows Massacre" into Google. [[User:ObiBinks|ObiBinks]] 19:44, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Arthur Conan Doyle and Zane Grey==
I said they "depicted the Mormons as 'bad guys'" but really that's putting it mildly. On checking these books again, "rabid anti-Mormonism" would probably be more like it. But I am reluctant to quote the passages that would support that view, as they are so virulent that I think even quoting them would be inappropriate. I think they're so "way out" as to be funny, but I expect a Mormon might not see it that way. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Cut from article:
::The Mormons, like other small denominations, have been the target of discrimination. Mormons are depicted as "bad guys" in Arthur Conan Doyle's 1890 novel, ''A Study in Scarlet,'' and Zane Grey's 1912 ''Riders of the Purple Sage.''

:Novels don't prove discrimination. This cheapens the claim.

:Anyway, I read ''Riders'' last year, and the Mormons in it were depicted as mostly a lowdown, lying, thieving gossiping, backbiting kind lot of people as well as a decent, hardworking, lawabiding, friendly lot. I seem to recall a saintly lady, who befriended the downtrodden and helpless, as being a Mormon. Correct me if I'm wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Oops, on the other hand I forgot about the bishop's conspiracy and cruelty.
::*The Mormons are represented as a sinister, powerful force of evil, and in this respect, the comparison with earlier myth - 'conventional captivity plot' - is again noticeable. Their sadistic cruelty, for example - as depicted in the foiled attempt at whipping Venters. Or another passage which mentions the gratuitous blinding of Lassiter's horse. [http://roddocs.org/zanegrey.html]

::My question is whether ZG was using the novel to tar all Mormons with one brush, or more to illustrate what can happen when ANY faction turns fanatic. I must learn more about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
They are depicted really barbarously in ''A Study in Scarlet,'' as rapists, liars, and murderers.... about as negative depection as you could have.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 21:14, 28 January 2008 (EST)

== "the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians. " ==

Re the statement:
:though in the 1970s the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians.
I '''really''' want to see a source citation for this before putting it in the article. What, exactly, did the church say in their own words? And was it, in fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as opposed to one of the small splinter groups? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

My suspicion is that they did not say "Mormons are not Christians" or anything close to it. They probably said something that some other group ''interpreted'' to mean "Mormons are not Christians." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

---

Well, you may be right. I can't find the exact reference, but it is my understanding that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints made it clear that they did not want to be affiliated with Christianity during the 70s, when Christianity was not very popular, but now that Christianity has become popular again, LDS Evangelists or Outreachers or whatever you call the people who stop you on the street to talk about Mormonism often say very early in their talk that "Mormons are Christians, too", when in the 70s they would not, and would make it a point to say that Mormonism was not Christianity. So, perhaps saying that they said "Mormons were not Christians" was a gross oversimplification, and for that I apologize, but the sentiment is similar. [[User:ChristianHero|ChristianHero]] 22:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

---

I think the reason people use the quote "Mormons aren't Christians" is because "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints aren't Christians" is too hard to say with a straight face.

Seriously, though, what the church said was that Mormons aren't PROTESTANTS. They consider protestants to be reformers, and that Joseph Smith was a RESTORER. They like Protestants, and consider Martin Luther and other reformers to have been inspired by God, but consider their church was a restoration of the same church that Christ set up on the earth, not a protest against the catholic church or simply an attempt to set up a church they felt was closer to what Christ wanted.

But saying you aren't a protestant isn't the same thing as saying you aren't Christian.[[User:JustMe|JustMe]] 12:26, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Question about scripture:==
Is the KJV of the Bible really the one used for scripture? Didn't Joseph Smith do some minor re-translating of certain passages of a Bible, and that version is used? (I may be mistaken that it's authoritative as scripture, though.) If it is the preferred translation of the Scripture, then that can't really be called the KJV, right? (Also, out of curiosity, what translation of the Bible do LDS for whom English is not their native language use? I hope that they don't try to translate the KJV into another language.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 18:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
: Yes, the Church uses the KJV of the Bible. There is a version published by the Church which includes ''footnotes'' to JST (Joseph Smith Translation) verses and ''footnotes'' for references to other LDS scriptures like the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenants and Pearl of Great Price but the main text is the unchanged KJV.
: I don't know about other languages - something for me to reasearch. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here's a statement from someone in the church "The goal of the typical Bible society, usually a collaboration of numerous different Christian denominations, has been to take a translated Bible to every people—a work which deserves our praise and gratitude. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not make translations of the Bible itself at this point, but chooses carefully a translation available in a particular language for use among its members who speak that language." [http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7717aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Lenet H. Read, “How the Bible Came to Be: Part 8, The Power of the Word,” Ensign, Sep 1982, 64] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks. I didn't realize that the Joseph Smith just added footnotes. I thought he had actually re-translated or re-written certain passages. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 00:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Let me clarify this issue. Joseph Smith did indeed re-translate certain verses. Those re-translated verses do NOT appear in the KJV text. They appear as footnotes in the version published by the Church. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
== The Mormon problem. ==

Joseph Smith, Jr., like L. Ron Hubbard, or Helena Blavatsky or Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy, or Mohammed, were frauds, mountebanks. Mitt Romney is a religious fraud; he is a polytheist who believes in gods from outer space, in other words, a religious whacko.
:I've never seen anything in Mormon literature about "gods from outer space". And Mormons certainly are not polytheists, and neither are Muslims. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right? Are they not all gods? (And if not, do they not believe that Jesus is divine?) At least, this is my understanding of LDS teaching. Am I mistaken? (I don't think the original commenter was calling Muslims polytheists. He was calling Muhammad a fraud.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::''They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right?'' Yes, we believe that Heavenly Father (God the Father) and Jesus Christ (The Son of God) have glorified, perfected bodies of flesh and bones; the Holy Ghost is also part of the Godhead but is a personage of Spirit in the form of a man.
:::''Are they not all gods?'' Yes. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 11:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes they are not all gods, or yes they are all gods? That's a bit of a confusing answer (to a poorly-phrased question, I guess). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 12:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yes, they are all gods. "The Church's first article of faith states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven." [LDS.org Gospel Topics:Godhead] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::If there are three gods, and they are each separate beings, how is that not polytheism? (Or, at least, it's not "certainly" not polytheism, since it does appear to be polytheistic, lacking some equivocation about how they're not really all god, or not really three distinct persons.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 15:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I was always just taught that the Trinity were three forms of the same being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:13, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::"They are distinct beings, but They are one in purpose and effort. They are united as one in bringing to pass the grand, divine plan for the salvation and exaltation of the children of God." [LDS.org ''In These Three I Believe'' by President Gordon B. Hinckley] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 15:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"? That Jesus is the firstborn son of an exalted "man" who became the "god" of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the universe. He "earned" godhood, and was then appointed by a counsel of other "gods" in the heavens to his high position as the "god" of planet Earth. The Mormon's god of this world was a man, like all men, who became a god. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they, too, shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world... See also http://www.carm.org/lds/ldsprogression.htm That isn't really "Christianity", is it? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:45, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::''What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"?'' You are presenting an incredibly simplistic viewpoint on the Subject. You are also going into detail about things God has only touched lightly upon. There is some 'fact' to what you speak of. But the details about it are not going to happen as you presented them. No one "earn's" their 'godhood'. After all we can do we still fall short of the necessary "perfection" to return to God's presence. Christ's atonement "makes up the difference", to coin a phrase. We are "saved" by the grace and power of Christ's atonement. There is a different phraseology used by the LDS faith and otheres as to what it means to be "saved". As far as what God has in mind for all of his children, please read Romans 8: 16-17.
::::::::::The LDS faith is not "polytheisitc". We worship God the Eternal Father. We direct our prayers to him in His Son's name, Jesus Christ. That is "monotheism" defined. God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost being separate beings and members of the "Godhood" does not mean they are the "God's" that should be worshiped. Jesus laid the foundation when he organized his followers. He instructed them to pray to the Father in his name. All that we do should be done in the name of Jesus, directed to the glorification of our Father in Heaven.

(reset indent)
According to ''Mormon Doctrine'' "there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus Gods." Joseph Smith: " "God himself, the Father of us all was once a man like us." (''History of the Church''). On salvation through Christ: "Believe in God, believe in Jesus, and believe in Joseph [Smith] his prophet, and Brigham his successor, and you shall be saved. No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith" (Brigham Young). Your comments are deliberate obfuscation. Also, the recent edits to the article, such as the extermination order, fail to mention the reason why it was issued, that Smith had raised a militia in Missouri that was attacking non-mormon settlers. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
==Origins of the church==

Cut from intro;

:, who claimed to have received a revelation of the Father -God-and his son, Jesus Christ 1820. Years later, he also claims to have recieved further instruction from the Angel Moroni

I see no need for jabs like this. Anyway, he started the church after a long and fruitless search for the "true" religion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's not a "jab". Smith claimed he saw God and Jesus in 1820, and claims that three years later, he was visited by the angel Moroni who told him about the golden plates.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the cut Ed. I totally agree. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite]] 14:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

When I read this stuff, I thank god I'm an atheist.

==Presentation of Mormons' relationship to Christianity==
It seems to me a little tendentious to lead off with the opinions of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Courtesy seems to me to requires call for a short summary of the Mormons' position on this first. Then we can proceed to the views of the (relatively liberal) Methodists and the (relatively conservative) Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptists.

(And I have to wonder whether, in this matter, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod truly speaks for "the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States," but if they said it I guess we can quote it). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:08, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Word of Wisdom==
The main article was changed to "Church members follow a law of health known as the Word of Wisdom that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, caffeine in general, and illegal drugs."
Hoji reverted my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=prev&oldid=175993 added caffeine without removing coffee and tea, as all three are correct]. All three are NOT correct. I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for over 30 years and I know that the Word of Wisdom does NOT include caffeine. Some Church members observe the practice of avoiding caffeine, but it is not Church doctrine. See this reference for the Church's official position.[http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=7a45055b23710110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1f476db0580a1110VgnVCM100000176f620a____ Obey the Word of Wisdom]. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 16:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:From my interactions with a Mormons (I live in an area with a large number of Mormons), I have always been told that caffeine is to be avoided, and drinks like Mountain Dew, Coke, Pepsi, etc. are out of the question. I am not a professional on the issue, though, and this was probably a community-specific regulation. You know more than I do about this, Crocoite, and I'll trust your judgement from now on. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the correction Hoji. I'm not a General Authority of the Church, but we can use the discussion page to clarify issues for the main article. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 22:54, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It has been suggested by Leaders of the LDS Church that caffeine should be avoided. Like people of all religions, different Mormons have interpreted those statements in different ways. Officially, (letter of the law kind of thing), Caffeine is not forbidden, and is technically not part of the Word of Wisdom. However, as it is a suggestion by LDS Church leaders, many (could I say most?) Mormons do not drink caffeine. [[User:Tirrian|Tirrian]] 18:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== redo ==

After reading this article, I would say a rewrite is in order. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 16:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:this article says nothing about the schism. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 16:37, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed, a rewrite is in order. Rather than edit warring on the article, can we please draft up sections here on talk? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yeah! Someone finally says something intelligent. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 19:17, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==Page Improvement; Article Neutrality; Information Sources; Offensive Content==

I am a lifelong member of the LDS church. I just found out about this website and was curious to see what the entry for my church looked like. Although I don't have time to do a complete rewrite, I do heartily agree that some serious work is needed, and I have spent a few minutes correcting some typos and trying to add some accurate information.

Although I understand that the creators of ''conservapedia'' apparently have some issue with ''Wikipedia'', one aspect of that website I hope they (and its contributors) respect is ''Neutral Point of View''. The accurate and unbiased description of a religion's beliefs should be allowed without disrespect and meanness. I may disagree with the beliefs of other religions, but I do not believe that gives me the right to mock or ridicule those beliefs simply because they are different than my own.

I caution the usage of and reference to "non-Mormon" websites as primary sources for explanations of LDS beliefs. Although they can be useful for comparisons of understanding and response, sole reliance on such sources can lead to the perpetuation of myths, increased misunderstanding, and outright prejudice. Often, the outside point-of-view can result in a description of beliefs so altered that even members of the church would not recognize it as their own. I have corrected several occurrences in this article, including the erroneous assertions that Mormons "do not believe in the diety of Christ" (?!) and that Mormons "believe in salvation through works". Where a group openly proclaims its beliefs, the honest scholar will allow the group to do so and may ''respond'' to them but will never ''misrepresent'' them.

The scriptural references I included are in no way an attempt to "prove" LDS beliefs, but rather are simply to indicate to the reader one of the sources of those beliefs, understanding that it is perfectly reasonable that one may have alternate beliefs or interpretations of the same.

Finally, although I understand the original author's intent to point the reader to both supporting and opposing views, I found the "Mormon" and "Anti-Mormon" subheadings under the External Links section to be quite offensive. If consistency is a desirable characteristic of ''conservapedia'', this would necessitate adding an "Anti-Semitic" section to the Judaism article, which I (and I hope many others) would also find offensive. If a contributor would like to write an article about those who criticize the LDS church, or the criticism itself, then please take the time to do so, and provide a link to that page, and allow this page to be about the church itself.[[User:Doady|Doady]] 17:50, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:Doady, I am a convert to the church and I don't like the tone of this article either. Your comments are like music to my ears. Keep in mind though, at Conservapedia, we don't try to take a NPOV. There will be articles from a Conservative POV. And [[Wikipedia]] doesn't really have a NPOV - they just advertise that. WP articles have a [[liberal bias]] that we don't allow here [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

:Unfortunately this article has been edited by anti-Mormons and it is difficult to accurately portray the church. I encourage you to continue your improvements to this article and others here. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:25, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia smears the religious again ==

I am here because of wikipedia's prejudicial treatment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its members. Case in point is its article on Fawn Brodie, a woman who was the niece of one of the Church's presidents and yet still managed to apostatize and become one of the most embittered and destructive "anti-mormons" of all time. Simply put, wikipedia's article on her refers almost exclusively to another apostate in the citation of its sources, and has plenty of improvable comments that are derogatory toward Latter Day Saints. I have attempted several times to correct language in the article that I felt was unnecessarily negative or misleading. Every time I made a correction, even if it was nothing more than to clear up an obvious grammatical error, every single time the page was reverted back to its previous condition by the next day at the latest.

