Talk:Gender of God/Archive 3

Administrative note on edit warring

This is a note concerning the recent edit-warring on this page. LisaLiel has been blocked for 24 hours but I am concerned by everyone's conduct here. Going to limit of 3RR and asking for other editors to "keep someone in line" is gaming the system. I am asking all of you now to stop continuously reverting each other. You are not entitled to 3 reverts per day. Nor are you entitled to edit-war slowly over prolonged periods of time. Consider this a general behavioural warning to all parties regardless of who is correct or who is more correct - stop edit warring and seek mediation or other dispute resolution. LisaLiel is not being singled out - further administrative action may follow after investigation. Please make further efforts to resolve disputes before reverting--Cailil ^talk 21:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to comment on two issues: one is purely procedural; the other is substantive and procedural. First point: Cailil is right that 3RR is not permission to revert up to three times a day. It is meant to provide a cooling off period to help people reach a compromise. If people do not reach a compromise after the one day of cooling off, obviously 3RR is inadequate and more action is needed - either blocking one or more users from editing the page for a longer period of time, or protecting the page. If several people violate 3RR more than once a week, I think the page needs to be protected and I would urge people to enter into mediation.

Second: Tim wrote, "God is our husband and NEVER our wife. He is out Father and NEVER our mother. It's abundant, well known, and obvious." This sound like Tim's point of view. It sounds like Lisa often is asserting her point of view. This is a violation of NPOV and NOR which demand that we do not put our own interpretations into the article. What Tim and Lisa ought to be doing, in my opinion, is reviewing various reliable sources and identifying notable points of view, and then making sure notable points of view from reliable sources are included in the article, clearly identified properly, and contextualized. Perhaps there are reliable sources to support Tim's point of view but I know of two important points of view - important in the only sense that matters here, that they are notable and found in reliable sources - that differ from Tim's view. One is Biblical historians and critics like Phyllis Tribble who do not claim to speak for Jews (as Lisa correctly points out, for Jews there is no scripture "before" interpretation) but who does as historians claim to interpret the writings of the authors of the Bible, and who have argued that the Bible presents a much more complex use of sexual and gendered imagery to represent God; this is a view that must be in the article. The other is work by Jewish feminists, many of them non-Orthodox but definitely Jewish, who have a feminist inrerpretation of the Bible and Midrash. Their views should also be included. In short, I have doubts about Tim's claim but the point is not whether Tim is right or wrong, as Lisa has been arguing, the point is that we go back to process: look at reliable sources to identify notable views. I think Lisa and Tim could reach a compromise if both stopped procaliming what Jews think (since Wikipedia does not care what Tim or Lisa think Jews think) and instead talked more about reliable sources - on specific texts (the Bible, the Talmud, Midrashim) and "Judaism," and identify notable views voiced by identifiable people (historians, literary critics, rabbis and philosophers) and sorted out how to provide accurate accounts of these diverse views in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I've revised the section on Judaism so that the traditional and modern-feminist views are both represented. The feminist views actually get the lion's share of the section, but I've placed them second, consistent with the chronological order used in the rest of this article.

I've also created a section called "In the Bible", so that the material on biblical grammar and Mesopotamian myths can remain, since they aren't relevant to the Jewish view of the subject. This way, the section retains its integrity, but no sources are removed, however irrelevant.

I'd appreciate it if you could give your opinion of the Reimers quote. Alastair and Tim clearly believe that it is relevant to the article, and although I have argued numerous times that it doesn't even talk about God's gender, but only about why some people like the idea of a prayer book with feminine grammar used for God, neither of them have addressed the question, preferring instead to simply rely on brute force reversions of my edits. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. One part of the difficulty with Lisa's edit was the removal of text sourced on Paula Reimers, who I added for precisely the reasons mentioned by SLRubenstein. While I understand that Lisa has a valid objection to Reimers potentially giving undue emphasis to the feminist stream within Judaism, that point of view is especially relevant in this article, all that is needed is some sourced quantification or modifier regarding the place of the feminist views within each faith tradition. The nice thing about Reimers is that she argues the language for God in the Tanakh is masculine, not because God was actually thought to be masculine, but because it deflected what she believes would be an inevitable slide into pantheism were feminine imagery used. It is a very interesting idea, and relevant to the article beyond Judaism alone.

As the edit history shows, I did not initially remove the Reimers quote, but Alastair and Tim reverted my edit anyway. Alastair's misrepresentation of the facts is an example of his bad faith approach here. He reverted my edit, not for removing sources, but because I put the only sources that actually spoke about what Judaism thinks about God's gender at the top of the article, and removed the weasel words he'd added to those sources.

I'm quite sure that there are modern feminist sources that actually discuss what they think the Gender of God is. But the Reimers quote does not. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with SLR that protecting the article is an "admission of failure". I also think its pedagogically and disciplinarily unsound. Personally, I've been happy to see that the edit warrers had slowed down their activity until Lisa's outburst. People don't necessarily learn if they don't "have enough rope to hang themselves". It really all is only a matter of time. Edit warring does not change the long-term shape of pages, experience shows it time and again. Leaving a page unprotected for long enough teaches that to those who've not had time or inclination to observe it before. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sl, you write: "Second: Tim wrote, "God is our husband and NEVER our wife. He is out Father and NEVER our mother. It's abundant, well known, and obvious." This sound like Tim's point of view." Uh, excuse me? It's simply an observation. If you look at the actual added text in the article I added one sourced sentence, and two quotes -- sourced. You'll also note that the second of those quotes disagrees with what you seem to regard as my own POV. And finally you'll notice that none of those quotes appears on the article page, and two of the sources are completely gone. The only POV pushing in this case is one sided.

Alastair, while I appreciate your optimism, you haven't been dealing with the operator at hand. I've seen two pages completely and permanently hijacked now. This will be the third. Months of collaborative work will disappear in favor of the single handed editing of a single person. I used to be optimistic. Now I'm just shell shocked.Tim (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're refering to the MJ and Shituf articles, while I seem to recall I agreed with you on both, those are very complicated topics. Lisa did actually represent both a particular popular POV, and a kind of "common sense" understanding. There were both sources and sentiments to support her. She didn't hijack them alone; also, you were alone and you gave up.

Here all that's happened is Lisa has attempted to suppress sourced text of majority views and the "common sense" understanding. And she lost. End of story. Let's forget it. Now we work towards improvements by consensus, it's in our own interests to be agreeable to one another. It'll be fun if Lisa catches the vision. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Alastair. I didn't try to suppress anything. You moved the only two sources in the section that actually talk about the gender of God (as opposed to the grammar and imagery used to refer to God) down to the bottom of the section and labeled them as "opinion pieces". This was not a good faith edit by any means, but a second attempt by you to dismiss reliable sources in favor of fringe views that you prefer.

Nor have I "lost". I will pursue dispute resolution, even if you, as is your wont, refuse to do so. Your bullying tactics will fail. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You're too optimistic, Alastair. Unless I go away, this edit war will plague you, because it's not about the topic.Tim (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Blech will be in this article ten years from now, so will Reimers, the ideas are striking, notable PsOV, contrasting on the very topic of the article. God male, female, both or neither have all be offered by recent Jewish writers, and with plausible arguments for three of them, only one is considered by some as idolatry. Now it's just a matter of lining up writers like Tribble and others behind the various views, and that can be done in notes. The rest is about packaging the wording, and yes that could take a long time, but there's no rush. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

PS I'm off to hear Amy-Jill Levine tomorrow, speaking on Jesus' parables. Should be interesting ... and fun, from what I've heard. Can I say howdy to her from you Tim? ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I'm really tired of your persecution complex. Instead of pretending that I edited this article to "get you", how about answering the following questions:

• Why do you agree with Alastair that the citations from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan and Jewfaq.com should be labeled as personal opinions and moved to the end of the section?

• Why do you agree with Alastair that a Wikipedia section about Judaism's view of the gender of God should feature two large quotes about a radical and controversial feminist siddur, while the traditional view is presented only in response?

• Why do you think that my edit yesterday morning constituted "edit warring", when I hadn't edited this article in almost a month, and Alastair's immediate reaction was to revert it without discussion?

• Why do you agree with Alastair that the text I edited was "consensus text", when it hadn't existed for more than several weeks?

• Why do you think that a discussion of Mesopotamian myths and their purported relation to the biblical text belongs in a section on Judaism? Do you think that Judaism considers itself to be based on Mesopotamian myths?

You've answered none of these questions. You've chosen, instead, to join Alastair in reverting every edit I make. I'm quite curious as to why you think it's believable for you to claim that I have some sort of vendetta against you when you're the one reverting my edits. When you added that Blech quote, I retained it, and I've made no effort to remove it. It would be nice if you'd have the same courtesy. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- I'm really tired of your analyzing my "complexes". You have a history of psychoanalyzing my conversion as well, and it is precisely this kind of harassment that makes me aware that this is personal. I don't know why, and I don't care to know why. I just want it to stop. The other issues are artificial -- they are looked for. Well, you know what? If you look for a problem you'll find one. All I ask is that you stop zeroing in on any page where I have the audacity to edit on a Jewish subject or even a Christian one -- or especially on a subject in which Judaism or Christianity make judgments about the other. Are you free to edit? Absolutely. Are you free to destroy my own freedom to edit? Well, up to now you have been, and I'm not confident it will stop.

As for the rest, these questions are pointless. You didn't edit on this page for over a month because I didn't edit in a Jewish section. The day after I did so, POOF -- edit war. You still have an open cabal on me asking that I be forbidden to edit in Jewish sections ANYWHERE on Wikipedia! And you are trying to enforce it here.

Except that the changes I made were all changes to edits by Alastair. Not a single one was a change you'd made. In fact, even though you spent the entire morning reverting every single edit I made, when you added a reference by Benjamin Blech, I stopped reverting the article to my first edit of the morning, and instead, modified that edit with the addition of the source you presented. If I was trying to prevent you from editing or adding content, why would I have left your addition in?

No, Tim, this has nothing to do with you. Or rather, it had nothing to do with you. Alastair made some bad faith edits which I hadn't noticed for a while, and when I fixed them, you decided to undo every single edit I made yesterday. All of them. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Why do I feel Aryeh Kaplan should be at the end? Simple -- the end is the final word, and Aryeh Kaplan is one of the most respected sources I can think of.
2. Why do I feel that the traditional response should have the final word? Again, because the final word is the most authoritative. And why a feminist issue? Well, the final word needs to answer SOMETHING, doesn't it?

No, the final word is not authoritative. On the contrary, in Wikipedia, the converse is true. As I think you're aware. And you didn't answer my question completely. It wasn't just a matter of putting R' Kaplan at the end. It was Alastair's change of labeling it as the personal beliefs of R' Kaplan. And you certainly saw in his edit comments that Alastair had labeled the Kaplan quote as an "opinion piece". When you reverted my edits, you restored Alastair's tendentious claim that this is all that it was. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Why do I think you were initiating an edit war after a month? As I said, it was within a day that I dared cross your cabal requested ban against my editing in a Jewish subject on any article anywhere on Wikipedia. And your edit removed MY edit immediately, even though it was sourced and on topic: literary citations from two sources regarding patriarchal comparisons to similar kinds of matriarchal stories in other religions of the region, and a direct quote from a literary analysis of the Song of Songs, as it applies to the gender view of God in the Hebrew Bible as a whole.

This is verifiably untrue. My initial edit did not remove your addition about mythology. I did so later, because while it may have bearing on biblical studies, it's not relevant to what Judaism says on the subject. -70.90.164.174 (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Why was the text consensus text? The majority of what you had eliminated had been there for a long long time. Yes, you eliminated 100% of my input up to that point, but my input was only two sentences, and you eliminated whole paragraphs of simple grammar that could be easily sourced (and was by me immediately after). You are not ignorant in Hebrew. You know more than I do, so you well know that the grammatical points in the sections that had been there for months were obvious and not in error. If they needed citation, it's a simple thing to do, and you could have done it yourself. But no, it's time to edit wholesale.

Tim, look at the diff: [1]. This was the edit I made. It did not take out anything that you'd written about literary approaches. Not a word.

And here is when you started reverting my edits ([2]). Note that what you reverted contained your "literary approaches" content in full. That being the case, why did you revert my edit? It can't have been because I removed that paragraph, because I hadn't. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Why does a comment on mesopotamian myths have relevance? Simple, REGARDLESS of whether the Bible and the Mesopotamian myths both stemmed from real history, both stemmed from earlier stories, or one stemmed from the other, it's standard scholarly opinion that they are related (and this can be documented in entire volumes). The fact that the Mesopotamian stories are more matriarchal and the Biblical stories more patriarchal shows that even in SIMILAR stories, the Bible tends toward masculine points of view. Neumann and others have written entire volumes on the subject, and Neumann was cited.

Okay, that explains why you'd mention them in the context of what you think the Bible says about God's gender. But why would you put it in a section on what Judaism thinks of God's gender? Why not, say, in the section on what Christianity thinks of the question? After all, both religions value Tanakh, yes? Why choose a section on Judaism to insert content that has nothing to do with Judaism? -LisaLiel (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And finally, I have a question for you: why DID you leave the article alone for a month, and only decided to start an edit war precisely on a section that I had only first edited a few hours before? And why have you not rescinded your request to have me banned from editing in Jewish sections? And why do you expect me to believe that this apparent ENFORCEMENT of your own requested ban is merely some wild coincidence?Tim (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any enforcement of what I requested. Could you give examples? I think you're making it up, but I'm willing to look at diffs, if you think you can present any.

As to why I left the article alone for a month, it's simple. The article went into a lengthy flood of edits on a subject I wasn't interested in. There were tons of edits, and I just didn't care. But the article is on my watchlist, so whenever I check that, I see edits. This time, I saw an edit in the Judaism section. It was yours, but note that none of the changes I made to the section touched your edit. I left it in, at the time, despite thinking that it had no relevance to that section. It was only much later, after you had reverted all of my edits (all of them) that I took that section out. And now I've replaced it, but put it in a more appropriate section. Does that answer your question? -LisaLiel (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim, Lisa's said unkind and silly things to and about both of us, it would be rather nice if others pursuade her to stop. Leaving aside the personal attack side of things, it's just plain irrelevant to the topics of articles that are being edited. How about we just ignore her personal comments now that there are a fair few people around to observe what she's been doing. I'm sure she thinks she's being helpful, but she's only going to accept that she's not if others tell her. It's not fair or right but it's a fact. There's a lot more to this article than the Judaism section, and if it wasn't Lisa, there'd be others who'd push a lot of similar points. Anyway, happy bedtime for me here in Australia. Night all. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit history

Because several misstatements of fact, tendentious claims, and wikilawyering have come out with regards to this section, I thought it would be worthwhile to present a brief history of the editing that has occurred on this section. It will be useful for mediation, and if necessary, for arbitration.

• On July 4, 2008, I noticed that the header in this article stated, without any citation, that Judaism views God as male. Since this isn't the case, I edited it (diff: [3]) and provided two reliable sources for my edit.

• Alastair immediately responded by editing to state that Judaism views God as "non-feminine" (whatever that was supposed to mean), and added a reference to a quote by Paula Reimers that doesn't address the question of how Judaism views God in terms of gender, but rather addresses the reasons why some people might want to use feminine terminology for God (diff: [4]).

• Since the two sources I had posted backed up the edit which stated that God has no gender in Judaism, and since the Reimers quote did not support Alastairs edit claiming that God is seen as "non-feminine" in Judaism, I changed the text back. Despite the fact that the Reimers quote was irrelevant, I left it there (diff: [5]).

• Alastair replied to this edit by posting a scolding on my talk page (diff: [6]) telling me not to remove sourced material. Of course, you can see by the article history that I hadn't done any such thing.

• On July 5, 2008, Alastair then edited the header of the article to say, again, and removed any statement about how Judaism views God in terms of gender, and instead stated that the Tanakh of Judaism presents God as masculine (diff: [7]).

• On July 6, 2008, I once again changed the text to state that Judaism views God as having no gender, and I moved the Reimers quote into the Judaism section, allowing it to stand in the body of the article, immediately after another quote by Rebecca Alpert about modern Reconstructionist prayer book which uses feminine language for God (diff: [8]). I did not remove the source, because Alastair clearly felt strongly about it, but I took it out of the header, because it did not address the issue of how Judaism views God in terms of gender.

• Alastair's response was to label the citation of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan as "POV" and the citation of Jewfaq.com (a well known resource for Jewish concepts) as "irrelevant" (diff: [9]). While I'm trying to present these edits without commentary, I was stunned that an editor on Wikipedia would behave this way. So I simply reverted it (diff: [10]).

• On July 8, 2008, I edited out the two sources I'd put in (diff: [11]). I then placed those sources in the Judaism section, where they more properly belonged (diff: [12]). And then I moved the {{fact}} tag in the header so that it was only pointing to the statement about Islam, because the sources for Judaism were available in the Judaism section (diff: [13]).

• At this point, Tim and Ilkali got into war over grammar. I lost interest and didn't pay much attention to the article for a while, except for removing the quotes that Tim had placed around the word God (diff [14]).

• On July 28, 2008, though I wasn't paying attention, so I missed it at the time, Alastair again labeled the sources I'd brought as POV and moved them to the bottom of the sections (diff: [15]). In the intervening time, Alastair had had an RfC brought against him by Ilkili for bullying and wikilawyering, had threatened legal action against Wikipedia, been banned, backed out of his threat and gotten unbanned, and refused to respond to the RfC, whereapon it was closed by an admin.

• Alastair next changed the sources so that instead of them reading as reliable sources for Judaism, they were presented as opinions (diff: [16]). Again, I wasn't paying attention, or I would have challenged this as soon as he did it. He stated that one of the sources "sees" things a certain way, and that the other "believes" what he wrote. It's hard to imagine a more weaselly way of trying to get around reliable sources.

• Today, August 3, 2008, Tim added a piece of material about Mesopotamian myths to the Judaism section, which has no relevance, since Judaism does not consider itself to be derived from such myths, even if some modern biblical scholars claim it was (diff: [17]).

• At about that point, I noticed what Alastair had done, and I went in to fix it (diff: [18]). I moved the reliable sources back up to the beginning of the article, since they are the only sources in the entire article which even speak to the question of God's gender in Judaism. The quote from Rebecca Alpert does not; it talks about a controversial prayer book put out by the Reconstructionist Movement which uses feminine grammar and imagery for God, but which does not claim that God is female in Judaism (or male for that matter; it doesn't address the issue at all). The quote from Paula Reimers does not; it speaks only to the sociological reasons why some people like a book like the one Alpert commented on. The material on Mesopotamian myths is not relevant to the Jewish view of God's gender, because Judaism does not believe itself to be based on Mesopotamian myths, even if some modern biblical scholars claim it was. The material demonstrating that God is referred to with masculine grammar and imagery in the Bible is irrelevant, since the reliable sources in the section stipulate that this is the case. Nevertheless, I left all of that material in, and merely moved the only reliable sources in the entire section to the top, and removed the weasel words that Alastair had added for the purpose of dismissing them as mere "opinion pieces".

• That was when Alastair decided to eliminate edits he didn't agree with. Without any discussion whatsoever, he reverted my edit (diff: [19]).

• I then restored my edit, which Alastair has labeled a reversion (diff: [20]).

• Alastair responded by reverting my edit again, and warning me against "edit warring". It's a strange thing to call what I did edit warring. I made a reasonable edit, which Alastair reverted without a word of explanation, and when I restored it, he accused me of edit warring. And reverted it for the second time (diff: [21]).

• I restored my edit for the second time, and placed a warning on the Talk page to Alastair. I gave a lengthy explanation for my initial edit, and warned Alastair to stop reverting my edit (diff: [22]). This time, I also removed the paragraph which contained a lengthy discussion of Hebrew grammar, which had no relevance to the Jewish position on the gender of God.

