Talk:Christianity/Archive 56

This is an archive of past discussions about Christianity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

I've thought about this overnight, and would like to make a proposal. In the interests of moving on, I'd like to suggest that we:

a) Rename the "Restorationism" section "Other"

b) Leave the other headings as they are for now ("Roman Catholicism and other Catholic groups", "Eastern Orthodoxy", "Oriental Orthodoxy" and "Protestantism")

c) Turn from discussing the headings to thinking about how we can improve the text in the "Other" section.

One thing that has struck me about the "Restorationism" ("Other") section is that it focuses exclusively on the groups coming out of the Second Great Awakening - even though there have been a number of other interesting things happening in Christendom since then (such as Messianic Judaism). I suspect that's a quirk of one of the sources used when it was first drafted. In any event, a re-write that supports a broader array of other Christian groups might be useful.

I'd suggest starting that by re-writing the first sentence to make it clear that the paragraph is discussing groups that originated in the Second Great Awakening that occurred in the U.S. during the early 1800s. It wouldn't require changing many words, but it would make the paragraph more precise and make way for adding other paragraphs that talk about other varieties of Christianity, such as Messianic Judaism, the Iglesia ni Cristo and the "Local Churches" associated with the teachings of Watchman Nee. I'm sure there are others that could be covered here as well - for instance, the "emerging church" movement might fit more naturally under "other" than under "Protestantism." EastTN (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

TN, I like this idea and it should result in a more accurate article. Although we share an affinity for the Second Great Awakening period, let's try and keep the churches mentioned to the more significant groups within this "Other" category. This should not turn into a list. Given that there are over 36,000 separate, Christian denominations in the world, it would be impossible to mention all of them. I don't know where the cut-off point would be, but let's keep the fringe out. Also, this "Other" section needs to be kept balanced with the rest of the article; we must not let it grow too large. Cheers. --^StormRider 15:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I just don't want to create the impression that all the interesting stuff in Christianity ended with nineteenth century America. I'll take a quick stab at these changes, and then we can see where we are. EastTN (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

TN, would you consider dropping the Christadelphians from the text; I think it could be considered fringe? Their article states there are 50,000 members worldwide. IF that is the membership count that makes a church/group significant then we will need to add a host of other groups. Dropping them may prevent the need to add a long list of small groups.--^StormRider 02:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing in favor of the Christadelphians would be their uniqueness. I have no opinion either way, but they certainly are unique. We've already allowed non-Christian groups to be listed anyway, so I'm not sure what the basis would be to exclude them. Even a large non-Christian group is still non-Christian.EGMichaels (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not interested in entering a discussion about what is and is not Christian and who gets to determine which group meets that bar (the very epitome of POV). My only interest is 1) defining what is fringe, and 2) once that is determined implementing that standard in the article. To date I have only focused on membership numbers. You bring up the concept of uniqueness of beliefs, which is another way of doing it; however, uniqueness is a relative qualifier and thus is subjective. I recommend using an objective standard whenever possible.

If you would like to enter that conversation we can do on my talk page, but it is not appropriate for this article. EG, you seem to be interested in this topic; please read the archives, all of them, it has been discussed on numerous occasions. I don't think it will take me long to disabuse you of your current misunderstanding of the term Christianity and what it is and what it is not vis-a-vis Wikipedia. Please note, before you go on a rampage, that I specificially limit the parameters of the conversation to the standards of Wikipedia only. It has nothing to do with your personal views or even the views of specific Christian churches; they are irrelevant on Wikipedia unless being used as a reliable source. --^StormRider 05:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If universal Christianity cannot be a reliable source for itself, how can we believe the non-Christian groups about themselves? You seem to want to make the fringe beliefs outweigh the mainstream ones. I have no problem including non-Christian groups like Christadelphians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. It is their POV that they are the true Christians and that actual Christians are not. It is also the POV of universal Christianity that these other groups are not Christians. Per Wikipedia standards we list all POVs and give weight to the mainstream. We do that regardless of our individual POV. That is, a Christian cannot exclude Mormons from the article. Neither can a Mormon redefine Christianity in such a way that it is no longer mainstream. We can say that it is their view they are Christian (that is NPOV), but we cannot call them Christians (that is POV). The mainstream of any idea, even one we disagree with, is the Wikipedia norm. I haven't read all of the archives here, but even your last post makes it abundantly clear that you have some kind of agenda to redefine "Christianity" in such a way that it no longer resembles the parameters that have been in place for nearly two thousand years. For the record, I am not a Christian. It is not my POV. But I do respect the normative meaning of words and groups. What I do not respect is the deliberate manipulation of definition for some POV agenda.

What does this have to do with Christadelphians? As I said, we already have unique groups that call themselves Christians (to such an exclusion of others that they even send missionaries to convert Christians away from Christianity). Nevertheless, we can use some NPOV references as standards to limit our own parameters. I'd propose Mead and Hill's "Handbook of Denominations in the United States" if we want to focus on United States groups (which this article seems to lean toward). Christadelphians are listed there, as well as other fringe beliefs like Branch Davidians and Latter Day Saints (yes, they are fringe compared to the historical church that gave birth to and defined the term "Christian").

As I said, I'm all in favor of listing these fringe beliefs since they call themselves Christians. But we have to lean toward the mainstream. NPOV requires that we list even these fringe POVs, but maintaim the normative one as normative. Size cannot be the main parameter for notability. And notability is relatively easy: we simply agree on which sources they must be listed in before we consider them. It's simple, objective, and avoids tirades such as yours in which you promise to "disabuse" me of the normative meaning of terms, lest such normality be a "rampage."EGMichaels (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please focus only on my words, set down your axe, and whatever else you think about who I am or my personal beliefs; my beliefs and religious affiliation are irrelevant to this article. I have not proposed any definition of Christianity. I have not proposed to create a definition of Christianity. If I have, please identify when I did and what I said? If I haven't I urge to STOP creating an argument that does not exist except in your own mind. The question was strictly, as in rigorously, stringently, limited to "1) defining what is fringe, and 2) once that is determined implementing that standard in the article." I think there should be some standard of when groups are mentioned and when they are not. Given that there are over 36,000 Christian denominations in the world, we at some point have to create a standard by which we limit which groups are mentioned. I am proposing that we identify groups if their membership is a sufficient size. Do you have a proposal about what size that would be? If not size, what then? You have mentioned "uniqueness", which could work, but it is a relative term. Is there another way of set a standard? In fact, should there be a standard and thus just list all groups? --^StormRider 15:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What I proposed was simple: list all groups that self identify as Christian and are notable enough to be listed in certain sources that we agree on. That avoids our POVs, biases, personalities... and redefinitions. If you have a problem with Wikipedia process, that's not my problem. EGMichaels (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

StormRider, I don't have any strong feelings about the Christadelphians. Basically, I just tried to change the headings of things while changing the content as little as possible. I'd need to do some research, but my impression is that it's a very small group (less than 100,000 adherents, perhaps). I would be open to dropping them in order to cover other, larger and more prominent groups. Would it make sense to review the List of Christian denominations by number of members as a first step in deciding whether we're covering the right groups? Glancing quickly at that article suggests that it might be more important to mention the Iglesia ni Cristo, for instance, than the Christadelphians. EastTN (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

EG, I have never said anything different; it appears we are on the same page. I have noticed that there has been what appears as a concerted effort to mention very small groups the Christidelphians being one, the Branch Davidians being another. I think both can be considered fringe IF we consider fringe based upon the number of adherents. I do think we should have some concrete standard and I am open. I can see an argument for covering those groups that are unique as presented earlier by EG. Doing so would add some "doctrinal color" to the article. There are also some rather large Christian churches in Africa that are not mentioned. I don't think we need a list, but let's at least conclude that we have mentioned those that are some of the biggest in the Other section.--^StormRider 20:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I don't have strong feelings on this either. EastTN's proposal of a strict numerical divide seems reasonable, and your proposal to include notable outliers is reasonable as well. Notability is both a numbers game and a uniqueness game. What about that Latin fellow who claims to be the reincarnation of Jesus? And what about the Shakers? I don't have an opinion. It's just a question. But I do agree that we can figure out notability guidelines for our own consistency. I personally would not want to include anything not notable enough for the Mead and Hill text, but that doesn't mean I would include everything they put in there either.EGMichaels (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

One way to think about a numerical limit might be to start at the top and work our way down. For example, if we started with the List of Christian denominations by number of members and mentioned every church or group of churches that has at least a million adherents, it looks like we would have to cover a lot more material in the "Denominations" section of this article than we do now. One process we could use would be to start with the largest groups and movements, work our way down and set the limit on the basis of what gives us a section of appropriate size and level of detail for this sort of summary article. Just eyeballing it, I think that's likely to end up somewhere above a million. For illustration, though, if we were to use a pure numerical limit of a million, it would mean that:

• We would mention the Iglesia ni Cristo at 1.68 million, but not the Christadelphians at 50,000;
• We would mention Nestorianism at 1 million total adherents, but not the individual Nestorian churches;
• We would mention Anabaptism at 4.5 million total and within it the Mennonites at 1.3 million and the Open Brethren at 1.85 million, but not the Amish or the Quakers.