If wikipedia is going to present itself as an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, they ought not to shut down attempts by people like me to purge articles of bigotry and lies. I went so far as to make posts on the discussion page for the article, explaining my changes. One of the moderators claimed to sympathize and agreed that some of the wording was prejudicial sounding, but told me that my corrections were not good enough to stand as they were. I’m talking about correcting comments that did not have citations and therefore should have been afforded no more consideration than my corrections of them.

I have also stumbled upon two separate articles in wikipedia that contained nude photographs, and many more containing obscenities. It would not be hard to photoshop those photographs to the point that you could tell the person was nude but not have to see their privates. While it may not be possible to police the entire internet for pornography, surely a wikipedia page with its own moderator(s) could be bothered to keep their own page free of filth.

Consequently, I have independently come to the conclusion that wikipedia is not a quality encyclopedia, and that if you seek to remove anti-Christian bigotry from it, or have traditional American sensibilities, your voice doesn’t count.

Then I heard about conservapedia. I decided to check it out and find out if a Latter Day Saint could expect a fair shake here. I am glad to say that most of what I am seeing here about the Church and its members is fair and correct. In fact, my only complaint is that the articles are too short. That’s understandable given the relatively short time conservapedia’s been around. And at any rate it’s a far better option than moderator protected bigotry under the banner of a encyclopedia that you can edit.

This brings me to my last point. Since conservapedia is succeeding where wikipedia is cravenly failing, I decided to join. I intend to add my knowledge to it, particularly but not only in the areas of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I have one request: please be patient with me if my edits aren’t up to the standard. I am just starting out here and while I do not intend to break any posting rules, I can’t guarantee that in my rookie state I won’t overlook something. Thank you for your consideration.--[[User:ChetGustavson|ChetGustavson]] 16:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Racism ==

Right up until 1978 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints didn't allow black men in to the priesthood and it didn't allow black men and women to take part in the most important temple services. Even now the Church refuses to repudiate its racist past and has even been accused of trying to cover it up. Surely this is worth mentioning in the controversy section? {{unsigned|RM}}

== African Americans... ==

Claim is fully sourced. Please do not remove w/out discussion or a source for counter-claims. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 20:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:Those sources do NOT support your claim. There are no references to specific verses in the Book of Mormon that substantiate your claim. In addition there is this quote:
<blockquote>In the twentieth century, various Church leaders continued to offer possible reasons why a race of people was prohibited from holding the priesthood. One explanation, carried over from the previous century, stated that blacks were descendants of Cain, the first murderer, and therefore were denied the priesthood because of lineage. Another theory held that blacks were less valiant in the premortal existence and therefore had certain spiritual restrictions placed upon them during mortality (132). Priesthood denial was perceived to be one of these spiritual restrictions. But by mid-century, President David O. McKay stated, "There is not now, and there never has been, a doctrine in this Church that the negroes are under a divine curse. . . . It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed". </blockquote>
:Your edits are not fully sourced and have been reverted. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:12, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:(written before edit conflict)
:Actually, it's not. There's nothing I can see in either source to say that the Book of Mormon was the basis for the ban on blacks being priests. But now that there are sources, I can alter it rather than simply delete it. You are welcome to alter it back if you can provide evidence of the Book of Mormon part of the claim (and a reference to just ''where'' in the Book of Mormon this is said would seem to be appropriate also). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I don't get it. Weren't blacks excluded from the Mormon priesthood in early times? If it wasn't a [[doctrine]] per se, then it was a policy anyway: whether official or unofficial.

The point is that the practice has ended because, as their leadership claims, God told [[revelation|revealed to them]] that the practice was wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

==Material added by Ultimahero==
Ultimahero is an anti-Mormon who is adding a mixture of false, and true unsourced material to this article. Unless I see some sources for these edits, they will be deleted. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:01, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Which ones are false? I can source them all. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:52, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

# Both Jesus and Lucifer offered a plan for salvation. (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)
# Many Gods. (Mormon Doctrine, page 163; Book of Abraham 4:3)
# The Father has a body of flesh and bones. (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 38.)
# Mother Goddess. (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 143; Mormon Doctrine, page 516.)
# God and Mary had relations to produce Jesus’ physical body. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, page 115; Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 547; Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18; First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, God the Father, compiled by Gordon Allred, page 150.)
# The Bible is corrupted. (8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church; 1 Nephi 13:28.)
# All other Christian denominations are apostate. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 1, pages 5-6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, page 270; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 171, 1855; Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 167, 1858.)
# God resides near a star called Kolob. (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, page 428.)
# God used to be a man on another planet. (Mormon Doctrine, page 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, page 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 333.)
# God became a God. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345)
# Joseph Smith must approve of one for salvation. (Mormon Doctrine, page 670; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:289)
# Levels of Heaven. (Mormon Doctrine, page 348)
# Prophets are needed. (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 444-445.)

(I obtained all of the above sources from http://www.mrm.org/, and http://www.carm.org/index.html.)

I also removed a link to Mormon in the second paragraph, because the word “Mormon was referring to the Mormon people, and the link was to the Mormon Prophet. So the link made no sense.

The only thing I can’t source at this moment is about the fact that blacks were cursed for their neutrality. But give me some time and I’ll try to find it again. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:32, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Start with these:

:*Positions of Various Christian Groups -> "They beleive that they must have Joseph Smith Jr.'s approval to get into heaven."
:*Positions of Various Christian Groups -> "They believe that God the Father had relations with Mary to produce Jesus' physical body."
:*African Americans and the Priesthood -> "Mormons used to believe that black skin was the result of a divine curse. According to Mormon Theology, those spirit children which did not side with Satan or God in the pre-existence, but instead decided to remain neutral, were cursed with black skin."

:These are obvious false statements to me.
:*First, you are using anti-Mormon sources.
:*Second, Mormon Doctrine and Journal of Discourses are not valid references. You need to read this reference. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ldsdoct.htm Differentiating between valid LDS doctrine & opinions of its past leaders]
<blockquote>"A common anti-Mormon attack technique used by many conservative Protestants is to take a single past statement by a Mormon leader and treat it as a formal LDS doctrine that is binding on all LDS members today. In reality, there are many beliefs expressed by early LDS leaders that have been abandoned and are no longer recognized by the present-day church. Some, in fact, have never accepted as valid."</blockquote>
:I'm also going to involve another administrator here, because I'm upset with your anti-Mormon edits. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

“They must have Joseph Smith’s approval to get into Heaven.” On October 9, 1859, Brigham Young said, "From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are -- I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent" (Journal of Discourses 7:289).

Young clearly taught that you must have the consent of Joseph Smith to get into Heaven. Now, whether or not the Mormon church still accepts this is a different issue, and if you can show me documentation where they have denied or denounced this teaching, then great. I’ll gladly concede it and withdraw that point. But the fact is that Brigham Young was one of the most influential leaders of the LDS, and I have provided documentation as to his teaching on it. It’s up to you to give documentation to the counter.

“They believe that God the Father had relations with Mary to produce Jesus’ physical body.” I’m aware that this is a debated issue within the Mormon church. But I gave sources on it being taught by: Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, as well as the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve. Again, whether the LDS church still holds to this is debatable. But it was officially taught by influential leaders in good standing with the church. So, again, provide me documentation that the church today denounces these things and I’ll be more than happy to remove them.

I already stated that I don’t have the documentation for the “blacks were neutral and were cursed with black skin.” I’ll try to find, but if you wish to remove it, then that’s fair enough for now. Although, just to note, I didn’t add the quote “Mormons used to believe that black skin was the result of a divine curse.” This was already there, I added the sentence following it.

Now, as far as “Anti-Mormon Sources”, that’s not true. Granted, those websites may not agree with Mormon theology, but they are simply quoting Mormon writers and prophets. The sources in question are the Mormon men who wrote these things. The websites merely provide the documentation. So, unless your own prophets and writing are “Anti-Mormon”, then they’re not Anti-Mormon sources.

They are valid references. They are things that were taught by the leaders and prophets in the Mormon church. Mormons believe that prophets are still around today and whatever they reveal is the word of God, just as legitimate as the official theology. Again, if the quotes in question have been denounced by modern prophets then that’s fine. Give mw documentation and I’ll gladly remove them.

I’m not making “Anti-Mormon” edits. I’m simply quoting Mormon leaders. But, fine. If you wish to involve another administrator, then by all means, please do. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:27, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:*(interrupting) You said, ''I’m not making “Anti-Mormon” edits. I’m simply quoting Mormon leaders.'' Neither is true. You are making '''primarily''' anti-Mormon edits. And you are not "simply quoting" but using old position statements as if they were still in force. The burden of proof is on you (not Dean) to show that any nasty-sounding information is true. Dean need not document a denunciation: on the contrary, you need to document an avowal. Failure to do so will result in reverted edits. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:53, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I agree with you that it's inaccurate for him to describe his edits as "non anti-Mormon". They are, but there's nothing wrong with that ''as long as they are true''. I don't agree that the burden of proof is on Ultimahero to show that they are still in force. If Ultimahero has claimed that they were once the case, then the onus is on him to show that they were. If someone else claims that they no longer are, then the onus is on that person to show that they no longer are. To put it another way, if, hypothetically, President Bush says that Iran is evil ''and has never recanted that'', then what evidence can be produced to show that he still believes that? If he's never recanted it, then that is actually a ''lack of evidence'' that he has recanted it, and nobody can cite a ''lack'' of evidence. Rather, if someone thing's that he's recanted it, then the onus is on ''that'' person to show that he has. Otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that it's still the case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

While it is proper to bring up differences of opinion, as much as possible any discussion should be done with the utmost of respect realizing that this is a sensitive area and that good people can have differing points of view. Perhaps it would be appropriate to put together a small section touching upon various beliefs held by the Mormon Chuch during its journey, but also acknowledging that the same beliefs are not held today (where that is true) and keeping the focus on the beliefs of the Mormon Church as they currently stand. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:17, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, and this will be a lot of work, but to be a '''trustworthy''' source of information on the LDS church, we'll have to do just that. In addition, if there are '''modern''' controversies about what the historical beliefs and practices were, then we might do well to adopt the NPOV policy of another (larger) online encyclopedia.

:This will require supporters and opponents '''both''' to tone down their combative rhetoric; I'm not saying that either side has been more hostile than the other; both sides need to be sympathetic to the other for the process to work. Both sides need to be open to allowing the opposing side to make its case or present its views.

:I've had a lot of contact with Mormon missionaries throughout my life and have always found them sincere and forthright in explaining their beliefs. Whether I agree with those beliefs or not, I feel it's important for me to '''learn''' what those beliefs are; even more valuable to '''understand''' why they hold those beliefs and how those beliefs affect their lives. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:47, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

No, my edits are not “Anti-Mormon”. I’m quoting Mormon prophets and presenting what they taught. I’m simply quoting men like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith (All Presidents of the Mormon Church) as well as many other Mormons in good standing with the LDS church. I’m not adding anything to there quotes, nor attempting to establish new doctrine based on them. I’m not insulting Mormons or calling them names. I’m just quoting them. So unless those men (Smith, Young, etc.) are anti-Mormon, then my edits cannot be anti-Mormon, because it’s coming from their mouths. If someone were to come to me and say, “Well, Jesus taught ‘X’,” I would not call that anti-Christian. That’s just reiterating what the beliefs are.

And I have given ample documentation as to these teachings. I didn’t just make baseless claims, I backed them up. Now if these teaching were denounced, then please provide my the documentation and show me. I’m not aware of any retraction by the LDS church on these issues. But I’m certainly eager to learn. If there is something there, show me. We do know that the Mormons have changed positions over the years. They once taught polygamy, now they don’t. So maybe they have changed here as well. But you have to understand that it is now up to you to provide documentation to the counter. I adequately demonstrated how these doctrines exist, so must show if there has been some change on these positions.

I have no doubt in my mind that Mormon's sincerely believe what they do. I have no doubt that there are numerous Mormons who are genuinly good, in a human sense of the word. And I in no way am trying to be confrontational or argumentitive. I am merely trying to adding things in that Mormons have beleived historically, and to factually contribute. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I readded my material about the differeces in beleives. If there is documentation that these positions are no longer held, I'll be more than happy to withdraw them. Otherewisw, it seems unfair to leave them out when I can show that they have been taught. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:59, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the way you have presented information. For instance the additional information on what Mormons believe, if I understand it correctly, comes from beliefnet, a site that is not Mormon. There may be further explanation of the Mormon religion that is not included. And while I can understand that you weren't pleased that your original work was simply removed, you should also be respectful of the fact that Dean is an elder in the Mormon Church, and as such, is intimately knowledgable of current Mormon teachings and beliefs. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

"Beliefnet"? I don't know what that is, and certainly didn't use it for my material. Now, I quoted Mormon leaders on their positions.(Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc.) So these men would certainly know what Mormoln doctrine is. Now, as I've said, there may indeed be furtehr explanation that is left out. But it is now up to the objector to provide the evidence that these things aren't taught. It makes no sense to leave my material out based on the fact that it's "possible" that counter-material exists somewhere. If it's there, show me, and I'll be gladly agree that it gets taken out. But you must show me first. And I do respect that DeanS has been in the church a long time. But that doesn't mean that he knows more than anyone else about it. There are many people who don't know what they beleive. (I'm not saying that this necessarily applies to Dean, just that it's generally true.) So if he or you or anoyone can document these things not being taught, then fine. Otherwise you have no leg to stand on. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:References shouldn't just be on the talk page. I want to see you incorporate the reference information that you have here, including any quotes, into reference forms on the article. I see belief.net predated you. Not having followed this article, I was unaware of that. Since there were no references on the main page and that was the last source quoted, I assumed that was your source. As far as Dean not knowing what his church teaches, please. I don't know whether or not you are religious yourself, but I am a regular church attender and it would be very difficult for me not to know what my church teaches when I hear sermons week in and week out. If Dean says that is a misrepresentation of Mormon belief, then what he says the Mormon Church believes will be included into the article as well. And don't tell me that he doesn't know any better. If he has been an active member for many years and never heard these things, then it's not something they actively believe or else he would have heard it. I would imagine the truth will fall somewhere in the middle. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::L.T., many "anti-cult" advocates will claim that a church they hate lets most members believe one thing while having stronger teachings for the more deeply initiated. You don't get to hear about the stronger more "authentic" teachings until you get into some sort of inner circle. They seem to think this is common knowledge and that the burden of proof is on the church to demonstrate that they don't "keep two sets of books" theologically. This is nonsense and won't be tolerated here.

