From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I couldn't find an article focused on the LDS teachings concerning Faith, Works, and Grace, so I created this page. All three are covered here due to their interrelationship. Please observe and try to maintain or enhance the flow from Faith, to Works, to Grace. 74s181 19:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Why this article exists 2 This is not a POV fork 3 Balance is welcomed 4 Discussion 4.1 Spinout vs POV fork 4.2 noncompliant tag 4.3 Perfection 4.4 Changing noncompliant to NPOV and unencyclopedic 4.5 editor tags 4.6 Name change again?

[edit] Why this article exists

There are many LDS / Mormonism articles on Wikipedia.

Many of these articles tend to reproduce the same explanations about various points of LDS doctrine or practice. As a result, nearly all of these articles are too large.

One of the things I am trying to do is to move detail material out of more general articles to specific articles on the detail subject, i.e., 'main' article tag.

Therefore, this is an article spinout or sub article, as described in the POV_fork article.

[edit] This is not a POV fork

This article does not assert or attempt to prove that LDS belief is THE truth. It is not the result of an argument in another article about what 'Christians' truly believe. It does not engage in a debate with mainstream Christians. It only asserts what LDS believe about this subject, and provides more detail than there is room for in other articles that make reference to LDS belief on this particular topic.

[edit] Balance is welcomed

If there are LDS who disagree that this article is a correct statement of LDS belief, they are welcome to contribute. If there are non-LDS who feel this way they are also welcome to contribute. This is Wikipedia, all are welcome. However, any assertions about LDS belief should be cited, referencing authorities of equal or greater standing in relation to the subject as those already cited, per WP:RS. The currently cited authorities include the LDS scriptures and conference talks by LDS General Authorities. Non-LDS authorities are fair game as long as those authorities have similar standing in the mainstream Christian community and are cited as to LDS belief and practice, and not as to whether LDS teachings are or are not correct, since that is NOT the subject of this article. If you want to explore differences between mainstream Christian and LDS belief, please edit Mormonism and Christianity, which references this article.

Once this page is firmly established it will be appropriate to start moving detail material from other LDS articles to this page, summarizing and deleting such material from other articles that is duplicated here, and inserting 'main' tags in such articles, referring readers to this page for more detailed information on this topic. 74s181 19:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Yes, there needs to be some kind of summary at the end. 74s181 06:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spinout vs POV fork

No, this article is not a spinout. It is a POV fork. It has the potential of being a sub article, if the debate and POV elements can be eliminated. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It may look like a POV fork to you, Mark, but I meant it as a spinout. See discussion below and help me understand what I need to do to fix it. 74s181 13:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is misrepresented, then, if it "does not engage in a debate". It leads with the sentence, "commonly misunderstood by other Christians." It is quite plainly a POV fork. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this criticism and removed the two contentious statements, even though the question about whether or not the article needs to include other POV is still up in the air. 74s181 14:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] noncompliant tag

I'm concerned about the approach of this article. Right at the outset, the article's assertion that the subject may be not be understood by other Christians instantly expresses a WP:POV. Further, almost all of the references are to Bible verses, and therefore very much open to interpretation. It appears to be an article that asserts a particular doctrine of theology, not simply describes it. It does not compare the various portions to similar tenets in other Christian sects. While the subject may be notable, the approach has some issues per WP guidelines. Realkyhick 06:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if you even had time to fully read the article, given that I just barely posted it, but I'll go ahead and respond to your concern.

The article does not assert anything as fact, except that Latter Day Saints have certain beliefs. These statements of fact are well supported by in line quotes and references.