We'd need to give some thought to whether a purely numerical approach produces results, like those above, that seem reasonable for this article. As noted above, it would leave out some groups that are historically or theologically significant. I also see some benefit in covering some groups that are, for one reason or another, unique.

I guess the trick is figuring out what constitutes "unique" and making sure that it doesn't become an excuse for including a disproportionate number of very small groups. One way might be to start with the groups that are above the limit, and see which other groups naturally need to be discussed in covering them. For instance, in describing the Mennonites it may be natural to mention the Amish as well. Similarly, discussing the Churches of Christ at 5 million may naturally require mentioning the other main branch of the Restoration Movement, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), even though they would fall below a million. If one of the small groups doesn't naturally arise as part of the discussion of a larger group or movement, perhaps it doesn't need to be covered in this particular article. EastTN (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting the Other section and initially limiting the groups mentioned to those above 1 million sounds like a good idea. Then review the article and determine if we should mention any of the groups that are unique. IMHO, unique would be determined by those teaching that are most heterodox to the teachings of the Catholic Church, which is the largest orthodox Christian church in the world. This may offend some people, Protestants and evangelicals, but it seems a logical conclusion. Is that pretty much what you said above?--^StormRider 16:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

EastTN has shown the weakness of a strict numerical limit, if it would exclude the Amish or the Quakers (especially the Amish). One time I was trying to explain Ultra Orthodox to someone, and finally said, "Think Jewish Amish, but they can drive" and it clicked. The notability was established by the uniqueness. That being said, we can list Pentecostals as a movement without needing to list all groups. Same for Baptists.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't thinking of using any particular group as a benchmark for determining, by contrast, what constitutes a "unique" theological approach. If we were to do that I think we would need to, at a minimum, bear in mind Catholic, Protestant and "Orthodox" perspectives. Taken together, those broad groups do encompass most of Christianity and could fairly be said to be representative of the beliefs of most Christians. But from the point of view of any one of the three, the others are "heterodox" to at least some extent.

Beyond that, I think you're right. I do agree that starting with the "Other" section and seeing which groups with more than a million or so adherents aren't included would make sense, then making a second pass to see if there's something that has to be added. Once we've done that, it might make sense to review the other sections (e.g., Protestant) to make sure that we have all of the appropriate large groups included in them as well. EastTN (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The World Christian Encyclopedia & the (New) Penguin Handbook of Living Religions both use something like the following scheme:

• RC: only the actual church, inluding Eastern rites
• Orthodox: EO, OO, Church of the East & numerous small breakaway groups
• Protestant: excluding groups classed below
• Anglican
• indigenous: numerous African, Amerind &c groups
• marginal: LDS, JW &c
• non-Roman Catholic: Old Catholics, Tridentinists &c

Peter jackson (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got to make edits on this page and the page about Earth. Jaalra11 (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected because of frequent vandalism. This mean that anonymous users and newly created users, can no edit it. Once you have made ten edits and been registered for four days, you will be able to make changes. Dan D. Ric (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I do realize that the most common definition of "Christian" is "someone who believes in Christ". But isn't the word "christian" also used sometimes to refer to just Protestants, using christian as opposed to Catholic? Maybe it's only colliqual, but I'm sure people use the word this way too. However, I can't find this definition here or on Wiktionary (Christian). Am I mistaken? Jonathan ^talk 13:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are mistaken or not, but I do hope that you are! To use "Christian" in this way would be to imply an unacceptable bias against the Roman Catholic Church. Dbfirs 16:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word in this manner is unsupported by the OED. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have come across that usage anecdotally, but I think it's only an accepted understanding of the word (i) on a very localised basis on certain islands, (ii) among people who are less well informed or (iii) within Protestant groups who use it to reinforce their point of view. I don't think it should be added here unless there are WP:Reliable sources for that usage. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard that usage before; I suspect that it may be something used in a specific location, but it does not have support in a broader spectrum. More importantly, it would not be a definition that would ever be used without some very significant reliable references. If one exists, please share it with the group. If you can't find one, then there is nothing to talk about.

As an aside, there are some Protestant churches that have called the Catholic Church a cult and I am aware of those, but it a small minority position. --^StormRider 05:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Jack Chick excludes Catholics from Christians... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC):

Anyone who denies that Catholics are Christians should be smacked on the side of the head. Not only are Catholics Christians, but we were the first Christians. When we refer to Christians, we refer to Catholics as well. As a Catholic, when I say Christian, I usually refer to Catholicism. Any denomination that claims Catholics aren't Christian I consider to not be Christian. Why? Because they deny the historical origin of the Catholic Church, and therefore also deny their Catholic origins. And because it is funny to watch their reactions. --Rockstone35 (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a perpetuator of this premise is mistaken. An insistence that "Christian" is synonymous with "Protestant" offends both religious and etymological sensibilities. --AuthorityTam (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the usage does not belong here. The context I've seen this usage in has always been "well, they're not really Christians because they do/don't believe/practice this/that." The article does not paper over the fact that there are divisions in Christianity, and it is a summary article. The only place I could see it fitting in would be as part of a discussion about how the various branches of Christianity view each other. It might make sense to raise it if we were talking about how some groups view others as having drifted far enough away from Christianity as to no longer be Christians at all. I don't see a place for it as the article stands now, though, and don't really feel any need for it. EastTN (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi.

I was curious: what would it take in order to get this back up to good or featured article status, anyway? Esp. considering it's been off either for quite some time now. mike4ty4 (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea that Christianity was an Abrahamic religion did not exist for 1900+ years. It is misleading to state this novel and controverse concept in the intro. It should be moved or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feindfahrt (talk • contribs) 21:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

First off, new sections should go at the bottom of the page. Second - are you seriously saying that no one called Christianity an Abrahamic religion until 1909?Farsight001 (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The term was probably coined even later than that. However the similarities the term was coined to name go all the way back, and I don't see anything objectionable about using it. A.J.A. (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would you describe the term as "controversial"? The term is commonly used, and there don't seem to be any serious disagreements over what it means (a monotheistic religion that claims a spiritual heritage going back to Abraham). EastTN (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

well when was the article written? all the time! its wikipedia, and should show the most up to date information available, this is not the wikipedia entry for 1900..79.75.116.147 (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is this small "denominations table on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity . It's at the right side, and it contains :Chatolic, Protestant, Eastern and Nontrinitarian. The problem is that Eastern is not the proper name. The categ. contains: Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysite) and Assyrian. The point is that anyone who is a orthodox, like me, and was raised like this, basicly any orthodox person, will not recognise the word "Eastern". This name is never used by orthodox people. The correct name is Orthodox. That is the word used in the official title of many of the orthodox countries "the ortohdox church of...". The user [[1]] argues that it shouldn't be named Orthodox but Eastern just because Assyrian is in the same group. That is of no big importance. The fact is that the group contains 2 big categories westernx/eastern orthodox and assyrian but the west/east orthodox. has many more sub-categories and "Ortohodoxy "is known , as preserved by history, as the main atribute of the group, since the Great Schism in the 11th century, therefore the most sugestive term is "Orthodox". See the picture here [[2]]. The group should be called Orthodox. Not eastern, not assyrian eastern or any other combination. Orthodox is, by comparing size and status, "equal" to Catholic, Protestant and Nontrinitarian. Like i said before: nobody in the ortohdox cotries knows the word "eastern" everyone is taught and learns it as "Orthodox".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Choice777 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The map is so wrong! It didn't include Brazil while it's the second largest Christian country, Armenia is a very religious Christian country and so as Philippines. It seems like somebody gave more importance to Islam than Christianity on a Christian page. CrusaderJohnael (talk)

I assume you are talking about the map in the Demographics section? It is a map of state religions, not the religion of the majority of the population. This is why Brazil is not coloured in. Brazil is secular, so has no state religion, as with most western countries.Peteds (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I brought this up before but did not get any responses. It would be nice for someone to volunteer by editing and renaming the map to a different file after non-Christian religions are removed from the map. This will be in conformity to the same convention on the Islam article which shows only Islamic denominations on its map. Any takers? Otherwise, we are using the same map as the article on state religion does. Thanks for your time. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have taken the liberty of editing the file as requested and have uploaded the edited file to wikimedia commons. This is the first time I have edited a .svg file and the first time I have uploaded to wikimedia so I hope everything is alright with it. I have edited the Demographics section with the new image. File at [3]Peteds (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"and 2.1 billion adherents"

Whats ment by this? Its not very clear.