::I'll say this one last time, and those who refuse to accept it can just go join another project: we trust Dean to tell us what his church teaches. The burden of proof is on non-Conservapedians (such as our recent visitor U.H.) to prove that obscure or outdated teachings are current and valid. One more word out of line and he's gone - I have no more time for this nonsense. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure he's making that insinutation Ed, but certainly in either case as an elder Dean would be "in the know". I am also aware that sometimes churches, especially in their early history, can go through change. We shouldn't ignore Mormon history, but we also shouldn't force that to be current Mormon view when the present might be quite different. And of course, any discussion that takes place here should be held with respect for those who follow this belief whether or not the people stating their views are Mormons or not. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I specifically said that I wasn’t necessarily implying that Dean didn’t know what he was talking about. It’s just that in general a lot of religious folks don’t know what they believe. (If you keep up with things and study as you’re supposed to, then you probably will be well learned. But most people don’t read their Bibles like they should, which leads to ignorant church members, and this is what I was getting at.) Also, an individual church might teach many things that go against the mainstream denomination. So it just depends. Ultimately, I’m not saying that Dean knows everything or nothing. I don’t know what his knowledge level is. I’m not commenting on that. Again, Dean, or anyone saying this isn’t Mormon belief, needs to give adequate source material to support that claim. Someone whose been in the Mormon church before could say that Mormonism teaches that God is a purple unicorn, and we would not accept this based solely on the fact that the said individual attends an LDS church. (I know that’s a ridiculous example, I’m just trying to demonstrate the point by exaggerating to an extreme.) I don’t doubt for one second that Dean is an intelligent, honest man. But he stills needs to source the info, like the rest of us do.

I don’t “hate” the Mormons or their church, Ed Poor. I do indeed think that Mormonism is a false religious system, yes. But I don’t hate them. Most Mormons that I’ve met are genuinely nice folks. It’s just their theology that I have a problem with. Next, I’m not a “recent” visitor. I’ve been here contributing for many months now. Now I have shown that Mormons have taught this in the past. I’ve well documented it. Is it still taught? I don’t know of any current Mormons leadership which has disavowed the teaching or said that they now don’t follow it. (Which they have done in the past on other issues, so I’m assuming that they’ll be consistent.) Finally, I didn’t know that I was “out of line”. I’m just providing material that is factual, as far as I know. If anyone can show me to the contrary, I will support it being taken out. I’m not sure what you want. I’m not trying to be rude or call names, and I’m being as factual as I can. So I don’t know what else can reasonably be expected of me.

Learn Together, I certainly hope that I have not given the impression of disrespect towards Mormons. I’m not at all trying to disrespect them, and hope I haven’t come across that way. I simply am presenting things that are historically true. If they aren’t currently taught, then I would think that certainly some church council or Mormon President would be available somewhere that has denounced them. I just haven’t seen any of that, so I can’t assume that they have. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:You show disrespect toward Mormons when you assume that old teachings are current. You have proof that LDS '''used to''' teach or practice certain things. You offer no proof that they still do. You merely argue that the existence of old stuff should be taken as evidence of its currency. That is not a trustworthy argument.

:On the contrary, if the old stuff is current, it should be '''very easy''' to show that it is. Your refusal to make any effort to do so, combined with your repeated argument of having no need to do so, disqualifies you as a writer on this topic.

:You are hereby banned from this article and this discussion page. You may bring up issues related to LDS on any other talk page where it has already been addressed. I value you as a writer, but not on this issue, until you agree to adhere to my concept of [[burden of proof]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:57, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

::He has provided "proof." the question is whether things have changed. It is logical to assume that they have not, unless there is proof of a change. How is he supposed to prove that it ''hasn't'' changed. If there is nothing to say that it has, then he will not have anything to find, and you will continue to say that he has no proof. The burden of proof here lies with those who are trying to prove that it ''has'' changed. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 09:16, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, I think it's pretty evident that you can't ask someone for evidence that something hasn't changed as a criteria to accept their initial evidence. That was a bit silly. I don't think we should just sweep away the information provided, but I do think we should use our own resources to help us construct the article in a way that is true to both the history and the current philosophy of the beliefs of the Mormon Church. I believe we want the article to read in a respectful fashion and where there are differences between traditional Christianity and Mormon beliefs, these differences should be presented in a non-judgmental way. Hopefully we can all agree on this. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:49, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: That is a wonderful sentiment Learn Together. Striving for an article that addresses religious topics in a respectful fashion where the differences between Christian and whatever that other religion are is treated in a non-judgmental way would go a long ways to increasing the reputability of Conservapedia. Is there any chance that [[atheism]] and [[agnosticism]] could be unlocked? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:30, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Editorial standards==

My position (as a site administrator) is that a member in good standing of a major religion should be trusted as to what its current teachings are. If there is a dispute between church critics and church members about "what is currently taught", then I say we have to go with what Dean (aka Crocoite) has said - whatever it is; I'm not going into detail right now, but I will if need be.

I have no doubt that early Mormon doctrine and practices involve a significant number of things that most modern Christians would repudiate. [[Polygamy]] is the most obvious one; race discrimination against blacks is also important. If Dean says LDS no longer accept these, that's good enough for me. Same for any other point '''unless''' clear proof is shown that contradicts what Dean has reported.

I intend to truncate the article severely, removing any disputed information. The burden of proof is "ultimately" on church detractors (pun intended). We simply cannot assume that a position taken several decades ago is still maintained.

Scientific theories change. It was not much longer ago than the early days of LDS that biologists and doctors believed all sorts of crazy things about infection. The [[germ theory of disease]] is less than a century and a half old. There is [[plate tectonics]] to explain [[continental drift]], and all sorts of new ideas in physics.

Although some churches keep their theology static, others do indeed change. I trust contributor Dean to report these changes faithfully. We are all about trust here, and if anyone is going to contradict a sysop speaking about his own church, he'd better bring solid proof. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:You may trust a member of the church, but I don't think that as an '''encyclopedia''', we should just take someone’s word. I'm not saying that Dean is untrustworthy, but rather that we need documentation to whatever is put in. To remove material without sourcing it would be a "poor" (see, I can be clever, too) way to do things.

:The fact is I have given sufficient documentation on the what is taught. Unless someone can give documentation to the counter, then the facts should remain. Polygamy is a great example. You said that the LDS church once taught it, and now doesn't. That's true. And it can be well documented that they stopped this practice and disavowed the teaching. So why can’t someone give sources on all these other facts, if they are no longer taught? The burden of proof is on the person saying that something has changed. It's not on me to show it's remained the same. Ho do you prove that things haven't changed? If they haven't changed, then by definition there would be no new info to cite. But if it has changed, then there should be things to point to and source.

:I don't distrust Dean. But you don't simply trust an encyclopedia just because it says something. You expect it to back it's claims up with documentation and sources. If it doesn't, then it's worthless. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:"''... a member in good standing of a major religion should be trusted as to what its current teachings are.''": I believe that this is assuming too much. I couldn't tell you all the details of my denomination's official stances on things, and I'm quite sure that my minister would have different views that the denomination on some points, so I wouldn't expect to learn all those positions from his preaching.
:"''We simply cannot assume that a position taken several decades ago is still maintained.''": Neither can we assume that it's changed. In fact, if it was said last week, we can't assume that it's still maintained ''this week''! But in both cases, the onus is on the person claiming that it's change to show that.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

== Non-encyclopedic Material Here ==

It's inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not "Christian", and the entire [[provocateur]]-like section here is going to be deleted. There are obvious reasons for this, but I'll give just one reason: it leads to bigotry against a group of people.

This is a fair warning to provide some time for discussion before the deletion occurs. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:As far as my knowledge goes, the page never claims that Mormon are or are not Christians. I could be wrong, but I don’t see that anywhere. There is a section on what positions various Christian denominations hold. Also, there's a section claiming, "Mormon beliefs that are different from traditional Christianity”, and it goes on to list the differences. But all of these things are factual and can be sourced. I understand that it doesn’t make everyone feel good, but are we not allowed to talk about things that are true just because they might upset someone? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why is it inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not Christian? Surely ''if'' it is not Christian, it is correct and proper to say so? And how is it okay to say this of an ''individual'' (such as Barack Obama) but not of a church?
: Further, why does it necessarily lead to bigotry? It's possible to respectfully disagree with Islam, Hinduism, atheism, etc., without being bigots, so why not with Mormonism?
: On many of the pages that I tend to frequent, to do with the creation/evolution issue, editors put in pro-evolutionary/anti-creationary material, and as long as it's factual and civil, I let it stand and point out the problems, rather than censor it by removing it. Why can't this article be handled in the same way?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I would like to ask you to reconsider. If there is some way in which the information needs to be rewritten in order to be respectful to the Mormon Church then I say we do that. I also do not believe we should take a position on what is right or wrong, but simply present factual differences. But since above all else we endeavor to show truth, then I don't believe simply removing the knowledge of differences is the way we should go. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:01, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree, I believe that we need to take a stand for what is right. As for the issue of whether or not the Mormon church is Christian, read Galatians 1:8-9. I cannot agree with calling a church "Christian" if they add to the Gospel. As for the material, If it is factual, it should stay. I don't think that it is disrespectful to Mormons. The info is '''MUCH''' more accurate and encyclopedic than a large portion of the Barck Obama article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:29, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I've read the above comments, but there's no getting around the fact that describing an entire church as "non-Christian" is inappropriate for this type of site. Such claims lead to contradictions, falsehoods, bias, and invite ulterior motives (like people who have axes to grind against a particular church). At a minimum, Christianity is a personal choice and it is inappropriate to attempt to label a large group of people as "non-Christian" unless they describe themselves that way or it is undisputed.

That said, the sincerity of a particular politician's claim (like Obama's claim) about his own beliefs should be questioned, particularly when the evidence is abundant that his claim is self-serving and contradicted by other evidence.

So the bottom line is don't rant and rave here about how you don't think someone else's church is Christian. I'm sure we could find other people wanting to rant and rave against your church in the same way, and we're not going down that slippery and destructive slope.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:39, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Again, though, I don't know of anywhere that the article makes the implicit claim that "Mormons aren't Christians". It just shows differences between the LDS church and Christianity. All are sourced facts. What's wrong with fact? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:44, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: Claims by outsiders about a church's doctrine are inherently unreliable. The statements in the entry are not from the Mormon Church itself and were probably developed or promoted by someone who dislikes that church for some emotional or perhaps even closeminded reason. We're not going to allow such an inherently unreliable approach to be taken here. Find a Mormon Church leader to tell us what its doctrine is, if that's what you want. But you haven't done that, and I doubt you will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:04, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't mean to be offensive when I say this, but you didn't read the previous discussions on this talk page, did you? I never cited a bunch of non-Mormons as to what the LDS church believes. I quoted Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith, (all Mormon Presidents) as well as other Mormons in good standing with their church. I've given documentation about what these men believe from their own mouths. They are the ones making the claims about their doctrines and theology. So, unless Mormon leaders are an unreliable source for Mormon doctrine, then I think that they should suffice. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: This issue has become muddled. It appears that the following has occurred:
:# Ultimahero created a debate page "Debate: Are Mormons Christians?", and argued for the affirmative. An hour later Ultimahero was blocked for "violat[ing the] 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk" and the debate was deleted on the grounds that it was "posted by account that has been blocked, no other debaters". The debate was recreated by other editors (which, if nothing else, showed that others ''did'' want to debate it) and several times, and deleted again each time for various reasons (including that it was "non-encyclopedic", which is odd given that ''all'' Conservapedia debates are "non-encyclopedic" by virtue of them being debates, which encyclopedias don't have).
:# Ultimahero then started editing this article, ''but made no claim that Mormonism was not Christian''.
:# Skipping various other discussions, Andy then claims that "It's inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not "Christian", ''despite this not being what Ultimahero had done in this article''.
:# While Ultimahero addresses the point that the article doesn't claim that Mormonism is not Christian, three administrators disagree that it's wrong ''in principle'' to claim that a given body is not Christian. That's not to say that it's ''not'' Christian. In order to decide that, one needs to determine what "Christian" means. It's clear that Mormonism is not an Islamic cult, nor a Hindu cult, and arguably it is a ''Christian'' cult. So really, whether it is Christian or not is not the issue. The issue is whether that question can even be ''discussed''.
: So we have two distinct issues being mixed up here. Now, on to specific responses to Andy's comments:
:"''it is inappropriate to attempt to label a large group of people as "non-Christian" unless they describe themselves that way or it is undisputed''": I don't think anybody is suggesting labelling the individuals in the religion as non-Christian, but (potentially) labelling ''the religion itself'' as non-Christian. Are you happy to label the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and the Ku Klux Klan as "Christian"?
:"''...a ... politician's claim ... about his own beliefs should be questioned, particularly when the evidence is abundant that his claim is self-serving and contradicted by other evidence.''": ''If'' the evidence about a religion is abundant and self-serving and contradicted by other evidence, why should the same not apply to an organisation?
:"''...don't rant and rave here...''": Excuse me? Are you accusing three of your administrators of "ranting and raving"? (I'm not counting Ultimahero, because he wasn't arguing that point.) Rather, we are making reasoned arguments, and getting an insult in return.
:"''I'm sure we could find other people wanting to rant and rave against your church in the same way, and we're not going down that slippery and destructive slope.''": As I've already pointed out, people already do criticise my beliefs (including "ranting and raving"), and I respond with reasoned arguments, not censorship. Why is this particular belief protected?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:12, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Just as a side note, the page on [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] says this:

"They use the Bible as their holy book, including the New Testament, but draw conclusions that do not match mainstream Christian thought, including denying the Trinity and denying the divinity of Christ".