NPOV means NEUTRAL point of view, it does not mean BALANCED. I doubt that anyone would really dispute the opening statement, However, I added a reference to the Mormonism and Christianity article where that controversy is dicussed. 74s181 06:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I added more detail at the top of the talk page. Hopefully this addresses all concerns. 74s181 19:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying "this is not a POV fork" doesn't prevent it from being one. You approach the topic as a debate and the aim is explanation and defense. It is a Mormon tract. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have previously moved material from M&C to other, more specific LDS doctrinal explanation articles. There was no such article for this topic, so I created one. My plan was to provide an introductory framework based entirely on statements by LDS General Authorities, and then begin moving material. Eight minutes after I added the article it was tagged as noncompliant, so I didn't want to move anything here on the chance that it might get deleted. 74s181 02:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The topic is not framed as a debate. The opening sentence states that other Christians frequently misunderstand LDS doctrine on these topics. I did say "Many Christians criticize..." in the 'Works' section, so I guess that could be interpreted as debate. I meant that they criticize because they don't understand, so here is why LDS believe this. But I don't think you are objecting because I used the word 'criticize'. 74s181 02:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if you have a macro key programmed to type 'it is a Mormon tract' when pressed.<g> How is this article more of a tract than Godhead (Latter Day Saints), or Prevenient grace, or Presbyterianism? Really, Mark, if there is a way that I can clearly explain what LDS believe on a given topic without setting off your alarms I would like to hear it. 74s181 02:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Suppose I put it this way: some people misunderstand what constitutes a tract; but let me in a non-argumentative way set you right. Tracts tell people how to get from wrong thinking to your thinking. This is what this article does. If you keep hearing this from me, it's only because so often it is the right thing to say. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be saved though, perhaps under a more appropriate title, if instead of trying to persuade you simply inform. Leave out comparisons like "commonly misunderstood by other Christians ...", "many Christians criticize ..." Why posture yourself as a source of (non-)information on what people think about it, or how wrong they are? This is what I mean by "framed as a debate". If you lead an article that way, this is the "frame". You are broadcasting to the reader, that what they are about to read may sound different than they expected - but unlike what they've probably been exposed to, this is the real truth. Do those other articles do that? If they do, they also are wrongly framed for Wikipedia. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"...what they are about to read may sound different than they expected...", I would think that someone reading an article titled "Faith, Works, Grace and Latter Day Saints" would expect to learn what LDS believe about Faith, Works, and Grace. But I removed the offending statement, so this point is now moot. 74s181 14:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Now you can work on the tone and length, and I think that you can save the article. Aim at providing information that will be considered useful to other editors, regardless of the editor's point of view. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perfection

One of the three main goals of all LDS belief and practice is 'Perfecting the Saints'. Faith, Works, Grace form a circle leading to this goal, so after I posted the original structure I decided it made sense to tie it all together in a section on Perfection. I think this is where a lot of the practical side of the discussion like what is in the M&C page will end up. 74s181 19:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing noncompliant to NPOV and unencyclopedic

I have changed my previous application of a {{noncompliant}} tag, which was essentially a combination npov-original research-unencyclopedic tags. I've replaced it with an NPOV tag and an unencyclopedic tag. The NPOV tag is because, as stated by others, this article appears to be a Mormon tract. More formally, it is a statement of theological position, using Bible passages as sources. There is no presentation of an opposing point of view. The author asserts that NPOV does not mean BALANCED. Strictly speaking that is true, but in a general sense it is false, because there at least needs to be a discussion of opposing points of view, even if the opposing points do not take up as much space as the affirmative ones. This article presents very little in the way of opposing points. Moreover, by its structure, this article is still not written in an encyclopedic tone. Realkyhick 05:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As an interested contributor to some of the Wikipedia articles, I notice some sensible observations in the discussion points above. It seems this article goes into quite a bit more detail than a normal encyclopedia would attempt, and since the LDS website now has a search availability, someone seeking more details could readily use that to find related in-depth articles. Good luck reaching a consensus on this topic. Reiddp 07:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you suggested that perhaps there might be a more appropriate title. I struggled with the title and I am still not happy with it, I think it is too long. Did you have something in mind? 74s181 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Realkyhick says "...there at least needs to be a discussion of opposing points of view, even if the opposing points do not take up as much space as the affirmative ones". The Presbyterianism and Five points of Calvinism articles contain no opposing point of view and I don't see 'npov' tags on them. I would be happy to add a short statement that there are oppposing points of view, summarize them, and refer readers to Mormonism and Christianity as well as other mainstream Christianity articles on this topic. Or, this article could become purely a subarticle of M&C and these opposing viewpoints could be hashed out here and summarized in the main article. Either approach would accomplish my desire of a) shortening the M&C and other LDS articles, and b) providing a clear summary and explanation of LDS belief on these topics. I am NOT trying to avoid alternate POV...74s181 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