Since nobody adheres to their religious beliefs, or what the bible teaches it would be more accurate to put believers (even tho most dont believe their own religion)203.213.124.32 (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the derivation of the English noun "adherent", readers and editors should use the generally-accepted, neutral definition of the term.

Incidentally, students of the Bible may be interested in these verses...

• (Galatians 3:7,9) [T]hose who adhere to faith are the ones who are sons of Abraham. ...Consequently those who adhere to faith are being blessed together with faithful Abraham.
• (2 Chronicles 31:4) [A]dhere strictly to the law of Jehovah.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to tie the Protestantism article into what this article (as it is the parent article) says about denominations. User:Snowded has objected to this on the grounds that restorationism is not a principal tradition. The use has now changed this article as well, on the grounds that References do not support, or are not authoritative enough to support a few cults been labelled as a major tradition. The version that Protestantism has been reverted to calls Anglicanism one of the main traditions (which is not a generally accepted view, though I know it is contentious). My view is that restorationism is a valid, main grouping of christian traditions. Bear in mind that this isn't claiming restorationism is a denomination in itself or has equal claims to validity as the other groups (even if they could be assessed). It is just acknowledging that it is an identifiable set of thinking (or tradition if you prefer), separate to the others. The change has now made this article not make as much sense (there is a section on restorationism under denominations, but no mention in the section lead). I would appreciate comment from others please. Quantpole (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Anglicanism should bot be subsumed under Protestant. Whatever, its not our opinions that matter its reliable sources that matter. We need a suitable directory or text book source which specifies the type, not something approaching original research, derived from "Ontario Consultants of Religious Tolerance" and the web site of a community college in Virginia. --Snowded (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any particular axe to grind on this issue, but looking at the chart of the history of Christianity immediately below in the denominations section, it's hard to see how that tree can be described as "five major groupings". If you're going to include Restorationism as one, it would appear that Anabaptism, Anglicanism, and the Assyrian Church would all have an equal claim, giving 8 groups -- just thinking as a taxonomist here. Agathman (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree on the taxonomy! I must admit I am not wild about the diagram either, it smacks of original research. IN the one text book I have had time to check the split is Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant. I can't see anything that justifies additions (other that ideological or POV positions). --Snowded (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, we need some reputable sources here. The Christian denominations page has a different set of groups, and not much citation support for its classification. Agathman (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Restorationism is often not called christian at all, which might be why it's not called a separate group. It might be better to split it Catholic, Protestant, Eastern and Nontrinitarian, as in the christianity box. My main point in this was to try to have some consistency across the articles (and I was using the Christianity article as my starting point). I understand that there is never going to be a perfect answer in this trying to group denominations together like this. Restorationism is very different to protestantism (non-trinitarian for a start, different revelations of teachings etc), and so warrants being separated. I don't think we could ever get a collection of sources that agreed on what the groupings should be. (This[4] is a decent summary imo). Quantpole (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Its an obscure web site with some odd ideas. It certainly lacks all authority. If Restorationism is not called Christian what is it doing here?--Snowded (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I did say often not called Christian! I'd say most 'mainstream' (which is a loaded term in itself) christians would say the mormons and so on weren't christians, due to doctrinal differences (incidentally a lot of Orthodox and Catholics would say similar things about protestants). However, the movements are clearly descended from christianity, and still share some beliefs. (And I'm not setting the website up as being authoritative, just imo useful for throwing some light on the issue. It seems pretty accurate to me even though I can see why you wouln't want to use it as a source). Quantpole (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(back indent) I think the critical phrase in the article, is that christianity "may be broadly represented as being divided...". This acknowledges that there is vagueness in these definitions. If wanted we could beef this up to something like "There is varied thinking about how Christian denominations are classified, one of which identifies the main groups being broadly divided into Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Restorationism." Vague I know, but I'm not sure that we can get something definitive. Quantpole (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do is stick with reliable references and move on. However, finding current, neutral references is not the easiest of tasks. We do not allow specific denominations define what is Christian and what is not; thus, Restorationism is classified as Christian by scholars, but also classified as anything from a cult to a heresy by church apologists. The LDS Church is one of the major churches in the US in size (4th or 5th depending on reference); they are just one of several that belong to the group. I am not sure which title is best...restorationists or non-trinitarian, but I am relatively comfortable with either. I can see an argument for catholicism, Protestantism, and Restorationism/Nontrinitarianism, but can also see the need to break down the orthodox groups in the previously mentioned groups. Of course, the Anglicans are very touchy and like to be recognized as something in-between and be recognized as such. --^StormRider 06:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Christianity has the same relationship with Judaism as Mormonism has with Christianity, both claim in effect a form of second revelation. There are multiple non-trinitarian movements and groups but they are not in any meaningful sense a "denomination". We also need to be careful of making sure this article is not solely based on US perception and numbers. Restorantionism is hardly a well known term outside a very limited context. I'm going to hunt down a reference or two in the library and they have to be notable. I am sorry but the two citations used would not stand up in any refereed journal. It may be better to have a broad narrative rather than a list which gives false prominence In outline: Catholicism, Orthodox split, the reformation and then more recent fragmentation. --Snowded (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In terms of your first point, Mormonism and Christianity is a good start. The relationship is very different to that of judaism and christianity. In terms of your second sentence, these groupings do not claim to be denominations, they are simply a way to talk about the multiplicity of different viewpoints in a reasonably concise manner. I am also concerned about your view of false prominence - having the list does not claim they each have equal numbers of adherents or anything like that. Quantpole (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No two relationships are the same, but the point is that Mormonism claims a second revelation, not a re-interpretation/re-discovery so it evolved from Christianity in the way that Christianity evolved from Judasim, but not in the same way as Protestant and Catholicism which diverged. False prominence does not just mean numbers of adherents. There are multiple splinter groups (but we had the same thing in the 17th C) but it doesn't make Restorantionism a category in the sense of Protestant, Catholic etc. --Snowded (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a denomination? A Christian denomination is often defined as an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and doctrine. I would find it difficult not to apply the term to all of the groups listed under nontrinitarian or Restorationism. Exactly what definition were you using? I think I am getting a sense of your POV, but I would caution you that your POV is of no value here, just as mine is not. Wikipedia is not concerned with what churches think or believe about other churches, if that weren't the case, we would be talking an awfully lot about the Great Whore of All the Earth, and since that is pure nonsense, we leave it out of the conversation. This is another similar thrust of cultic thought, which we have gone over ad nauseum in the past. If you want to walk down that path, I suppose we can, but I would encourage you to read the archives...all of them. You will find just how many times this position of yours has been discussed. --^StormRider 08:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was not a denomination, I said it was not one in the broader sense of Cahtolicism etc. My objection is to a the "five major". I'd be careful of throwing out POV accusations, I clearly say above that we need to find an authoritative citation here, at the moment its OR from dubious sources. In that respect it doesn't matter how many previous discussions there have been, Wikipedia policy on citation is very clear --Snowded (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The statement is not OR. It is sourced. You may claim the source is dubious but that does not make it OR. Quantpole (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources are clearly dubious and don't support the text anyway, it just (in one case only) lists Retorantionism it does not have five major divisions or anything like that. Its classic OR and it happens too often in WIkipedia. Minority/cult opinions using their own web sites as valid sources and giving excessive prominence to something in an attempt to make it more credible. As I said above I will look out a reference in a respectable text book or similar when I get into a LIbrary --Snowded (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As a Christian outside the US, I'd never heard of Restorationism until I read the article, but it seems to me that most Christian movements for about five hundred years (perhaps longer) started by trying to restore the original faith of the early Church. "Restoration" hardly constitutes a major modern category. What about "Fringe Groups" as a catch-all?