So, why is it okay to make the claim that the [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] are considerably different than mainstream Christianity (which is substantiated by showing their denial of the Trinity and the deity of Christ), but it's not okay to make the same claim about the LDS church, even though they would deny both the Trinity and the deity of Christ as well? (Mormons would say that they affirm those beliefs, but they define both differently and actually hold views that are indeed against mainstream, historical, orthodox Christianity.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:43, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] has done nothing to deserve being blocked. He is not in violation of the 90/10 rule, and has violated no other rule. He should be unblocked. As for his position, there is nothing wrong with it, and I agree with him. If you are going to block him for it, (even though we do '''''not''''' block ideologically) you may as well block me too. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:16, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

If that is not encyclopedic, then much of the Barack Obama article is worse. Should I go clean it up? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:21, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, Obama is attempting to President and acquire power over all Americans. What he says, what he believes, and if and how he lies to advance his goals are relevant and should not be deleted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:: So factual information about the mormon church is irrelevant because it might be offensive to some people, but extremely questionable material is Ok in the Obama article because he is running for president? That doesn't make sense. If Mormons are just Christians like everyone else, then why do they try to convert us? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:55, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
::: Yes, Tim, we should clean up the Barack Obama article. After all, he's only trying to be the President of ''America'' and have power over ''living Americans'' for ''four to eight years'', whereas the Mormon church is trying to be the presiding ''world'' religion and have power over ''all living and dead humans'' for ''all of history''. (That may be a rather loose description, but no looser than the claim about Obama.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:35, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Stating what the differences are between two groups is not "bashing" them. There is such a hypocrisy here. Like it has been mentioned before, we can leave everything in on the Barack Obama page, even though there's a lot of questionable material there, but this page, which is factual and has been sourced, can't remain because it's "bashing"? Well anytime you make a comment that isn't flattering it could be called "bashing". (Even if the statement’s true.) This is simply taking facts out because someone doesn’t like them. That’s all this amounts to. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

==Comparison with the mainstream==

Churches like JW and LDS are on the outskirts of traditional American Christianity. Certainly a large proportion of American Christians consider them '''non-Christian''' due to theological differences over the [[Trinity]] and so forth. It is against site policy to directly label them "non-Christian", though, so let us as writers working under a common leader agree how to collaborate.

I suggest we continue to categorize Mormons in the [[:Category:Christian Denominations]] while courteously informing our readers of any documented disputes over whether LDS is Christian or not. The point is not to hide the dispute, but to refrain from "pointing a provocative finger". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:If the information that shows the differences between the Mormon faith and traditional Christianity is to be removed, then how will our readers know that there is a difference at all? Say there's a difference but not be allowed to say what it is? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:23, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

::How much doctrinal difference is allowed from [[traditional Christianity]] before a denomination is considered a [[sect]], a [[heresy]], or *shudder* a [[cult]]? And who decides? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:33, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Let me start by saying are you aware you changed the subject? I was not asking for any classification of what is a cult and who decides, only the right to be allowed to bring up differences from traditional Christianity without judgement. That being said, generally the doctrine of the trinity is considered to be a core doctrine. Christ as fully God and fully man dying for the sins of the world and through His sacrifice all can be saved. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:21, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Whilst Conservapedia might not want to take a position by labelling them as "non-Christian", how is labelling them "Christian" any more acceptable? That's still taking a position, and one that many Conservapedia supporters find objectionable.

"Cult" has a pretty-clear definition, so to suggest that it is hard to determine if a group is a cult is incorrect. I see that our article on that needs some work, though.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:23, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:I don't believe we should take a stand either way. Conservapedia is a resource for all conservatives, and Mormons as a group are very conservative. The difficulty, of course, is that many other conservatives do not have the same view as Mormons do in regard to their relationship with Christianity. I believe we should allow the differences to speak for themselves, but do not apply labels declaring one way or the other what category the Mormon faith should fall into. I don't see that as being our place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:01, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only that, but the Bible itself makes it very clear that there are certain things one must believe in order to be a Christian. (The deity of Christ, His physical resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, etc.) Cultic groups and non-Christian churches will deny these teachings. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:32, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Controversial Material==

Look, I understand that this stuff creates a lot of controversy. But, the fact is I can source all of these things from Mormon leaders themselves. No, if can find me a source to the counter, then that's fine. But if you can't, then you have no leg to stand on. Simply removing it because it hurts somebody’s feelings is a poor excuse to make those edits. Prove the point, or let it go. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:07, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:I understand your frustration, but we don't edit war here. While I would like to see your information reinstated and looked at in more detail by those who have more intimate knowledge of the Mormon faith, you must also understand that it's not vandalism to remove it and it wasn't wise to put that in the title line. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Oh, but it was vandalism. Lets be honest here. If I went to another page, lets say the [[Atheism]] page or something on [[Liberals]], and I went to a section that was completely factual, fully sourced and perfectly relevant, and I just removed it without any good basis. What would that be called? Vandalism! So of course it was vandalism if it’s done here. Oh, but I forgot, we don’t look at it that way. Vandalism is not based on ‘‘‘what’’’ is done, rather ‘‘‘who’’’ does it. If someone else removes perfectly factual, relevant, and sourced material, it’s vandalism. But if an admin does it, then it’s “constructive editing”. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Once again, a wonderful sentiment. Could you please unlock the atheism page? Apparently, finding quotes of various historic figures and attributing them to the entirety of a group is not appropriate. Likewise, contributions from someone who is familiar with the subject matter rather than someone who has an axe to grind (so to speak) would go a long ways to moving articles from being hatchet jobs (pun intended) to something isn't completely one sided. Above, there was the comment of "Claims by outsiders about a church's doctrine are inherently unreliable," - that is assuming, of course, that atheism is a religion. I understand that Conservapeida wishes to be a source of knowledge, but when articles are so one obviously one sided it leaves people looking for information other sites that may not be in agreement with Conservapedia. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Unless the sysop who protected the article is no longer available, only that sysop can unlock it. You'll have to bring it up with him. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:08, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Ultimahero, it is obvious to me that you have an ax to grind against the Mormon Church. Why aren't you ranting and raving about how the Democratic Party once supported slavery for blacks? No, you've singled out the Mormon Church without explanation or justification. It's not doing you any good and it's not fair to treat one entity in such a blatantly one-sided manner. Give it a rest and ask yourself why you don't complain in a similar manner about the Democratic Party and countless other institutions. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:42, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
: He wasn't ranting and raving. Again I point out that if it's not fair to "treat one entity in such a blatantly one-sided manner", why are so many entities, such as Barack Obama, treated in such a blatantly one-sided manner? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:28, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy, no offense, but when you say things like that you show your utter ignorance on the subject. I have an “ax to grind against the Mormon church”? I’ve “singled out the Mormon church without explanation or justification”? Really? That’s come as news to me. Makes me wonder why I spent all that time debating Atheists, homosexuals, people who doubt the Bible, Liberals, etc. I‘ve also been debating about the Roman Catholic Church while working on this page. (Just check my edit history.) Seems to me that my interest is debating anyone who isn’t Christian. So please don’t make claims that demonstrate that you have no idea what you’re talking about. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2008-07-01T19:07:03Z

Ultimahero:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2008-07-01T19:03:13Z

Ultimahero: Removing facts without any basis is vandalism.

[[Image:Birmingham temple.jpg|right|Birmingham temple]]
The '''Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,'''<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=ca07ae4af9c7e010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Style Guide - The Name of the Church] LDS.org</ref> informally known as the '''Mormon Church''', was organized on 6 April 1830 in [[Fayette]], [[New York]], by [[Joseph Smith]]. As the Church grew, new converts gathered in [[Ohio]] and [[Missouri]]. While the Latter-day Saints in [[Kirtland]], Ohio, experienced persecution, those gathered in Missouri were repeatedly driven from town to town by angry mobs. Having been forced from Missouri in 1839, Church members gathered in Illinois and built a thriving city called [[Nauvoo]] in a swampy bend of the Mississippi River. However, within seven years they were again forced from their homes. Led by [[Brigham Young]], these pioneers fled 1,300 miles (2,092 kilometers) westward to the Salt Lake Valley, to escape persecution, and founded [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]], where the Latter-Day Saint Church continues to be headquartered today. The church has now expanded to more than 12.5 million members.<ref>http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=86e6635a56d8f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD History of the Church]</ref><ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d10511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Worldwide Church Statistics] LDS.org</ref>

Church members follow a law of health known as the [[Word of Wisdom]] that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, and illegal drugs.<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/89 The Word of Wisdom] Scriptures.lds.org</ref>
The U.S religious landscape survey published in February 2008 shows that [[Mormon]]s have the largest families closely followed by Muslims. <ref> [http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/25/america/25usreligion.php U.S religious landscape survey]</ref>

==Beliefs==
Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe in [[Christ]], and they strive to follow his example. They testify of Christ and their Church bears his name. From the organization of the LDS Church in 1830, the Church's doctrine focused on Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith, Jr. wrote in 1842 to ''Chicago Democrat'' editor John Wentworth a statement of Church beliefs. The first of these 13 doctrinal declarations, later called the Articles of [[Faith]], stated the following:<blockquote>“We believe in [[God]] the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the [[Holy Ghost]]."<ref>[http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4ebe76e6ffe0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith] from the October 2002 General Conference</ref></blockquote>

"The Articles of Faith are thirteen statements written by the Prophet Joseph Smith describing some of the basic teachings and ordinances of the Church". <ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1]</ref> <ref>[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/home%20and%20family.htm/gospel%20principles.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0 ''Gospel Principles'', The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Utah. 1997</ref> 

The LDS website states: <blockquote>"We believe in the Jesus of the [[New Testament]], and we believe what the New Testament teaches about Him. We do believe things about Jesus that other Christians do not believe, but that is because we know, through revelation, things about Jesus that others do not know."<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-56-16,00.html Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Christian church?] As answered on the LDS Church's website</ref></blockquote>

Members of the church believe that [[God the Father]] and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct glorified beings, that God, the Father of all spirits (even including Lucifer) and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in a vision in the spring of 1820 in response to Joseph's prayer requesting to know which of the many local [[Christian]] denominations he should join himself with, and that They told him that he should join with none of them. The reason behind this direction was as follows, according to LDS beliefs: the organization or "church" put in place by Jesus Christ during His ministry both before and after His resurrection was meant to remain as long as there were faithful followers, although there was clear understanding that a "falling away" (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3) or apostasy would take place, destroying for a time this organization (though not destroying faith in Jesus Christ, which did persist). This church organization provided a structure whereby two key components were maintained: the Priesthood, and continuing and direct revelation from the ascended Jesus Christ to His chosen Apostles.

According to LDS beliefs, the Priesthood is the authority given by Jesus Christ to His [[Apostles]] and others, both to direct the Church, as well as to perform the associated and necessary ordinances, such as baptism by water immersion, and giving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Without this authority, it would be impossible to perform them in an authorized manner (see [[Book of Acts|Acts]] 8:18-23). This authority, in actuality a covenant of service, only placed on men and not at all a legitimate source of self-aggrandizement, could only be passed from one authorized holder to another worthy man through the laying on of hands. Thus, while although initially the full quorum of 12 Apostles was maintained (see Acts 1:15-26), the Apostles were killed one by one and the Lord, in His mercy, ceased to give these murderers further opportunity of condemning themselves as more Apostles were not chosen. Thus, without the Priesthood and without the continuing revelation that the Lord provided to His Apostles to lead and guide the church, it fell way, as had been prophesied.

Therefore, LDS doctrine teaches of the necessity of a complete restoration rather than simply a reformation, and for this reason, Joseph Smith was called by God to be the first prophet, in the same sense as [[Moses]], [[Isaiah]], or [[Peter]], since the times of the New Testament. Mormons believe that since Joseph Smith, the leaders of the Church, from Brigham Young to [[Gordon B. Hinckley]] today, were and are prophets, with the complete Priesthood authority (restored through the laying on of hands by first [[John the Baptist]] and then by Apostles Peter, [[James]] and [[John]]). Mormons revere these men just as the Biblical prophets are revered and in particular, honor Joseph Smith for being the man through whom God and Jesus Christ chose to restore Their church to the earth.

===JesusChrist.lds.org===
[[Image:FaithinChrist.jpg|thumb|right|A screen shot of the new JesusChrist.lds.org Web site.]]
The Church has a multimedia website about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ at [http://jesuschrist.lds.org/?cid=wpats1 JesusChrist.lds.org].

Elder [[Russell Nelson|Russell M. Nelson]] speaks about the new website ''JesusChrist.lds.org''. [http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/media/mediaplayer.swf?media=http://broadcast.lds.org/newsroom/video/flv/2-29-08_Nelson.flv&type=FLV video]

===Scriptures===

The four standard works of the Church are:
*The King James Version of the [[Bible]] - both the Old and New Testaments
*[[The Book of Mormon|The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ]] - Translation of the spiritual record of two ancient civilizations in the western hemisphere, one from the time of the [[Tower of Babel]] to about 600 B.C., and the other from 600 B.C. to 421 A.D.
*[[Doctrine and Covenants]] - Modern-day revelation as received by the Prophet Joseph Smith and other modern-day prophets
*[[Pearl of Great Price]] - Selection of translations, revelations and narrations from the Prophet Joseph Smith

====Book of Mormon====

President [[Gordon B. Hinckley]] said the following about the [[Book of Mormon]] in an October, 2002 [[General Conference]] address entitled "The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith": <blockquote>"This remarkable book stands as a testimonial to the living reality of the Son of God. The Bible declares that 'in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established' (Matt. 18:16). The Bible, the testament of the Old World, is one witness. The Book of Mormon, the testament of the New World, is another witness.</blockquote><blockquote>I cannot understand why the Christian world does not accept this book. I would think they would be looking for anything and everything that would establish without question the reality and the divinity of the Savior of the world."<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e74c4d4297602110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD Mormons Reflect Christianity in Lifestyle] as stated in the April, 2007 newsroom article at lds.org</ref></blockquote>

===Restoration of the Priesthood===
Members of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] believe that on May 15, 1829 A.D., the resurrected [[John the Baptist]] appeared to [[Joseph Smith|Joseph Smith, Jr.]] and [[Oliver Cowdery]] and conferred upon them the [[Aaronic priesthood]], which includes the authority to baptize.<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/13 Doctrine and Covenants 13]</ref> Later, the resurrected Peter, James, and John appeared to them and conferred the [[Melchizedek priesthood]].
''''Italic text''''Italic text''''

==Special Witnesses of Christ==
These prophets and apostles have given their testimonies as special witnesses of Jesus Christ.

