User talk:Mkmcconn - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mkmcconn (talk | contribs) at 03:49, 6 August 2004 (→Mormonism and Christianity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:49, 6 August 2004 by Mkmcconn (talk | contribs) (→Mormonism and Christianity)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Mormonism and Christianity

The Mormonism and Christianity is in trouble due to haphazardly placed text. I notice you have been a recent editor. If you get a moment, perhaps you could take some time to weed it so it is more of a credit to this encyclopedia. The subject isn't muy forte, and I don't understand the page all too well, or I would make an attempt. Hawstom 22:58, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've limited myself to editing areas of the article that are familiar to me. Which sections are of concern to you? Mkmcconn 23:10, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I too see good things happening. Thanks for taking the time to express it. Hawstom 22:52, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It may be beneficial for the two of us to explore further advancements in this article "offline", either here or via e-mail. I'd like to start first by doing my best to express the point of view you might feel is missing. Let me know how well I do. Tom 14:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mormonism and Christianity exists to explain/discuss a conflict. While this should of course be placed in its historical context, prominent attention should be given to why there are still in the 21st century problems with Mormonism in Christianity.

The crux of the current problem with Mormonism in Christianity is the common feeling Christian parents, pastors, and church leaders have that it is important to prominently distinguish Mormonism from the numerous neighborhood branches of Christianity that are more or less compatible and interchangeable. A parent or church leader might express explicitly or implicitly that any "Christ-centered, Bible believing" church will do for worship services this Sunday. But Mormonism demands more than a one Sunday commitment, and that needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Mormonism (at least the LDS Church) is not now and has never been in communion with any other church. If you visit a Mormon church on Sunday, you are there as a non-communing visitor. Even after three years attendance, you are a non-communing visitor until you formally accept Mormonism by baptism. Entering the Mormon communion (at least LDS), is ideally a one way street, with abundant pressures to make the commitment carefully and bindingly (and promptly), including temple covenants to remain faithful to Mormonism. This enormous commitment and potential estrangement is understandably frightening and alarming to many Christian parents and teachers. They want to make very clear that Mormonism is not (at least not the LDS church) just another American-style, evangelical, non-denominational Bible church, but is an world even more different than perhaps the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Assyrian Christian Church. The message is, "Make no mistake, Mormonism is different and binding; handle with care!" And yet all the current outreach gestures from Mormons seem to be saying the opposite. This is extremely frustrating and alienating to many Christians. Tom 14:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This might have something to do with something; but it is superficial. This does not explain what evangelicals mean by the strong feelings they have against it. I'll get back to you soon, with some suggestions. Mkmcconn — 16:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

M, I think clarifying the following shorthand might be important to success with your Mormonism and Christianity project. You said, " different Scripture, different gods, different Spirit, different prophets, different church, different history, different cosmology, different anthropology, different ritual, different sacraments, different salvation." That is quite a mouthful, and some of it may be just hyperbole. Let me list them here with my thoughts and you tell me if I peg it right. Tom 20:35, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

different Scripture = additional scripture. Same Bible.

different view of the Bible, plus additional scriptures and foundational revelations.

different gods = denial of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Teaches belief in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Teaches that there are other Gods and that the Gospel of Christ is to turn humans into Gods.

different Spirit = What? Galatians 5:22? No. Is this hyperbole?

Who this Spirit is, concerns who God is. The Christian Spirit is God himself. And a different doctrine, is a different Spirit. 2Cor. 11:3-4.

different prophets = Additional prophets. Same Bible prophets.

different church = denial of holy catholic church

different church = the doctrine of the Great Apostasy, and the teaching that the LDS is the Church established by Jesus Christ, two thousand years after Christ: a different identity for the church, entirely.

different history = divergence since 1830? Book of Mormon history? Additional Enoch, Abraham traditions? Pre-mortal existence of man?