Because using the word 'fringe' is almost by definition POV. If you haven't heard of restorationism then non-trinitarian has a lot of overlap. Quantpole (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

But not all groups classified as restorationist are necessarily non-trinitarian. -Garrett W. (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why I said overlap, not synonymous. Quantpole (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at the Restoration Movement; it encompasses a well-defined grouping of historically-related religious groups that all had their roots in the Second Great Awakening. My sense is that this is different from the groups you've been focusing on under the rubric of Restorationism - for instance, they are trinitarian (although the Restoration Movement is included among them in the Restorationism article).

Frankly, I think the Restorationism article is a mess. By grouping together wildly different groups that happen to have roots in the same time period and geographical area (and, indeed, came into contact with either other during their formative periods) - but that have fundamentally different conceptions of Christianity - and describing them as "Restorationist" it creates the misleading idea that they somehow constitute a movement or coherent "branch" of Christianity. That's simply not true. As has been pointed out, pretty much every significant movement in Christianity since the middle ages has tried, in one way or another, to "restore," "reform" or in some other way reinvigorate the church. They've also all, as the heading in the Restorationism article puts it, had a Disagreement with established churches. Neither of the two ("restoring" or "disagreement") creates a good basis for a taxonomy.

To put it very bluntly, suggesting that the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Jehovah's Witnesses somehow constitute a family of similar churches just doesn't make any sense. I'd strongly suggest ditching the term "Restorationism" as a defining category for a "branch" of Christianity. EastTN (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

We need better sources; one of the footnotes in the Restorationism section is ""The Restorationist Movements". Religious Tolerance. Retrieved 2007-12-31." If you follow the link and go to the bottom of the page, you see:

"The following information source was used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlink is not necessarily still active today. 1. 'Restorationism,' Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, at: http//www.reference.com/ (accessed November 08, 2006)."

We're in effect quoting an earlier version of the Restorationism page to document the taxonomy on this page. EastTN (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the problems of "restorationism." If it includes any movement, it would be the Church of Christ and Christian Church (two offshoots from the same movement). LDS and JW are both polytheistic (i.e. Jesus is a separate deity from the Father). Perhaps we should have a Restorationist section and a Polytheist section? Don't know. Suggestions?EGMichaels (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

LDS scripture says they worship three separate, distinct individuals which are one God. You will find that LDS would reject the polytheistic title being applied. It is not surprising that Islam accuses Trinitarians of being polytheistic for the exact same logic. Always go back to the basic rule...churches and apologists do not, must not define the doctrines of other churches on Wikipedia. The result will always be POV.

American Restorationism is an eclectic group of similar groups that are united in the belief they are all a restoration of truth. The process of that restoration whether it be simply a different interpretation of scripture to the belief in an actual restoration by define guidance is irrelevant. Their doctrines are not similar and can be orthodox to heterodox; the only uniting characteristic is the time frame of their genesis and their belief in primitivism. The fact that churches previous to this time period also felt they were restoring truth is also irrelevant to the title. Restorationism is a recognized, scholarly term whether we agree with it or not is also irrelevant. --^StormRider 23:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Restorationism pertains to the Church of Christ and Christian Church groups. LDS are LDS. JWs are JWs. Storm Rider, do you Baptize? Yes. Are you Baptists? No.EGMichaels (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a semantic problem here. The article on "restorationism" defines it as "the belief held by various religious movements that pristine or original Christianity should be restored, while usually claiming to be the source of that restoration." The problem with that definition is that it's so broad as to be almost meaningless. It certainly extends beyond the U.S. Restoration Movement that spawned the Churches of Christ, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

I'm sympathetic to the desire to have an article discussing the concept of restoration or primitivism, because it does pop up over and over in church history. Where it seems to me that the Restorationism article gets it wrong is in treating it as a branch of Christianity or an ecclesiastical characteristic uniquely defining a particular type of church (almost like you might treat Congregationalist polity or Episcopal polity), rather than a theme or current like traditionalism, pietism or "high church" vs. "low church." In my mind, we're talking about a certain point of view that keeps resurfacing as part of the ongoing tensions between reform and continuity, doctrinal purity and innovation, ecclesiastical authority and the authority of scripture.

My suggestion would be to drop the term "Restorationism" from the taxonomy of Christian groups, and replace it with more specific historical designations such as the Restoration Movement, Adventism, Latter Day Saint movement, etc. It's more complicated, but it's going to promote better understanding. Ideally, I'd like to see the Restorationism article restructured to discuss how the idea of restoring the church has played out through church history, rather than as a branch of Christianity or "movement" similar to the Restoration Movement or the Holiness movement.EastTN (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.EGMichaels (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) You stated, "Restorationism pertains to the Church of Christ and Christian Church groups." If you have references to support this new definition, I would have no problem. However, I have never heard any scholar of merit propose such a narrow use of the term Restorationism. It is far larger than just the Churches of Christ and encompasses a wide range of churches. The problem is that Restorationism (RM) is supported by scholarly references and it refers to a specific time period in America when a number of different churches began. I have not seen the term, American Restorationism, but that is a more accurate title when discussing worldwide discussions.

The concept of returning to truth is not unique and that seems to pose a problem for some readers that are unfamiliar with what has long been described as RM. However, I see no reason to throw out scholarly research simply because some readers are ignorant of a topic.

There is also this confusion that the RM represents a group of churches that have a similar doctrine. The movement was not started based upon similar doctrines, but a similar doctrine... that the current churches were in a state of apostasy and a restoration or a return to the primitive church was needed. Using the term Restorationism is helpful in the current context because it groups a number of smaller groups. In the current section, all of the major groups are mentioned and it clearly states that the their doctrines are not uniform.

What I would oppose is having multiple little sections to accommodate each of these subgroups just because some editors now choose not to use the term Restorationism. Why would we choose to throw out a recognized, scholarly term? LDS, JW, CC, etc. all belong to Restorationism. Just call it what it is. --^StormRider 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

TN, you did not sign your post above, but Restorationism really refers to a time period in American history where several churches began. I think you are correct in stating that it is incorrect to view it in the same manner as an ecclesiastical characteristic. It is not and more importantly, does not purport to be so. Restorationism, again, has only been used to describe a number of churches that are united in the belief they were restoring a purity of truth to Christianity that was absent. Attempting to paint them as unique in beliefs, similar in practice or anything else is not done. --^StormRider 17:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Storm, if we want to talk about the historical period, my sense is that the term Second Great Awakening is both less likely to create confusion and more commonly used by historians of Christianity. EastTN (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Storm, you're throwing around "scholarly" and "recognized" where it doesn't belong. Methinks thou doth protest too much. LDS and JW aren't even the same religion, let along members of the same movement, with CC. Let LDS be LDS and CC be CC and stop trying to lump them into something they are not.EGMichaels (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And something certainly stinks in Denmark and it is now raised its ugly head. What you are really trying to do is enforce your POV. You have a particular objective of gaining something which is beyond me; as if CC is unique and only it can claim a specific genesis. If the CC does not want to be part of Restorationism, I personally don't have a problem, BUT do you have a scholarly reference for such a statement? If not, this conversation is meaningless. You either have a reference or you have nothing but your opinion and your personal desires. I suggest a blog, but not Wikipedia. Let's see the reference or move on. Cheers. --^StormRider 20:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I just made a non-controversial change in the article. I don't think anyone will disagree that the distinguishing characteristic of LDS is their belief in new revelation and new scriptures. This cannot logically be equated with restorationism to 1st century Christianity, because the Book of Mormon was never claimed to have existed in the middle east at that time. The belief is that these are new world scriptures. For the record, I have a lot of time and respect for CC and LDS (sorry, don't personally know any JWs, but I'm sure they're nice too). I have too much respect for them to lump them together into the same group. No honest self respecting CC or LDS would want to be concatenated with the other, regardless of some link you have to beliefnet. That's a convenience, but not a scholarly resource. The division I made makes no claim or POV. It merely states a defining characteristic that we all agree on already, and that the LDS movement actively promotes.EGMichaels (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit; it is controversial and it is not acceptable. The Latter Day Saint movement falls squarely within Restorationism. If you are looking for personal opinion, I could share it, but it would be meaningless for Wikipedia. I have yet to see one reference from you or anyone else that demonstrates that the LDS movement is outside of Restorationism. I am more than willing to entertain a conversation, but without references, this is going nowhere.