*President [[Gordon Hinckley|Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008)]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/president-gordon-b-hinckley-1910-2008-garden-tomb Special Witnesses of Christ], President Gordon B. Hinckley at the Garden Tomb, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref> <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/president-gordon-b-hinckley-1910-2008-sacred-grove Special Witnesses of Christ], President Gordon B. Hinckley at the Sacred Grove, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*President [[Thomas Monson|Thomas S. Monson]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/president-thomas-s-monson Special Witnesses of Christ], President Thomas S. Monson, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*President [[Henry Eyring|Henry B. Eyring]]
*President [[Dieter Uchtdorf|Dieter F. Uchtdorf]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/president-dieter-f-uchtdorf Special Witnesses of Christ], President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*President [[Boyd Packer|Boyd K. Packer]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/president-boyd-k-packer Special Witnesses of Christ], President Boyd K. Packer, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*Elder [[L. Tom Perry]]
*Elder [[Russell Nelson|Russell M. Nelson]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/elder-russell-m-nelson Special Witnesses of Christ], Elder Russell M. Nelson, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*Elder [[Dallin Oaks|Dallin H. Oaks]]
*Elder [[M. Russell Ballard]]
*Elder [[Joseph Wirthlin|Joseph B. Wirthlin]]
*Elder [[Richard Scott|Richard G. Scott]]
*Elder [[Robert Hales|Robert D. Hales]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/elder-robert-d-hales Special Witnesses of Christ], Elder Robert D. Hales, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*Elder [[Jeffrey Holland|Jeffrey R. Holland]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/elder-jeffrey-r-holland Special Witnesses of Christ], Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*Elder [[David Bednar|David A. Bednar]] <ref>[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/special-witnesses/video/elder-elder-david-a-bednar Special Witnesses of Christ], Elder David A. Bednar, video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''.</ref>
*Elder [[Quentin Cook|Quentin L. Cook]]
*Elder [[D. Todd Christofferson]]

==Wards==
[[Image:DCTemple.jpg|right|Washington DC Temple]]
Wards are geographically-defined congregations of the church. The Bishop is the spiritual leader of the ward and he serves with two counselors, all three chosen from among the body of the Ward. Bishops are usually called to serve for a period of five years and do so on a volunteer and unpaid basis, without formal ecclesiastical training, and while maintaining their secular professions.

The entire ward meets every week on Sunday to worship the Lord Jesus Christ and to receive counsel. The meetings are divided into three different hours:
*First hour - '''Sacrament meeting'''. Our main purpose in attending sacrament meeting is to renew our covenants through partaking of the sacrament and to worship our Heavenly Father through hymn singing and prayer. Sacrament meeting provides an opportunity for members to strengthen their faith, find inner peace and spiritual healing, receive inspiration, and be instructed in the gospel. A member of the bishopric begins the meeting welcoming all members and visitors. There is an opening hymn followed by an opening prayer (invocation). This is followed by conducting ward business where members are released and sustained from callings. Then the sacrament of bread and water is prepared, blessed by the priesthood, and passed to the congregation. The sacrament is a renewal of the covenants each member made at baptism to remember the Lord Jesus Christ and to keep his commandments. On the first Sunday of the month, the meeting conductor starts off the bearing of testimonies by offering his own personal testimony. A testimony is a personal witness that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. As inspired by the Spirit, other members give their testimonies. On the other three Sundays, there are talks from members. The sacrament meeting concludes with a closing hymn and prayer.
*Second hour - '''Sunday School''', '''Primary''' and '''Nursery'''. Its purposes are to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and strengthen individuals and families by encouraging them to study the scriptures, obey the commandments, receive the essential ordinances, and keep the associated covenants. All the adults and youth meet in Sunday School classes. Children younger than twelve and three or older attend Primary. Children who are at least 18 months old but who are not yet 3 years old on 1 January may attend nursery at the discretion of their parents.
:'''Adult Sunday School''' - The adults meet in several different classes. New members to the Church usually attend a Gospel Essentials class where they learn the basic teachings of the Church. Most of the other adults attend a Gospel Doctrine class where they are instructed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ from the scriptures. The main subjects rotate every four years: Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and the last year is Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and Church history. The bible used by Church members is the King James Version.
:'''Youth Sunday School''' - The youth meet in several different classes according to their ages. There are usually separate classes for twelve and thirteen year olds, fourteen and fifteen year olds and sixteen and seventeen year olds. When they turn eighteen, the member starts attending the adult classes.
:'''Primary''' - The purpose of Primary is to teach children the gospel of Jesus Christ and help them learn to live it.
:'''Nursery''' - The purpose of the nursery class is to provide a loving, safe, organized place where young children can increase their understanding of and love for Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, have positive experiences in a Church setting, and grow in feelings of self-worth.
*Third hour - '''Priesthood''', '''Relief Society''', '''Young Men''', '''Young Women''', '''Primary''' and '''Nursery'''. The men meet in Priesthood, the adult women meet in Relief Society,the male youth meet in Young Men, the female youth meet in Young Women and the children continue to meet in Primary or Nursery.
:'''Priesthood''' - The purpose of the priesthood meetings are to increase priesthood holders’ knowledge of the gospel; strengthen their dedication to becoming better husbands, fathers, sons, and neighbors; and help them become active participants in fulfilling the mission of the Church.
:'''Relief Society ''' - The purpose of Relief Society is to provide relief for the poor and needy and to bring people to Christ.
:'''Young Men''' - The purpose of the Young men group is to prepare the young men of the Aaronic Priesthood to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, to receive the ordinances of the temple, and to serve a full-time mission.
:'''Young Women''' - The purpose of the Young Women organization is to help each young woman, ages 12 to 18, "come unto Christ".

==General Conference==
The church holds a semi-annual General Conference (in April and October, five two-hour sessions over two days) during which members listen to spoken messages from the Prophet and President of the church, his two counselors, members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and other Church leaders. These messages are received by members of the church as modern-day revelation, just as the words of Peter were received by the followers of Jesus Christ in his day. Many members travel to Salt Lake City for the two-day conference, but the proceedings are broadcast via satellite throughout the world (as well as streamed on the internet) so that the entire church can participate.

The semi-annual conference was held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle for 132 years, but in 2000, the church completed construction of the Conference Center and has held the conference there since April 2000. The Conference Center's primary feature is an auditorium that seats 21,000.

==Controversy==

===Relationship to Mainstream Christianity===

====Position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints====
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider themselves Christians. They worship Jesus Christ as their Creator (see John 1:3), their Savior and Redeemer, and ultimately their eternal Judge. They believe that the events described in the New Testament in reality occurred, including Jesus Christ's virgin birth, his sinless life and miraculous ministry, and his suffering, death, and literal resurrection, through which forgiveness of sin, salvation (understood in LDS doctrine to indicate resurrection and immortality, a free gift to all; see 1 Corinthians 15:22), and ultimately exaltation (returning to and eternally dwelling in the presence of God and Jesus Christ and becoming "joint-heirs with Christ"; see Romans 8:17), are made possible.

The eleventh of the above-mentioned thirteen articles of faith contains the following statement:
<blockquote>“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." (see Articles of Faith 1:11)</blockquote>

====African Americans and the Priesthood====
Mormons used to believe that black skin was the result of a divine curse.
Therefore, African Americans were banned from the priesthood until, in June 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball is said to have received a revelation extending priesthood ordination to all worthy males of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Official Declaration 2).
<ref name="Black">Emmanuel Abu Kissi, [http://byustudies.byu.edu/Reviews/Pages/reviewdetail.aspx?reviewID=117 Book review of Black and Mormon] BYU Studies Review, October 2006.</ref><ref> [http://www.pbs.org/mormons/themes/prohibition.html The Prohibition Against Blacks in the Priesthood], Public Broadcasting Service.</ref> <ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=36f2ce9566a43110VgnVCM100000176f620a____ LDS.org - Topic Definition - Priesthood Ordination before 1978]</ref>

The Book of Mormon attests that God invites “all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; . . . and all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). In our present day the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have stated that all human beings are created in the image of God and that each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of Deity. <ref>“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” 23 Sept. 1995, published in Ensign, Nov. 1995</ref>

<blockquote>In the twentieth century, various Church leaders continued to offer possible reasons why a race of people was prohibited from holding the priesthood. One explanation, carried over from the previous century, stated that blacks were descendants of Cain, the first murderer, and therefore were denied the priesthood because of lineage. Another theory held that blacks were less valiant in the premortal existence and therefore had certain spiritual restrictions placed upon them during mortality. Priesthood denial was perceived to be one of these spiritual restrictions. But by mid-century, President David O. McKay stated, "There is not now, and there never has been, a doctrine in this Church that the negroes are under a divine curse. . . .It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed".<ref name="Black" /></blockquote>

====Positions of Various Christian Groups ====

There are significant differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity which have led many Christian denominations to consider Mormonism to be non-Christian. Several Christian churches have released statements in opposition to the church and its doctrines.

The [[United Methodist Church]] has stated that the Mormon faith has "some radically differing doctrine on such matters of belief as the nature and being of [[God]]; the nature, origin, and purpose of [[Jesus Christ]]; and the nature and way of [[salvation]]."<ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news/an200513.html#21</ref> The [[Lutheran Missouri Synod|Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod]] goes further, stating that it, "together with the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States, does not regard the Mormon church as a Christian church."<ref>http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2239</ref>

The [[Southern Baptist Convention]] states that the Mormon religion is "not consistent with biblical Christianity."<ref>http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/southern_baptist_convention_wa.php</ref> and the website Beliefnet.com details a number of differences between the Mormon faith and traditional Christianity as well.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/features/mormonism.html</ref>

Mormon beliefs that are different from traditional Christianity:
* They believe that God and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct yet glorified beings.
* They do not believe in the concept of "[[original sin]]" but instead that all people will be held accountable only for their ''own'' sins and transgressions.
* They believe that God was once a mortal man and that all individuals who have ever lived or who will yet live, including [[Jesus]] and [[Lucifer]], are the spirit children of God the Father.
* They believe that all people have the ultimate potential, through the grace of God, of not only returning to His presence ([[salvation]]) but becoming like Him ([[exaltation]]; see [[Book of Romans|Romans]] 8:16-17).
* They believe that Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ when he was 15 years old and was chosen to be the prophet through whom Christ's church was restored to the earth.
* They believe that after His [[resurrection]], Jesus Christ visited and ministered to believers who lived in the western hemisphere, and that the spiritual records of these people were collected and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon into a single work subsequently completed by his son Moroni and ultimately buried in a hill in upstate New York circa 421 A.D.
* They believe that the angel [[Moroni]], in his resurrected state, appeared to Joseph Smith when he was 17 years old and told him of this record which Joseph eventually retrieved, translated through the power of God, and published as ''[[The Book of Mormon]]'', later retitled, ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ''.
* They believe that God has continued to call prophets and apostles in the present day just as he did in Biblical times, starting with Joseph Smith, and that these men lead the restored church by revelation from Jesus Christ.
* They believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (see Doctrine and Covenants 1:30).
* They believe that there are many Gods.
* They believe that the Trinity is three seperate Gods in one Godhead, instead of one God in three persons.
* They believe that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones.
* They believe that God the Father has a goddess wife.
* They believe that God the Father had relations with Mary to produce Jesus' physical body.
* They believe that the Bible is the Word of God, however they think that it has been corrupted.
* They believe that God resides near a star named Kolob.
* They believe that God used to be a man on another planet and that He became a God.
* They believe that they must have Joseph Smith Jr.'s approval to get into heaven.
* They believe that there are different levels of [[heaven]], including the Celestial Kingdom, the Terrestrial Kingdom, and Telestial Kingdom.

===Views on Same-Gender Attraction===
In October 2007, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, wrote an article in the Ensign magazine entitled "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction". <ref>[http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e5cbba12dc825110VgnVCM100000176f620a____ Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]</ref> In 2007, the Church published a pamphlet "God Loveth His Children", for those suffering from same-gender attraction. <ref>http://www.lds.org/topics/pdf/GodLovethHisChildren_04824_000.pdf God Loveth His Children</ref>

On June 7, 2006, ABC’s Nightline ran a story on members and former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who struggle with same-gender attraction. The Church published a response to the inaccuracies in the Nightline story. <ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d4ec39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Church Responds to Nightline Story on Mormons and Homosexuality]</ref>

The Church has a section on same-gender attraction on the Newsroom website. <ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=27f71f1dd189f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=726511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab1 Same-Gender Attraction]</ref>

===Polygamy===
Early ill will towards Mormons was sparked in part by its early practice of [[polygamy]], which was sanctioned from 1840 until 1890. Even though it was officially discontinued in 1890, Mormonism and polygamy continue to be associated in the minds of the uninformed.