Your view of Christianity is an alternative history, which contradicts history as Christians otherwise recount it. More to the point, the Book of Mormon includes a history of Jesus Christ that no Christian who rejects Mormon claims can accept.

different cosmology = What? I am ignorant

Mormonism sees the universe differently: where it came from, and what it is in relation to God.

different anthropology = What? I am ignorant

Man according to Mormonism is not what he is according to Christianity. Man is a finite creature, whose beginning is at conception. Mormonism has a different view of the sort of creature that man is - a spirit being embodied at conception. Christianity is based as much on its anthropology, as it is on its theology; because it teaches that Christ is uniquely God and Man.

This is just one example of where Mormons say, "Yes, we are different, but how by the Bible do you conclude--with the certainty you project--that your interpretation is Christianity and Mormonism is not?" In this case you are saying "Christianity teaches" X. But Mormons assert that the Bible is far from conclusive on the matter, and gives ample room for the Mormon interpretation. It is very important to always give room for this very possible and plausible view. Maybe the Mormons are right on this point or the other, and the traditionalists are wrong. The Bible is not assertive in many areas. It's "Other Christians". But between friends I know that's what you mean. Tom 03:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

different ritual = different sacraments

different ritual = temple

different sacraments = temple

Mormon baptism is not trinitarian: it is not Christian baptism, according to any Christian denomination. Mormon communion uses water - not a shocker to a Mormon, no doubt, but not irrelevant to a traditional Christian.

Correction: Mormon baptism is biblical, "Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."

Regardless of the formula used, those traditions which do not rebaptize would baptize a Mormon convert (regard him as not yet baptized).

Right. Intriguing. Is this a reciprocal stance? It baffles me. Is it logical, reasonable, consistent? Do they accept Bubba's "baptism" by his lay brother in the hills? Is there any requirement at all, or just "Mormon baptisms not accepted here" Reciprocity is the only reason I can come up with. Tom 20:56, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No. These denominations recognize the baptisms of many who reject theirs (Baptist baptism is accepted by Presbyterians, for example: but not vice versa, because Baptists rebaptize, often even other Baptists). The issue has to do more with what the Catholics call "intent". So, a catholic will not reject Bubba's baptism, if the intent was to agree with Catholic practice. Similarly, there is a great deal of disorder in the Protestant world, but if the intent is to agree with trinitarian baptism, it is generally not challenged even if it is "irregular". Mormonism does not have this intent although it uses the biblical words, because it does not approve the meaning of those words as received by the church.

Well stated. In a way it's reciprocity, but as you say, not exactly. Mormons in baptizing explicitly reject the catholic church, mainstream creeds, and trinitarian confession, which isn't exactly acceptable to other churches. So it's not so much a different baptism; more a baptism into a different religion. Tom 03:15, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, for the purposes of plain speaking (not what this encyclopedia aims to do) -- Baptism is the sign by which the benefits of Christ's covenant are sealed and applied to the recipient, which establishes in a public way that a person is united to Christ, dead through his cross, buried with him to be raised with him in newness of life through faith granted by the Spirit who raised him from the dead: a member of his body, the church. We think that Mormonism presumes to hope for something better and fuller than what is accomplished for us by Christ on the cross. Baptism into a different religion, a different hope, is a different baptism. Mkmcconn (Talk) 06:21, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Really interesting thoughts. Most of it would be ditto in Mormonism. But I treasure your "hope for something better and fuller than what is accomplished by Christ". I think salvation is core to the conflict these days. Of course we think that the FUD (fear, uncertainty, and distrust) tactics of the anti-mormons are to blame, and that you are imagining more of us than is really there. But we know there are indeed real differences. We read C.S. Lewis venturing to mention deification, but see most others shying away. We know the reward is greater than any of us imagine ("neither have entered into the heart of man"), but we know it is all through Christ. At the same time we are comfortable and confident that Christ incarnate demanded sacrificial discipleship rather than lip service. So while we let you talk about different baptisms, etc. all you want, we won't let you scrape by with any descriptive words for us such as unbiblical, non-christian, or man-based. Instead, you have to use more accurate terms like extra-Biblical, non-traditional (non-trinitarian), and free will.