• On the Talk page, Alastair labeled the text that I edited "the consensus text". He also claimed that I was "altering text that has stood for more than a year", when the edit history clearly shows (as I think the diffs I've given show) that what I altered was text that had been there for several weeks.

• Alastair had reverted my edit twice, so he sent Tim in to do it the next time. Tim reverted the Judaism section to the way it had been before my initial edit on this day, including putting the only two relevant reliable sources at the bottom of the section, with weasel words preceding each one (diff: [23]). He then added a citation which says that God is both male and female (diff: [24]).

• I then edited the page so that it reflected my initial edit with the addition of Tim's source. This should not be considered a reversion, since it included Tim's addition of a source (diff: [25]).

• Without any discussion, Tim reverted my edit (diff: [26]).

• I restored my edit once more, but this time omitted the irrelevant paragraph about Mesopotamian myths (diff: [27]).

• Tim then reverted my edit again. This was the third time he reverted my edit, yet I note that he has not been blocked. The only reversions I have done this entire day have been to restore the edit I made initially which was reverted for no legitimate reason (diff: [28]).

• So I restored my edit one more time (diff: [29]).

• Then Alastair reverted my edit for his third time (diff: [30]). At this point, my edit had been reverted six times in the space of an hour. Three times by Tim and three times by Alastair.

• Finally, I restored my edit for the last time (diff: [31]).

• As a result of all of this, I was blocked for 24 hours, even though my "reverts" consisted only of restoring a good faith edit that had been reverted by two other editors without any discussion.

If anyone wants to see detailed interaction, I've commented at my talk page. A simple inspection shows Lisa asserting her right to reject RS (Biblical scholars aren't relevant). To insist on POV (X believes ..., she calls weasling). As well as the entertaining "I restore edits -- You edit war" double standard. She's absolutely acting in good faith, but ironically accusing innocent parties of precisely the errors she's making.

Lisa doesn't seem to be the admitting error or apologising type. However, I think she's plenty smart enough to reflect on the policies and her own actions and realise where she's gone astray.

Continuing misrepresentation of me as guilty of a bannable offense, however, is unacceptable.

I have always and always will hold the Wiki community and foundation accountable for defamation regarding me published on its pages.

I have never and will never threaten to seek compensation in court. But I cannot waive what the law upholds. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan is an acknowledged expert in traditional Judaism. To present what he says about Judaism as "Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan believes" is highly POV. What he says about Judaism is a reliable source about what Judaism says. Yes, it's a source about what traditional Judaism says, but you can hardly make a case that traditional Judaism should be treated as a fringe view, and present truly fringe views (controversial in all Jewish streams) as dominant. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"As well as the entertaining "I restore edits -- You edit war" double standard". Do you acknowledge that you edit-warred with Lisa? If not, it seems you are just as guilty of practicing double standards. Ilkali (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'll bite -- I DID edit war with Lisa and I'll even INSIST that I did; not only here but on a number of other pages. I'll also add that in every case I blinked first.

I'll also add that I find the entire experience unnerving. I don't believe that I've edit warred with anyone else, but I also can't remember a page she and I have been on in which we did NOT edit war.Tim (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Did Alastair edit-war, Tim? Ilkali (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

@Ilkali. Not quite in bed yet. Glad you showed up. This is precisely the question you need to think through too.

When restoring stable or sourced text an editor is not edit warring, rather the editor is choosing not to pass a new revision, but challenge it. The editor is not defending her own text, rather stable or sourced text attributable to all editors who've viewed the stable version or the authors of published works, irrespective of who entered text into an article.

On the other hand, a user who rocks up to a page changes it, then insists that an reversions are ownership, obstructive and edit-warring, and uses such claims as grounds to discount arguments offered by any editor who challenges the recent change ... such a user is edit-warring herself.

Sound familiar?

Perhaps not, it can be hard to see things from other people's perspective if you're not used to it.

Apologies if I appear to be slighting you, but that's quite simply the way it is. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"When restoring stable or sourced text an editor is not edit warring". More clumsy wikilawyering. WP:EDITWAR does not have an "except if you think you're right" clause. The only exceptions listed are for vandalism and edits from banned users, neither of which applies here. Ilkali (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And for his next trick Ilkali demonstrates the double standard of wikilawyering.

Citing policy to communicate its purpose is not wikilawyering, quoting aimless details is.

Wikilawyering is "where is the policy that says that", Wikilawyering is not providing references for people who won't listen to the explanation of the principle.

So, wikilawyering is saying "where does it say you can't remove sourced text w/out consensus".

Wikilawyering is observing that saying "unsourced text can be removed at any time" does not explicitly say anything about sourced text. It is left to a reader's good faith to understand that sourcing text provides it with a reliability that should be accorded appropriate respect.

The problem with wikilawyers is not that they use policy all the time, but that the only way to get them to approximate co-operation is to show them where co-operation is described in policy.

Ponder these things, they are good for the soul. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair says that "restoring stable or sourced text an editor is not edit warring". In other words, it's okay for him to unilaterally revert an edit if he deems it inferior to something called "stable text". This is a delusion of ownership which is contrary to the idea of Wikipedia.

From the beginning, Alastair has accused me of removing sources when the sources were still there. He uses words as weapons, rather than for what they actually mean.

Don't tell us what's "good for the soul", Alastair. Don't accuse other editors of lying when you are the one who lies all the time. Your arrogance is overweening, and it has no place on Wikipedia. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

←Lisa the last part of that comment is incivil, ad hominem and it's not going to help. Please withdraw it. Alastair I will say the same to you about your remarks re Ilkali. And Ilkali for the second time in 24 hours I will ask you to withdraw your remarks about double standards. If the three of you cannot moderate your behaviour measures will be taken to prevent further disruption & escalation. Consider yourselves all to be on a yellow card--Cailil ^talk 16:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"I would appreciate it if just once someone would recognize that "well mannered" does not equate to "civil". Alastair's posts are incredibly uncivil, and I'm not sure what word other than "lie" should properly be used for repeated misstatements of facts and an utter refusal to ever admit that he is at fault. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Cailil, I will not withdraw my comments to Ilkali, they are very nicely expressed in my usual unswervingly polite and respectful style. I will remind you that they are addressed to an editor who has not only repeatedly gamed the system, but defamed me also. When someone else is challenging Ilkali for these things, then indeed I will desist. But, other than Tim, no one has called Ilkali to account for his endless disruptive editing. For goodness sake, I don't want to tell people what they're doing wrong. It's just that someone has to do it. Everything I said is true, polite and appropriate. There are simply no grounds for withdrawl, only for endorsement. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Creation midrash

Isn't there a traditional Jewish midrash (possibly with nods to Mesopotamian legend) that Adam was originally created a hermaphrodite, with both male and female attributes, in God's image -- and that the female Eve was then created from one "side" of the original Adam (this being an alternative possible translation of the Hebrew word usually translated "rib") ?

If anyone can confirm this, does it deserve a mention? Jheald (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a possible ref [32], found via WP's entry on Adam and Eve. Google search finds more. Jheald (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that view has even been mentioned to me by my supervisor. It would "flesh" (sorry) rather nicely with Blech, who, along with the Mesopotamian comment need restoration I believe, in what was otherwise a good recategorisation of the material. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Both the Blech quote and the Mesopotamian quote are still in the article, and do not require "restoration" to the section on Judaism. Furthermore, to answer Jheald, if you could establish that the midrash you mention is relevant to God's gender, as opposed to Adam's, then possibly it should be included. You'd have to demonstrate that it speaks to the question of God's gender in Judaism, though. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool Lisa, glad you incorporated those. I was going to make the same objection you make, but then I checked again and remembered "in God's image" is a key part of the argument. Adam is seen to have had male and female within, because the female is extracted and the male left behind. The duality is then projected backwards into God, in whose image "man, male and female" was created. It's a valid midrash for Blech's idea, and older. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say "glad you incorporated those"? I didn't. But as you can see, the section, while retaining the fact that Judaism does not attribute gender to God (traditional and modern feminist views agree on this), we relate to God through various "aspects", and masculine and feminine aspects are among these, as are "merciful" and "quick to anger" and "forgiving" and "just".

Since you have adamantly refused to adduce any liberal feminist sources for God's gender, but you clearly wanted to address the subject, I found the source for you and included it. You don't have to thank me. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On an aside, I never understood how mercy was dubbed a feminine trait and justice a masculine one. Both men and women are merciful and just. I wonder if this, also, is an evidence of a gender bias in a culture. I DO know from Neumann that the "Great Mother" archetype in matriarchal religions had justice and wrath being dispensed from the mother deity, rather than a male one. It may be interesting to see if there are sources that would show matriarchal versus patriarchal leanings in the identification of the dispensation of "justice" or "mercy."Tim (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not always. In some views of the sephirot, "mercy" (rachamim) is identified with Tiferet, which is the middle ground between Hesed and Gevurah, and therefore neutrally gendered. While "justice" (din) is often identified with Gevurah, which is considered feminine in nature.

I'm not sure that modern views of what constitutes masculine and feminine can be read into Jewish tradition. Gevurah, after all, is often translated as "might", which might sound like a masculine attribute. But many rabbinic sources identify Gevurah as "restraint", which is considered more of a feminine ideal (Eizohu gibbor? Hakovesh et yitzro.) -LisaLiel (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add that even the Shechina is seen in both masculine and feminine terms. It's identified often with the Sephira of Malchut (kingship), which Judaism holds as something relevant only to males (Rambam says melech v'lo malka). If you look long enough, you can find contradictory/complementary imagery for almost any aspect of God. That's because it's a description of the aspect, and not of God. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! It does seem to me that attempting to infer a view of the gender of God from combining a midrash about the gender of Adam with a Bible quote that Adam was created "in God's image" would seem to be an example of a original research synthesis, using sourced material to construct a new argument that goes beyond what the original sources actually say. Finally, attempting to construct a view of gender from taking Divine traits and characterizing the gender of those traits can also be problematic. Conceptions of what gender a trait or quality is associated with may vary, and sources may have a different conception from editors. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. However, the editor who proposed this was noting that there are published sources that argue this. He is quite correct. I don't think many people have held or hold the view (certainly not me and I doubt the first poster either), but it has been published and cited many times and is bang on topic. Absolutely not the first thing that needs to be said under Bible and certainly not under Judaism though. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil Titles Removed

Above, I state that Tim's claim that God is always the father, never the mother, is his point of view. He responds that it is not his point of view because it is obviously the case. Here Tim revelas his utter miksunderstanding or lack of concern for our core policies. NPOV exists precisely because what one person considers and obvious fact, another considers false; NOR exists because we often put in our own vies as if they were obvious. For the record, some people claim that the Bible does not portray God always as the father and never as the father. This is obviously just one point of view. But it means that the claim that God is obviously portrayed as the father is also just a point of view. That Tim thinks this is obvious also shows his lack of knowledge of literature on the Bible. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sl -- a lack of knowledge of literature of the Bible. I could give my credentials but that would be OR, right? How about this? Demonstrate MY ignorance by showing an explicit quote where God is called Israel's "Mother" or "Wife" in the Hebrew Bible. Since you are saying I have a lack of knowledge of literature of the Bible, then you obviously have knowledge to the contrary, nu? Your call -- which one of us has a lack of knowledge of literature of the Bible?

Or, FOR THE LAST TIME, you don't even need to demonstrate which one of us is ignorant. All I've asked for is a simple, "my mistake." And I'll say, "my mistake in thinking you were biased."

Or -- an even simpler solution. Just delete this farce -- your subsection and my answer -- and we can move on to something real.Tim (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was entirely appropriate to post this on the article talk page. Would it be more affective (and less like throwing someone in the stocks) to have brought this up with him at least semi-privately via his talk page? The fact that we're singling Tim out here- no matter how wrong or right he is- leaves me with a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. L'Aquatique[talk] 03:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

L'Aquatique, thanks -- but could you go to the page and look at the Blech quote I put in there that says the exact OPPOSITE of what Sl is saying my bias is blinding me to? I think I need some vindication. I ALSO think we need to remember that the first call of NPOV is to know your own POV and deliberately balance it, which I have unquestionably done. I need more than "this isn't the right place." I need a vindication, please.Tim (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the worst POV of all are from those who don't recognize their own. The first order of responsible NPOV is to know your perspective and to counter balance it in the article. I've done so in the article, and Sl has not done so here. I can't remember how many times he's leveled this charge against me, and each time it's been backwards. NPOV is representing ALL the POVs, not one. I've consistently argued for this against Sl, and this is the latest instance.Tim (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As much as I don't particularly want to be the vehicle of another person's vindication, if you give me a diff I'll take a look. But I will say, sometimes the best defense is to say nothing at all. I'm pretty sure there's something in the Talmud to that effect, but I don't have the exact words... L'Aquatique[talk] 03:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

L'Aquatique, this is the diff: [33], and this is what I added in that diff:

Benjamin Blech writes in Understanding Judaism:

“ Yet … Judaism long ago acknowledged the validity of [the] feminine dimenstion of the Deity. The two names of God differ grammatically with regard to sexual connotation… The Tetragrammaton (YHVH)…is…feminine; it refers to God as if “He” were in fact “She.” Yet, as we have frequently noted, the Lord is also called ELoHiYM. That name ends with…masculine plural… If human beings are created in God’s image, and the single most important thing we know about God is that He is One – why did God create two kinds of people, male and female, after His likeness? …God chose to create two different kinds of people on this earth, not in spite of the fact that He is One, but precisely because God in the deepest sense of the word is really two. Of course we do not suggest any kind of dualism implying separate identities. Rather, as the very names of God imply, there are two distinct aspects to the Deity. God is both masculine and feminine. This gender difference is not one of physical attributes but one of emotion and typology. ”

As you can see this shows the precise NEUTRAL gender that Lisa was arguing for, but it was giving sourcing to the grammatical issues that Alastair wanted. This bridged the gap between two rival POVs on the page, Alastair's POV that grammar meant something and Lisa's POV that neutral gender ruled the day. I gave a NEUTRAL GENDER note on GRAMMAR that said the exact OPPOSITE of what Sl is accusing me of -- viz. pushing a patriarchal POV.Tim (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like your evidence stands for itself. I'm not really sure what you want me to do. L'Aquatique[talk] 03:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

L`Aquatique, I don't need you to do anything. I just needed to make you aware of a long standing bias problem I've been dealing with. Thanks for listening. The only thing I need from anyone is for Sl to stop. He doesn't even need to apologize. Just, STOP.Tim (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I was responding only to one comment you made on this talk page, that a certain view was "obvious." That was all. From what you have just written, I am not sure why you wrote that passage in the first place, but it seems to me that you have now moved away from it, which I appreciate. As to singling you out, I think the point that saying any particular view is "obvious" is very unhelpful in a conflict, and everyone would be wise not to make such claims. I saw Tim make such a claim and I pointed it out. If Tim is no longer making such a claim - and if Lisa and others are notmaking such claims - we may be able to resolve the conflicts here. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sl, I didn't retract that claim. It's a simple fact: when looking at the metaphors given in the Hebrew Bible, there are numerous instances of God having the metaphor of "Father" and "Husband" but never "Mother" and "Wife". My source gave a DIFFERENT way of approaching the neutral gender spin Lisa wanted with the grammar and Biblical points that Alastair wanted. But for goodness sake -- I merely stated the obvious, and you won't find any sources that demonstrate otherwise. The tack has to be taken in a different way, which I accomplished through the Blech quote regarding feminine and masculine word endings between the name and title of God. But slamming someone for NPOV violations on a talk page when he's only pointing out that you're in a culdesac and have to take a different street isn't productive. I ended up finding that Blech quote BECAUSE the existing impasse was obvious.

And yes, I very much DO want you to retract the charge of a NPOV problem. I simply recognized that we needed a different solution to what Alastair and Lisa were differing about -- something that gave what both were trying to say.Tim (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Boy, do I wish I had time and my copies of Phyllis Tribble's books to provide the other POV to Tim's POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sl, again I am asking you to rename this thread, and to simply recognize that you made an honest mistake. I wasn't pushing a POV. I was pointing to a problem that needed to be worked around, and I worked around it. Instead of calling such a retraction on my part, just admit an honest mistake on your part. You ARE human, right? Surely you could have made an honest mistake. It's either that or bias, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Please take it -- we apologize to each other -- and we stop this ridiculous tit for tat where you pull out NPOV and fail to realize that this is exactly what I am trying to accomplish as well. Where we differ is this: you wanted it worded NPOV, and I want it ALSO to be NPOV and equally comprehensible to English speakers in a generic audience. I'm holding out my hand -- bias, or an honest mistake. You tell me.Tim (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate Uncivil Title Removed

First, stating the obvious on a TALK page is legitimate. Second, it's an incontrovertible fact. Third, and MOST IMPORTANT, I gave a citation that said the OPPOSITE of what SL is trying to paint on me for bias. This last point is the most significant, because it paints SL's bias instead of my own. Sl, I will remove the charge of bias if you will immediately rescind this last instance of a long string of NPOV twistings. Stop now, please.

Anyone can see in the edits that my most extensive contributions to the Jewish section said the OPPOSITE of what you are trying to paint my POV as representing; and that, in fact, I gave both sides of the issue in cited qutations, giving the most detail to the opposite of what you think I am pushing. No one with any lack of bias could possibly has missed it. The fact that you did calls into question your ability to make any neutral contributions in this hotly contested series of edits.

Again, a simple mea culpa and I'll withdraw the charge of bias. Your call.Tim (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I find this odd. As far as I can see, everyone who's expressed an opinion on the Judaism section has actually been able to accept Lisa's final form of structure and content. I think it is particularly admirable of Lisa, and demonstrates that despite strong words, people were actually focussed on content and achieved the goal of an accurate, NPOV revision.

The current revision is hardly final, and nothing ever is at Wiki. It's still short of the high standard SL would like to see, but it's now on that trajectory.

Perhaps the issue is that SL is more aware of literature that "sees past" the surface masculinity of the Tanakh, and more concerned to see interpretation of the Tanakh in line with the majority view under Judaism.

I am aware of Jewish Bible scholars who do go SL's way, but if the heading remains Bible it's actually open to including Christian Bible scholars who are going to swamp it with masculinity.

I'm only guessing, on the evidence of SL's and Tim's posts.

Am I in the ball-park SL? Is Tim's alleged POV a broader issue in your assessment of the many posts you've seen from him, or is it specific to this topic or this page?

Personally, I don't think edits or editors are ever POV, properly speaking; or rather, we assume all editors have POV and all edits enter POV. The NPOV policy is about including all POV, not about accusing one another of having personal opinions; and it's about expressing reliably sourced POV from the NPOV—"X believes, Y asserts, but Z thinks". I suspect detailed POV should often be avoided in the lead, but otherwise, it is addressed by addition, not censorship. Where am I wrong?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Haines (talk • contribs) 10:44, 5 August 2008

Alistair, yes, I think you understand me. Tim, I have no idea what you are trying to say. You wrote, "God is our husband and NEVER our wife. He is out Father and NEVER our mother. It's abundant, well known, and obvious" and now you claim that this is an incontrovertable fact. What is the point of such assertions? It is not obvious, and it is not an incontrovertable fact. An "incontrovertable fact" sounds a lot like the "truth" that Wikipedians are supposed to avoid, in favor of verifiable and notable points of view. What is wrong with my pointing this out? Claimint it is an incontrovertable fact gets us nowhere. Stating it is one point of view, allowing for others, allows us to move forward. I am sorry if you think I am somehow attacking you or somehow biased, but what can I say? I will not apologize pointing out that such statements hinder progress and should be presented as points of view rather than obvious and incontrovertable facts. And I do not know what you think my bias is, except I am biased in favor of our NPOR and NOR policies. Is that the bias you accuse me of? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sl, if you can't show a brick wall on a talk page, then you can't fix the article. Seriously now, can you show ANY instance in which God is explicitly called Israel's "wife"? That's a brick wall. I pointed it out, then I went around the brick wall. But if no one points it out, we'll just keep knocking our heads into it.Tim (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And to answer your question, I accused you of bias for suggesting that I was pushing a POV agenda of EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what I was trying to accomplish on the article page. The only way you could have missed that -- especially NOW that I've quoted it for you -- is if you have a reason for singling me out for an example here. The last page you did that on took weeks to straighten out, and I had to enlist the help of a number of non-Wikipedia Rabbis because you seem to have a biased assumption that my insistence on writing in consistent ENGLISH is somehow biased against Judaism. It isn't -- but it IS biased against sloppy syntax and inconsistent use of terms.Tim (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Friends, I like both of you too much to be comfortable with this disagreement. If I may dare to try to justify each of you to other I would say this.