A 1998 statement by current LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley states:
: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.<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-114-1,00.html What is the Church’s position on polygamy?] LDS website</ref>

However, in addition to "the" Church (the 12.5-million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), there continue to be small splinter groups, which also consider themselves to be Mormons and do practice polygamy. The most notable is the "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (often called "Fundamentalist Mormons.") This group numbers about ten thousand. It broke from the Mormon church in 1890 over the issue of polygamy. It made headlines in 2006 and 2007, when leader Warren Jeffs was arrested by the FBI and indicted by a grand jury on charges of arranging illegal "marriages" between male followers and underage girls.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==
*[[List of LDS temples]]

==External Links==

*[http://www.lds.org Official Church Website]
*[http://www.mormon.org Official Church Website for Investigators]
*[http://scriptures.lds.org Official Online Version of the LDS Scriptures]
*[http://www.familysearch.org/ Official Church Genealogy Website, "the largest collection of free family history, family tree and genealogy records in the world."]
*[http://www.ldschurchtemples.com "News, schedules, photographs, and interesting facts of the temples of the LDS Church"]
*[http://www.fairlds.org Mormon Apologetics]
*[http://www.maxwellinstitute.com BYU Theologians]
*[http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/ About Mormons]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints Wikipedia article] on the LDS Church
*[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3282.html Are Mormons Conservative?]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317272,00.html 21 Questions Answered About Mormon Faith]
*[http://www.moroni10.com/protestants.html Why Protestants Agree With Mormons (They Just Don’t Realize It)], Kelly Bingham, December 7, 2007

====Links to Groups Not in Favor of the Mormon Church====

*[http://jesusnotjoseph.com JesusNotJoseph]
*[http://www.mrm.org Mormonism Research Ministry]
*[http://www.evangelicalbible.com/jw.htm#LDS The Mormon Church & the Nature of God]

[[Category:Christian Denominations]]
[[Category:LDS Church]]

2008-06-27T18:16:57Z

Ultimahero: /* Non-encyclopedic Material Here */

==The Mountain Meadows Massacre==
Should something about that be included in the controversy?
http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/
That's a reference, but if that's not what you guys want, you can find myriads more by just putting "Mountain Meadows Massacre" into Google. [[User:ObiBinks|ObiBinks]] 19:44, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Arthur Conan Doyle and Zane Grey==
I said they "depicted the Mormons as 'bad guys'" but really that's putting it mildly. On checking these books again, "rabid anti-Mormonism" would probably be more like it. But I am reluctant to quote the passages that would support that view, as they are so virulent that I think even quoting them would be inappropriate. I think they're so "way out" as to be funny, but I expect a Mormon might not see it that way. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Cut from article:
::The Mormons, like other small denominations, have been the target of discrimination. Mormons are depicted as "bad guys" in Arthur Conan Doyle's 1890 novel, ''A Study in Scarlet,'' and Zane Grey's 1912 ''Riders of the Purple Sage.''

:Novels don't prove discrimination. This cheapens the claim.

:Anyway, I read ''Riders'' last year, and the Mormons in it were depicted as mostly a lowdown, lying, thieving gossiping, backbiting kind lot of people as well as a decent, hardworking, lawabiding, friendly lot. I seem to recall a saintly lady, who befriended the downtrodden and helpless, as being a Mormon. Correct me if I'm wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Oops, on the other hand I forgot about the bishop's conspiracy and cruelty.
::*The Mormons are represented as a sinister, powerful force of evil, and in this respect, the comparison with earlier myth - 'conventional captivity plot' - is again noticeable. Their sadistic cruelty, for example - as depicted in the foiled attempt at whipping Venters. Or another passage which mentions the gratuitous blinding of Lassiter's horse. [http://roddocs.org/zanegrey.html]

::My question is whether ZG was using the novel to tar all Mormons with one brush, or more to illustrate what can happen when ANY faction turns fanatic. I must learn more about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
They are depicted really barbarously in ''A Study in Scarlet,'' as rapists, liars, and murderers.... about as negative depection as you could have.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 21:14, 28 January 2008 (EST)

== "the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians. " ==

Re the statement:
:though in the 1970s the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians.
I '''really''' want to see a source citation for this before putting it in the article. What, exactly, did the church say in their own words? And was it, in fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as opposed to one of the small splinter groups? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

My suspicion is that they did not say "Mormons are not Christians" or anything close to it. They probably said something that some other group ''interpreted'' to mean "Mormons are not Christians." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

---

Well, you may be right. I can't find the exact reference, but it is my understanding that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints made it clear that they did not want to be affiliated with Christianity during the 70s, when Christianity was not very popular, but now that Christianity has become popular again, LDS Evangelists or Outreachers or whatever you call the people who stop you on the street to talk about Mormonism often say very early in their talk that "Mormons are Christians, too", when in the 70s they would not, and would make it a point to say that Mormonism was not Christianity. So, perhaps saying that they said "Mormons were not Christians" was a gross oversimplification, and for that I apologize, but the sentiment is similar. [[User:ChristianHero|ChristianHero]] 22:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

---

I think the reason people use the quote "Mormons aren't Christians" is because "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints aren't Christians" is too hard to say with a straight face.

Seriously, though, what the church said was that Mormons aren't PROTESTANTS. They consider protestants to be reformers, and that Joseph Smith was a RESTORER. They like Protestants, and consider Martin Luther and other reformers to have been inspired by God, but consider their church was a restoration of the same church that Christ set up on the earth, not a protest against the catholic church or simply an attempt to set up a church they felt was closer to what Christ wanted.

But saying you aren't a protestant isn't the same thing as saying you aren't Christian.[[User:JustMe|JustMe]] 12:26, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Question about scripture:==
Is the KJV of the Bible really the one used for scripture? Didn't Joseph Smith do some minor re-translating of certain passages of a Bible, and that version is used? (I may be mistaken that it's authoritative as scripture, though.) If it is the preferred translation of the Scripture, then that can't really be called the KJV, right? (Also, out of curiosity, what translation of the Bible do LDS for whom English is not their native language use? I hope that they don't try to translate the KJV into another language.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 18:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
: Yes, the Church uses the KJV of the Bible. There is a version published by the Church which includes ''footnotes'' to JST (Joseph Smith Translation) verses and ''footnotes'' for references to other LDS scriptures like the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenants and Pearl of Great Price but the main text is the unchanged KJV.
: I don't know about other languages - something for me to reasearch. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here's a statement from someone in the church "The goal of the typical Bible society, usually a collaboration of numerous different Christian denominations, has been to take a translated Bible to every people—a work which deserves our praise and gratitude. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not make translations of the Bible itself at this point, but chooses carefully a translation available in a particular language for use among its members who speak that language." [http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7717aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Lenet H. Read, “How the Bible Came to Be: Part 8, The Power of the Word,” Ensign, Sep 1982, 64] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks. I didn't realize that the Joseph Smith just added footnotes. I thought he had actually re-translated or re-written certain passages. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 00:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Let me clarify this issue. Joseph Smith did indeed re-translate certain verses. Those re-translated verses do NOT appear in the KJV text. They appear as footnotes in the version published by the Church. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
== The Mormon problem. ==

Joseph Smith, Jr., like L. Ron Hubbard, or Helena Blavatsky or Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy, or Mohammed, were frauds, mountebanks. Mitt Romney is a religious fraud; he is a polytheist who believes in gods from outer space, in other words, a religious whacko.
:I've never seen anything in Mormon literature about "gods from outer space". And Mormons certainly are not polytheists, and neither are Muslims. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right? Are they not all gods? (And if not, do they not believe that Jesus is divine?) At least, this is my understanding of LDS teaching. Am I mistaken? (I don't think the original commenter was calling Muslims polytheists. He was calling Muhammad a fraud.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::''They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right?'' Yes, we believe that Heavenly Father (God the Father) and Jesus Christ (The Son of God) have glorified, perfected bodies of flesh and bones; the Holy Ghost is also part of the Godhead but is a personage of Spirit in the form of a man.
:::''Are they not all gods?'' Yes. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 11:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes they are not all gods, or yes they are all gods? That's a bit of a confusing answer (to a poorly-phrased question, I guess). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 12:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yes, they are all gods. "The Church's first article of faith states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven." [LDS.org Gospel Topics:Godhead] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::If there are three gods, and they are each separate beings, how is that not polytheism? (Or, at least, it's not "certainly" not polytheism, since it does appear to be polytheistic, lacking some equivocation about how they're not really all god, or not really three distinct persons.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 15:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I was always just taught that the Trinity were three forms of the same being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:13, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::"They are distinct beings, but They are one in purpose and effort. They are united as one in bringing to pass the grand, divine plan for the salvation and exaltation of the children of God." [LDS.org ''In These Three I Believe'' by President Gordon B. Hinckley] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 15:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"? That Jesus is the firstborn son of an exalted "man" who became the "god" of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the universe. He "earned" godhood, and was then appointed by a counsel of other "gods" in the heavens to his high position as the "god" of planet Earth. The Mormon's god of this world was a man, like all men, who became a god. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they, too, shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world... See also http://www.carm.org/lds/ldsprogression.htm That isn't really "Christianity", is it? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:45, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::''What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"?'' You are presenting an incredibly simplistic viewpoint on the Subject. You are also going into detail about things God has only touched lightly upon. There is some 'fact' to what you speak of. But the details about it are not going to happen as you presented them. No one "earn's" their 'godhood'. After all we can do we still fall short of the necessary "perfection" to return to God's presence. Christ's atonement "makes up the difference", to coin a phrase. We are "saved" by the grace and power of Christ's atonement. There is a different phraseology used by the LDS faith and otheres as to what it means to be "saved". As far as what God has in mind for all of his children, please read Romans 8: 16-17.
::::::::::The LDS faith is not "polytheisitc". We worship God the Eternal Father. We direct our prayers to him in His Son's name, Jesus Christ. That is "monotheism" defined. God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost being separate beings and members of the "Godhood" does not mean they are the "God's" that should be worshiped. Jesus laid the foundation when he organized his followers. He instructed them to pray to the Father in his name. All that we do should be done in the name of Jesus, directed to the glorification of our Father in Heaven.

(reset indent)
According to ''Mormon Doctrine'' "there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus Gods." Joseph Smith: " "God himself, the Father of us all was once a man like us." (''History of the Church''). On salvation through Christ: "Believe in God, believe in Jesus, and believe in Joseph [Smith] his prophet, and Brigham his successor, and you shall be saved. No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith" (Brigham Young). Your comments are deliberate obfuscation. Also, the recent edits to the article, such as the extermination order, fail to mention the reason why it was issued, that Smith had raised a militia in Missouri that was attacking non-mormon settlers. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
==Origins of the church==

Cut from intro;

:, who claimed to have received a revelation of the Father -God-and his son, Jesus Christ 1820. Years later, he also claims to have recieved further instruction from the Angel Moroni

I see no need for jabs like this. Anyway, he started the church after a long and fruitless search for the "true" religion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's not a "jab". Smith claimed he saw God and Jesus in 1820, and claims that three years later, he was visited by the angel Moroni who told him about the golden plates.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the cut Ed. I totally agree. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite]] 14:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

When I read this stuff, I thank god I'm an atheist.

==Presentation of Mormons' relationship to Christianity==
It seems to me a little tendentious to lead off with the opinions of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Courtesy seems to me to requires call for a short summary of the Mormons' position on this first. Then we can proceed to the views of the (relatively liberal) Methodists and the (relatively conservative) Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptists.

(And I have to wonder whether, in this matter, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod truly speaks for "the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States," but if they said it I guess we can quote it). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:08, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Word of Wisdom==
The main article was changed to "Church members follow a law of health known as the Word of Wisdom that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, caffeine in general, and illegal drugs."
Hoji reverted my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=prev&oldid=175993 added caffeine without removing coffee and tea, as all three are correct]. All three are NOT correct. I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for over 30 years and I know that the Word of Wisdom does NOT include caffeine. Some Church members observe the practice of avoiding caffeine, but it is not Church doctrine. See this reference for the Church's official position.[http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=7a45055b23710110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1f476db0580a1110VgnVCM100000176f620a____ Obey the Word of Wisdom]. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 16:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:From my interactions with a Mormons (I live in an area with a large number of Mormons), I have always been told that caffeine is to be avoided, and drinks like Mountain Dew, Coke, Pepsi, etc. are out of the question. I am not a professional on the issue, though, and this was probably a community-specific regulation. You know more than I do about this, Crocoite, and I'll trust your judgement from now on. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the correction Hoji. I'm not a General Authority of the Church, but we can use the discussion page to clarify issues for the main article. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 22:54, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It has been suggested by Leaders of the LDS Church that caffeine should be avoided. Like people of all religions, different Mormons have interpreted those statements in different ways. Officially, (letter of the law kind of thing), Caffeine is not forbidden, and is technically not part of the Word of Wisdom. However, as it is a suggestion by LDS Church leaders, many (could I say most?) Mormons do not drink caffeine. [[User:Tirrian|Tirrian]] 18:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== redo ==

After reading this article, I would say a rewrite is in order. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 16:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:this article says nothing about the schism. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 16:37, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed, a rewrite is in order. Rather than edit warring on the article, can we please draft up sections here on talk? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yeah! Someone finally says something intelligent. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 19:17, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==Page Improvement; Article Neutrality; Information Sources; Offensive Content==

I am a lifelong member of the LDS church. I just found out about this website and was curious to see what the entry for my church looked like. Although I don't have time to do a complete rewrite, I do heartily agree that some serious work is needed, and I have spent a few minutes correcting some typos and trying to add some accurate information.

Although I understand that the creators of ''conservapedia'' apparently have some issue with ''Wikipedia'', one aspect of that website I hope they (and its contributors) respect is ''Neutral Point of View''. The accurate and unbiased description of a religion's beliefs should be allowed without disrespect and meanness. I may disagree with the beliefs of other religions, but I do not believe that gives me the right to mock or ridicule those beliefs simply because they are different than my own.

I caution the usage of and reference to "non-Mormon" websites as primary sources for explanations of LDS beliefs. Although they can be useful for comparisons of understanding and response, sole reliance on such sources can lead to the perpetuation of myths, increased misunderstanding, and outright prejudice. Often, the outside point-of-view can result in a description of beliefs so altered that even members of the church would not recognize it as their own. I have corrected several occurrences in this article, including the erroneous assertions that Mormons "do not believe in the diety of Christ" (?!) and that Mormons "believe in salvation through works". Where a group openly proclaims its beliefs, the honest scholar will allow the group to do so and may ''respond'' to them but will never ''misrepresent'' them.