The full phrase is "accomplished for us by Christ on the cross". We don't doubt that you see Christ as the savior; but how and to what end does he save? God is our gift, not our accomplishment. We do not think you can mean the same thing, although you may say the same things. And since we are being frank, we cannot let you slip by as though it makes no difference to make so many differences in meaning. Since we are being frank, it is courtesy, forebearance, hope and human affection that may compel us to look past the offense to use words more to your liking; although other words are more colorful, they are not timely, being ripe for repeating only if chosen by you in the end. 07:38, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Speaking of timely, it's almost time for a carriage return.) This is good. Let me see if I can mirror you. You don't doubt that we consider Christ the Savior, but you doubt we consider just what he saved/saves us from as you do, and how he does it. To you, God is condescendingly merciful and gracious (love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all), and you can't help but surmise we contemplate God with a sense of avarice, discontentment, and formula (I too can command worlds if I can just reach the highest level). Tom 20:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know much less about what you believe, than about what you deny. Mkmcconn (Talk) 03:49, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

different salvation = denial of Calvinism

Not close on this one. While Mormons do disagree with calvinism on what salvation consists of, they also disagree with Lutherans, Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox, etc; each in their own way, but importantly, all in the same way.

If the above are the differences, we don't have to make the article about them, but we should understand and agree what they are. Tom 20:35, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pauline epistles

I just wrote an article on the Pauline epistles. This is my first article, having made an edit to the Atheism article two weeks ago which resulted in a link to another article that mentioned them. I noticed your plans linked to this empty article, so I thought you might be interested.

jdavidb 170.35.224.63 20:26, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's a solid, productive start, jdavidb. I think that your foundation will survive further editing from a number of perspectives, which is the mark of a solid Misplaced Pages article. Mkmcconn 20:51, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. Glad to see someone read it, and even more glad to hear you think the perspective is good. Jdavidb 14:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Abraham

Hello there. I've just taken a look at Abraham and noticed that the historical perspective is not very deep. I was wondering wether you might know/be interested in improving it... But it may not interest you. Just in case. Regards, Pfortuny 11:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

thanks for the notice Mkmcconn 17:47, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nomination

I was reviewing the stuff I've done here, and noticed that I was impressed by you long ago when I first arrived, and that I have remained impressed. Imagine my surprise when, on a whim, I checked to see if you were an admin and found you were not. I think you've done a marvelous job here, and that you are long overdue for a little recognition: therefore I have nominated you at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship, and I hope very much that you would be willing to post a note there accepting nomination, should the vox populi share my opinion of your work. Good luck! Jwrosenzweig 03:52, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

More than for your nomination, I'm grateful for your generous evaluation of my work here. That means a lot to me. As for the idea of being an admin, I'll consider it if there is support. Otherwise I'm content with the powers that I have. Mkmcconn 05:55, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sysop

You are now one of the Misplaced Pages:Administrators. If you havn't done so already, you should familiarize yourself with the pages at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' reading list. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 04:29, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm glad you accepted, and am happy to know the community shares my high opinion of your work. Happy editing (and administrating, when you feel like it), Jwrosenzweig 20:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination. I hope I'll be useful eventually. Mkmcconn 17:01, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can of worms

I seem to have opened one in the Talk page of the Jesus Christ article. Am I going off the deep end there? I'm not necessarily looking for support in the discussion, just curious whether you think I'm too concerned with the line between history and theology, as it relates to how historians interpret the Gospels and other texts about Jesus. Thanks. Wesley 18:06, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've got myself immersed in a project that will conclude sometime next week. I'll look at the page when I have some time, probably on Sat. - if that's timely enough to be of any help. Mkmcconn 20:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry about timeliness. I'm personally interested in your feedback whenever it comes. By now the talk page and edit history will take time to review. Wesley 07:00, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Puritan

Wooster has raised a point on the Puritan talk page that I think has validity. As one who is better versed in Calvinism than me, I wondered if you'd take a look at it. As an Armenian, I reserve the right to take pot shots (just kidding!).