I think SL is pointing out correctly that although many would not agree with them, there has indeed been a strong line within feminist writing that downplays even gender role analogies as being just as bound to cultural presumptions regarding men and women. To be specific, some feminists have and do argue that although language for God ascribes fatherhood or husbandhood to him, they propose this is just a different form of generic masculine grammatical forms—a culturally determined feature of the language and of no great interpretative significance. They've been published, it's well known, we are duty-bound to give them a voice. It's also plausible, though hardly the dominant view, even within feminism itself.

Tim's talk page post was a somewhat rhetorical explosion noting that this feminist view is small enough to be borderline WP:UNDUE.

Knowing something of Tim, I know that what he said is not his own preference or opinion, but a responsible point, though rhetorically expressed. I would dare to suggest that SL was a little "rhetorical" in calling Tim POV in his comment. SL's main point was that this particular kind of feminist view is very well known and cogently argued in print, it is not a "fringe-loony" position. While it might be fair and wise to be cautious in expressing its place in Judaism, less is at stake in expressing it in the Bible section.

The way forward: my guess is that Tim and SL would both be happy to see both types of feminst view expressed in the appropriate sections and in proportion to the minority group they actually represent. So, no problem.

More "touchy feely" is a personal side of Tim's life and relationships, which we really don't need to discuss here do we? Those of us who know will realise that he's entitled to being treated in a civil way regarding that, and perhaps this has not always been done. Rhetorical claims of Tim being POV he might normally take with a grain of salt, but there's a range of "sub-text" things going on here that make things more sensitive. I'll leave off there. I hope I've helped and not made things worse.

If I may say it, shalom friends. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alastair, you and L'Aquatique were the only two civil voices in this uncivil exchange.Tim (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

feminist views

I think we need to distinguish between two things: feminist theology, which has had an impact on how some Jews - e.g. the Reform Movement - view the gender of God (e.g. Reimer); feminist literary criticism, which has had an impact on how some scholars - like Phyllis Tribble - interpret the Bible. Both are important; they are different. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. On the other hand, one of those would go in the Judaism section, and the other would go in the Bible section. So I don't think there's much chance of confusing them. Do you see a problem there? -LisaLiel (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there is a problem if they are in separate suggestions. I think it is also a good idea to further develop the presentation of multiple Jewish views - I am just not sure how to keep it from getting overwroght e.g. Judaism in the past - the Talmud and Midrashim, the Middle Ages, and then multiple views in the present - Orthodox, reform, etc. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A daughter article is a good outcome of work on this article. By the time there is enough information to clutter this one, there sould be sufficient to source a "Start class" article on Jewish views of God's gender, or expand Jewish views of God.

Other than that, it's good to see agreement at last.

I think I see SL's point more clearly now too. He appears to be making a fair distinction between feminist influenced Bible scholars who happen to be Jewish, and feminist reform writers within Judaism who happen to be interacting with the Bible. That distinction isn't really applicable within Christianity (or many other religions). I think the reason is because Judaism is foundationally a "family" religion. A point easily overlooked by non-Jews. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sory Alistair, you misreadme. I am making a distinction between feminist infuenced Bible scholars - what thier eligion is is irrlevant (and for example I do not think Phylis Tribble is Jewish) who are calling attentions to the ways God is portrayed in feminine terms and as mother in the Bible, versus feminist writers within Judaism (mostly Reforem, also Conservative, perhaps some Orthodox) who are calling on Jews to change their views of God. My point is these are two separate groups and reflect at least two if not more points of view, and thoat points of view about how they Bible was read by its contemporaries and the meanings it had in the context in which it was written, edited, and redacted, are of a wholely different sort than points of views of Jews (or Christians or others). Slrubenstein | Talk 21:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope I'm getting it now. Judaism and Christianity and even Islam have views, and they can change over time; Bible scholars have views, sometimes quite independent of their religion, if they even have one! Finally, feminists have views: on the Bible, on religions and on God and gender and the gender of God! Arguably Bible scholars and feminists could have their own sections, as particular kinds of "expert witnesses" in their own fields.

Actually, I'll add to your list, I've done some study in philosophy and philosophers have discussed both God and gender and some the gender of God. Many recent philosophers have not been religious, but not all; though many philosophers of the past were religious in a diversity of religious traditions. This is especially true in India. But Athens and Jerusalem have been held in opposition at times in the West.

Then, feminists do philosophy and there are philosophers who are feminists.

If I read it correctly, there is one person at this page who really needed a Western philosophy section—Ilkali. There are several who really need a feminist section—Alynna, Mairi and Andowney. Until there are such sections, uncontroled by their relationship with specific religious traditions. Religious purists like Lisa and myself will legitimately "clense" the relevant religion of unduly weighted fringe material.

You're right Tribble is Christian, I've read some of her work but couldn't place her exactly. You're also right, that although she doesn't even pretend to speak for Christian orthodoxy, she does speak as an independent Bible scholar, and from a self-confessed feminist apologist position. Her views are cogent and reliable and a notable POV in that they do reflect a body of people, inside and outside Christianity, who are interested in the Bible for various reasons, without feeling constrained by official orthodoxy. If our previous conversations are anything to go by, both you and I have a lot of time for such people, who do their thinking and writing well.

So, finally, I'll mention that I agree with you, and always have, this article isn't even close to a final form. I didn't create it, the only contributions I made until recently were: correcting error in the Christian section; tidying up brief, unsourced, biased entries in other religions. Just recently I added a couple of essential sections overlooked until now—the definition section and the comparative religion section. It's not a high priority article for me. What has amazed me is how much defending I've needed to do. The Branch Davidians were having a go at the page when I arrived, I think it took me hundreds of edits just to keep them to their own section (and pages and pages in talk). There's endless weasling of Christianity.

There's a good chance I'll be able to write up a decent treatment of feminist bible scholars and theologians at some point, since I interact critically with them all the time. But that time is not going to be soon. Anyway, I hope I'm getting your point more clearly. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Alistair, it is important to me that the femnist Bible scholars I speak of are first amd fore3most Bible Scholars. They are not just feminists bloviating about the Bible,they are qualified experts on the Bible and analyzing the Bible using rigorous tools of modern scholarship. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall accusing you of thinking that. What an extraordinarily rude view for someone to hold. I've never met anyone who thinks that, and you're the last I'd have thought it of. Yes, I'm not the type to call you on it if I saw it, unless you were putting it into the text of the article. Did you read me as presenting your thinking that way above somewhere? Alastair Haines (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Alistair, I thought what I wrote was reenforcing what you wrote. I did not think I expressed disagreement with your, or were challenging anything you wrote, only emphasizing what is most important to me. Is there anything wrong with that? Wha did I write that was rude? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

LoL, no nothing rude at all. It's amazing how the wider context of things interfers with communication. It's just I found it a surprising comment, since you and I have both said this elsewhere, it seemed strange you addressed me by name. But I see now I just misread you, indeed it does echo what I'd just said. I do that too, it's helpful communication. And thanks for being personal and using my name, SLRubenstein. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Judaism as polyphonic

It's important to recognize that there isn't a single text, authority or reliable source that can present "The" Jewish tradition understanding of the gender of God. Instead, there are multiple voices and they aren't reduced to a monolithic view.

For a useful scholarly source to see some of the diversity of traditional(ist) rabbinic thinking, it would help to cite the kabbalah research of Elliot Wolfson, e.g., Circle in the Square: Studies in the Use of Gender in Kabbalistic Symbolism. Perhaps also helpful: Moshe Idel, "Sexual Metaphors and Praxis in the Kabbalah."

I also think this sentence is pretty weak: "While God is referred to in the Hebrew Bible with masculine grammatical forms, and with male imagery, this is due to the fact that Hebrew lacks a neuter grammatical form." First, shouldn't this be in the Bible section? Second, in any case, what Bible scholar believes that descriptions of God as male (what about father?) are solely due to the grammatical form?

Likewise, who is asserting that shekhinah is only gendered because of the grammatical form? For a more solid view, see for instance Peter Schafer, Mirror of His Beauty ("It is God himself for whom the rabbis have created a term with a clearly feminine gender: Shekhinah. ...whether or not the feminine gender of Shekinah implies an allusion to God's feminine sexuality or rather, to be more cautious, a female aspect of God." p.86) Rabbinic midrash oftens places the Shekhinah in a gendered role, unrelated to grammar.

The Judaism "traditional view" section needs to be more balanced or show more of the diversity with rabbinic thought and culture. I think this will require more nuanced reliable sources than "Judaism 101" and sources that try to cover the range more fully than Kaplan or Blech. Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 05:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

These are all excellent comments and I hope you will contribute to the article, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks very much. Let's hear what Lisa or others say. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 22:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What you say makes sense to me HG. There's a lot of Christian reading of the Hebrew Bible that makes some of those points. The Lord of Sabaoth, husband, father—these appear to be gendered, irrespective of grammar, and not sexed, precisely as you say. While in theory Jewish and Christian reading of the HB could differ sharply in this as in a few other things, Rabbinic scholarship is taken seriously by modern Christian Bible scholars also, and agreements are much more numerous. In my own reading of Jacob Milgrom on Leviticus, it seemed that the main difference is Jewish scholarship is much more detailed, nuanced and asks far more questions of the text that Christian scholarship. The difference is generally not in conclusions, but quality—Jewish readings simply being more insightful (that's coming from a Christian student of the HB).

On an article structure level, though, I like Lisa's separation of Bible from Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It would fit well with an Abrahamic religions section, implicitly indicating the chronological and other relationships between the faiths, and making explicit the significance of Judaism within the Abrahamic stream.

What the normal view of God's gender is in Judaism, or even if such a definitive statement could be made, is a matter I'm incompetant to judge. For it to be distinctly different to the Hebrew Bible would surprise me. Atm I'm content to let others say what they will about this, leaving readers who know more to refine it. Keep sharing your knowledge of sources with us, please HG! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

HG, you are showing a good knowledge of these issues and sources, and I think your additions to this article will be a breath of fresh air. Please take a crack at this. We need some diversity in the Jewish section of this article and you look like just the person to offer it.Tim (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just wanted to add that I agreed enthusiastically with every point you made. Please edit, and edit boldly; including any necessary rearrangement.Tim (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for the positive feedback. If you don't mind my saying so (partly based on Shituf etc), and I don't mean to be unkind, I must admit I'm a bit hesitant to contribute because some of the disputants here seem to argue from their own knowledge and analysis. I'd prefer that editors use their energy to ferret out and paraphrase (etc) topnotch secondary sources. Also, I would like to wait for Lisa's response. <comment by HG | Talk>

HG, I'm not sure what you're asking. The section already stipulates that Judaism uses a great deal of masculine imagery for God. Just as it uses a great deal of anatomical imagery for God (hand, nose, arm, etc). The anatomical imagery doesn't imply that God is embodied, and the masculine imagery doesn't imply that God is gendered.

I don't see any problem with giving examples of masculine imagery that's used for God. There's already some in the article (the beard thing, for example). How many examples would you think are necessary? Perhaps we need to distinguish as well between "descriptive views" and "theological views". It would be factually (on the basis of Orthodox and Reform and probably Conservative sources) incorrect to state that Judaism holds God to be gendered, regardless of how many instances there are of masculine imagery, but I don't think you're asking to do that. I'm not sure what you're asking, actually. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm asking for changes in 2 specific sentences about the relevance of the grammatical form.

What sort of changes?

Also: asking for the article to give well-sourced info about the ways that Jewish texts/people do treat God as gendered. For this purpose, the distinction between description vs theology/fact is not helpful. I'd say the secondary sources would enable us to distinguish between, say, aggadic, mystical and rationalist approaches within Judaism. Or maybe between law/doctrine and narrative. In any case, I'd recommend that the article quote or paraphrase Schafer, Wolfson, et al., not our own analysis. Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 13:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with sources such as you're describing, provided that they don't come across as contradicting Jewish theology. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(Random break; mostly on Hebrew Bible)

Alastair, as an anthology, the Hebrew Bible does not reflect a uniform literary representation of God's gender aspects. Critical scholarship on ancient Israel takes into account differences between, say, the Deuteronomic history and the prophets. So there are multiple Biblical (i.e., ancient Israel) approaches to the gender of God. Likewise, the Jewish view varies somewhat in different eras and there is some diversity of Jewish views in each era. (While any given Jewish view relies partly on Biblical exegesis, I wouldn't expect the mix of Jewish views to match the multiple ancient Israel views over numerous generations.) Hope this didn't come across as confusing. In sum, scholars would say that the ancient Israel views are distinct from later Jewish views, though later Jewish exegesis functions so as to bridge such distinctions. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly different to you HG, in that I think editorial analysis has an inevitable place in selection and presentation of top-notch sources. These things are not mechanical. That is precisely why I value your comments highly. Not only do you know quality sources applicable to the topic, you show imo appropriate editorial discretion in considering how they relate to one another. (I won't buy into Shituf which involved several people here—this, fortunately, is a different topic and different crowd.)

If your first sentence is any guide, you're personally open to both the possibility of a real God, and to real engagement with genuine gender aspects in relation to him. This is, of course, precisely the perspective of a diverse range of scholars whose views agree on this while disagreeing about some of those aspects, and are precisely the first line of sources sought in this article. Literary-historical criticism of these sources, and in parallel with them, provides both a control on interpretation in some cases, and yet another POV on the subject itself in others.

If I'm unclear, the Documentary Hypothesis approach was a literary-historical analysis, which at first was associated by many with a sceptical view of God, but came at last to be used even in conservative scholarship, while later being much modified even by sceptics themselves.

Addressing your particular points, I second you that in my reading of biblical scholarship, it used to be axiomatic that biblical sources had diverse authors presenting different theological perspectives, typically addressing historical situations—Moses addressing the exodus context, Joshua and Judges addressing different later situations, the latter prophets still later ones again. Since the late 19th century, however, there has been a strong tradition that all biblical books may show evidence of being largely shaped by exilic or post exilic redaction of some earlier material. Currently, this plausible but not dominant, view is held by both conservatives and sceptics in various forms, while also being challenged by scholars of both convictions. In recent writing, scholars of both types tend to interact with both alternative explanations of origin of the text that has come down to us.

My "feel" for the nature of contemporary scholarship of the Hebrew Bible is that, while there are clear advocates for various positions regarding the transmission of the HB, the "default" position is an agnostic one—formally, scholars present readings without presuming a known answer to either the transmission question (or, for that matter, the "inspiration" question).

So, yes, irrespective of many unresolved questions, it is possibly a poorly formed or implicitly presumptuous thing to speak of "one" biblical view of gender. But I'll defend Lisa (and those of us who supported her new section) against your politely expressed reservation by noting that the topic of this article is gender of God, not justice, mercy, intervention or other matters which are very differently treated in Job, Ecclesiastes, Leviticus or Kings for example. On the topic of gender, some books like Hosea, Ezekiel, Exodus, Joshua, Psalms and so on provide various distinctively masculine presentations of God, whereas Esther doesn't mention him, the Song of Songs has but one arguable allusion to him and Proverbs personifies his wisdom in unmistakably feminine terms.

I think Lisa explained herself very clearly above, she's concerned to defend the Judaism section from what she believes is undue attention to whatever bible scholars may or may not say about the Tanakh. On the other hand, I've been concerned that this is not addressed in such a way as the Tanakh, interpreted by reliable sources, be silenced. Ultimately, Lisa found a way of accomodating that reasonable request. I must admit though, I'm as curious as everyone about what Lisa's views regarding the Hebrew Bible actually are. Though, like you said, editors opinions' are not our focus at Wiki, I personally believe they are part of the process. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no reservations about a section entitled "In the Bible" (or the like). The section could cover a range of historical and literary perspectives on gender (of God) in the Bible and as inferred for ancient Israel. In my view, when editors disagree, or when the topic is contentious, it's advisable to minimize "editorial analysis" (your term) and stick closely to the process of selecting and applying reliable sources, figuring out the weight of competing views, giving proportionate coverage, etc. Thanks again for you kind comments. All the best, HG | Talk 03:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, part of editorial discretion is the discretion of not exercising it. ;)

You seem to be introducing a nice, subtle but important category, which admits the "inferred views of ancient Judaism" (wrt gender of God) pretty much under either heading. Three cheers for Lisa's division, just so long as none of us become too dogmatic about this convenient, but not entirely sourced, categorisation. Wikipedia will be here when the current editors and our scruples have vanished. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that while midieval rationalists like Maimonides spoke of a genderless God, this is not the passionate language of the Prophets or the Song of Songs, nor of a lot of mystics.

Go, and declare in the ears of Jerusalem, saying: Thus saith the LORD: I remember the tenderness of your youth, the love of your bridal days; how you went after Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown. (Jeremiah 2:2).

The "you" and "your" are in the female gender, singular number. There can be no doubting the symbolism. From the point of view of this stream of thought -- and it goes broad and deep, right alongside the rationalist perspective -- the relationship is a domestic one, the House a kind of cohabitation, its destruction a kind of divorce, a felt absence, an almost physical longing for nearness, an intensity of passion. From this point of view we are all, in some sense, female in the relationship, and both the Presence and its perceived absence are felt in a female sense. It's a crazy relationship, tumultuous, full of beckoning and withdrawing, loyalty and infidelity, exaltation and tragedy. In some sense the very opposite of rationalism. From that underlying current springs a great deal of Jewish mysticism. It is both. In religion it is possible for opposites to exist at the same time. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The article and the sources stipulate that masculine imagery is commonly used for God. This doesn't, however, change the fact that God -- as opposed to the imagery we use for various reasons -- is not gendered. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- can you tell me who here is arguing that God has a literal sex? I keep seeing your side of the argument but can't find the other. Also, I need to add that God not being gendered is not a "fact." It is one of many possible POVs being explored here. Although it IS a fact that God is never explicitly called Israel's "wife" or "mother" (my offer to be corrected was not taken for obvious reasons), it is ALSO a fact that Jewish (and Gentile) theologians have observed both masculine (i.e. God being Israel's redeemer kinsman) and feminine (i.e. God brooding over us like a hen) imagery (as noted in your own post), as well as masculine (the Divine Title) and feminine (the Divine Name) grammatical forms (as documented in my Blech quote). In Jewish tradition the Song of Songs is treated like an analogy for Israel and God as well, and that is a passionately gendered book being treated as a passionately gendered analogy. All of these are well known and easily documented. In fact, most of them already are here, and after the cooling off period is over I'll document my point that Sl regarded as a grand display of ignorance of Biblical literature (you will note that I am not editing at all at the moment). Although I think Sl picked a really bad example, I think that Sl will agree with me that your saying that it is a "fact that God...is not gendered" really is a POV problem. The fact is -- that it is not a fact. It's not something easily confirmed like the simple fact that I supplied (which is as easily confirmed as the roundness of the earth). In fact, your fact cannot be confirmed at all, unless God were to suddenly appear and show us -- and I doubt very seriously that any of us expect that to happen. Finally, while I disagreed with Sl's choice of EXAMPLE, Sl and I really DO agree VERY STRONGLY on Wikipedia's need for NPOV and NOR.Tim (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim, you're writing as if you're agitated and argumentative. E.g., all caps and implying that only certain people care about NPOV etc. You might want to revisit the discussion after you've chilled out a bit. My 2 cents. HG | Talk 14:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'm still stupidly waiting for an apology that will never come, and it's not helpful here. I'll take a chill pill and check back in tomorrow. Thanks.Tim (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'd suggest discussing this somewhat differently. Instead of referring to "the fact that God ... is not gendered" we might say that "Jewish philosophy or philosophical doctrine holds that God is not gendered." This will avoid confusion for when we say that "God is gendered is Jewish mysticism" etc. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(fyi to Tim: "has a literal sex" is different than "gendered" HG | Talk 13:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC) )

I'm not sure. When it comes to "what Judaism says", does theology reflect that or does imagery reflect that?