I understand your personal POV and I respect it. I understand that a self-respecting person such as yourself and others can would not find all kinds of reasons not to be lumped in with those LDS groups, but that does not change the reality of what Restorationism is.

If additional scripture were the qualifier, then let us first address the Apocrypha, which is additional scripture, though it too testifies of Christ. Should we consider that as a "new" revelation or treat it and those groups that use it differently from all others? This is more about POV than it anything substantive. It is about references; you either have them or you don't. --^StormRider 22:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not controversial at all, and I linked the Latter Day Saints site itself. The Apocrypha does not constitute "new revelation". Also, the LDS site gives further possible citation for modern prophets (also new revelation). This isn't any more controversial than pointing out that Muslims have the Koran. LDS has the Book of Mormon. Who says so? Well, they do. If you'd like a copy they'll be happy to give you one free of charge.EGMichaels (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I also added a link for your restorationist points. You now have the LDS with its own highlight, more words, and several links to your religious headquarters website. I think it's more encyclopedic. Maybe you can regard it as free advertising.EGMichaels (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Your desire to put the LDS in a separate section is rejected. You have not provided any reference that demonstrates it is not part of the Restorationist movement. Please do not make any more changes to this effect until we have achieved a consensus here. thanks. --^StormRider 23:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do you OWN this article? I fully referenced the Mormon site and stated their own regard of themselves as restorationist, but that they needed the new revelation to accomplish the restoration. There was nothing controversial about it. I don't know what kind of anti-LDS agenda you have, but trying to make them look like any other CC is absurd. Show me a single reputable seminarian who regards LDS as CC. EGMichaels (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In order to avoid conflict I removed the section heading. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish. Mormons can't convert anyone from Christianity until they convince them they are different. Your trying to make them the same is some kind of anti-Mormon and anti-Christian agenda -- but I have no time to deal with it. Either accept my compromise or reject it. I'm unwatching this page for a while and will walk away from it. You apparently own the article after all. Good luck with it.EGMichaels (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, I did use the talk page. In fact, I was responding to the talk page and creating a compromise that incorporated everything both sides wanted. I even included a link confirming the LDS opinion that they are restoring first century middle eastern Christianity (even though that involves a book that did not exist in first century middle east even by Mormon claims). It's obvious that Storm Rider is not interested in compromise, and I'm not interested in playing Wikipedia games. I'm off to find articles you aren't interested in, where editors work together.EGMichaels (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, stumbled into this...when did the LDS stop being considered a restorationist sect? Gavin (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Gavin, EG seems rather intent on his POV and compromise/consensus meaning whatever he chooses. Then, when I don't agree, he accuses me of ownership. He has not provided a single reliable reference to support his desire to separate the LDS movement from Restorationism. LDS, though a significant group, is still a significant minority relative to the Catholic Church and others. It should not have a separate section and does not need to be further highlighted than it already has been. I suspect we have a POV issue going on and nothing more. The conversation speaks for itself. Cheers. --^StormRider 01:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad I didn't unwatch fast enough. Gavin, if you will look at the last edits I included LDS in the restorationist section, with the detail that LDS attempts to accomplish the restoration with additional scriptures. My source was the LDS website itself. The fact that Storm argues even against his own website and their own claim is evidence that he is exercising ownership of this section for his own POV. And the fact that he is refusing to acknowledge this and to continue to argue for POV on my part is -- in the mildest possible terms -- disengenuous. I have no idea what agenda is being done here, but multiple compromises were offered and none even considered. Further, I was accused of not using the talk page, when the talk page was the basis for my compromise solutions. Finally, your own quip leads me to believe that you will not respond to these facts -- but it would be wrong for me to not state them. EGMichaels (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A compromise does not consist of you taking unilateral action without any discussion. You have not provided a single reference to state that the LDS movement is not part of Restorationism. The reference you provided has nothing to do with the concerns posted. Please review what consensus is; it has nothing to do with your desires; it demands cooperatively working with others. The next time someone asks you NOT to edit again until consensus is reached does not mean you get to go ahead and do what you want. It means your edit is a problem and you need to work with others. You were asked several questions; all of which you ignored. No consensus was attempted and sadly none was achieved. Welcome to reality. --^StormRider 02:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I support the status quo/Storm's position, against yours. I can discern no reason to make the changes you wish. As Storm has said, you have no RS to back up your POV. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Carl, the changes I made simply said that the LDS claim to accomplish restoration through new revelation and additional scriptures -- as the LDS website itself claims, and I cited the LDS website as RS. Are you actually claiming that the LDS website is not a RS about the LDS? If the LDS cannot speak for itself, exactly who can? You? The final edit left the section within the restorationism section.

1. Please tell me, in English, how citing the LDS website is not sourcing an LDS claim.
2. And please tell me, in English, how stating the the LDS has a Book of Mormon as scripture is POV? I'm all ears.
3. Finally, anyone else can answer this -- how, in English, does leaving LDS in the restorationism section (as my final edit did) make LDS somehow NOT a restorationist group?

I won't hold my breath for an answer, but one would be most welcome.EGMichaels (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I gave references from the LDS website itself and even included LDS within restorationism. You are continuing to falsify the final compromise edit. Reality is in the record. Your fantasy is as well. Once again you protest too much. Collaboration is a lovely thing. There is only one other person I've encountered on this site as incapable of consensus as you have demonstrated. Don't worry -- I plan to steer clear of you in the future and work with collaborative editors. Futher -- my edits were not unilateral, but a compromise of the discussions listed above. I don't know who you think you are fooling, but it isn't anyone who can read.EGMichaels (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It is evident that the Latter Day Saint movement is one within the restorationist branch of Christianity. The fact that it has "additional" or "new" revelation does not change that classification. Though, I see no harm in stating that the LDSmovement does have that...though I think some peoples' fear is that by saying the LDS are restorationist but they use additional new scripture, it might make it look like the article is trying to discredit their status as restorationist Christians. Gavin (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, the LDS church itself claims this: "As part of the Restoration of the gospel, God brought forth the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ."^[1]

That's the very first sentence in their statement of belief regarding the book of Mormon.

Does that cause a problem for the claim of being restorationist? The fact that we are fighting over this shows that we are all aware of it -- and our very disagreement is empiricle evidence of the notability of this issue. It's notable, it's known, it's advertised by the LDS, it's cited prominently on their website, and it's seen as indispensable to the means by which they accomplish their status as restorationists. It is therefore unencyclopedic to hide it.EGMichaels (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't really mean much though I feel. It is a restorationist group and thus should be correctly placed in the restorationist category. The fact that they have additional revelation does NOT change whether or not they are restorationist. I still feel that your desire to include the point that they have additional revelation in a section on the denomination to which they belong might appear to be an attempt to discredit their position. "How can they claim to be restoring the faith if they have additional revelation?". Gavin (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I'd be willing to have them in the restorationist group that they clearly claim, as long as the method that clearly makes them not restorationist is included. We can have them listed in the group -- prejudicially in favor of their claim. But NPOV requires the caveat that we are ALL painfully aware of. The fact that you can see it, than I've asked for it, that LDS insists upon it, and that Storm adamantly wants to hide it -- makes it highly notable.EGMichaels (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to strongly urge that we drop the term "restorationism" as defining a "branch of Christianity" or as a category of "restorationist" churches. There are at least three reasons for this:

1) First, lumping together the groups that have been discussed above and treating them as a "branch" of Christianity that is parallel to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism is confusing and does not help the reader understand the broad array of Christian groups - to be blunt, the LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses and Churches of Christ are not related to each other in the same way that Lutheranism, Methodism and the Reformed Churches are. To be very blunt, while the Churches of Christ, for instance, do not generally consider themselves "Protestant" (they see Luther's protest against the Catholic church of his day as old news that shouldn't define the church today - Batsell Barrett Baxter and Carroll Ellis, Neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jew, tract, Church of Christ (1960) ASIN: B00073CQPM available on-line), their early leaders' roots were in the Presbyterian and Baptist churches, and people who base a taxonomy on current practices and beliefs generally classify them as "Protestant." A category that places them in with the LDS is simply not helpful. In terms of taxonomy, it makes about as much sense as laying "Non-Liturgical/'Low' Churches" alongside "Catholism," "Orthodoxy" and "Protestantism" as a fourth "branch" of Christianity.