The scriptural references I included are in no way an attempt to "prove" LDS beliefs, but rather are simply to indicate to the reader one of the sources of those beliefs, understanding that it is perfectly reasonable that one may have alternate beliefs or interpretations of the same.

Finally, although I understand the original author's intent to point the reader to both supporting and opposing views, I found the "Mormon" and "Anti-Mormon" subheadings under the External Links section to be quite offensive. If consistency is a desirable characteristic of ''conservapedia'', this would necessitate adding an "Anti-Semitic" section to the Judaism article, which I (and I hope many others) would also find offensive. If a contributor would like to write an article about those who criticize the LDS church, or the criticism itself, then please take the time to do so, and provide a link to that page, and allow this page to be about the church itself.[[User:Doady|Doady]] 17:50, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:Doady, I am a convert to the church and I don't like the tone of this article either. Your comments are like music to my ears. Keep in mind though, at Conservapedia, we don't try to take a NPOV. There will be articles from a Conservative POV. And [[Wikipedia]] doesn't really have a NPOV - they just advertise that. WP articles have a [[liberal bias]] that we don't allow here [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

:Unfortunately this article has been edited by anti-Mormons and it is difficult to accurately portray the church. I encourage you to continue your improvements to this article and others here. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:25, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia smears the religious again ==

I am here because of wikipedia's prejudicial treatment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its members. Case in point is its article on Fawn Brodie, a woman who was the niece of one of the Church's presidents and yet still managed to apostatize and become one of the most embittered and destructive "anti-mormons" of all time. Simply put, wikipedia's article on her refers almost exclusively to another apostate in the citation of its sources, and has plenty of improvable comments that are derogatory toward Latter Day Saints. I have attempted several times to correct language in the article that I felt was unnecessarily negative or misleading. Every time I made a correction, even if it was nothing more than to clear up an obvious grammatical error, every single time the page was reverted back to its previous condition by the next day at the latest.

If wikipedia is going to present itself as an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, they ought not to shut down attempts by people like me to purge articles of bigotry and lies. I went so far as to make posts on the discussion page for the article, explaining my changes. One of the moderators claimed to sympathize and agreed that some of the wording was prejudicial sounding, but told me that my corrections were not good enough to stand as they were. I’m talking about correcting comments that did not have citations and therefore should have been afforded no more consideration than my corrections of them.

I have also stumbled upon two separate articles in wikipedia that contained nude photographs, and many more containing obscenities. It would not be hard to photoshop those photographs to the point that you could tell the person was nude but not have to see their privates. While it may not be possible to police the entire internet for pornography, surely a wikipedia page with its own moderator(s) could be bothered to keep their own page free of filth.

Consequently, I have independently come to the conclusion that wikipedia is not a quality encyclopedia, and that if you seek to remove anti-Christian bigotry from it, or have traditional American sensibilities, your voice doesn’t count.

Then I heard about conservapedia. I decided to check it out and find out if a Latter Day Saint could expect a fair shake here. I am glad to say that most of what I am seeing here about the Church and its members is fair and correct. In fact, my only complaint is that the articles are too short. That’s understandable given the relatively short time conservapedia’s been around. And at any rate it’s a far better option than moderator protected bigotry under the banner of a encyclopedia that you can edit.

This brings me to my last point. Since conservapedia is succeeding where wikipedia is cravenly failing, I decided to join. I intend to add my knowledge to it, particularly but not only in the areas of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I have one request: please be patient with me if my edits aren’t up to the standard. I am just starting out here and while I do not intend to break any posting rules, I can’t guarantee that in my rookie state I won’t overlook something. Thank you for your consideration.--[[User:ChetGustavson|ChetGustavson]] 16:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Racism ==

Right up until 1978 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints didn't allow black men in to the priesthood and it didn't allow black men and women to take part in the most important temple services. Even now the Church refuses to repudiate its racist past and has even been accused of trying to cover it up. Surely this is worth mentioning in the controversy section? {{unsigned|RM}}

== African Americans... ==

Claim is fully sourced. Please do not remove w/out discussion or a source for counter-claims. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 20:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:Those sources do NOT support your claim. There are no references to specific verses in the Book of Mormon that substantiate your claim. In addition there is this quote:
<blockquote>In the twentieth century, various Church leaders continued to offer possible reasons why a race of people was prohibited from holding the priesthood. One explanation, carried over from the previous century, stated that blacks were descendants of Cain, the first murderer, and therefore were denied the priesthood because of lineage. Another theory held that blacks were less valiant in the premortal existence and therefore had certain spiritual restrictions placed upon them during mortality (132). Priesthood denial was perceived to be one of these spiritual restrictions. But by mid-century, President David O. McKay stated, "There is not now, and there never has been, a doctrine in this Church that the negroes are under a divine curse. . . . It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed". </blockquote>
:Your edits are not fully sourced and have been reverted. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:12, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:(written before edit conflict)
:Actually, it's not. There's nothing I can see in either source to say that the Book of Mormon was the basis for the ban on blacks being priests. But now that there are sources, I can alter it rather than simply delete it. You are welcome to alter it back if you can provide evidence of the Book of Mormon part of the claim (and a reference to just ''where'' in the Book of Mormon this is said would seem to be appropriate also). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I don't get it. Weren't blacks excluded from the Mormon priesthood in early times? If it wasn't a [[doctrine]] per se, then it was a policy anyway: whether official or unofficial.

The point is that the practice has ended because, as their leadership claims, God told [[revelation|revealed to them]] that the practice was wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

==Material added by Ultimahero==
Ultimahero is an anti-Mormon who is adding a mixture of false, and true unsourced material to this article. Unless I see some sources for these edits, they will be deleted. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:01, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Which ones are false? I can source them all. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:52, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

# Both Jesus and Lucifer offered a plan for salvation. (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)
# Many Gods. (Mormon Doctrine, page 163; Book of Abraham 4:3)
# The Father has a body of flesh and bones. (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 38.)
# Mother Goddess. (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 143; Mormon Doctrine, page 516.)
# God and Mary had relations to produce Jesus’ physical body. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, page 115; Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 547; Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18; First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, God the Father, compiled by Gordon Allred, page 150.)
# The Bible is corrupted. (8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church; 1 Nephi 13:28.)
# All other Christian denominations are apostate. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 1, pages 5-6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, page 270; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 171, 1855; Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 167, 1858.)
# God resides near a star called Kolob. (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, page 428.)
# God used to be a man on another planet. (Mormon Doctrine, page 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, page 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 333.)
# God became a God. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345)
# Joseph Smith must approve of one for salvation. (Mormon Doctrine, page 670; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:289)
# Levels of Heaven. (Mormon Doctrine, page 348)
# Prophets are needed. (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 444-445.)

(I obtained all of the above sources from http://www.mrm.org/, and http://www.carm.org/index.html.)

I also removed a link to Mormon in the second paragraph, because the word “Mormon was referring to the Mormon people, and the link was to the Mormon Prophet. So the link made no sense.

The only thing I can’t source at this moment is about the fact that blacks were cursed for their neutrality. But give me some time and I’ll try to find it again. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:32, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Start with these:

:*Positions of Various Christian Groups -> "They beleive that they must have Joseph Smith Jr.'s approval to get into heaven."
:*Positions of Various Christian Groups -> "They believe that God the Father had relations with Mary to produce Jesus' physical body."
:*African Americans and the Priesthood -> "Mormons used to believe that black skin was the result of a divine curse. According to Mormon Theology, those spirit children which did not side with Satan or God in the pre-existence, but instead decided to remain neutral, were cursed with black skin."

:These are obvious false statements to me.
:*First, you are using anti-Mormon sources.
:*Second, Mormon Doctrine and Journal of Discourses are not valid references. You need to read this reference. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ldsdoct.htm Differentiating between valid LDS doctrine & opinions of its past leaders]
<blockquote>"A common anti-Mormon attack technique used by many conservative Protestants is to take a single past statement by a Mormon leader and treat it as a formal LDS doctrine that is binding on all LDS members today. In reality, there are many beliefs expressed by early LDS leaders that have been abandoned and are no longer recognized by the present-day church. Some, in fact, have never accepted as valid."</blockquote>
:I'm also going to involve another administrator here, because I'm upset with your anti-Mormon edits. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

“They must have Joseph Smith’s approval to get into Heaven.” On October 9, 1859, Brigham Young said, "From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are -- I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent" (Journal of Discourses 7:289).

Young clearly taught that you must have the consent of Joseph Smith to get into Heaven. Now, whether or not the Mormon church still accepts this is a different issue, and if you can show me documentation where they have denied or denounced this teaching, then great. I’ll gladly concede it and withdraw that point. But the fact is that Brigham Young was one of the most influential leaders of the LDS, and I have provided documentation as to his teaching on it. It’s up to you to give documentation to the counter.

“They believe that God the Father had relations with Mary to produce Jesus’ physical body.” I’m aware that this is a debated issue within the Mormon church. But I gave sources on it being taught by: Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, as well as the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve. Again, whether the LDS church still holds to this is debatable. But it was officially taught by influential leaders in good standing with the church. So, again, provide me documentation that the church today denounces these things and I’ll be more than happy to remove them.

I already stated that I don’t have the documentation for the “blacks were neutral and were cursed with black skin.” I’ll try to find, but if you wish to remove it, then that’s fair enough for now. Although, just to note, I didn’t add the quote “Mormons used to believe that black skin was the result of a divine curse.” This was already there, I added the sentence following it.

Now, as far as “Anti-Mormon Sources”, that’s not true. Granted, those websites may not agree with Mormon theology, but they are simply quoting Mormon writers and prophets. The sources in question are the Mormon men who wrote these things. The websites merely provide the documentation. So, unless your own prophets and writing are “Anti-Mormon”, then they’re not Anti-Mormon sources.

They are valid references. They are things that were taught by the leaders and prophets in the Mormon church. Mormons believe that prophets are still around today and whatever they reveal is the word of God, just as legitimate as the official theology. Again, if the quotes in question have been denounced by modern prophets then that’s fine. Give mw documentation and I’ll gladly remove them.

I’m not making “Anti-Mormon” edits. I’m simply quoting Mormon leaders. But, fine. If you wish to involve another administrator, then by all means, please do. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:27, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:*(interrupting) You said, ''I’m not making “Anti-Mormon” edits. I’m simply quoting Mormon leaders.'' Neither is true. You are making '''primarily''' anti-Mormon edits. And you are not "simply quoting" but using old position statements as if they were still in force. The burden of proof is on you (not Dean) to show that any nasty-sounding information is true. Dean need not document a denunciation: on the contrary, you need to document an avowal. Failure to do so will result in reverted edits. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:53, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I agree with you that it's inaccurate for him to describe his edits as "non anti-Mormon". They are, but there's nothing wrong with that ''as long as they are true''. I don't agree that the burden of proof is on Ultimahero to show that they are still in force. If Ultimahero has claimed that they were once the case, then the onus is on him to show that they were. If someone else claims that they no longer are, then the onus is on that person to show that they no longer are. To put it another way, if, hypothetically, President Bush says that Iran is evil ''and has never recanted that'', then what evidence can be produced to show that he still believes that? If he's never recanted it, then that is actually a ''lack of evidence'' that he has recanted it, and nobody can cite a ''lack'' of evidence. Rather, if someone thing's that he's recanted it, then the onus is on ''that'' person to show that he has. Otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that it's still the case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

While it is proper to bring up differences of opinion, as much as possible any discussion should be done with the utmost of respect realizing that this is a sensitive area and that good people can have differing points of view. Perhaps it would be appropriate to put together a small section touching upon various beliefs held by the Mormon Chuch during its journey, but also acknowledging that the same beliefs are not held today (where that is true) and keeping the focus on the beliefs of the Mormon Church as they currently stand. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:17, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, and this will be a lot of work, but to be a '''trustworthy''' source of information on the LDS church, we'll have to do just that. In addition, if there are '''modern''' controversies about what the historical beliefs and practices were, then we might do well to adopt the NPOV policy of another (larger) online encyclopedia.

:This will require supporters and opponents '''both''' to tone down their combative rhetoric; I'm not saying that either side has been more hostile than the other; both sides need to be sympathetic to the other for the process to work. Both sides need to be open to allowing the opposing side to make its case or present its views.

:I've had a lot of contact with Mormon missionaries throughout my life and have always found them sincere and forthright in explaining their beliefs. Whether I agree with those beliefs or not, I feel it's important for me to '''learn''' what those beliefs are; even more valuable to '''understand''' why they hold those beliefs and how those beliefs affect their lives. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:47, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

No, my edits are not “Anti-Mormon”. I’m quoting Mormon prophets and presenting what they taught. I’m simply quoting men like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith (All Presidents of the Mormon Church) as well as many other Mormons in good standing with the LDS church. I’m not adding anything to there quotes, nor attempting to establish new doctrine based on them. I’m not insulting Mormons or calling them names. I’m just quoting them. So unless those men (Smith, Young, etc.) are anti-Mormon, then my edits cannot be anti-Mormon, because it’s coming from their mouths. If someone were to come to me and say, “Well, Jesus taught ‘X’,” I would not call that anti-Christian. That’s just reiterating what the beliefs are.

And I have given ample documentation as to these teachings. I didn’t just make baseless claims, I backed them up. Now if these teaching were denounced, then please provide my the documentation and show me. I’m not aware of any retraction by the LDS church on these issues. But I’m certainly eager to learn. If there is something there, show me. We do know that the Mormons have changed positions over the years. They once taught polygamy, now they don’t. So maybe they have changed here as well. But you have to understand that it is now up to you to provide documentation to the counter. I adequately demonstrated how these doctrines exist, so must show if there has been some change on these positions.