All things being equal, I suppose a case could be made for both. But since the theology acknowledges the imagery and values it, and still says that it doesn't change the nature of God as such... or in other words, since the theology includes the imagery, but the imagery doesn't imply the theology, it seems to me that the theology is what reflects the Jewish view. Because it is inclusive of everything.

And I'm not sure it's correct to say that God is gendered in Jewish mysticism. It would be more correct to say that Jewish mysticism describes various aspects of God, and that among these aspects are gendered ones. Jewish mysticism is careful to distinguish between God and "aspects" (middot). Contrary to the way the word "aspects" is used in common speech, God's aspects are not part of God's nature, but are creations of God. Tools through which we perceive Him. God doesn't actually have an arm, with flesh and bone and sinew, and God doesn't actually have a beard, either. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not for us to decide Lisa. Our only task is far easier (and more disciplined). All we need do is to find notable and verifiable points of view (which, if you WERE listening to Sl, is what he and I agree on) and document them. They will very likely be polyphonic, as HG has noted. As long as they are NOTABLE and VERIFIABLE, we can list the most relevant examples. The only thing that I ask for in addition to that is that the citations be worded intelligibly for a generic audience.Tim (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

On mysticism, Lisa, my suggestion is that we cite the views of Wolfson and his interlocutors. We don't need to delve into own analysis of "aspects" -- at least not yet. On theology -- as you probably know, "theology" is not as common a term as Jewish "philosophy" or "thought" here. In any case, I'm skeptical that theology/philosophy is what reflects "the" Jewish view, since Jewish views in midrash, aggadah and mysticism are highly notable and described in secondary sources. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the specific things Tim, Lisa, and HG say about Jusaism here. When it comes to the Bible, however - meaning claims by some historians and Biblical critics about Israelite and Hebrew religion (with the colaim, rejected by many Jews, that this religion is discontinuous with Judaism) I think there is some debate as to when people began to think of God as disembodied, and while I think Tim is on to something that most imageray of God in the Bible is masculine, there are passages within the Bible that protray God as feminine and maternal. Whether these views are share by Judaism (including Kabalah) is a second issue. Biblical historians and critics are concerned with what people they do not call Jews believed. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked the article edits closely recently. If talk is anything to go by, it seems great discussion and work is going forward on the Jewish section.

I think Tim, SL and I, possibly HG and Shir would be keen to nut out the Bible section too. Though I remind you, Jewish friends, that Bible here probably should be Hebrew Bible. Masculinity is not that ambiguous in the Novel Testament (apologies to my own faith).

I can't help with Judaism, but I can help with Hebrew Bible. Divorcing imagery from sense is a somewhat subjective matter in biblical interpretation. Were there six days of creation? In the day he ate of it did he die? Did the sun stand still, or appear to stand still? Is masculine inflection, imagery and metaphor merely conventional, is it relational and significant, but cultural and temporal. Although there is feminine imagery related to God, it is much rarer and more clearly analogical than the masculine, a point made forcefully by more feminist literary scholars than Bible scholars of any flavour. Mainstream feminist authorities are quite clear the HB is patriarchal, and created its God in the image of its culture. On the other hand, there are many who argue (I among them) that the Song of Songs does not directly say anything about the gender of God (we're talking hundreds of journal articles here).

It seems to me HG could knock up an outstanding HB section in an hour or so, though I'm not going to be able to anything myself for a loooong time.

But first things first, Judaism seems to be getting settled. Well done all. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Shekhinah sentence

As Lisa asked, let me suggest an edit for the shekhinah sentence. Current text: In addition, God's "presence" (Shekinah) is often seen as a feminine aspect of God, since the word is grammatically feminine.

Suggestion: In addition, God's "presence" (Shekinah) is a grammatically feminine word and is often employed as a feminine aspect of God.

Reason: The edit seeks to eliminate the use of grammar to explain (since) a complex literary and religious (mysticism) phenomenon.

Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 14:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Made the change. Of course, it can be discussed further here. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead for Jewish - Traditional view

As Lisa asked, let me try to give a specific editing suggestion. The lead sentence currently reads: Post-biblical Judaism sees God as entirely without form or division, and therefore sees God as having neither sex or gender.[17] While God is referred to in the Hebrew Bible with masculine grammatical forms, and with male imagery, this is due to the fact that Hebrew lacks a neuter grammatical form.

I would make the following changes:

1. Delete Post-biblical. Not a common term here and unnecessary. Still, I would be comfortable with Rabbinic Judaism unless/until the section comes to deal with non-Rabbinic views (e.g., Philo).
2. Delete phrase this is due to the fact that Hebrew lacks a neuter grammatical form. As stated above, I believe that this an inadequate explanation of the literary phenomenon.
3. The point about "without form or division" can be omitted, though it is a fair statement about mainstream Jewish thought.
4. I would place the imagery/grammar aspect in subordinate position or clause relative to the main point for the lead, which should probably deal with mainstream Jewish thought/philosophy/theology.

Recommended edit, open to friendly amendment:

Although God is referred to in the Hebrew Bible with masculine imagery and grammatical forms, /Rabbinic/ Jewish philosophy does not attribute to God either sex or gender.

Presumably, the next sentence would say something like: "At times, Jewish aggadic literature and Jewish mysticism does treat God as gendered." I guess the last part is open to further discussion. But let's focus on the 1st sentence above, ok?

Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 14:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Except that I'd say "At times, Jewish aggadic literature and Jewish mysticism do treat God as gendered." Minor grammatical issue. And where you have /Rabbinic/, I'd leave that out. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Material on the Biblical view belongs in anothe secton. Some Bible scholars argue for a maternal god.Slrubenstein | Talk 21:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, are you objecting to the subordinate clause? I'm not wedded to it, I used it in an effort to be faithful to the previous version of the article text. Still, it seems like a fair generalization, a reasonable contrast with the main clause, and a segue. I'll leave you all to decide. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I was just changing "does" to "do", because it refers to two things. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly true of Rabbinic Judaism and probaly true of post-Exilic Judaism but I am not convinced it is true for pre=exilic Judaism. Maybe it is. I just would not present it as an uncontrovertable fact ... I think we need to do fuller justice to debates among critical Bible scholars, as well as historians of the Kabbalah. The rabbis worked damned hard to keep the Kabalah under their control and largely succeded but this does not mean that they always succeded. . Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Are you noticing that the proposed text uses "Jewish philosophy"? I'm not sure what pre-exilic texts might fit under that rubric. Please clarify further if need be. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi good point and if we all agree I am glad - for some people the period between the Maccobees and the Mishnah is a time of transition and different terms can be used. But I think we are basically on the same page. Slrubenstein Talk 02:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I made the change, though I'm of course open to further discussion as needed. Cheers! HG | Talk 03:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sephirot

CheskiChips (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC) "Judaism often relates to God through different "aspects" of God (cf. Sephirot)" Is this perhaps a mistranslation? The sephirot refer to the matzales not the aspects of God himself, the creations of God should not be attributed the quality of being God. Such a mistake is a form of pluralism. Or more accurately stated; all created things relate to the different aspects of God and the matzales/sefirot are a created thing.

That's why I put "aspects" in quotes. Because they aren't aspects of God as the normal use of that term would imply in English. Certainly the sephirot are not "parts" of God, and are definitely only created things.

Btw, what Hebrew word are you transliterating as "matzales"? -LisaLiel (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should transliterate to 'mazalos'. Meaning approximately more than one mazol, or meaning mazol over time. How about the substitution of the words "...characteristics of Gods creation." ? CheskiChips (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The "aspects" wording is found in high quality translations, such as the "Gates of Light: Sha'are Orah" produced by the Bronfman Library of Jewish Classics. More importantly, we should keep in mind that the Jewish understanding of sefirot has gone in different directions at various times, so the concept is multifaceted. For instance, see Moshe Idel's chapter 6 in his 1988 tome, where he has sections on "Sefirot qua Essence of Divinity" ("the divine anthropos consists of a plurality of force"), "Sefirot qua Instruments or Vessels," "Sefirot qua Modes of Divine Immanence" ("essences -- are the infinite presence of God in the world"). So we might expand this slightly by acknowledging (sample idea:) "the sephirot may be considered aspects, characteristics, essences, or modes, of the divine" -- Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 13:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a sufficient wording, I am in agreement. Nice citations. CheskiChips (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern views that support a male-gendered God

"The feminist argument that traditional God-language stresses power, fear, rules, and hierarchy is essentially correct; but it misses the point that these things are required for the good of women as well as men."

"This genderless God also represents a profound betrayal of the Torah narrative."

— Matthew Berke, "God and Gender in Judaism", First Things 64 (1996): 33–38.

I'm not seeing these PsOV in the current text. Am I missing something? Are journal articles on "God and Gender in Judaism" relevant, reliable sources for the section?

The statements have "handle with care" written all over them. So I'd prefer someone else to do the handling. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The statements by Berke are evaluative (Is the gendering of God good or bad?) not descriptive. Personally, I'd recommend first editing and filling out the descriptive content and then moving to significant evaluative views. I'm aware that the feminist views are noteworthy enough, but I think reliable secondary sources may be needed to determine if Berke reflects a significant view and if he's the best representative of it. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To determine if scholarly journals are permissible, pretend this is a non-religious subject. Scholarly peer reviews and journals are absolutely relevant, and in fact I would argue that they are very much needed here at Wikipedia. Books are the bread and butter of Wikipedia. Everyone has them and everyone uses them. Scholarly journals, however, are the vitamins of Wikipedia. These are the notable and verifiable nuggets that anyone can get -- if they are REALLY motivated. They cost money (like books do), but most people don't go to the trouble of getting them, and if they did they may not enjoy the rigours of scholarship needed to appreciate the journal itself.

Just to give an example, I'd like to comment on another article Christian the lion. This article directly relates to that wildly popular viral video on youtube from a 37 year old documentary about a lion cub born in a zoo that was lovingly raised by two Australians and then brought to Africa to be rehabilitated into the wild by the man behind the story of Born Free. The cub was actually "discovered" by accident by the actor who had played the man who did the rehabilitation. In any event, it's a ridiculously moving two minute clip from the documentary that everyone is wild about. It's notable, yes. But the content began from newspaper clippings and interviews available online. Those a verifiable -- but perhaps not permanently so. I've actually purchased the documentary, an autobiography, and a second biography (I got some of the last copies on Amazon before the prices went throught the roof on Albris into the hundreds of dollars apiece). As I go through these I'll build the documentation and more details -- which will take weeks. But imagine that I were a wildlife conservationist who subscribed to scholarly journals regarding animal rehabilitation with studies of this particular lion and the man who rehabilitated the lion.

1. Confectionary sugar -- newspapers and interviews
2. Bread and Butter -- documentary and books
3. Meat, Potatoes, Vegetables, and Vitamins -- scholarly journal articles

Clearly the scholarly journal articles are the pinnacle of what Wikipedia is about here. I would say, absolutely they should be included.

However, I would agree that for political reasons only approved people can use them on a Jewish subject in this article. I nominate HG for approval by the approval committe.Tim (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please rephrase your point in a straightforward and concise manner. What edit are you suggesting or discussing? HG | Talk 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am simply suggesting that journal entries should be allowed, and that you should be encouraged to edit. Wikipedia has a NPOV policy -- but that should be thought of as a AN&VPOV (all notable and verifiable points of view) policy. Please, edit, and please, use whatever scholarly or otherwise notable and verifiable sources you have access to. There needs to be more than just a single editor's acceptable POVs here.Tim (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your encouragement is kind and appreciated. But see my reply on Alastair's Talk. BTW, I do think WP policy valorizes scholarly journals, properly so. Yet these range in quality. First Things has many academic contributors but it is not the highest quality journal (i.e., from academic standpoint) and I suspect it's not peer reviewed. In any case, Lisa (if you refer to her as the single editor) seems quite knowledgable and you folks will attract more editors, I think, if the divisiveness can stop and, as suggested earlier, the focus be on sources and not on the analysis/argumentation among editors. Hope this is helpful. I'll keep watching this page. Be well, HG | Talk 18:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

HG, you write: "you folks will attract more editors, I think, if the divisiveness can stop and, as suggested earlier, the focus be on sources and not on the analysis/argumentation among editors" -- ROFL! Touche! Now you're starting to sound just like Alastair!Tim (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To respond to Alastair's quote from Matthew Berke, I don't think that an article in an explicitly Christian journal ([34]) which does not bring a single piece of Jewish source material, is relevant to the Jewish view of God's gender. Perhaps if you wanted to create an article or section on Christian views of Jewish views of God's gender, this would be an appropriate point of view. But I don't see how Matthew Berke's views are notable when it comes to the section in question.

For those who would like to read the article in full, it can be found here. The article only relates to Jewish views insofar as it is a critique of modern feminist views within liberal Jewish movements. As a source for those views, it is unnecessary. All of the Jewish views contained in the article can and have been cited as sources in their own right. All Berke adds is his two cents about those sources. Since Berke is not a rabbi or a Jewish theologian or, near as I can tell, any kind of authority about Judaism, his article truly is an opinion piece. And I find it ironic that Alastair, who tried to eliminate two sources which explicitly speak about what Judaism's views are on this subject, one by a well known and highly respected rabbi and one from a well known and widely used source for Jewish concepts, by labeling them as mere "opinion pieces" is asking why the POV of an actual opinion piece is not represented in the article.

I think this article raises an issue as well with what Tim is saying. Scholarly journal articles are absolutely not the meat and potatoes and vitamins of every Wikipedia article. Take, for example, Helen Slater. Are there journal articles cited on that page? No, of course not. Because journal articles are one type of reliable source among many, and they are to be used only when appropriate. Citations from books and articles by experts in a field are one thing. "Journal articles" as such are quite another. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All that said, it occurs to me that while Alastair's quote is not any kind of reliable source for the Jewish view of God's gender, it is an excellent source for the statement that "These views are highly controversial even within liberal Jewish movements". As such, I've inserted this as a reference into the article. I have not changed the structure of the article, and I have not changed the wording of the article. I've simply inserted a reference. I hope this is (a) not seen as a controversial act, (b) understood as an implicit response to Tim's suggestion that only "approved editors" be allowed to insert such references, and (c) will not suffer instant reversion. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I was mistaken about Berke's article being from a Christian journal. I searched it online and found it on a Christian site, and did not notice that it originally appeared in a different journal, which is non-sectarian ([35]). I maintain my objections to the article as being un-notable as a source for the Jewish views of God's gender, since as I wrote, anyone may write a journal article, but I want to retract my mistaken attribution of the article. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I profoundly disagree with the comment "anyone may write a journal article" - this may be true if we are talking about ladies Home Journal or Good Housekeepiing, but not peer-reviewed academic journals. Now, I do not happen to know this particular journal and cannot speak to is notability but it should not be hard to find out using basic library tools - who publishes it, who is on the editorial board, how does it rank in citation indices? My point: notable academic peer-reviewed journals represent one notable set of points of view that must be included in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Friends, I love the discussion above. Each of you speaks so characteristically of your personalities, which I deeply enjoy.

Between you all, you cover a range of insightful angles on the issue, all of which I appreciate.

I particularly like Lisa's thoughtful restraint, and her willingness to seek to incorporate the source despite her reservations about it.

In a way I was naughty to provide the quotes and source. In an article, and the Jewish section no less, supposedly controversial at the moment, I dared to add what most would consider to be fuel to the fire.

But in my own quirky, arrogant way, I dropped in this little test, because I actually had confidence the team here are way above petty squabbles and pushing personal views. Actually, I wasn't really testing you, I was sincere, I do care, and it was just a source already in the biblio, and having HG around was a golden opportunity.

I feel precisely no need to contribute to the discussion above on content, because you all cover so many complex issues so well and so clearly from so many points of view. This is what I love about Wiki, and the Jewish team here are the best of the best.

Those of you who have known me for some time will "feel" the consistancy of this comment with many I have made in the past.

I don't merely enjoy you and respect you, I love you.

Sorry if I cause anyone embarrassment. Please feel free to delete this post as irrelevant to the topic. Shalom Alastair Haines (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread can be archived.HG | Talk 13:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick Note on Terms

The normative use of a word is based on the mainstream use and the historical context. Any deviation from that would require a modifier.

Christianity represents modern Trinitarians.

Judaism represents modern mainstream Jewish groups.

"Rabbinic Judaism" is much like "Apostolic Christianity" -- they speak about certain foundational historical contexts leading to the modern expressions of each religion. But there is no need to speak of modern "Rabbinic Jews" or "Nicene Christians." Neither needs the modifier because each is mainstream. The only modifiers should be confined to either historical groups, or groups outside of the mainstream.Tim (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Judaism, but that sounds fair for Christianity. It's why Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox, despite anathemetizing one another, see a meaningful usage of the word Christian refering to all collectively in opposition to notable related but distinct groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.

If it were true for Judaism, it would be a neat way of drawing a similar line between Judaism and Messianic Judaism. MJ is obviously not completely Rabbinic. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Messianic Judaism is even more problematic. Except for the "Compound Unity" Messianics, most of them are Christian. The "Compound Unity" ones aren't even that (they are neither Jewish nor Christian). And yet both Christian and heretical Messianics operate together as if they are part of the same group. In other words, Messianism is not a perfect subset of Christianity, but instead an overlap. However, religiously, they do not overlap with Judaism.

By "overlap" I'm not talking about individual parts, but rather the groups themselves. Some Messianic groups qualify as Christian ones. Others are heretical. But no Messianic groups qualify as Jewish ones -- as Judaism defines itself.

Lisa will argue that it's a tactic, and for many groups I will agree with her. However, Christianity DOES believe that Jesus is the "Jewish" Messiah. Belief in the Jewish Messiah should be Jewish, right?

Well, no. Because in the use of terms we aren't speaking of what Christians or Jews theoretically "should" be, but what their normative groups define themselves to be.

So, even if Messianic Judaism were 100% correct and Judaism 100% incorrect, "Judaism" still refers to the normative group.

I know I've rambled -- my exception to your post is to "not completely Rabbinic." I would argue for the above reasons that they aren't Rabbinic at all. They are simply... Apostolic.Tim (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this works for groups that consider themselves Christians as well, as do Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses. One COULD say "LDS Christianity" but you could not refer to it as "Christianity" without the modifier immediately and permanently attached to it. And that's why normative usage defers to simply "LDS" by itself. You'll notice that I normally call Messianics "Messianic". It's simple, unambiguous, shorthand. And it is without judgment. I simply mean to not confuse one self defined group for another.Tim (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the segregation. IMO, it yields to a term of Christianity that is a 4th century product. You are saying that since it has existed for 1600 years it takes precedence. I submit that the definition of Christianity that I prefer is 2000 years old and has existed since the time of Jesus Christ. If we are looking for age, then that would be the one.