However, Mark says "Leave out comparisons like...", suggesting that even the two existing small references to other belief means the article is "...trying to persuade...". I have to ask, Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? Again, the original intent was for this article to become a spinout article to be referenced in the M&C article and elsewhere, explaining what LDS believe on this topic and why they believe it. The article can be a summary and explanation of LDS belief on this topic, or it could be a place to present contrasting opinions on this topic. I would prefer the former but I am willing to accept whatever direction the Grand Masters of Wikipedia agree to, and if they say that this particular topic is equivalent to Flat Earth but unlike Flat Earth must remain shrouded in mystery then I guess I will have to accept that as well. 74s181 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Realkyhick says "...it is a statement of theological position, using Bible passages as sources." The Prevenient grace article does exactly the same thing and I don't see a 'npov' tag on it. 74s181 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reiddp says "...this article goes into quite a bit more detail than a normal encyclopedia would attempt, and since the LDS website now has a search availability, someone seeking more details could readily use that...", well, the entire Internet has search availability, so why does Wikipedia exist? Or, to get more specific, why would any articles on Mormonism or LDS exist on Wikipedia? Someone unfamiliar with LDS belief would have a hard time finding more than a 'tract' answer to a particular question just by searching on the LDS website. 74s181 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want the article to be about a controversy, then you'll need to represent the controversy in a neutral way - this will sink the article. It will be doomed because you care a lot more about the LDS view, than non-LDS will care about it. Consequently, you'll have great difficulty providing a neutral point of view - that's how you started out, and that's how you got this negative attention.

But if you want the article to provide information on the LDS view, you are not writing about a controversy. Your aim then is to write accurately and neutrally about the LDS view. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The tone and length of the article is still a problem; but it's not the same problem as what you had before. It is a poor title for an encyclopedia. Much of the detail is not necessary to a non-LDS editor. Try writing to make the article useful to those who do not share your point of view. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I understand some of your concerns and I want to a) launch a good Wikipedia article, and b) accurately portray what LDS believe about these things. I know that you are extremely knowledgeable about LDS and I'm curious, did the quotes I provided match up to what you already knew about LDS belief in this area? I'm also trying to show the LDS view of the progressive and interrelated nature of faith, works, and grace, is that visible? 74s181 21:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you 74s181, but I am not very knowledgeable. I try to be a patient listener and reader, that's all; and the quotes you've provided line up very well with what I've learned. I think that you've made the connections clear, that you were aiming for. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "Faith Works Grace and Perfection" as a title. I guess commas in a title may be a problem for searchability. Probably still too long. Maybe "Perfection (Latter Day Saints)" I'm not even sure how you rename an article once it is created. 74s181 21:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Perfection" would be a much more comprehensive title; if you don't think that it over-extends the topic. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Once I get past the deletion threat I intend to move a lot of material from other LDS articles to this one, starting with M&C, so this article will get longer. I don't understand why length is a problem, each section on its own would be little more than a stub. I think I have a fairly concise lead, and each topical section except 'Works' states right up front what LDS believe about the topic, then provides more detail. Maybe a more general explanation in the lead instead of the breakdown of the Articles of Faith, maybe the AoF would be better at the end, as part of a summary. Maybe what I've done with the AoF is original research and doesn't belong here at all, I'm just using this approach as a convenient way to illustrate the interrelationship that is described in more detail in the quotes. 74s181 21:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