I have no doubt in my mind that Mormon's sincerely believe what they do. I have no doubt that there are numerous Mormons who are genuinly good, in a human sense of the word. And I in no way am trying to be confrontational or argumentitive. I am merely trying to adding things in that Mormons have beleived historically, and to factually contribute. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I readded my material about the differeces in beleives. If there is documentation that these positions are no longer held, I'll be more than happy to withdraw them. Otherewisw, it seems unfair to leave them out when I can show that they have been taught. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:59, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the way you have presented information. For instance the additional information on what Mormons believe, if I understand it correctly, comes from beliefnet, a site that is not Mormon. There may be further explanation of the Mormon religion that is not included. And while I can understand that you weren't pleased that your original work was simply removed, you should also be respectful of the fact that Dean is an elder in the Mormon Church, and as such, is intimately knowledgable of current Mormon teachings and beliefs. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

"Beliefnet"? I don't know what that is, and certainly didn't use it for my material. Now, I quoted Mormon leaders on their positions.(Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc.) So these men would certainly know what Mormoln doctrine is. Now, as I've said, there may indeed be furtehr explanation that is left out. But it is now up to the objector to provide the evidence that these things aren't taught. It makes no sense to leave my material out based on the fact that it's "possible" that counter-material exists somewhere. If it's there, show me, and I'll be gladly agree that it gets taken out. But you must show me first. And I do respect that DeanS has been in the church a long time. But that doesn't mean that he knows more than anyone else about it. There are many people who don't know what they beleive. (I'm not saying that this necessarily applies to Dean, just that it's generally true.) So if he or you or anoyone can document these things not being taught, then fine. Otherwise you have no leg to stand on. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:References shouldn't just be on the talk page. I want to see you incorporate the reference information that you have here, including any quotes, into reference forms on the article. I see belief.net predated you. Not having followed this article, I was unaware of that. Since there were no references on the main page and that was the last source quoted, I assumed that was your source. As far as Dean not knowing what his church teaches, please. I don't know whether or not you are religious yourself, but I am a regular church attender and it would be very difficult for me not to know what my church teaches when I hear sermons week in and week out. If Dean says that is a misrepresentation of Mormon belief, then what he says the Mormon Church believes will be included into the article as well. And don't tell me that he doesn't know any better. If he has been an active member for many years and never heard these things, then it's not something they actively believe or else he would have heard it. I would imagine the truth will fall somewhere in the middle. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::L.T., many "anti-cult" advocates will claim that a church they hate lets most members believe one thing while having stronger teachings for the more deeply initiated. You don't get to hear about the stronger more "authentic" teachings until you get into some sort of inner circle. They seem to think this is common knowledge and that the burden of proof is on the church to demonstrate that they don't "keep two sets of books" theologically. This is nonsense and won't be tolerated here.

::I'll say this one last time, and those who refuse to accept it can just go join another project: we trust Dean to tell us what his church teaches. The burden of proof is on non-Conservapedians (such as our recent visitor U.H.) to prove that obscure or outdated teachings are current and valid. One more word out of line and he's gone - I have no more time for this nonsense. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure he's making that insinutation Ed, but certainly in either case as an elder Dean would be "in the know". I am also aware that sometimes churches, especially in their early history, can go through change. We shouldn't ignore Mormon history, but we also shouldn't force that to be current Mormon view when the present might be quite different. And of course, any discussion that takes place here should be held with respect for those who follow this belief whether or not the people stating their views are Mormons or not. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I specifically said that I wasn’t necessarily implying that Dean didn’t know what he was talking about. It’s just that in general a lot of religious folks don’t know what they believe. (If you keep up with things and study as you’re supposed to, then you probably will be well learned. But most people don’t read their Bibles like they should, which leads to ignorant church members, and this is what I was getting at.) Also, an individual church might teach many things that go against the mainstream denomination. So it just depends. Ultimately, I’m not saying that Dean knows everything or nothing. I don’t know what his knowledge level is. I’m not commenting on that. Again, Dean, or anyone saying this isn’t Mormon belief, needs to give adequate source material to support that claim. Someone whose been in the Mormon church before could say that Mormonism teaches that God is a purple unicorn, and we would not accept this based solely on the fact that the said individual attends an LDS church. (I know that’s a ridiculous example, I’m just trying to demonstrate the point by exaggerating to an extreme.) I don’t doubt for one second that Dean is an intelligent, honest man. But he stills needs to source the info, like the rest of us do.

I don’t “hate” the Mormons or their church, Ed Poor. I do indeed think that Mormonism is a false religious system, yes. But I don’t hate them. Most Mormons that I’ve met are genuinely nice folks. It’s just their theology that I have a problem with. Next, I’m not a “recent” visitor. I’ve been here contributing for many months now. Now I have shown that Mormons have taught this in the past. I’ve well documented it. Is it still taught? I don’t know of any current Mormons leadership which has disavowed the teaching or said that they now don’t follow it. (Which they have done in the past on other issues, so I’m assuming that they’ll be consistent.) Finally, I didn’t know that I was “out of line”. I’m just providing material that is factual, as far as I know. If anyone can show me to the contrary, I will support it being taken out. I’m not sure what you want. I’m not trying to be rude or call names, and I’m being as factual as I can. So I don’t know what else can reasonably be expected of me.

Learn Together, I certainly hope that I have not given the impression of disrespect towards Mormons. I’m not at all trying to disrespect them, and hope I haven’t come across that way. I simply am presenting things that are historically true. If they aren’t currently taught, then I would think that certainly some church council or Mormon President would be available somewhere that has denounced them. I just haven’t seen any of that, so I can’t assume that they have. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:You show disrespect toward Mormons when you assume that old teachings are current. You have proof that LDS '''used to''' teach or practice certain things. You offer no proof that they still do. You merely argue that the existence of old stuff should be taken as evidence of its currency. That is not a trustworthy argument.

:On the contrary, if the old stuff is current, it should be '''very easy''' to show that it is. Your refusal to make any effort to do so, combined with your repeated argument of having no need to do so, disqualifies you as a writer on this topic.

:You are hereby banned from this article and this discussion page. You may bring up issues related to LDS on any other talk page where it has already been addressed. I value you as a writer, but not on this issue, until you agree to adhere to my concept of [[burden of proof]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:57, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

::He has provided "proof." the question is whether things have changed. It is logical to assume that they have not, unless there is proof of a change. How is he supposed to prove that it ''hasn't'' changed. If there is nothing to say that it has, then he will not have anything to find, and you will continue to say that he has no proof. The burden of proof here lies with those who are trying to prove that it ''has'' changed. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 09:16, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, I think it's pretty evident that you can't ask someone for evidence that something hasn't changed as a criteria to accept their initial evidence. That was a bit silly. I don't think we should just sweep away the information provided, but I do think we should use our own resources to help us construct the article in a way that is true to both the history and the current philosophy of the beliefs of the Mormon Church. I believe we want the article to read in a respectful fashion and where there are differences between traditional Christianity and Mormon beliefs, these differences should be presented in a non-judgmental way. Hopefully we can all agree on this. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:49, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: That is a wonderful sentiment Learn Together. Striving for an article that addresses religious topics in a respectful fashion where the differences between Christian and whatever that other religion are is treated in a non-judgmental way would go a long ways to increasing the reputability of Conservapedia. Is there any chance that [[atheism]] and [[agnosticism]] could be unlocked? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:30, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Editorial standards==

My position (as a site administrator) is that a member in good standing of a major religion should be trusted as to what its current teachings are. If there is a dispute between church critics and church members about "what is currently taught", then I say we have to go with what Dean (aka Crocoite) has said - whatever it is; I'm not going into detail right now, but I will if need be.

I have no doubt that early Mormon doctrine and practices involve a significant number of things that most modern Christians would repudiate. [[Polygamy]] is the most obvious one; race discrimination against blacks is also important. If Dean says LDS no longer accept these, that's good enough for me. Same for any other point '''unless''' clear proof is shown that contradicts what Dean has reported.

I intend to truncate the article severely, removing any disputed information. The burden of proof is "ultimately" on church detractors (pun intended). We simply cannot assume that a position taken several decades ago is still maintained.

Scientific theories change. It was not much longer ago than the early days of LDS that biologists and doctors believed all sorts of crazy things about infection. The [[germ theory of disease]] is less than a century and a half old. There is [[plate tectonics]] to explain [[continental drift]], and all sorts of new ideas in physics.

Although some churches keep their theology static, others do indeed change. I trust contributor Dean to report these changes faithfully. We are all about trust here, and if anyone is going to contradict a sysop speaking about his own church, he'd better bring solid proof. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:You may trust a member of the church, but I don't think that as an '''encyclopedia''', we should just take someone’s word. I'm not saying that Dean is untrustworthy, but rather that we need documentation to whatever is put in. To remove material without sourcing it would be a "poor" (see, I can be clever, too) way to do things.

:The fact is I have given sufficient documentation on the what is taught. Unless someone can give documentation to the counter, then the facts should remain. Polygamy is a great example. You said that the LDS church once taught it, and now doesn't. That's true. And it can be well documented that they stopped this practice and disavowed the teaching. So why can’t someone give sources on all these other facts, if they are no longer taught? The burden of proof is on the person saying that something has changed. It's not on me to show it's remained the same. Ho do you prove that things haven't changed? If they haven't changed, then by definition there would be no new info to cite. But if it has changed, then there should be things to point to and source.

:I don't distrust Dean. But you don't simply trust an encyclopedia just because it says something. You expect it to back it's claims up with documentation and sources. If it doesn't, then it's worthless. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 16:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:"''... a member in good standing of a major religion should be trusted as to what its current teachings are.''": I believe that this is assuming too much. I couldn't tell you all the details of my denomination's official stances on things, and I'm quite sure that my minister would have different views that the denomination on some points, so I wouldn't expect to learn all those positions from his preaching.
:"''We simply cannot assume that a position taken several decades ago is still maintained.''": Neither can we assume that it's changed. In fact, if it was said last week, we can't assume that it's still maintained ''this week''! But in both cases, the onus is on the person claiming that it's change to show that.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

== Non-encyclopedic Material Here ==

It's inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not "Christian", and the entire [[provocateur]]-like section here is going to be deleted. There are obvious reasons for this, but I'll give just one reason: it leads to bigotry against a group of people.

This is a fair warning to provide some time for discussion before the deletion occurs. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:As far as my knowledge goes, the page never claims that Mormon are or are not Christians. I could be wrong, but I don’t see that anywhere. There is a section on what positions various Christian denominations hold. Also, there's a section claiming, "Mormon beliefs that are different from traditional Christianity”, and it goes on to list the differences. But all of these things are factual and can be sourced. I understand that it doesn’t make everyone feel good, but are we not allowed to talk about things that are true just because they might upset someone? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why is it inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not Christian? Surely ''if'' it is not Christian, it is correct and proper to say so? And how is it okay to say this of an ''individual'' (such as Barack Obama) but not of a church?
: Further, why does it necessarily lead to bigotry? It's possible to respectfully disagree with Islam, Hinduism, atheism, etc., without being bigots, so why not with Mormonism?
: On many of the pages that I tend to frequent, to do with the creation/evolution issue, editors put in pro-evolutionary/anti-creationary material, and as long as it's factual and civil, I let it stand and point out the problems, rather than censor it by removing it. Why can't this article be handled in the same way?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I would like to ask you to reconsider. If there is some way in which the information needs to be rewritten in order to be respectful to the Mormon Church then I say we do that. I also do not believe we should take a position on what is right or wrong, but simply present factual differences. But since above all else we endeavor to show truth, then I don't believe simply removing the knowledge of differences is the way we should go. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:01, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree, I believe that we need to take a stand for what is right. As for the issue of whether or not the Mormon church is Christian, read Galatians 1:8-9. I cannot agree with calling a church "Christian" if they add to the Gospel. As for the material, If it is factual, it should stay. I don't think that it is disrespectful to Mormons. The info is '''MUCH''' more accurate and encyclopedic than a large portion of the Barck Obama article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:29, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I've read the above comments, but there's no getting around the fact that describing an entire church as "non-Christian" is inappropriate for this type of site. Such claims lead to contradictions, falsehoods, bias, and invite ulterior motives (like people who have axes to grind against a particular church). At a minimum, Christianity is a personal choice and it is inappropriate to attempt to label a large group of people as "non-Christian" unless they describe themselves that way or it is undisputed.

That said, the sincerity of a particular politician's claim (like Obama's claim) about his own beliefs should be questioned, particularly when the evidence is abundant that his claim is self-serving and contradicted by other evidence.

So the bottom line is don't rant and rave here about how you don't think someone else's church is Christian. I'm sure we could find other people wanting to rant and rave against your church in the same way, and we're not going down that slippery and destructive slope.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:39, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Again, though, I don't know of anywhere that the article makes the implicit claim that "Mormons aren't Christians". It just shows differences between the LDS church and Christianity. All are sourced facts. What's wrong with fact? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:44, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: Claims by outsiders about a church's doctrine are inherently unreliable. The statements in the entry are not from the Mormon Church itself and were probably developed or promoted by someone who dislikes that church for some emotional or perhaps even closeminded reason. We're not going to allow such an inherently unreliable approach to be taken here. Find a Mormon Church leader to tell us what its doctrine is, if that's what you want. But you haven't done that, and I doubt you will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:04, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't mean to be offensive when I say this, but you didn't read the previous discussions on this talk page, did you? I never cited a bunch of Mormons as to what the LDS church believes. I quoted Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith, (all Mormon Presidents) as well as other Mormons in good standing with their church. I've given documentation about what these men believe from their own mouths. They are the ones making the claims about their doctrines and theology. So, unless Mormon leaders are an unreliable source for Mormon doctrine, then I think that they should suffice. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

2008-06-27T17:30:32Z

Ultimahero:

The '''Chicago Bulls''' are a professional [[basketball]] team that belongs to the [[National Basketball Association]]. The team is located in [[Chicago]] and plays in the [[United Center]]. The most famous player for the Bulls was [[Michael Jordan]].They have won six championships.

Championships: 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998
{{NBA}}

{{stub}}
[[Category:National Basketball Association]]
[[Category:Illinois]]