What you are seeking to do is claim that Roman Catholicism and its splinter groups, because of 1600 years of history, are owners of the term. To be a Christian one must not only believe in

Jesus Christ, born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfect life, performed miracles in front of believers and critics alike, bled in the Garden, was crucified for the sins of mankind, rose the third day, returned to sit on the right hand side of the Father, will return again, and is the only way to Heaven...but also

you must believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. If you don't believe in the Trinity you are outside of Christianity. That definition is contrived.

The doctrine of the Trinity was never taught as a requirement of being a disciple of Jesus Christ except by the Roman Catholic Church and its splinter groups. You cannot use scripture to prove your definition because it does not exist within its pages. I reject your this definition and it belongs only on those respective church articles. It is fine to say discuss that different definitions of Christianity exist, but it is not appropriate to say that there is only a single definition. That would not be accurate and it is POV. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Storm, I am not talking about what Christianity should be. I'm only speaking about the normative use of terms. That's all. My assumption is that you consider yourself a Christian. As such, you should agree with Messianic Judaism that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, promised by the Jewish prophets in the Jewish Bible, and that he and all his disciples were Jewish. As the promised Jewish Messiah, then, Messianic Judaism is what Judaism should be. Or at least it is closer to what Judaism should be than what we normally think when we hear the word "Judaism" without some kind of modifier.

I'm not trying to be prejudiced against Messianic Judaism or LDS Christianity. All I'm trying to point out is that when someone says "Judaism" without a modifier, the normal connotation is not "Messianic Judaism." At the same time, when someone says the word "Christian" without a modifier, the normal connotation is not "LDS Christianity." That's all I'm saying. It could very well be that the most pristine, pure, and true form of religion is LDS Christianity. It could be true that all of us should be LDS. But, honestly, LDS missionaries don't go around encouraging people to be "Christians" and giving them a New Testament and moving on. They pause long enough to give them the detail that they are talking specifically about LDS beliefs and the Book of Mormon as well. That's all.

We are not trying to create ultimate truth. We're just trying to use terms in the shortest and simplest way that does not misdirect or confuse the readers. If you say "LDS" people know what you are talking about. But if you said "Christianity" they wouldn't necessarily know you are talking about LDS.Tim (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim your comment here both personalizes the discussion (i.e., via what an editor should believe) and is based on your own analysis. It would be better to advance an argument based on (secondary) sources. Anyway, what is the disputed edit at stake here? HG | Talk 20:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It was simply about the use of "Rabbinic Judaism" vs. simply "Judaism." "Rabbinic Judaism" actually applies to a specific time period in the formation of "Judaism". I was only giving reasons to agree with what Lisa said. As for personalization, all I'm saying is that the terms should be applied consistently on Wikipedia (you can see that consistency is my expressed "agenda" on my user page). If your use of a term is different from the normative definitions you would find if you double bracketed it (i.e. Messianic Judaism and Judaism point to articles describing unique religions, and Rabbinic Judaism should point to a historical period), then either the article or your use needs to change. That is, my "personalization" is that Wikipedia should agree with itself as much as possible. It may not always be possible, but we should do what we can. In other words, pretend all your terms are double bracketed as you edit. And you never know, they just may be by a future editor.Tim (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Process points. (1) Tim, personalizing includes things like: "you consider yourself a Christian. As such, you should agree with Messianic Judaism...." (2) It's hard to make out why the above thread goes into LDS, Messianic Judaism, apostolic christianity, Christian belief in messiah, etc. I assume these illustrations/analogies make sense to you folks, but they can drag down a Talk page, and meander from the edit at hand. Maybe that's where you all get yourselves in trouble.

Anyway, the "Traditional View" section does refer specifically to Rabbinic Judaism, aka "Judaism" in common parlance nowadays. The two terms are synonymous; but I dropped the unnecessary specificity as you suggested at top. Since we've agreed on the edit, the thread can be closed. Thanks muchly, take care, HG | Talk 23:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread can be archived.HG | Talk 13:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

HG -- I'll have to review your use of the modifier to Judaism as Rabbinic Judaism. It's only unnecessary if bracketing it would have taken you to the wrong article. Regardless... I've been sidetracked in an arbitration and will be retiring this screen name shortly, so I won't be around to make more input. The personalization examples I gave were attempting to speak to Storm in the context of his own point of view. Answering regarding LDS specifics was an analogous example regarding Messianic Judaism in relation to Judaism. In the discussion above, Ilkali argued that Messianic Judaism was a subset of Judaism, while Storm granted that it was a subset of Christianity. This called for a particular methodology to be discussed, and to be discussed in context to the relevant points of view of the various editors. In general, I simply proposed a principle, based on what Wikipedia readers normally do -- they'll look from article to article. As a favor to them, we should simply use terms that would lead them to articles that reflect the meaning we intend with the use of a term. It's not a judgment, per se. It's merely to make sure that the intended meaning is transmitted, and that "further reading" does not unnecessarily contradict the work we've devoted to the subject. In your own use -- whatever you intend to mean is what I wanted your readers to get. If that is Judaism, great. If it is Rabbinic Judaism instead, great.Tim (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"In the discussion above, Ilkali argued that Messianic Judaism was a subset of Judaism, while Storm granted that it was a subset of Christianity". No, I argued that, if Messianic Jews consider themselves Jews, then Wikipedia should classify them as such. This says nothing about how I classify them. Ilkali (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, the problem here is one of consistency.

• Messianic Jews want to be classified as Jews -- Jews do not want them classified that way.
• Storm suggested they be classified as Christians -- you suggested they be classified as Jews.
• The descriptions in Christianity, Judaism, and Messianic Judaism are already populated and sourced in other pages.

Your proposed principle held that self definitions dictate. But the self definition of Messianic Judaism as Judaism does not match a self definition of Judaism as decidedly not Christian. Although attractive in its simplicity, your proposition is inconsistent with itself (i.e. Messianic Judaism and Judaism are mutually exclusive in practice), it is inconsistent with other editors (I'd dare say in the high 90s percentile), and it's inconsistent with established precedent. But the worst part is the first -- being inconsistent with itself. The self definition of Messianic Judaism is excluded by the self definition of Judaism.Tim (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just correcting your misrepresentation of my position. Ilkali (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion elsewhere, if it is germane to an article. HG | Talk 13:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

HG -- this is germane to any article that you do not want Messianic Judaism to be considered Judaism.Tim (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You or others are welcome to start a centralized discussion at MJ or elsewhere, but please do not continue this discussion here or any other specific article pertaining to Judaism. Thank you. HG | Talk 18:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay then -- per HG I no longer oppose classifying Messianic Judaism as Judaism. Go for it, Ilkali.Tim (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Classification of para-Christian groups

The current categorisation of groups as Christianity and other NT related views is a clever compromise, but temporary and unsatisfactory. Does anyone know how to call in experts on Christianity, they can sort this out for us. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a doctorate from a Christian seminary -- but I'll defer to whoever would like to come in from the Christianity wikiproject. The problem is that we still haven't resolved the use of terms -- and HGs proposal that we archive it only retains the problem. There has to be a sustainable process or this will continue here and everywhere else (although I don't intend to be a part of it).Tim (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, global questions pertaining to categorization should not be held at a particular (or random or every) article Talk page. Please find another forum for such discussions. You might raise the issue at the Christianity WikiProject, etc. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation. HG | Talk 18:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

HG -- he's all yours. I'm out of it.Tim (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks HG, that's perfect. If MJ is not Judaism, Mormonism is not Christianity, simple, no discussion required, just as you say. Likewise JWs et al. I'll adjust it sometime if no one else does it beforehand. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd deduction..."simple, no discussion required." Is that sarcasm or are you serious? Please show me a neutral references that states a religion that acknowledges, believes, and teaches that Jesus is the only Begotten Son of the Father, born of the Virgin Mary, lived a perfect, sinless life, performed miracles, was crucified for the sins of mankind, rose the third day, appeared to his apostles and followers, ascended to the Father where he sits on his right hand side, and will return again one day is not Christian. When you have that, then we will discuss whether or not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christian. All you will have is the POV of apologists for different churches that have created a definition of Christian that would exclude everyone prior to 325. There was absolutely no concept of requiring belief in the Trinity to be a disciple of Jesus prior to 325. I look forward to seeing your neutral references and until such time, those edits will be rejected. --^StormRider 08:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that clear presentation of the Mormon POV. You prove my point. Mormons claim to be Christian to the exclusion of Trinitarians, Trinitarians claim to be Christians to the exclusion of Mormons. Wikipedia can neither take sides, nor attempt to settle the dispute.

This is not the place for you to ask me to prove Trinitarian Christianity to be correct. It is inappropriate.

Please provide a Mormon source that describes Trinitarian Christianity as authentic Christianity, i.e. a reliable Mormon definition of Christianity explicitly inclusive of Trinitarians. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

NO, you are not getting it. Mormonism has never, in its history, said another church was not Christian or part of the Christian faith. What I clearly stated above and which you have twisted is that to exclude Mormonism from Christianity is POV. I don't support any group or person that attempts to say that one church is more "Christian" than another; that is what you are doing.

Churches teach doctrines; without exception. Some want to call themselves the One, Holy and Apostolic Church and others want to say they are the true church. Wikipedia is not the place to define which is true and which is not; it is irrelevant to us. We might report that individual churches believe x,y, and z, but that is all. You are confusing the apologetic writings of churches for a definition of Christianity. That is not a proper standard because its is tainted by POV because of each church's perspective. Academics clearly define Christianity and within it are found everything from Catholics, Southern Baptists, LDS, to non-denominational home churches. It includes Trinitarians, modalists, henotheists, etc. That is not an LDS perspective, but an academic perspective. --^StormRider 09:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Storm, I'm not familiar with any major Christian denominations that regard Mormonism to be Christian. Christianity is a monotheistic religion, and the Mormon polytheism is not allowable. You are welcome to your own religion. Be proud of it! But it is not the same... and I don't think your missionaries really think it is, either, or else they wouldn't be actively converting Christians to Mormonism.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sikhism section

Some of the combining forms in the Indic script in this section seem to be incorrect, e.g. "ਸਚ ਖੰਿਡ ਵਸੈ ਿਨਰੰਕਾਰ ੁ ॥". I'm not sure if this is incorrect text, a problem with my browser (though I've tried 4 different browsers), or if they are intentional. Can someone who can read this language please clarify?--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip-off, this is vandalism, check the last line. It's also suspicious that supposed original language script and supposed transliteration have no english translation. I'm restoring the old material and removing some tags from the article while I'm at it. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the last line gave it away as vandalism. From what I can find at other sites, "ਕੀਤੇ" appears to mean 'chess', and there do seem to be other references to chess in Sikhism at other sites (e.g. see http://www.sikhiwiki.com/index.php/Patti_Likhi). That said, the combining forms still seem wrong, so I prefer your version.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I love good-faith readers. I can also enjoy a good joke, especially one based on some research. Vandalism suggests something about motive. I can't ever know that, so I withdraw the description.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted you here, but that sounds just a little condescending??--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, you misinterpreted, you're not the first, don't worry about it. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I can follow Devanagari but not Gurmukhī, the similar script used in the Guru Granth. The Granth is online in English, I doubt you'll find the word chess in it.

Pages 433 and 434 of the English translation of the Granth contain references to chess (from http://www.sikhs.org). There may be more, but it's not worth an exhaustive search.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Super-cool! I checked and you're right. It looks to me as though "chess" is probably not the best translation into English. I don't know Punjabi, but if it's like Sanskrit and Indonesian, which I have a little familiarity with, the word for "chess" is actually a form of the word for the number 4, which could be appropriate for any game played on a four-sided board. A generic name for backgammon, which is a very ancient game, is "tables". The GGS reference to chess also includes reference to dice, which are not part of chess. I suspect the original Punjabi, in context, may have referred to a game much like backgammon. But, as mentioned, I'm not an expert on Punjabi or Sikh theology, and wish to reflect no disrespect regarding the GGS English translation. Thanks for giving me some very interesting food for thought. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, nice to meet you, hope you found something worthwhile in this article, whether it's improved you, you have certainly improved it, best regards. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Overdue cleanup

Some time ago, suspicious material was added to the Hindu section. Text was unclear, mostly unsourced, and the sources provided were not specified precisely, nor linked. The editor who supplied the text made no attempt to interact with other editors, despite the page being very active at the time. Now that I've had a chance to check it out, I have found that one source, alleged to provide support, does not even contain reference to the things it was supposed to support.

• Surendranath Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume 1.

This contains no words beginning "shakt-" or "sakt-", certainly not on "page 31". It cannot support statements about shakti or shaktiman.

Another source was specified with a duplication of the author's name in reverse, with a scanning error of "L" for "i", suggesting the editor who supplied the reference didn't have access to a physical copy of the text. The correct reference is.

• Santilata Dei, Vaisnavism in Orissa, Orissa Studies Project, (Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1988). ISBN 9788185094144

One reference does actually address the claims that were made, but is quite explicit about dealing with WP:UNDUE primary sources—the well-known but unorthodox Hita Harivamsha, with only two obscure fragments of independent support. The pages either side of that cited provide context critical to evaluation the POV discussed on the cited page. The interested editor can confirm this by following the link below.

• Guy L. Beck, Alternative Krishnas, (State University of New York Press—SUNY Press, 2005), p. 68.

The final reference is discussion of the famous nobel literature laureate Rabindranath Tagore. A work no doubt reliable regarding literature, and addressing a subject unquestionably notable, but not the "Gender of God".

• Kakoli Basak, Rabindranath Tagore: A Humanist, (New Delhi: Classical Pub. Co., 1991). ISBN 9788170541332

An actual quote from this source, perhaps the author quoting Tagore citing a scripture or commenting on a tradition might be possible and relevant to this article, but as it stands, it raises questions, it doesn't answer any.

I've retained the source descriptions here, just in case they actually have some bearing on this article and can be included later. But currently, there is no evidence to suggest that they are helpful to this article at all.

As for the text supplied by the Wiki editor (whoever it was), I'm removing it until someone is happy to take responsibility for sourcing it in real time, which--I've been told--is about a fortnight. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing "Clarify Terms" section

I'm removing the "clarify terms" section, because a) there's nothing particularly relevant to the gender of God in there; b) if a reader wants to know about gender or God, ze can click the links in the first sentence. --Alynna (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, as I recall, part of its purpose was to distinguish "God" from "god", this article being about the former. The lede would imply that it is now about the latter. Which is fine. I know I felt strongly in the past that this article should be about God, but the current lede has me convinced that including polytheistic religions is a good idea.

There was one sentence in the "clarify terms" section that I think holds useful information:

A more precise term is gender role (sexual dimorphism of preferences in social behaviour), in particular those aspects of gender roles which are universal across cultures, like masculine generative, providing and protecting roles and their consequent authority (Steven Goldberg 1972, 1991; Brown 1991 and others), also the feminine maternal and nurturing roles, all of which are frequently observed by scholars of comparative religion, particularly in the common fertility motif of a Sky Father and an Earth Mother.

Something about how masculinity is associated with protecting/providing and femininity is associated with nurturing might be good in the lede. --Alynna (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You propose that clarifying the term god has nothing to do with the "gender of God". You might want to reflect a little more on that.

You propose that clarifying the term gender has nothing to do with the "gender of God". Ditto.

In fact, you even note that you could see how sourced definition of gender clarifies issues.

This article is not about God, but about gods (including God) and always has been, and it's good to see you agree this is a good idea.

Finally, I agree that more work can be done refining the lead, and a more explicit and sourced lead would be a step forward. The lead, as it stands, was provided to clarify things at a particular point of discussion, while leaving as many other things open. It was a "diplomatic" venture, of real merit, but not intended as a final word.

Among other things, the lead should give some indication of methodology. That might be a little ambitious at this stage, since I'm not sure we've clarified that issue to a point of agreement. But it is a very excellent thing to attempt to do this.

Currently, the methodology of the article is something like:

Aim--to give the reader an overview of the range of perceptions of gender in the realm of transcendent beings.

Method--to document the specific views of various religions relating to ascriptions of gender to their God, gods, or venerated spirits

Organisation--a simple attempt to classify material according to time, location and theological affinity for ease of assimilating information and comparing and contrasting

Conclusion--no single simplistic conclusion is presented, however certain patterns have been noted by reliable sources--both similarities and differences

Now, I have no particular objection to this "comparative religion" approach. It is just the Wiki-default approach. There are other methodologies, in fact ones I prefer to the current one. If you'd like to add new approaches feel free, now's as good a time as any to discuss that and how we could go about implementing it. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Comparative Religion" section

I think the Comparative Religion section contains a lot of material that doesn't need to be there. Specifically, a broad history of religion does not belong in this article. However, those portions of the section that address the role of gender in animism, polytheism, and monotheism are worth keeping. They could be their own sections, or they could be paragraphs in the beginning of the article. Thoughts? --Alynna (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This article needs some kind of context. Two contexts are obvious—literature regarding "God" and literature regarding "gender". Personally, I'd like to see the subject approached from a scientific, philosophical and theological perspective—i.e. a theoretical approach. That is not the way others have approached the article, however. The way editors, to this point, have addressed the topic is via comparative religion. That's a valid methodology, and we don't really have to select one or the other, we can use both.

This article doesn't actually need any of the material on specific religions, unless it is addressing "God" from a comparative religion approach. But since it seems people want to compare religions here, we need reliable sources regarding that methodology, so readers know what to do with the information. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record

Four controversial edits were made recently that it would be wise to discuss before restoring. These involved:

• asserting that sourced definitions of god and gender are not relevant to Gender of God;[36]
• asserting that Messianic Judaism is authentic Judaism;[37]
• asserting that Mormonism is authentic Christianity;[38] and,
• asserting that "gender neutral" approaches to God in Christian theology are mainstream.[39]

To the best of my knowledge, all these assertions are POV at best, and quite possibly inflammatory or erroneous. I don't doubt the best of intentions, but they need careful sourcing, so this is not a matter of editorial opinion, committing Wiki to unreliable, non-neutral points of view. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"asserting that sourced definitions of god and gender are not relevant to Gender of God": False. No such assertion appears in the text, as you claim, and the closest thing on the talk page is this: "there's nothing particularly relevant to the gender of God in there" (emphasis mine). The question is whether this material is relevant enough. The advantage of wikilinking these terms is that we don't have to define them here. It is redundant material.

"asserting that "gender neutral" approaches to God in Christian theology are mainstream": False. No such assertion appears in the text.

"asserting that Messianic Judaism is authentic Judaism" and "asserting that Mormonism is authentic Christianity": You distort the issue by describing these positions as "POV at best". Both Mormonism is Christianity and Mormonism is not Christianity are possible points of view. Your preferred version of the article espouses the latter view, but contains no sources supporting it. In the face of myriad conceptions of both Mormonism and Christianity, and in the absence of any definitive external ruling, the proper thing to do is seek a project-wide ruling. Per-article conventions lead to inconsistency and needless argument.

For the record, all (or almost all) of the material you are defending here faced opposition when it was introduced, and never found consensus for inclusion. Ilkali (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, you have removed sourced text without discussion. That two editors both breach etiquette and vandalise a page doesn't make it right. The sourced text removed has stood scrutiny for a considerable time, and had no objection raised against it.

It's simple, no changes until sources have been consulted and discussed. No change until consensus is reached. If there is no consensus, then there is no change.

If you are sure you are correct, then you'll be able to provide sources, and those with contrary opinions will be unable to do so. Gather your sources and make your case.