2) Second, while it's easy to find sources that say the LDS, or the CoC, etc. seeks to "restore" the early church, it sweeps in too much. You can find similar sources for the Puritans and the Anabaptists, for instance. As someone has already noted, most Christian movements dating back to the Middle Ages had as at least one motivation "restoring" the church, "reforming" the church or, to use the definition from the Restorationism article, "disagreement with established churches." Most sources that are available document that a particular group was motivated by a desire to "restore" a purer or earlier form of Christianity, or "primitivist" tendencies - most don't document a coherent "Restorationist Branch" or "Restorationist Movement."

3) Third, there are solid sources for identifying churches associated with certain distinct, well defined movements. In particular, there are excellent sources for the Restoration Movement and the associated descendant groups (similarly, you can clearly document Adventism and its associated groups). I wonder if some of the confusion stems from conflating "Restorationist" and the "Restoration Movement." The LDS is not considered part of the "Restoration Movement" but, because they arose in roughly the same time and place, early LDS movement leaders did have contact with the early Restoration Movement, and the LDS did attract some people from that movement. There are sources documenting that early contact, and the fact that the early LDS drew people from the Restoration Movement may have created the impression that it somehow originated with the Restoration Movement.

Here's what I would suggest:

a) Drop "restorationism" as a defining "branch of Christianity" or defining category in a taxonomy of Christian denominations;

b) Where we can document that a particular church, movement, or group of churches was motivated by a desire to restore a purer or earlier form of Christianity, or have an identifiable "primitive" strain, let's say exactly that - without then defining the group as "Restorationist". So, for example, we would report what the LDS claim about restoring Christianity.

c) Using groupings that are well documented, such as the Restoration Movement, Adventism, and Latter Day Saint movement instead. If that creates too many categories, we may need to group them under some category such as "Other Christian groups" - but that would be much better than throwing such theologically and historically disparate groups together as "Restorationist."

If you go into a Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) on a Sunday morning, you're going to think they're mainline Protestant (if I'm not mistaken, that's pretty much how they view themselves these days). If you go into a CoC on a Sunday morning, you're going to think they're Southern Baptists who've decided that they a) don't like musical instruments and b) make a really, really big deal over baptism. Grouping either one with non-trinitarian groups or the LDS just doesn't make sense and won't help readers understand any of the groups. EastTN (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I noticed a comment from Storm above concerning the use of "Restorationism" to denote the historical during which several of these groups arose. Many of the groups discussed in the Restorationism article do have roots in the same time period (not all of them - that article is not very coherent and also includes the Iglesia ni Cristo and Local churches (affiliation)). That's a good point. When we want to refer to that period, I'd like to suggest the term "Second Great Awakening" as a more specific designation that would avoid some of the confusion associated with "Restorationism." EastTN (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As another point of reference, the report "The Religious Composition of the United States," U.S. Religious Landscape Survey: Chapter 1, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Pew Research Center, February 2008 uses the following breakdown on page 10:

Christian

Protestant

Evangelical churches

Mainline churches

Hist. black churches

Catholic

Mormon

Jehovah's Witnesses

Orthodox

Other Christian

My sense is that this is a fairly typical grouping - some are more detailed, others are less. EastTN (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems to get the balance wrong. If we look at history then we have the split between East & West, then the reformation and then a period of fragmentation (Mormons, JWs etc. etc.) In effect four groups and we need a name for the 4th, then some subdivisions. You might add non-trinitarian but I think those really belong in the 4th category --Snowded (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

TN, I understood you to make the suggestion of replacing Restorationism with the label, "Other Christian churches". I can support that type of proposal, but I am ambivalent. I also support the current term Restorationism. The article makes it more than clear that the groups within it do not have doctrines in common. It would be impossible for a readers not to understand what is clearly stated.

There appears to be a confusion between the Restoration movement and Restorationism. The first is a subset of the last, not the other way around. The imperfections of the current article, Restorationism, does not negate the efficacy of the term.

It should be remembered that this is a main article that covers a major topic. We cover the majority position first and foremost; I think the current article reflects that premise well. EG, consistently misinterpreted everything I said. This is not an article to define each group, church, and denomination, rather we cover the larger groups. Over the last several years this article has been negotiated and is the result of consensus and compromise. The only point I was rejecting is removing LDS from Restorationism. There is not need for a new section or reporting more. I have no motivation to hide anything. You will find a plethora of articles on the LDS Church and the LDS Movement on Wikipedia and nothing is hidden. It is just that this article does not need to go into details; that is the purpose of sub-articles. This feels like touching tar baby, every time I touch it I get drawn into a bigger and bigger mess. Let's move on and discuss solely EastTN proposal. --^StormRider 16:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with Storm that we do not need to go into explicit detail on every group, we at least need to mention the defining characteristic. As my last edit indicated, I was okay with including LDS in the restorationist group -- so long as their stated means of restoration were referenced. Basically, what we are looking for here is a rational breakdown with a thumbnail idea of each group. Well, perhaps to Storm the thumbnail view is "restorationism." Obviously to me the thumbnail view is "new revelation." A reasonable compromise is stated on the LDS website itself: "As part of the Restoration of the gospel, God brought forth the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ." This isn't rocket science, and it's not even controversial. The LDS website insists on this very fact -- so what's wrong with stating it? It is clearly the LDS's own POV. It also succinctly shows how LDS is a unique form of "restorationism" in a very notable, neutral, fair, and succinct way.EGMichaels (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the breakdown, I think there is flexibility. TNs suggestion is fair. Snowded's suggestion on history is also fair. I think that historical is probably better than theological. Theological would have "Trinitarian" and "Non-Trinitarian" as major subheadings and everyone else breaking down from there. Historical would be something like:

Eastern Orthodox

Roman Catholic

Mainline Protestant

Evangelical

Others

LDS

Jehovah's Witnesses

Etc.

A theological breakdown would simply have two sets of "Others" mixed in. We could add Restorationists, but then we'd still need Others.

The defining characteristics should be easy to do together if we are succinct. I think that we should each propose a short phrase to define each group, and then combine the phrases if they don't agree. Storm and I both agree that LDS calls themselves "restorationist." We apparently do not agree that they have a Book of Mormon...EGMichaels (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't intend to say that we had to adopt the specific categories from the Pew survey - just that they were one example of what a more typical taxonomy might look like. To Snowded's point, the Pew report ordered the groupings based on the estimated number of adherents in the U.S. For our purposes, a structure that follows the order of historical development would seem to make much more sense.

I certainly did not mean to suggest that Restorationism is a subset of the Restoration Movement. As StormRider points out, that's simply not correct. I am arguing that the term Restorationism is not a particularly useful one for this purpose, and has the potential to be quite misleading.

1) If used the way it's described in the current article on Restorationism, to encompass any and all groups that were originally motivated by, or base part of their appeal on, the restoration of a purer, earlier or more "primitive" form of Christianity, then it sweeps in far too much (and cuts across too many other categories) to be useful.

2) If we want to identify the religious groups that came out of the religious ferment in the U.S. during the early 1800s, the term "Second Great Awakening" is well defined, well documented, and less likely to cause confusion. It does seem to me, though, that a "branch" or "category" based on a U.S. origin during that time period is not really parallel to other groupings such as "Catholic," "Orthodox" and "Protestant".

My initial suggestion would be something along the lines of this:

Catholic

Orthodox

Protestant

Mainline

Evangelical

Non-Denominational

Other(?)

Non-Trinitarian & Universalist

Other Christian Groups

LDS

Jehovah's Witnesses

Messianic Judaism

Etc.

Of course, the "Protestant" category could be split a bunch of different ways. Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, Anabaptist, Methodist, Adventist, Pentecostal, Restoration Movement, etc. (Which is actually what I'd prefer, if we feel that we have the space.) That would give us something like:

Catholic

Orthodox

Protestant

Anglican

Lutheran

Reformed

Baptist

Anabaptist

Methodist

Adventist

Holiness

Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement

Non-Denominational

Other(?)

Non-Trinitarian & Universalist

Other Christian Groups

LDS

Jehovah's Witnesses

Messianic Judaism

Etc.

We could also consider the taxonomy from the article on List of Christian denominations. It pretty much covers the waterfront, and seems to use reasonable groupings.