For some reason it's a common weakness of articles on LDS doctrine, that they are over-long. It's curious, because LDS history articles are typically the very portrait of conciseness. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're objecting to the length of the inline quotes? I understand that in huge, general articles like M&C there isn't room for many inline quotes, but this is a much more narrowly focused article. In general, I prefer to let citations speak for themselves rather than risk injecting my opinion by summarizing them. I might be able to trim them a bit, the reader would then have the impression of coming in in the middle of a thought. 74s181 21:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am writing this article for someone who is reading one of the other LDS-related articles and wants to know more about how LDS view this topic. He is probably a mainstream Christian and has heard all his life about how those silly Mormons don't believe in grace, now he's read something that says they do and he doesn't really believe it, so he wants to know what official LDS theologians have to say about it. Is this ok? I am not really writing for LDS, few of them would come to Wikipedia to learn about their own faith, and most already implicitly understand the LDS perfection process even though we don't often use the words 'works' and 'grace' to describe it. 74s181 21:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Write the article to be informative, regardless of perspective. Your goal should be to have the article linked from both, LDS and non-LDS articles, as an explanation of the LDS view. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I never meant for the article to be about the controversy, but I thought I should at least acknowledge that there is a controversy. I'm not sure how Realkyhick will view my removal of these statements, he seems to think that the alternate viewpoint needs to be presented. Or, maybe what he meant was, since I had opened the door I needed to be more thorough? I'm not sure. 74s181 21:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything under the sun is controversial to somebody. But writing specifically about the controversies, and distinguishing the correspondents in it, seems to work well in those curious essay-articles that we've produced, like Judaism and Christianity, Mormonism and Christianity, Criticisms of Christianity, Anti-catholicism, Great Apostasy, etc. These are odd articles, handicapped by their nature never to become great articles; but they serve an important purpose. You don't want your article to become one of those: they are notoriously difficult to write, in a permanent state of flux, and for good reason subject to constant criticism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If the issues under controversy can be concisely, and non-controversially summarized, that would be helpful after the article has stablized. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Realkyhick, how do I get rid of the npov and unencyclopedic tags, do I have to edit the article to his satisfaction? That may take a while as he hasn't responded to my questions. It doesn't seem fair that I have to edit to please some official, but after reading about the deletion and arbitration process I don't think I am supposed to remove the tags myself, I don't want to get suspended or blocked. 74s181 21:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Try to get his attention, and determine whether re-framing and perhaps re-titling the article would satisfy the concern. Ideally, let him remove the banner, depending on how much negative attention you've attracted by your first attempt. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] editor tags

If there are no objections, I'll remove the tags. I would still like to see a more concise treatment of some issues, and an attempt to survey this topic of LDS belief more widely than from LDS sources of belief: third party sources, such as an encyclopedia, or books on comparative religion for example. This will also help to relieve the devotional tone, and other relatively minor stylistic problems. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened it up a bit, and removed the confrontational portions of the quotes. 74s181 11:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to 'third party sources', I was thinking of dividing the article up into two major sections, 'Doctrine' and 'Practice'. 'Practice' would contain a lot of the text describing LDS practices that is currently in the M&C 'Faith and Works' section. I think that third party sources would fit well into another section called 'Other Perspectives' or something similar, what do you think? Or, do you think this other material need to be inline with the 'official' LDS statements? 74s181 11:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to removal of the tags, but I am a little scared of what is going to happen when the floods come and the winds blow. I may have to just move on and not watch...<g> 74s181 11:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It will work better for Wikipedia, if you can find non-LDS sources that get the LDS view right, or almost right in your opinion. If you can also find LDS sources that get it "wrong", then that will open the door to also bringing in contrary non-LDS views without framing it as a debate designed to vindicate your opinion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, please help me understand how non-LDS sources are a better source for information on LDS doctrine than LDS General Authorities. 74s181 03:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)\

They aren't necessarily "better sources". However, they will not approach this issue from the standpoint of believing it, but of describing it - and this will do two things. First, it will provide you with an example of how to describe doctrine in a secular context, like Wikipedia. Second, it will provide readers with confirmation that this isn't only how the LDS look at their doctrine, others see it that way too.

You will be safer if you establish that standard view this way; and then append disagreements for "balance" - while avoiding the "argumentative" approach that I'm always warning you about. Argument expresses bias - and bias attracts negative attention and accusations of "original research". There is no such thing as a "neutral" argument - there are only "balanced" arguments; and that's not really what we're looking for. The trick is to describe disagreements without entering into argument; but as I've said, I don't think that you want to make this article one of those much more difficult projects. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've used the {{Cleanup}} tag, which should remove the presumption of POV pushing, but indicates that there is work to do that is described on this talk page. Good luck. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name change again?

I'm not sure if 'Perfection' is the right word. Maybe 'Sanctification' would be better understood? 74s181 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)