I look forward to hearing from you when you're ready. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any of these assertions in the article. MJ most easily can be portrayed within Christianity, but it can also be discussed from position within Judaism. The only people who think the teachings of the LDS Church are not Christian are other Christian churches, which is apologetic or anti-Mormon in nature. Restorationism within the academic community falls squarely within Christianity without argument. I don't see any of the absolutes that you have presented above. What is your objective? Do you think that Christianity is a unified group or that doctrines can be portrayed as black and white? I am not sure I understand where you are trying to go with this line of thinking.--^StormRider 08:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Storm: "The only people who think the teachings of the LDS Church are not Christian are other Christian churches" -- uh, no, the people who think the teachings of the LDS Church are not Christian are Christian churches, not OTHER Christian churches, but CHRISTIAN churches. You have a religion; be proud of it. But you do disservice to both your religion and Christianity by confusing the two. I know of no Mormon worth his salt that wants to be considered a Trinitarian, and no Christian worth his salt who wants to be considered a polytheist. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"The sourced text removed has stood scrutiny for a considerable time, and had no objection raised against it". False. Your discussions on definitions were immediately challenged by myself and other editors on grounds of relevance, and there is an unresolved discussion above on classification of religious groups.

"No change until consensus is reached". If you had employed this principle yourself, the text in question would not be in the article.

Where is your source for the claim that Mormonism is considered by the academic community at large to be non-Christianity? Even more ridiculously, where is your source that the definitions are sufficiently relevant for inclusion in the article? Ilkali (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, please show me which Christian seminaries teach that Mormonism is Christian. Thanks.

There are other sections for discussing this matter, Tim. Ilkali (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You were the one who brought up the academic community -- or are seminaries not academic in your view?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) Which seminaries sponsored by which church? This whole conversation is a joke. Catholics are not Christian for some Evangelicals, does that mean that Catholics are not Christian? This type of screed is not germane to the topic. Pride of one's belief? Christianity is not uniformly anything. Christianity has been and currently includes all manner of beliefs about the nature of God. Individual Christian churches can say whatever they want about other churches, but that is their POV. There is only one religion that worships Jesus Christ as the Son of God through whom is found the only path to return to heaven and that is Christianity. If a church teaches and follows Jesus in this manner it is Christian. --^StormRider 17:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Chronological Order

I've put the religions in a chronological order, to remove the controversy. Mormonism is a great religion, like Islam, and deserves the respect of a separate section. Yes, BOTH Islam and Mormonism believe Jesus is the Messiah and will come again, but that doesn't mean they should be demoted into Christianity. They are separate religions, with their proud histories and identities. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As you are well aware, placing Mormonism outside the Christianity section tacitly asserts that it is not Christianity. Saying Mormonism is awesome does not undo that snub. Ilkali (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a snub to separate the two religions from each other. But it is a snub to put them together. Theologically (per monotheism), Islam is closer to Christianity than Mormonism is, and no one questions the independent standing of Islam. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Theologically (per monotheism), Islam is closer to Christianity than Mormonism is". Your opinion. Ilkali (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As a former seminary professor, sure -- and that opinion is mainstream for seminary professors. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice spin, but don't confuse opinion for knowledge or academic position. Islam does not teach that Jesus Christ is the only path to return to heaven, that baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is a necessary sacrament, and that Jesus is divine, the only Begotten Son of the Father. Who believes these type of things? That's right...Christians do. Your desire to paint Christianity as only for Trinitarians is nice apologetics, but it has nothing to do with Christianity. --^StormRider 17:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's no spin, but simply a recognition that Wikipedia does report opinions, and it is the universal opinion of Christian seminaries and churches that Mormonism is not Christian. Christianity roundly and universally condemns polytheism and embraces Trinitarianism, your religion does the opposite. To claim that it is Christian is to malign both Mormonism and Christianity. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So far the following editors have expressed (by deed or by word) the opinion that Mormonism should be categorised under Christianity: Ilkali, Storm Rider, FyzixFighter, Abtract, Alynna Kasmira. Additionally, a large number of other Wikipedia articles central to the topic refer to Mormonism as a Christian religion (eg [40], [41], [42]). It is even included in Template:Christianity and listed in the Christianity footer. Tim, if you want your view to be represented here, it's time to start citing more than just your own opinions of what constitutes a Christian denomination. Ilkali (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, Wikipedia isn't about EDITORS' opinions (mine included) but about citable opinions. So far no one has provided any theological or polemic work from Christian sources to say Mormonism is Christian, while there are plenty (some I've provided elsewhere) to say it is not. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is necessarily about editors' opinions, whether they be on the persuasiveness of an argument, or the relevance of a citation, or the reliability of a source, or the neutrality of a statement, or the appropriateness of a convention. The reason it works, in spite of all this subjectivity, is that these opinions are filtered through a system of communal consideration and consensus-forming. The clear convention on Wikipedia is that Mormonism is considered an instance of Christianity, as seen in the numerous links I provided. If you want another convention to be followed here, you need to either: 1) Go to a higher, more central point of discussion, such as WikiProject:Christianity, and petition to have the existing convention changed, or 2) explain why this particular article should ignore a project-wide convention. Ilkali (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes Ilkali, editorial discretion is always necessary, but even that can often be refined to quality by using sources. As I know you realise, Wikipedia itself cannot be cited by Wiki as a source. I was at a Featured Artical Candidate discussion where precedents from another Featured Article were correctly, though frustratingly, rejected for that reason. (No one bothered to correct the other article though.)

I appreciate your attempts to try to satisfy the burden of evidence for the Mormonism is Christianity assertion, but Wiki is not "text by democracy" as you well know, a different bunch of people will be here in a year's time. The same is true of other articles. In fact, if we source things at this article, the other articles may copy our sources and change their conventions. If the other articles are sourced, well then, there you go, you have your answer for Tim.

Without such a source against it, Tim has every right to follow policy and remove any OR implication in the article that Mormonism is Christianity.

I am keen to hear more from Storm, so we do this in a way that is not blatantly offensive to Mormons, but rather honours their unique tradition. I feel the weight of the published Mormon POV that they are the authentic form of woshipping Jesus, who they also believe is "the Christ". There may be a small degree of room for creativity in naming or categorisation, but we are ultimately constrained by published points of view. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"As I know you realise, Wikipedia itself cannot be cited by Wiki as a source". You're confusing entirely different things. We're not talking about truth, we're talking about convention. The statement "Mormons are Christians" can only be true or false in relation to a given definition of Christian, and there is no single definition in use. The statement "Most theologians consider Mormons Christians" can be objectively true or false, but even that wouldn't be the only consideration in defining a convention. Wikipedia has to consider a myriad of issues, including offensiveness, time-stability, ease and accessibility of verification, and so on. What you and Tim are trying to do is invent your own ad-hoc convention, which is 1) a futile task for two like-minded people who exclude anyone who disagrees with them, and 2) inevitably going to lead to arguments with those who respect existing conventions.

The only way to avoid time-sapping arguments like this one is to respect project-wide conventions where they exist and work to establish or improve them wherever possible. That's why we have reams of guidelines like WP:MOS, WP:NAME, etc. What you are doing is not principally different to ignoring any of those documents. Ilkali (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, the way to avoid time wasting situations is to use terms according to mainstream usage outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't invent. We merely report. Messianic Jews self-define as Jews and not Christians. Mormons self-define as Christians. But mainstream Judaism self-defines in a way that excludes Messianism, and mainstream Christianity self-defines in a way that excludes Mormonism. Let's both agree that Messianic-Mormonism is the absolute ultimate truth of BOTH Judaism and Christianity! Great! But that would mean that mainstream Judaism is wrong and mainstream Christianity is as well. Not only that, but non-Mormon Messianics and non-Messianic Mormons would be wrong too. Also, JWs would be wrong too, wouldn't they? Christadelphians would too. EVERYONE becomes wrong, don't they?

So who do we believe? Do we believe the JWs? Or the Mormons? Or the Messianics? Or the Christians? Answer: we don't believe any of them, and in fact we don't care.

Why not? Because we aren't here to say who is right, but only where the differences lie. Mormonism has male AND female deities... whole hosts of them. Well, that's a useful distinction in an article on the Gender of God, isn't it? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Poppycock! This is not the article for stating how Catholics feel about other denominations. All Christian churches are subsets of Christianity. You are creating an argument that has no place here. You are attempting to say that Christianity only believe in a single, monolithic manner. It doesn't and it never has. Do you have any references that states that Christianity only believes in a specific set of beliefs and none other? It does not matter what Southern Baptists think of Catholics or vice-versa. They are Christian. The same argument can be applied to Souther Baptists and JWs and any other group that claims to be Christian. What a church thinks of another church is their POV, but it has nothing to do with defining Christianity. Who gets to say what is Christian; what reference do you have that proves that a group was given this right to say what is and what isn't Christianity.

No single group gets to define what is exclusively Christianity or Judaism. Please bring forth those references when you have a chance and let's end this charade of POV. --^StormRider 21:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Same old tired arguments and irrelevancies. Tim, Wikipedia is built on consensus and convention and you are ignoring both. If you are so blatantly right, go argue it at WP:Christianity or similar and get consensus for a new convention. Ilkali (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Storm, Ilkali, we are talking about standard usage of groups that define themselves, giving preference to mainstream self-definition and including minority self-definitions unless they are mutually exclusive. That's, uh, the way normal communication (including Wikipedia) works. If they are mutually exclusive, you note it without a value judgment and move on. You guys are stuck with calling Mormons Christians. I'll even agree with you if you can come up with a term for actual Christians. Mormons and Christians define their beliefs in mutual exclusion. If you give one group a name you have to give the other group a different name. Tell you what: you can call Mormons Christians and I'll call Baptists Mormons. Fair? In fact, I'll let Mormons OWN the name Christian, but now the Southern Baptist Convention OWNs the name Mormon. Won't fly? Of course not! Guys, we aren't supposed to say who SHOULD use a name. We are merely here to use names that don't misdirect people. Mormonism and Christianity point to mutually exclusive groups. Trinitarianism points to the Christianity group. Is that right? Maybe not. But it doesn't matter -- it's what people LOOK for when they see a term. Your problem here isn't theology or truth. Your problem is English. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Storm, Ilkali, we are talking about standard usage of groups that define themselves, giving preference to". I'm talking about clearly-established convention and your decision to flout it. If you want to talk about what convention is best, I'm happy to indulge you, at the proper venue. And if, at that venue, you manage to effect a change in convention, I'll edit Gender of God to reflect your view myself. Until then, I insist that the existing convention be followed. Ilkali (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) This argument was finalized over at Christianity long ago. Take it there; it does not belong here. Wikipedia does not care what one denomination thinks about another. You are creating the "exclusive" nature of Christianity; it has never existed. --^StormRider 21:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, the convention for the term "Christianity" has been in place for 1600 years. It predates Wikipedia, and it maintains that it is exclusively Trinitarian. Although you would like to deny that such convention exists, and although Ilkali would like to have Wikipedia create convention, neither can be the case. The convention exists. Wikipedia is supposed to follow standard usage. Sometimes it succeeds, sometimes it doesn't -- but as long as Wikipedia is supposed to do so, then I will follow that design. Mormonism is a different religion from Trinitarianism. Christendom self-defined as exclusively Trinitarian a long, long time ago -- in a galaxy rather close-by. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Good, then it will not be difficult to provide the references. This should be quickly ended. --^StormRider 22:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: I am not here to discuss what the best general treatment of Mormonism would be. Even if you showed convincing evidence that the entire world followed the convention you describe, it wouldn't matter. There is an existing Wikipedia convention that should be followed, regardless of our opinions on it, until it is altered or overturned. Ilkali (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after this I'm definitely signing off -- Wikipedia does not CREATE convention, it FOLLOWS it. It's tautological to do otherwise. Now, good night, and have a great holiday everyone! SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the MoS if not a collection of conventions, created by Wikipedians? What is WP:NAME? What you are having trouble understanding is the difference between the vague, insubstantial, implicit conventions that exist in everyday language use and the crisp, clear, explicit conventions that are a necessary part of collaborative authoring. We have already seen that different people come to different conclusions on whether Mormonism qualifies as Christianity and that this can lead to long, tiring discussion. The purpose of centralised convention is to have that discussion once and then move on. You are attempting to take away that most useful mechanism. Ilkali (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What does the Trinity have to do with the topic?

The topic of this article is Gender of God, not Trinitarianism. The introduction to the Christianity section seems strange; it begins talking about early Christian conflicts that have nothing to do with gender. The opening paragraph reads:

"In Christianity, the New Testament is the primary source of beliefs about God. Perhaps the two most significant debates in Christian history sought to understand what the New Testament implied regarding:

• Jesus as both God and man (Christology); and
• God as three persons in unity — the Trinity.[18]

The three persons of the Trinity are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The names "God the Father" and "God the Son", derived from the New Testament, clearly imply masculinity. In the case of the Son, masculinity is reinforced by the belief in his incarnation as the man, Jesus of Nazareth."

If we are talking about the early significant debates of Christianity, I understand this type of introduction, but it seems a very weak beginning to the topic. The issue to highlight is that Christianity believes that Christ was male. They also believe that if you have seen the Son, then you have seen the Father, which means that the Father is viewed as male, etc. etc. I think this introduction could be centered more on the topic. Thoughts?

Just to be clear, the doctrine of the Trinity has no direct correlation with gender, the topic of the article. The fact that each member of the Trinity is perceived as male does fit the topic, but the Trinitarian doctrine per se is not applicable.

What is odd is that the current section begins by stating that Christianity has significant conflicts over the nature of God, but then we have Tim trying his best to exclude groups that are part of this conflict. Tim are you saying that Christianity consists of a uniform set of doctrines? The last time I looked we have over 36,000 denominations in the world...that is hardly reflective of a uniform set of beliefs. Could you shed some light on us professor and tell us where Jesus said that the Trinitarian doctrine was a required belief to be one of his disciples? If not Jesus, how about Peter or Paul or any of the apostles. That belief was a product of 4th century Christianity and has nothing to do with Jesus and his teachings. --^StormRider 21:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Question: What does the Trinity have to do with the Gender of God?

Answer: According to a notable group of people called <insert name here> God = Trinity = Father, Son, Spirit. Father and Son are gendered terms.

Am I missing something? Alastair Haines (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's try another angle here. Speaking only for myself, I want to know more about the Mormon point of view, particularly in regard to the gender of God. I also want to know what the best sources of reliable information regarding it are. They will be Mormon sources, no one can know a Mormon POV better than Mormons.

Hypothetically, restricting attention to the subject of the Gender of God, Mormonism might be identical to Trinitarian Christianity. If that were the case, the sensible (and efficient) thing for us to do at this article, imo, would be to treat Mormons and Trinitarians under the same heading. For simplicity and convenience, Christianity would be a pretty good candidate for that heading, but Churches of Jesus Christ, might be just as good. There would be other options. But at this stage, I've seen no sources, only heard opinions regarding this.

However, on the subject of the Gender of God, Mormonism might be different to Trinitarian Christianity. This would be the case if Mormons and Trinitarians had different views of God (whose gender we are considering). In that case, we have a different dilemma. The two views need separate treatment and both need different names.

The place to start, surprise surprise, is with sources, and since no one else is offering them, I've found some for myself.

I hope Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Bruce McConkie are reliable enough sources on Mormonism. Is there a Mormon editor around who could confirm or disconfirm that for us?

• "I wish to declare that I have always and in all congregations when I preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods." — Joseph Smith, quoted by Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370.
• "How many Gods there are, I do not know." — Brigham Young, in Discourses of Brigham Young, ed. John A. Widtsoe, pp. 22–23.
• "As each of these persons [Father, Son and Spirit] is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods." — McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 319.

Has Joseph Ratzinger said "Amen" to this? "I believe in one God" Catechism of the Catholic Church

Alastair Haines (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I just love giant intellects; you impress me. Clearly you have really hit the head on differences. However, I think the topic, correct me if I am wrong is Gender of God. I think what you are trying to do is define Christianity, but just taking a really indirect approach, or maybe it is really feint, towards addressing the topic.

Last time I checked Christianity was the article that addressed what is Christianity. I have heard of another article called Jesus that attempts to address who he is and what groups think of him. It also seems like there is an article called Mormonism and Christianity that addresses the similarities and differences between Mormonism and orthodoxy. Personally, if you would like to get into an in-depth conversation on the topics above, I am more than happy, believe me, to address them, but only where the discussion is germane to the current article. It does seem like you have visited a few anti-Mormon sites, but if you want references to the better ones, I would be more than happy to refer you to those. It will at least make the conversation more interesting for me.

By the by, the first article of faith (I know it is so annoying to go the fundamental beliefs of a church, particularly when it conflicts with one's personal POV and objectives): "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, and in the Holy Ghost. Anyone have a definition for Christianity? Gosh I hear my friend Pope Benedict XVI clearly saying Amen, and Amen, and Amen.

Please do not be so facile as attempt to demonstrate that there is a diversity of beliefs within Christianity. There are over 36,000 Christian denominations in the world today. It is more than apparent there are differences of belief among them. Some lean to the more cannibalistic and want to eat the flesh and drink the blood of their God, others not so much. Some want a specific canon while others have added books to the canon. Some like to speak in tongues and profess that the gifts of the Spirit are at work within the body of Christ today while others say that those gifts have along since died away. Some believe that we can plead with those long dead to intervene on our behalf before God while others think it sacrilege to put anything or anybody between themselves and God. Others think that Grace is all that is necessary while others think that if one believes then works will be present as a demonstration of faith. Some doubt the actual divinity of Jesus while the majority are adamant that Jesus is the Only Begotten of the Father. Some attend church in grand edifices while others think a walk in the woods on Sunday morning is sufficient to worship God. Are there differences? More than you can shake a stick at. However, the one unifying factor is that they all worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and His Son, Jesus Christ. That Jesus was crucified and rose again and that it is only through Jesus that we may return to the Father. We all await his return. Welcome to Christianity. --^StormRider 19:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Storm, please strike your comments out. The topic here is Gender of God, not what you, or anyone else for that matter, think of Alastair, his intellect, his motives or whatever. Please don't follow the bad example of others. If there is one God, he might only have one gender. If there are many gods, they may have many genders. God (or gods) may also be "above" gender, or include genders other than male and female (C. S. Lewis in the Malacandra trilogy). Certain aspects of divinities are associated with views of their genders, singularity, plurality or trinitarianism are obviously foundational context for discussing various views. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Gender of God in Mormonism

I'm starting to discover how interesting the Mormon point of view is. It's full of gender, just as we know it; it's the perfect opposite of Islam, and very different to one of the modern Jewish points of view documented at this article. We should start making some effort to gather sources and document the Mormon POV. That will give us reliable information to know how to do the comparative religion work of classifying it, that has such engertic consensus at this article. Let's go! :)

“ God himself was once as we are now... ” — Joseph Smith

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another." — Joseph Smith, King Follett discourse, 7 April 1844.

Any other volunteers willing to see how sources do the work of comparative religion, deciding which groups go together etc. etc. might like to share sources and work through logical presentation here, so we don't tread on anyone's toes. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, what a fun activity...and so novel! I am sure no one has ever attempted such a comparative analysis. I mean, geez, surely there is not an article entitled Mormonism and Christianity or anything like it. You really know how to impress editors. Isn't it odd how those dirty Mormons teach that God was once a man, but is God. That does not sound like the real truth. Orthodoxy teaches that God was once a man, and is God. A gigantic difference between these two concepts; just miles a apart. I am positive no one will see any similarities here. This is so cool. Please read with sarcasm.