While I agree that historians are interested in those religious groups that arose in the U.S. during the early 1800s, I just don't see how it's useful to treat them as a category parallel to "Catholic," "Orthodox" or "Protestant." If we do want to treat those groups as a distinct category, it seems that this discussion is a great illustration of why it may be better to say something like Churches originating in the Second Great Awakening rather than Restorationist. EastTN (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I just struck through my longer suggestion. I'm withdrawing it because, while it seems to me to be a stronger taxonomy, it's not a good outline for this section of the article. We would only want the highest level categories as subheads. That would give us something like "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Protestant", Non-Trinitarian & Universalist, and "Other". I'd be inclined to mention the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement in the paragraph at the end of the Protestant section that says:

"Some Christians who come out of the Protestant tradition identify themselves simply as "Christian", or "born-again Christian"; they typically distance themselves from the confessionalism and/or creedalism of other Christian communities[204] by calling themselves "non-denominational"—often founded by individual pastors, they have little affiliation with historic denominations."

The churches associated with that tradition would seem to fit pretty naturally there. EastTN (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think my fourfold division of non-heretical Christianity may work out here. Orthodox / Catholic / Mainline Protestant / Evangelical. The Campbellites could easily fit in the Evangelical category. Then any heretical groups could be listed as "other." Any thoughts? I wouldn't use the word "heretical" in the article, though, since some unschooled readers may take it pejoratively instead of descriptively, as I mean here. EGMichaels (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, most people associated with the main groups growing out of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement would object to both the term "Campbellite" and the term "Evangelical," but I think your heart's in the right place.

The Christian world is a lot more complicated than it used to be. There are lots of Christian groups that are neither "mainline" nor "evangelical" - and we do need to find a home for groups that don't fit into those "traditional" categories, such as non-trinitarian churches, Messianic Jews, the LDS and the Jehovah's Witnesses. EastTN (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There's another option: theological/governmental. By theological we have Trinitarian and Non-trinitarian. By governmental we have heirarchical (as in Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, etc.), Representative (as in Presbyterians), and Congregational (as in Campbell.. Baptist, Holiness, etc.). That way we can leave judgment to mainstreatm Christians versus others, with the only breakdowns being in noncontroversial government structures.EGMichaels (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Those can all be useful analytical categories. Looking back at the article, I'm becoming convinced that we want a few high-level categories, and we should try to stick as much as we can to the major groupings that people are accustomed to and that generally show up in the literature. To put it another way, we're looking for the Christian equivalent of what the article on Islam does when it identifies the denominations as "Sunni", "Shi'a", "Sufism" and "Other."

Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant are almost always identified as major branches of Christianity. They have the advantage of being consistent with what reference books use, are directly rooted in the history of the church, and do generally reflect real theological and (especially) ecclesiastical differences. I don't see any real benefit, for a summary article like this one, in abandoning those three major branches or categories.

I see two challenges:

1) There is a huge diversity within "Protestantism." While there are identifiable differences between the various Orthodox groups, it's nothing like the swing from Anglicanism to Methodism to the Mennonites to the Pentecostals. For a summary article, though, we may be able to just accept that.

2) There are some groups that simply don't fit into one of those three categories. The LDS is example; non-denominational churches are another, and non-trinitarian churches are yet another.

I'd like to suggest that we focus on the second issue, and try to find a home for those groups that don't fall into one of the "big three." What started me commenting on this is that I really don't think that "Restorationism" is the correct rubric for all the Christian groups that aren't Catholic, aren't Orthodox (in the sense of being one of the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox churches) and aren't Protestant. If "Other" is the best we can do, then so be it. I do think we should at least consider "Non-Denominational" and "Non-Trinitarian" as additional categories as well, though. EastTN (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅ I don;t think you will find a better alternative to "other". We also have some problems with terms like "evangelical" and "Penticostal" which cross boundaries. I agree the three main ones are RC, Orthodox & Protestant and we need one more. Post-XX might be another alternative, most of the non-protestant ones are either modern or within the last couple of centuries. --Snowded (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like we're getting closer. Agreed on the main three... with an uncomfortable "Other." Non-denominational generally fall into either Baptist or Charismatic groups not attached to a larger governing body or association. But they don't fit well into "Other." They're just evangelicals. I would have grouped non-denominationals in my "Congregational" governing category. No system we make is perfect. I think our best goal will be to avoid confusion -- which restorationist seems to do (I believe that Storm would simply say that I'm confused by it -- but no matter; we want to avoid confusion even if I'm the brunt of it ;-).EGMichaels (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How about this...

• Eastern Orthodox
• Western Christianity

• Roman Catholic
• Mainline Protestant
• Congregational

• Other

• LDS
• JW

The congregational section would include congregationalists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Campbell-type groups, etc. It's a slight break, but very neutral. No Campbell church would disagree with having an independent congregational governing structure, while Mainline Protestants are already well known for being either Heirarchical or Representative rather than congregational in their governing structure. Again, a SLIGHT mixed bag, but I think a good compromise.EGMichaels (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This conversation has a very limited participation and before any action is taken a consensus will need to be reached. I have worked on this article for years, but I am hardly one of the "main" editors. I know TN, but other editors are new to this article or are at least have not often edited this article. To me the main headers are as follows:

• Catholicism
• Orthodoxy
• Protestant
• the name for this group seems to be causing the problems; it needs to be a catch all.

The question arises at what to call this last group. Restorationism has worked for years, but you guys seem to have a problem with it. I have no problem with "Other". Congregational to me is not a common term and is just, if not more, confusing than Restorationism. I have no problem mentioning congreationalism under Protestantism or Other. The Anglicans prefer a foot in both Catholicism and Protestantism; they see themselves as the middle path and a member of both and sometimes neither. Their concerns will need to be met; you will have undoubtedly read the numerous archives regarding this entire discussion we are having now.

We also have the image in the article as follows:

This chart demonstrates the categories being used better than what is being discussed. Maybe we should just align the narrative with the chart. Do you reject the usefullness of the chart? Or is it that some groups are not being specifically mentioned that is the problem? --^StormRider 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The diagram is incorrect. It ignores the Chaldean Catholic branch, and assumes that the Assyrian Church of the East existed in its present state since 5th century. The reality is that in the 16th century, 3 Bishops of the Church of the East split off and made communion with the Catholic Church. This broke down, until the original Church of the East, with the other Bishops who did not secede, joined the Roman Catholic Church as the Chaldean Catholic Church, whilst the 3 Bishops that were in communion with Rome, but lost it due to their law demanding inheritance of the Patriarchate, became the Assyrian Church of the East. Unfortunately, internet sources are so heavily influenced by Assyrian nationalism, that the prevalent view, as demonstrated by this picture, is that the Assyrian Church of the East is from ancient times, when of course it is not ; this fact is corroborated by the fact that there are half as many Assyrian COE adherents as Chaldean Catholic COE adherents.

Furthermore, I wonder if the protestants and restorationists will take issue with their branches having a large vertical distance from the early christianity branch; something they would object too - I say this being neither a protestant nor a restorationist, but this diagram does a few too many generalizations.

Gabr-el 00:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As for Protestants and Restorationists, I'd have no problem with the diagramming if it were strictly historical development, regardless of beliefs. But the problem is that Christianity is defined not only by history but by belief. One could say that Protestants branched out of Catholicism, but one cannot say that Protestants are a branch of Catholicism. In the same way, Restorationists (even LDS and JW) branched out of Protestantism, but they are not a branch of Protestantism.

But there is a second problem with the chart: it purports to be showing Christianity as a whole, but it includes groups who do not regard each other as Christians or even in the same religion. Jehovah's Witnesses and Protestants each regard themselves as "Christians" and the other as not. This isn't just a denominational quibble. This is a divide along separate religions -- by the insistence of both sides. Of particular concern is the caption "groups within Christianity." Jehovah's Witnesses and everyone else would fight against the other groups being considered "within Christianity." The caption absolutely needs to be replaced with something that listed groups would not consider to be a false association.

I'd have no problem if the chart were accompanied by NPOV text that specified that certain groups mutually reject each other as even being in the same religion. I have no concern with who is "right" or "wrong." In fact, I have a weird POV of my own that precludes me from really taking a side here. But I do have a concern with calling things something that they are not (or even appearing to do so). Jehovah's Witnesses (and probably LDS) would adamantly reject any implication that they are a branch of Protestantism. Although that isn't what the chart means to present, it can certainly give that impression. Some NPOV wording would solve that.