I also wonder if the idea of "puritanical," as it's used in modern society needs more attention. In my reading of history, it doesn't seem that they were very puritanical. Someone placed links to titles on the topic, but didn't develop them. Again, I'd be glad to defer to someone with a better knowledge of Calvinism. Pollinator 16:52, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yup, it's me causing trouble again : ) Seriously, I recommended the article on a message board and then noticed... well, you'll see what I think is the offending sentence. My biggest problem isn't the fact that it's wrong (it so plainly is) but what goes in its place. What was the central tenet of Puritanism? I think we ought to keep this discussion somewhere defined--my place all right? Wooster 22:48, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've revised the paragraph. The article is very thin. Small changes, and small errors, make a big difference. Mkmcconn 19:34, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was going to go over my last work on the JC article and see that you beat me to it -- thanks for making up for my own sloppiness, Slrubenstein

Natural versus legal persons

Although a slave is in every natural sense a human being and fully a person, the law considered these people in a legal sense as 2/3 of a person.

I am also not a lawyer. I don't think there was ever any rule of law that said a slave appearing before a court of law as a party to a dispute was in any sense "2/3 of a person". There were rules of law that said a slave had no standing to sue. I suspect you're getting that "2/3 of a person" notion from the constitutional compromise between slave-holding and slavery-prohibiting states that for purposes of determining the number of a state's representatives in Congress, a slave counted as 3/5 of a person. But it was only for that purpose; it had nothing to do with slaves appearing parties before a court.

Likewise in abortion law, the issue of whether the unborn child is, in a natural sense, a human being, although not entirely irrelevant, is legally distinct from how the law regards the child. Unless legal status of personhood is recognized, natural personhood doesn't necessarily correspond with legal personhood.

I think this misses the point of the articles on natural person and legal person. The point of those articles is that in some cases an organization can be treated by the law as if it were a person. That is a "legal person"; a human is a "natural person." That's quite a separate issue from the question of whether the law views slaves, fetuses, or any other biological humans as "persons." Michael Hardy 18:36, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bible conspiracy theories

Hi Mkmconn! Given your interest in, and knowledge of, Christian theology, you might be interested in Bible conspiracy theories, a mess of an article that looks quite difficult to fix. - Mustafaa 19:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An interesting idea for an article, but I'll bet that I'm not qualified to add much to it. Thanks for pointing it out, though! Mkmcconn — 19:58, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus Christ

Notice our drive-by editor has not been back to comment since I haven't reverted his change? I am waiting to see if he actually de-titles other religions or not. :) Respectfully - DavidR 22:29, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't be overly confident that reverting will stick. You are working against a campaign driven by religious conviction, not whim. It won't be stopped by obstinate resistance, by argument, or anything else; but it may dwindle out for lack of momentum. The tide of "incorrect" articles will always eventually overwhelm the petty, pompous and pedantic "repairs" these people are undertaking. It may be that the futility of trying to fix the world and to convert us all to fanatical neutrality will wear out a few individual crusaders along the way; but otherwise, I expect to see 1) "Jesus Christ" and "Christ" replaced with the "Jesus" in feigned neutrality, repeatedly; 2) objections to the practice equated with Christian proselytism, and 3) more references to "Jesus Christ" and "Christ" added in entire innocence, followed by 4) repeat of 1 through 3. Mkmcconn — 22:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't plan to revert again until I'm ready for the mediation he threatened. I have posted a comment under the Talk:Jesus page, you might check it out. I really hate to be contentious ("As much as it depends on you, be at peace with all men"), but I am really tired of the Lord getting dragged through the mud on the Internet (and on Misplaced Pages) by self-proclaimed intellectuals. DavidR 23:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you set your expectations of fairness (not to mention belief) as low as possible, you will meet most people on level ground. Mkmcconn — 23:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I truely do not understand why you yanked the dispute header. The article is disputed, isn't it? DavidR 22:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, the header attracts flies and if misused, invites trouble. I think it's being misused, there. I think that you dispute the neutrality of certain contributors, but I don't think that you've made your case well, that there is a lack of neutrality in the article per se. Focus more on the article, and I think that it will become more apparent whether there is really a dispute over neutrality, or a conflict of personalities and motives. Mkmcconn — 22:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

gone

~~I'm gone, Friday through the weekend. Mkmcconn — 04:27, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)~~

Template:BibleHistory

I am seeking extra input on some proposed changes to the template. Rmhermen 14:24, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Archives