What exactly are you trying to demonstrate? Are you trying to define a Christian? Or are you trying to define what is Christianity? Or is this a feeble attempt at anti-Mormonism? Just so the rest of us know how this little screed of yours applies to the topic at hand, please enlighten us. --^StormRider 19:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Storm, sarcastic commentary is personal attack. I don't mind, I'm used to being attacked personally at Wikipedia, and you are probably emboldened by having seen that even the highest authorities here have given tacit approval to making personal attacks on Alastair. I am concerned by two things. Firstly, other indications in your comments show you to normally be thoughtful and polite. Secondly, the comment above doesn't encourage or develop discussion, probably the reverse. I'm sure you can see that. Please consider striking it out and simply helping us document the Mormon concept of gods and God with a view to establishing what "gender of God" means in Mormonism. I presume that the Morman view includes the idea that women are or can be gods too. That's a pretty profound and important point of view for this article. Whether it is a "Christian" view is something we can discuss further somewhat later. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I do have a wicked sense of sarcasm and use it most often with editors who I view as knowledgeable, but are being silly. Don't take it personally, but I viewed your edits as sarcastic also. I am not sure how productive some of your "interests" are. Let's move forward; I have enjoyed working with you in the past and I am sure I will do so now. The LDS Church, though a sizable church in the US, is less than one percent of Christianity. Gender, IMHO, is a narrower topic than what you are proposing. I see the article addressing what is the gender of God in the world's religions. Who is God would seem to address another topic.

One of the issues with Mormonism is understanding context, which is often distorted by critics. Let's talk about this "gods" thing. Mormonism does not think this is the only world in God's creations nor are humans on this earth his only sons and daughters. Mormonism sees God's creation as being eternally in process and never ending. Latter-day Saints firmly believe that we (as well as all those who have been created before and will be created after on other worlds) each may be joint-heirs with Christ; i.e. through the atonement of Jesus we will inherit what he inherits. That means both male and female. This is off-base to the topic of gender, but it alludes to why the term "gods" is used.

Latter-day Saints are comfortable and even adament at times with the term one God, but the focus is on the three: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All of the male in gender. Where as orthodoxy focuses on one God in three beings, LDS focus on three beings in one God. When stating it like this the difference is subtle, but it is quite distinct.

There is a concept of a Heavenly Mother, but we know almost nothing about the topic. It is best to think of Heavenly Parents, but we only know, interact with, and pray to God the Father through the Son and enlightened by the Spirit. I hope this makes sense.

As an aside, I did read your talk page and realize that you have been having some difficulties of late. I would prefer that they never happen and my experience with you has never merited anything similar and I don't see anything similar happening between us in the future. Peace. --^StormRider 00:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What a brilliant response, brother. For all I know, Mormonism is the refreshing truth. If Mormonism needs to be distinguished from Christianity in this article, and if I end up supporting a consensus for that, my support would have nothing to do with personal sentiments, only a habit of distancing public documentation from private opinion. To be honest, I simply don't know enough about Mormonism yet to know the answer, any comments I've made so far are simply to point out that the default cannot be inclusion. I know it looks different from your point of view, and your point of view is more precious to me than my own, but if no one is articulating a POV, someone has to do it. It would be intolerable to present information about Mormonism that reflected any slur upon it. I am immensely grateful for your words above, which suggest to me you correctly suspect I'm the kind who would risk bannishment from Wiki to uphold was is fair to everyone, including Mormons. Again, God bless you brother. I hope the "powers that be", allow us to continue to work together. Your prose is so well-worded that I'm captivated with pleasure by your phrasing, even if some of it's intent was to score a hit. With such art, I simply cannot feel badly about you. Forgive me if I'm slow to work with you here, as you've noted, I have a few "distractions" I'm dealing with slowly. Warmest regards, Alastair Haines (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Outside of Wikipedia, I would freely, gratefully, and humbly stated that the restored gospel of Jesus Christ (Mormonism) is a refreshing truth, but I would never take that position here on Wikipedia. My perception of truth is irrelevant here. To me the question revolves around the definition of Christianity. Orthodoxy is quite clear that to be Christian one must believe in the Nicene Creed. I believe that that definition is a 4th century contrivance and that absolutely dependent upon the position of the historic Catholic Church. More importantly, it is a definition wholly foreign to the New Testament. Never once did Jesus or his disciples ever dictate such a restrictive definition for his followers. Further, this 4th century definition assumes there was no diversity of belief within Christianity from the time of Christ up to 325, which is not historical accurate. What it boils down to is the difference between participation in the historic Catholic Church, i.e. the mother church for the vast majority of Christianity and its major beliefs (I am painting with broad brush strokes and sidestepping the schism with Eastern Orthodoxy). Restorationism consists of groups who trace their evolution either direct to scripture or proclaim a Spiritual restoration. They are not the only ones with differing beliefs, but they form most of the groups that conflict with trinitarian doctrine in particular.

Frankly, I have not closely studied what is going on at present or what has gone on in the past. What little I have read astounds me and seems awfully heavy handed. I have been around for several years, but have so far evaded this type of conflict. There is a difference between edit warring and passionate editing; the only way to differentiate between the two is to spend time really looking a long selection of edits. Admins have such a disparate degrees of expertise, qualifications, etc. that it is not appropriate to assume they are our best examples of Wikipedia editors. I don't know the admins involved with you now, but wow! This just seems bizarre. Walk softly and hopefully it will settle down. Let me know if I can do anything.--^StormRider 11:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Storm, when you speak of a restored gospel, you are also speaking of a lost gospel. Those who restored the gospel are the Mormons and those who lost it are the Christians. Great. I'll separate the two again and agree with you that you have, in fact, restored the true gospel at the expense of those lost souls, the Christians. Now, can we move on? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Friend Tim, as much as I agree with your proposal, I don't want to move an inch without us being sure Storm is with us. At the moment I am thinking hard about this. Trinitarian Christianity rather than Christianity would actually both explain a feature of God impacting on gender, as well as allow softer transition to Restorationist Christianity in "parallel". There would actually be a little more diversity in Restorationism, since this includes groups broader than the LDS. There's a nice warm fuzzy at the moment, if you'll forgive me saying so. I don't want to spoil it by being decisive ahead of time. Please be nice to one another. I might not be able to stay involved in discussion because of "work" in other parts of Wiki, but I want this to work. JWs and Christadelphians have but one God, which does not include Jesus, Adventists are Trinitarian. Should we package them the same way here the Restorationist category works for other subjects? Sorry if I'm slowing things by throwing more dust in the air. I'm very keen for both your thoughts. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

PS Regarding the politics, don't worry about it Storm. I agree 100% that admin-ness is no grounds for authoritative dispute settling, but it seems, sadly, that many people (including some admins) don't understand how anathema to Wiki-ness such an idea is. But despite thinking that I'm suffering personally because of such misunderstanding, and caring about Wiki getting such things right, I'm profoundly committed to avoiding politics as much as possible and sticking to contributing and low-level conflict resolution. Part of that commitment is working with you on this page, and another part is declining your kind offer of assistance, at least at this point. Your sincerity is apparent from the maturity of your insight and it is a great encouragement at a time of crisis. Enough said here, God bless you. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen no Christian sources to support the placement of JWs, Mormons, or Christadelphians as Christians, since they have a different deity(ies) from Christianity. Adventists are normally regarded as Christian -- I've heard of exceptions to the view, but only by Christians arguing in favor of Adventism. As far as restorationism is concerned, the Christian Church and the Church of Christ are restorationist, by design, and as such they "play well with others" (in the Christian church as a whole). The other groups are new religions entirely. To call JWs Christian is to make everyone else, Mormons and Christians as well, into non-Christians. Same would happen if Mormons were called Christians. They believe they have something better. Great. I hope they do. But I've not seen any source to suggest that Christianity by denomination or seminary anywhere, has embraced Mormonism as even in the same category of religion (monotheism) as Christianity. I would be very interested in any sources from accredited seminaries or from official denominational material, to say they are. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I like what you are saying, it is very strong, it does have the vast majority of relevant sources to back it. It is good academically, it is good theologically. It makes the right kind of distinctions. Because you are faithfully representing an NPOV that is verifiable by RS, you will probably carry the day. You liberate me to play "devil's advocate" and/or mediate somewhat. You both understand Mormonism better than I do.

I want to hear from Storm, then I'll be at peace. I think the main thing is articulating the Mormon position as clearly as possible in the Mormon section. It contains overlap with Trinitarianism as regards gender, but does say important things beyond that, just as Storm described.

I'm sure you're right to be bold in editing Tim, Storm's not shy about speaking up, and you're skillful at accomodating appropriate modifications that don't compromise sources. I'll pipe down until I'm needed, if at all. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I have limited experience with you. Your type of aggressiveness generally will cause a knee-jerk sarcastic response, but I will try and interaction. When I read your recent edits, I get the distinct impression that you do not read (think listen), but rather you have a script you are following and there is no changing your opinion. I am not sure discussion with you is of value because I think we are going nowhere. You attempt to draw a line between Christianity and Mormonism. This position is a favortie of anti-cultists and the like. Their entire argument revolves around what most call the fundamentals, which is code word for the Trinitarian doctrine. It is as if without the Trinitarian doctrine, there could be no Christianity. Can Christianity exist without this doctrine?

You have stated that there are seminaries (which are all sponsored by a church or denomination; not very neutral) or academic, which are again drawn from those same seminaries. Your sources have nothing to do with neutrality and everything to do with towinng the party line. You have asked for references, Adherents.com calls places Mormonism firmly within the camp of Christianity. I can supply others.

Break for just a moment and please provide a definition of a disciple of Christ at the time of Jesus. Then, please provide a definition for a follower of Jesus Christ during the time of Apostles. Lastly, differentiate those two definitions with the third definition which is for the period after 325 up until the Reformation.

As an aside, when Latter-day Saints use the terms "restored gospel", they are not saying a gospel was lost, but a fullness of the gospel was restored to the earth again. This does not signifie that LDS think Christians do not follow Christ or are not Christians. The Apostasy does not mean an absence of truth, but rather a lack of fullness of truth. I look forward to reading your definitions for the three questions above. I am sure that those academics and seminaries are full of answers for these simple questions. Before we start saying what Christianity isn't, it will be helpful to define what it is.--^StormRider 19:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Storm, I'm not sure if you and I are trying to accomplish the same things. You seem to be asking questions of ultimate truth, while I'm speaking in term of mainstream usage. It could very well be true that the first disciples of Jesus had a book of Mormon and believed they would become gods. We have no evidence for that in the New Testament, but that is not an argument that I'm interested in pursuing. If this were a polemic forum or a theological forum I might have interest in engaging in such questions -- but this is neither. This is a repository of standard references. We deal with mainstream usage, and not ultimate truth. I have no personal stake in the truth or falsehood of Christianity, but even more to the point I have no Wikipedian stake in such truth or falsehood; and here's the rub: you don't either (or you shouldn't). WE are Wikipedia editors. NEITHER of us should have an interest (here) of establishing ultimate truth. You may feel that you do as a person of faith, but you aren't here as a person of faith. You are here as a Wikipedia editor.

Let's assume that Mormonism is the ultimate truth. Great! That means that Christianity (as that word is used by 2 billion adherents) is NOT the ultimate truth. I'll even grant you that for the sake of argument. But that doesn't change classifications in a central reference of mainstream use. Regardless of the personal beliefs of Jesus and his first disciples, the group known as Christianity has self defined itself AT LEAST since the fourth century as Trinitarian, and has also defined themselves to EXCLUDE non-Trinitarian groups. Mormons, by contrast, define themselves as non-Trinitarian and in fact would exclude Trinitarian beliefs. For the sake of argument I will concede that Mormonism is the absolute truth of the universe, and that Trinitarian beliefs are absolutely wrong. Jesus is a separate deity from Elohim, working in agreement with Elohim. Elohim used to be a man, and men in the know can become like Elohim one day.

All of that is well and good. But even if I were to grant all of your beliefs, and even to grant that your beliefs are "true Christianity," it's still DIFFERENT from what people normally mean by "Christianity."

Let's go even further and say that people who THINK Trinitarians are "Christian" are flat wrong. At best they are false Christians, but shouldn't own the word.

But those are questions of what SHOULD be, and what people SHOULD understand. Wikipedia isn't about that. Wikipedia is simply using standard references as they are normally used.

And I will conclude with this: if Mormonism is the ultimate truth, it should get a special place, shouldn't it? It shouldn't be subordinated under all those pesky Trinitarians who unanimously and historically claim you are heretics anyway. Grouping you and them together only confuses the distinctions those groups insist upon, and the distinctions your own missionaries insist upon when they happily try to convert a Baptist to their better religion. If Mormons WERE the same as Christians, they'd have nothing to SAY to Christians, would they? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You and I agree that Wikipedia has nothing to do with truth; that it is beyond its purpose and capability. Could you please let me know where I attempted to direct the conversation in that direction?

The questions are:

1. What is the definition of a Christian at the time of Christ?
2. What is the definition of a Christan during the time of the apostles?
3. What is the definition of a Christian after 325 up to the time of the Reformation?

None of these questions has anything to do with Mormonism, the Book of Mormon, truth, ultimate truth, who is wrong, who is right. It has to do with definitions; do you have any? This is not rocket science. You have presented yourself as someone familiar with the seminaries and academics of the world; surely you can find some reference to these simple, straightforward questions.

Lastly, it does not matter who is a heretic and who is orthodox in regards to this topic. In fact, that discussion has no function here that I see. You are the one attempting to make it have a role and I continue to reject it wholly. Cheers. --^StormRider 21:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you get what I'm saying. For the sake of argument:

1. The definition of Christian at the time of Christ was people who planned to all become gods.
2. The definition of Christian at the time of the Apostles was people who planned to all become gods.
3. The definition of Christian during the middle ages was NOT people who planned to all become gods. True Christianity was lost and needed to be restored one day.

I'll grant the absolute truth of your religion. Please grant that it is different from all those pesky false Christians who believe in the Trinity. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to just get a definition? What is the problem here? Do you have a reference for any of the requested definitions above or not? --^StormRider 23:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Set, Subset, Superset

We've gone round this before.

1. Messianic Judaism self-defines as Jewish and not Christian.
2. Judaism self-defines to the exclusion of Messianic Judaism.
3. Mormonism self-defines as Christian.
4. Christianity self-defines to the exclusion of Mormonism.
5. Ilkali and Storm want all four to be in the same Set.
6. I need a category term that is not self-contradictory.

Gentlemen, I have no problem with your GROUPING all four together, as long as you do so in a NPOV way. Given the points above, and given the strenuous objection Messianic Jews have to the term "Christian" -- perhaps we can solve our difficulty by naming the Superset according to something ALL groups will agree about themselves as well as all other listed groups in the set: New Testament Related Beliefs.

If you'll recall, when I first made the reorg a few days ago I moved Messianic Judaism out of the Judaism section for the same reason that I moved Mormonism out of the Christianity section -- both supersets (Judaism and Christianity) excluded the subsets (Messianic Judaism and Mormonism) while one superset (Christianity) included one subset (Messianic Judaism).

Interestingly, neither of you objected to moving Messianic Judaism out of Judaism, but you did object to moving Mormonism out of Christianity -- but there was no logical way for you to argue the inclusion of one in Christianity and not the other in Judaism, and in fact you didn't even try.

The fact that you didn't try marks a bias.

Nevertheless, I'm willing to group these together if we can do so in a logically consistent way. "New Testament Related Beliefs" is such a way. "Christianity" is not -- Mormonism INSISTS on the term and Messianic Judaism INSISTS AGAINST the term. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Stan Telchin, Messianic Judaism is not Christianity: A loving call to unity, Chosen, 2004.
2. Baruch Maoz, Judaism is not Jewish: A friendly critique of the Messianic Movement, Christian Focus Publications, 2002.
3. Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991.
4. Hugh Pyle, The truth about Mormonism: Is it a Christian Church? The Sword of the Lord Publishers, 2000.

It is not Tim speaking here. Tim is a sock-puppet for reliable sources. It's funny how that experience can feel more like being a punching bag.

The way forward will ultimately involve some classification of groups based on what their beliefs about a God or gods will tell us about the gender of those divine persons. We can do the categorisation (comparative religion) work afterwards. Which is these things is not like the other ones? Additionally, we could think about separating the New Testament from the Christian section, so long as it does not imply a parallelism with Judaism as currently presented, where the separation of the Hebrew Bible suggests distancing. Generally speaking, the more minority a "New Testament related" group is, the more ardently it claims to be based on the New Testament. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"The way forward will ultimately involve some classification of groups based on what their beliefs about [...]". Maybe so, but not here. All of your arguments are only of value if they effect a change in project-wide convention. Just as you should argue at WT:MOS if you want to use curly quotes instead of straight ones, you should argue at WP:Christianity or similar if you want to depict Mormonism as being non-Christian. Frankly, the fact that you haven't already taken it to that venue makes me wonder if you are intentionally choosing the easier route of badgering two editors until they get tired and relent. Ilkali (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Abrahamic Religions

I've noted that my compromise was rejected in favor of an Abrahamic religions superset. As that superset excluded Islam, I incorporated Islam into the superset with the chronology of each religion.

Also, as Mormonism is a New Testament Related Belief, but not Christianity as it has self-defined since Nicea, I've reorganized it outside of Nicene Christianity.

We need something that isn't self-contradictory, folks. You can't have "Abrahamic Religions" and exclude Islam! Nor can you have Mormonism under Christianity, since it self-defines as exclusively Trinitarian (as per Nicene Creed).

I really don't care WHO you WANT to lump together. Please organize them however you like, and put them into a term which is not self-contradictory. I did so a few minutes ago, which was rejected. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Towards consensus on categories (formerly known as edit warring)

Gentlemen, I'm going on vacation now and need to pack. I'll be on the road tomorrow and will probably ignore this page for a few days to a full week.

In the mean time, please work out an organization that incorporates the exclusion sets I've already identified:

1. Messianic Judaism self-identifies as NOT Christian, but instead as Jewish

1. Christianity identifies Messianic Judaism as Christian
2. Judaism identifies Messianic Judaism as Christian

1. Mormonism self-identifies as Christian, but NOT Trinitarian

1. Christianity self-identifies (since the Nicene Creed) as Trinitarian, and no Christian denomination or seminary accepts Mormonism as Christian

Now, please work out a rationale for categorization. If you ignore the mainstream in favor of any and all self-definitions, then Messianic Judaism is JEWISH and Mormonism is CHRISTIAN. If you follow mainstream usage, then Messianic Judaism is CHRISTIAN and Mormonism is NOT CHRISTIAN.

If, however, you WANT to incorporate Messianic Judaism AND Mormonism AND Christianity in the SAME group, then you must do so in a NPOV way -- viz. "New Testament Related Beliefs".

It's as simple as that. Right now you are contradicting yourselves. Make up your mind on WHAT you want, and then I'll know WHAT to address.

But you cannot have it as it is. EITHER move Messianic Judaism into the Judaism section, OR move Mormonism out of the Christianity section, OR name the section in such a way that includes all groups as they self-define and inter-define.