And finally, I'd like a thumbnail distinction of each divide, with room for several thumbnails if necessary. If you include LDS as "restorationist" on historical and self-definition grounds, that's perfectly acceptable -- as long as their most notable means of accomplishing that restoration is mentioned. I've been willing to make this compromise and would appreciate some indication on your part that you would as well.EGMichaels (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think looking at this chart, and others like it, is useful because it helps us think about the "branches" of Christianity in a little broader terms. There are groups that are historically related and have developed largely independently of other groups (e.g., the east/west split resulted in fairly independent courses of development for the eastern and western churches). In recognizing this, we don't have to imply that a particular group has not had any change or development since the date of the original split.

I also agree with StormRider's analysis that we're ultimately discussing what additional category or categories to add to the "big three" of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

"Congregationalism" doesn't seem to be a good fit, because not all of the groups that we seem to be discussing would be well described as having a "congregationalist polity".

I still have a real problem with using the term "Restorationism" for a historical movement or historical period, whether in the articles or in this chart. There is a well defined "Restoration Movement" and there is a well-defined U.S. historical period known as the "Second Great Awakening." The Restoration Movement involved groups with similar theological and ecclesiastical points of view, while the groups that came out of the religious ferment of the "Second Great Awakening" were incredibly diverse (e.g., Landmark Baptists versus LDS). I recognize that there are websites using it, but "Restorationism" seems to me to be a very poor choice of terminology - the term itself doesn't make it clear whether it's describing 1) a particular characteristic of a church (the desire to "restore" Christianity), 2) a particular movement, or 3) a particular period. The discussion above has suggested all three at various times.

For our purposes, I would argue that:

1) Grouping together all churches with an expressed desire to "restore" Christianity is not useful - it sweeps in too much and cuts across other categories such as "Protestant".

2) Looking at a movement could make sense, but the churches we've been lumping together as "Restorationist" do not constitute a coherent historical or theological movement. There should be a home for the "Restoration Movement," but it doesn't encompass enough to serve as a top-level category (and isn't treated that way by most historians).

3) Treating the groups that came out of the U.S. religious environment of the early 1800s as a top-level "branch" of Christianity probably isn't useful either; it doesn't parallel the "big three" and the groups aren't related in any respect other than originating in the same time and place (we wouldn't group the Jesuits together with the Lutherans just because they both originated in Europe at roughly the same time). If we did, the term "Second Great Awakening" is a cleaner designation for the period, because it can't be misunderstood to refer to a common ideology or to a particular movement. We should also remember that there are now new movements that don't fall into the big three and don't come from the 1800s (e.g., Messianic Judaism)

In short, I propose that:

A) We accept, for now at least, the "big three" as well established and understood, and focus our discussion on how to handle groups that fall outside the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant categories;

B) We do not use the terms "Restorationism" or "Restorationist" as a category;

C) If we want to group together the churches arising in the U.S. during the religious ferment of the early 1800s, we do so using the term "Second Great Awakening" instead;

D) If we can find no other term to encompass groups that are neither Catholic, Orthodox nor Protestant, that we use the term "Other"

E) We consider adding a category for non-trinitarian and universalist groups (perhaps as a subcategory of "Other");

F) We consider adding a category for non-denominiational groups (perhaps as a subcategory of "Other").

G) We place the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement either at the end of "Protestant" section with the existing discussion of non-denominational Christianity, or in a new Non-Denominational subcategory if that's where the other non-denominational groups end up.

Somehow this seems to have spun out of control. The core issue really does seem to be how we correctly characterize the groups that don't fit well into one of the other categories. If nothing else, let's dub them "Other," declare victory for now, and move on. EastTN (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Second that motion...EGMichaels (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the general idea, but we should try to be clear in the description of the groups. The category Orthodox should contain also Old Oriental Churches and similar not in communion with both Constantinople and Rome. And Catholic should contain diverse groups of Catholic origin but outside of communion with Rome (Utrecht Union etc.). Otherwise the cathegory Other will be even more diverse than needed.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that entirely. "Catholicism" should be something like "Roman Catholicism and other Catholic Groups," "Orthodoxy" should include both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, and "Protestant" should include all of the major groups that generally consider themselves Protestant.

As an aside, looking back at the article, I think I've realized how this section ended up with the current set of divisions. Starting with the section on Protestantism, it's basically written in historical terms, rather than as a taxonomy of church types. The "Restorationism" section appears to have originally been intended to describe groups coming out of the "Second Great Awakening," with the Ecumenism section intended to describe 20th century developments. One of the sources cited [5] takes that approach. It's interesting to note, though, that instead of the term "Restorationism" it uses the more neutral descriptive heading of "American born churches."

I still don't think it's the best approach, but I can see how we got here. EastTN (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of them claim commonality except that each believed in a restoration to the primative church and a rejection of the churches of the day i.e. they were in a state of apostacy. The way you us the term RM makes me think that only one group claims it. I not aware of any academic journal that claims X is part of the RM and the others aren't because... What is reality is the LDS use the term and Stone-Campbell groups use the term or at least they claim to be restorationist. --^StormRider 08:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My concern is for the Christian churches which are ignored here historically because they passed out of existence and are not found today. Two of the main categories would be the churches in Asia Minor that certain epistles of the New Testament were written to, and the church in India which pretty much was phased out by the year 1500 CE. See for instance, the work East of the Euphrates: Early Christianity in Asia, by T. V. Philip. Shrommer (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Superstitions" Category

As I expected, my edit which added this article into the category "Superstitions" has been reverted immediately. But it was not intented to be any sort of vandalism. Honestly, how is it not a superstition? Quoting Wiki article Superstition: "Superstition (Latin superstitio, literally "standing over"; derived perhaps from standing in awe;[1] used in Latin as an unreasonable or excessive belief in fear or magic, especially foreign or fantastical ideas, and thus came to mean a "cult" in the Roman empire)[2][3] is a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge." Now as long as anybody's not gonna defend Christianity's a science, there's not much to argue about whether it is a Superstition or not. If there is, let me know here. --Dimitrakopulos (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I didn't revert it as vandalism. It's a religon, so you have to be careful what categories you place. Abce2|AccessDenied 04:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Any set of beliefs can be called a "religion", so you be careful in accepting the popular opinion. --Dimitrakopulos (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm... I'm pretty sure that Christianity is a religon. Abce2|AccessDenied 04:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You do not get a word I said. Real smooth.

Superstition is generally reserved an event or action (I throw salt over my left shoulder for good luck) whereas religion is generally focused on a broad set of beliefs "concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." (See dictionary). I can see where we might be able to describe some religious doctrines as superstitious, but religion and superstition are not interchangeable terms. Religion encompasses a much broader concept than does superstition. Of course, if you are pushing a POV, which I am sure you are not doing, you might want to lump it all together, but then I think that would be done out of ignorance, without a grasp of the concept of world religions. Cheers.--^StormRider 04:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You do get it on the other hand, and I wasn't trying to push and POVs at all; this is just what I wanted to hear. So alright, no more inserting [[Category:Superstitions|"Superstition"]] in religions. --Dimitrakopulos (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind! I am sick of being pushed around in real-life, all my life, and then coming here only to be insulted by editors who do not get that you don't insult others! I'm on the verge of quitting. Abce2|AccessDenied 05:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Abce2, I'm sorry that you're being pushed around in real-life but I don't see how anybody has insulted you here. As you know, Wikipedia isn't here to insult you, it's here to be an encyclopaedia of facts. If you find something insulting, then there are two possible situations we could find ourselves in:

1. The article is factually incorrect and you're insulted by it, in which case you should work with other editors to make sure that the article becomes grounded solely in fact and Wikipedia becomes a better encyclopaedia
2. The article is factually correct and you're insulted by it. Of course, Wikipedia ought not to go out of its way to insult people but if, by its inclusion of facts, some people are insulted, then we should probably leave it alone.

Whichever of those cases applies, I'm sure nobody here wants you to quit Wikipedia and I'm sure everybody wishes you the best of luck in your real life also. If there is anything we/I can help with real-life-wise, please let us/me know. Regards, Paul.rogers.1964 (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest Dimitrakopulos, you came here picking a fight by posting a section on "superstition" on the wikipedia page of the world's (2.1 billion people or so) biggest religion. In my opinion it's pretty offensive to try and call someone's "faith" superstition, whether or not the religion is big or not. (84.70.47.136 (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

1. ^ http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/the-restoration-of-truth/the-book-of-mormon