Good luck. I've given you two possible answers, both of which were rationally consistent. If you have a better way, be my guest. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you expect me to respond to arguments against positions I don't hold, other than to ignore them. Read what I've written and listen to what I'm saying. Ilkali (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I rather like the Abrahamic religions idea. That is a standard comparative religions terminology approach and can be easily defended from sources. What is done under that heading is more problematic. Regardless, Jeffro cannot accuse Tim of editing without first building consensus when Jeffro has not done this himself. I'm sure he'll see the point. If you don't establish a consensus Jeffro, you'll be vulnerable to reversion. So, whether your version is in the text or not, you need to document the grounds for consensus here somewhere. It will include any criticisms and how these were addressed. I'd recommend you write a simple proposal below. You'll certainly have my support for the Abrahamic religions superclass. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a good trip Tim, the page will be yours to revert if it is out of line with sources. You are obviously a part of consensus building at this page, as indeed we all are, if we want to be. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

From the perspective of a neutral secular encyclopedia, a religion's self-identification means almost as little as other religions' view of that religion, or that religion's view of other religions. That is to say, not much. It is a fact that all the religions in this discussion (those subject to my reorganisation) are Abrahamic religions. It is also the case that Messianic Jews and Mormons both believe in Jesus as the son of god and as the Christ, and that is what makes them Christian from a secular point of view. I have never seen any secular definition of Christianity that counters this. (Please also refer to Christian (word).) In particular, note that a religion being non-Trinitarian does not establish it as non-Christian, outside of definitions set forth by a subset (however large) of Christian religions.

Regarding the "exclusion sets" given by User:SkyWriter, the first point is inherently POV. For secular purposes, the classification of Messianic Jews is dependent on the fact that they believe in Jesus as the Christ and the son of god. (Though the second and third points agree with that conclusion, they are also inherently POV, and are not a neutral secular basis for such definition.) The last two statements (regarding Mormons as Christian) are invalid because the fourth relies on the fifth, and the fifth appeals to its own authority for its own definition of Christian. Christianity does not 'self-identify' as anything, and certainly not as something that post-dates its own development by 3 centuries.

To illustrate the point: A particular dentist might employ unorthodox methods in his practice. Various dental federations might reject his methods. He might even insist that he's not a dentist, but actually a toothologist. Neither his own position, nor those of the other dentists, alters the fact that he works on teeth. From a neutral point of view, he's still a dentist. Whether he's a good or accredited dentist is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding work Jeffro! I'm not saying I agree with you, just that I think you've addressed Tim's verifiable assertions with assertions I recognise as also verifiable. This is meaningful engagement at the heart of the current structure of the article. I think it is a thorny issue because we will certainly find that classification involves more than one published POV, and more than one published POV independent of self-identification. I think you've made a sufficiently strong case to justify your categorisation as a sourced alternative and hence legitimately stable revision of the article. I'm sure you'll agree that Tim has depth of knowledge of sources and should have a right of reply. As I've noted, since we have the luxury of at least three involved editors here, I'll try to encourage the two of you to work to a common mind, rather than taking sides. I can't ask you to compromise sources, but I can ask you both to compromise personal convictions. I do hope we can all be patient enough to set an example of talking this issue through to conclusion. Once again, congratulations on a very helpful post. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alastair. This argument, not surprisingly, has come up at various times on various religious articles. I may be able to compromise my position if an alternative compelling logical argument is presented that is based on secular definitions that are not influenced by conditions that post-date the development of Christianity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

PS I'll venture one weakness with your case, Jeffro--"however large". How would you answer a challenge that your classification involves WP:UNDUE attention to the self-identification of a minority in the case of Mormons, while avoiding it in the case of Messianic Jews? Alastair Haines (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither classification relies on a group's self-identification. Both are Christian on the secular basis that 'they believe Jesus to be the Christ and the son of god'. 'However large' merely counters the tendency for some to infer that the acceptance of the Nicene Creed by most Christian religions serves as a suitable definition of Christianity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

lol, blow it, you're doing so great I think I'll stop trying to be a coward and seek to work this through with you myself. Tim, and others, can help us if we need it. Let's see if you and I can get our thoughts together on this topic. Please understand, I haven't even worked out what I think the answer to this question is, nor which are the best sources. Perhaps as we chat, the best sources will come to mind. Anyway, I've still got a problem with your suggestion, because defining Christianity as "believing Jesus to be the Christ and the Son of God" is itself a non-neutral and non-unique definition, including ambiguity. With lower case "son of god" it is explicitly inclusive of both JWs (son, not Son) and Mormons (god, not God). If one is looking for a definition of Christianity that will include all sects, some such ambiguous definition is required. But one cannot adopt a definition based on describing a commonality of views as a neutral POV, it begs the question. If I'm not clear, I'm sorry, I'm willing to explain further.

I had not intentionally used lower case to present any specific theological viewpoint. I don't have much interest in the capitilisation of these terms. Wikipedia does not need to pander to the textual presentation preferred by a particular religion, be it 'Son of god', 'son of God', 'son of G-d', or some other thing. Strictly speaking, 'son of God' is the correct usage in the article - 'God' functions as a proper noun, but 'son' does not; people talk to God, but they don't talk to Son. Any other presentation is non-neutral. It is not at all a case of 'looking for a definition of Christianity that will include all sects'; it is in fact a case of dismissing superfluous conditions of such identification that post-date the development of Christianity. Any definition of 'Christinity' that would exclude first-century Christians is an inherently flawed definition.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, and this is a really important point, I don't think Wiki can define Christianity theologically. It is the nature of theology that it is only "valid" within the framework of its own tradition, as far as POV goes. A point you actually make above (in a different way). However, there are no theologians outside faith to provide a "neutral" theology. Theology includes reliable points of view regarding Bible interpretation. Scholars outside faith communities are reliable sources of one interpretation of the Bible, however, they are never reliable sources of theological interpretation. They can't be, but they don't want to be either. The Pope will never ask an atheist religious studies professor to take on his old job at "the Congregation", but none would apply for the job under it's current description.

If I read you correctly, your statement, "I don't think Wiki can define Christianity theologically," is correct but for an entirely different reason than you suggest. Indeed, Wikipedia certainly must not define Christianity theologically, but it is largely illusory that theological questions can simply hide behind the curtain of 'sacred magisterium'. Indeed, such a defense is similar to saying that one cannot dispute the existence of 'the Force' in the real world purely on the basis that it's critical to the plot of Star Wars.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

So is our way forward barred forever? No, it's not. There are two other related ways of defining Christianity. Christians (theoretically) define Christianity theologically (unlike Jews in modern Judaism, but that's another issue). But who's to say what theology is right or wrong? Well, each denomination draws those boundaries. At this point more objectivity is possible. Denominations are organisations, not just theories, they also have histories. This introduces complexities, but casts off something that cannot be scrutinised by science. Theology is, to some extent, "out there", but organisations have membership rolls, leaders, writers—a history. This is objectively documented and available to neutral scrutiny, just as much as to the scrutiny of members of faith communities.

Sorry about editing your text, but I couldn't live with the incorrect use of the possessive, 'whose'. But back on topic, yes! they indeed have a history, and the history of Christianity pre-dates the definitions that many seek to apply to it. So to reiterate, any definition of 'Christinity' that would exclude first-century Christians is an inherently flawed definition.

I'll stop this line of thought here. Jeffro seems more than capable of grasping the point without me labouring it further. I'm not even going to think exactly what the next step of reasoning is, I'm sure Jeffro can provide that too. Either something we'll both agree on, 'cause we agree about the basic idea above, or an important oversight in the above (though I think it's pretty basic). In any case, I want to stop now, 'cause there's too much text; but more importantly, because I want Jeffro and I to share this "thinking aloud" process together. Sorry about all this talk about process rather than topic, but context at this page illustrates why it might be helpful. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The simplest secular defintion of 'Christian' is 'a follower of the teachings of Christ'. Semantically, this definition requires that such a follower believes Jesus to be 'the Christ', and explicit statements in scripture infer that this requires belief that he is the son of God. Arguments about later theological developments (e.g. Trinity) or moral assertions (e.g. 'real' Christians show love) are superfluous for secular purposes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

continued

Just a layout thing, it is arguable whether interleafing replies makes it easier for readers to follow, or injures the flow of the original post. Sometimes, I'm sure you'd agree, the first is true, other times the second. I'm in two minds about the text above myself. Could we agree to keep replies in blocks? I'll set things up so that we can deal with separate threads in this subsection. Feel free to "refactor" my posts as you see fit, though, I see your sensitivity to both reader ease and respect for posters. In reply to your first reply above. You claim "Wikipedia does not need to pander to the textual presentation preferred by a particular religion." I can sympathise with your sentiment, though I think reflection will lead you to agree that the matter is not so simple. I'll leave aside the triviality that "pandering" is an un-Wiki, non-neutral point of view, and would extend to non-religious "textual presentation" were it a fair comment anyway. The Neutral Point of View requires fair and proportionate treatment of all points of view, this will be reflected in terminology, as well as other things. That is our challenge here. There are very many points of view and we are seeking a neutral way of classifying them. I won't address your suggestion regarding "son of God" in detail, since God the Son is the conception of Jesus relevant to this article. I will simply note that your analysis is injured by ignoring the article necessary before "Son of God" in almost any context. Additionally, while there are conceivably places where I myself would think clarity might just be served by deviating from standard conventions, the fact is that "Son of God" is the standard usage in all published work, of faith or otherwise (please demonstrate otherwise, or don't bother, we don't even need it in the article). Wiki is, in fact, bound by such things, and can not engage in original research to establish new conventions. But your main point was interesting, and in fact I agree with it, I think we all do. Whatever this article must understand by the term Christian, it cannot exclude Jesus, the writers of the NT and the early church. But does it include Marcion? Does it include Gnostics? The consensus of church historians is "no". There is a dissenting view, recently proposed and championed by Bart Ehrman. This view should be discussed here, though I expect it should prove to be WP:UNDUE. It is, however, helpful for future editors and readers to see documentation of how we handled this. History also sets us free to be objective about the time at which Messianic Judaism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists and so on actually entered the picture. Chronology is nicely objective and tells a story to the reader without us needing to be drawn into commenting. There is even implication regarding Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, which are both only about 1,000 years old.

If we include Mormons, and I recommend we do, we really ought to include Gnostics and Marcion. Both groups had radically different pictures of God to Christianity (as the general public understand it). We have our mandate all points of view, in due proportion. RC, Orthodox, Prot, Pentacostal, MJ and many liberal and independent branches of Christianity all agree regarding the Trinity and this must be presented first. Where "NT related traditions" deviate in a way that is substantial with regard to God's gender these need to be added with appropriate caveats regarding their relative degree of representativeness. It would be more than a little patronising to provide a caveat for the system noting, "there is no intention to suggest that groups identified as being outside the mainstream of Christianity are not, in fact, the authentic form of New Testament belief". However, such a gambit is not without precedent.

I'll stop this reply here. Perhaps a next step is actually identifying just which major "New Testament related" groups are distinctive in their treatment of God's gender. This is essential. The NT speaks of God and implies things about gender. Various groups have different views about how the NT should be understood. An exhaustive list of the alternatives is ... Without categorising or ordering them, what are the members of the "set of interpretations of NT views of God's gender"? Alastair Haines (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Others have said the same before, and it looks all very nice on the policy document with single-line examples. However, interleaving seems to work better (for me at least) for lengthy multi-paragraph posts dealing with several different aspects of a topic. I have kept this response in a block as per your request, at the expense of context.

Whether or not 'pandering' is the best word, the fact remains that it is not neutral to adopt as standard a particular religion's preferred version of textual presentation.

"God the Son" functions as a proper noun, and therefore falls outside of the issue (compare "Pliny the Younger"). This is not quite the same as statements referring to the 'son of God'. Presence of an article before 'son' in 'son of God' in fact supports my previous statement that 'son' is not a proper noun warranting a capital letter (for the same reason that I would not call you "the Alastair"

If a particular individual or group complies with a secular definition of 'Christian', I see no reason to indicate them as otherwise, unless there is concensus from unbiased sources. "church historians" presenting the views of a particular church generally hold a bias in favour of their own church. Where the status of being Christian is disputed by 'mainstream' Christianity (or others), the disputed status can be mentioned, but it should not be used as an outright determination that said individual or group is indeed not Christian.

Groups that are more notable should be given prominence. However, belief in the Trinity is not the determining factor of notability (though it just so happens that the majority hold that belief). For example, a hypothetical Trinitarian Christian religion that believes god is female would be less prominent than the Mormon faith (and would probably be relegated to the 'Other' section).

Regarding different views of the NT with regard to god's gender, no specific examples immediately come to mind. However, it is certainly not outside the realms of possibility that some (particularly feminists) might argue that because the bible was written by patriarchal men that it simply employs masculine terms for god, and they might hold alternative views that god is female or neuter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

When used of Jesus (like the context of this article), "Son of God" is a proper noun, often with the definite article and sometimes in apposition.

Secular language about particular religious groups follows its own, rather free, patterns of usage but expresses it's own points of view in the process. It is yet another POV, not the NPOV.

Feminist theologies frequently follow precisely the contours you suggest; and, as such, are pertinent to this article. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Protestantism

The current Christianity section is wrong regarding the Protestant section. The writers listed are a handful of exceptions, precisely as the text describes. The position held by those noted in the section below are actually much more widely held, though still marginal overall.

Unless there is consensus for any of the recent changes, I'll be reverting them all in due course. I'm going to adopt the "moderator" role here, and revert the article to stable versions of the text each month, getting it protected if people insist on "pushing" revisions to the stable version without sources or consensus. I'll drop in from time to time to assist with helping consensus form on the basis of sources if possible, however, the fact is going to be, unless sources and consensus can be demonstated in support of changes, they will be removed as unreliable.

I'll be particularly keen to drop by to help Storm lead us to a better sourced and comprehensive treatment of Mormonism (whatever we end up calling it and however we end up categorising it). I'll also be particularly keen to encourage Jeffro in applying standard methodology in classification should he continue to pursue doing that in line with sources. We really need the specialist knowledge of sources that these two editors have or can obtain.

Sources don't change, so edit wars are stopped by them. Editor's opinions change, and the composition of quorums of editors change, so both edit wars and unstable text result from attempting to base decisions on opinions. If text out of line with sources continues to be insisted upon, we will face the sad situation of reversion to a reliable revision of the article and protection of it until consensus arises based on sources. This sort of thing does happen at Wiki, and usually leads to people who have interests other than contributing sources to leave.

There's a lot of talent at the page, atm, but it is wasted unless it chooses to place itself under the reliable guidance of sources. Please don't waste your time, friends. Use it at a library. And smile at the librarian. ;) Discover the irresistable power of sources at Wikipedia. Best wishes. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Unless there is consensus for any of the recent changes, I'll be reverting them all in due course". Can you demonstrate that there was ever consensus for inclusion of material such as your labored definitions of God and gender?

"I'm going to adopt the "moderator" role here, and revert the article to stable versions of the text each month". This "moderator" role seems very much like the "owner" role you've previously adopted. I'll be surprised to see you revert to anything other than your preferred version. Ilkali (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I will merely restore sourced and stable text, one week after it was vandalised, everyone knows it's part of the article, it has never been seriously challenged, it will be in this article in ten year's time. I will no longer discuss it unless a serious and sourced proposal is offered against it, and that won't happen because it is so uncontroversial (except in your head). The burden of proof in this is on you to provide sources and approach me to work together with you towards any improvement (that is possible). A week's absence of the text from the article is no argument against its stability, your personal animosity and administrator and ArbCom error are guilty of creating any perception of instability, as you well know. The absence of any discussion regarding the sourced and stable text proves my point. The sources argue for themselves. Everybody, always, edits to provide a version they consider to be an improvement, except at this page, where some people edit in order to prevent Alastair's knowledge and wisdom regarding sources and the subject from being included. It is prejudice and censorship and anathema to Wiki, and slowly things are being done about it. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Everybody, always, edits to provide a version they consider to be an improvement, except at this page..." Um, actually, we also consider ourselves to be improving the article. Just because you disagree doesn't mean we aren't all editing in good faith. --Alynna (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In your case Alynna, I have seen you willing to learn from sources. But just because people say they're editing in good faith doesn't mean they are. It is their actions that speak the truth. Editors who have not contributed a single source in six months, but repeatedly remove them, are not entitled to express authoritative decisions on content. Editors who war against sources show contempt for the basic principles of Wiki. My disagreement, as talk at this page proves, is merely endlessly reminding people that their opinions are not superior to sources. In fact, it is rarely my opinion, it is the opinion of thousands of published writers. Frankly I'm astounded that grown up people find that hard to understand. Ultimately all some people are doing is edit warring to silence reliable information and robbing readers by doing it. You are much misled to post aimless personal attack like that above. Good faith does not constitute a reliable source, it does not give you the excuse to remove reliable information. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Again: Can you demonstrate that there was ever consensus for inclusion of this material? Otherwise you are insisting on an unbalanced standard: everything needs consensus unless you personally like it. Ilkali (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Groups, by consent rather than ideal

I think the problem is simpler than we are making it. If we try to make ideal statements about who is a Christian, we will go way behond the scope of Wikipedia. Instead, we should treat groups by consent: what is the broadest categorization that causes the least conflict by the group itself?

In other words, treat a "group" as inclusively as possible until they scream. In the case of Christianity, they DID scream in the 4th century with the Nicene Creed. Jews scream when we try to include Messianic Jews. Fair enough on both cases.

These problems have already been worked out by history. All we need do is follow. That's Wikipedia.

SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

A wonderful definition if we are going to define 4th century Christianity, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of Christianity from the 1st century forward. I still find it odd that you have not even attempted to provide the numerous requests for definitions above. Why is it so difficult to describe what a Christian is? I have a few ideas about it, but if you would please just provide some definitions we can quickly arrive at a neutral definition. Cheers. --^StormRider 02:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Storm -- you are looking for an ideal definition, which, as I've repeatedly stated, is completely beyond the scope of Wikipedia. If you'll note, I've been willing to grant ANY definition you want for a "first century Christian" because it has nothing to do with the definition of the modern existing group. Islam believes that all original Jews and Christians practiced Islam. To THEM, "first century Christians" were Muslims. To Catholics, they were proto-catholic. To Messianic Jews, they were Messianic Jews. No one will agree, can agree, or should agree on this definition you are wanting, and it's ridiculous to go down that route when we are dealing with a CURRENT group. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've heard people talk of describing rather than defining things. I guess a definition is a kind of description, but it has a timeless essentialism about it. Indeed, that's an issue withing discussion of gender, some argue gender identity shouldn't be constrained by definitions that include perceived appropriate gender roles. People talk of masculinities and femininities and describing a range of alternatives rather than seeking a precise definition of m or f.

In the spirit of that kind of academic methodology, we could be considering "Christianities" rather than defining what a Christian is. But it does rather beg the question, since the plural will naturally be read assuming it subsumes the singular. In other words, there is an implicit definition: "Christianity is any (or all) of the following Christianities". The (or all) is in brackets because I think it is important that it is not true. Some branches of New Testament interpretation are mutually anathemetising.

I'm really torn in this discussion. I feel both the weight of not implying a view that Marcion was "a Christian", but also the weight of seeing that there is a real sense in which he can only reasonably considered in the context of what is commonly known as Christian thought. But what of Baha'i, Mandaeans, Druze and Christian Science? We are spared much of this where groups have no unique contribution to the Gender of God. However, Mormonism is distinct from the Watchtower organization and both from the Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant-Pentacostal conglomeration (that we're refraining from calling Christian).

A question for Tim, is Mormonism closer to mainstream Christianity than JWs with respect to the gender of God or vice versa? Is it meaningful to make such an assertion?

One for Storm, would it be OK to describe Gnosticism along with Mormonism as Christian views with more complex views of both what is meant by God and by the view that there are feminine divinities (whether worhsipped or not)? (I expect you to say 'no', but you will teach me a lot by explaining why.)

Alastair Haines (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember the lede -- either a literal or allegorical gender. Polytheistic religions tend toward literal (but there is still the uroboric "Great Mother" as Neumann described.. Kali would be one, I think). Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in a literal gender, but an allegorical one. Mormonism does believe in a literal gender. Glorified humans will bear children over their own celestial planets. Elohim was one. I don't understand the role of Mary, and Storm would be more helpful than I. Was she a pre-existing wife from a previous humanity?

As for Christianities... there IS room for heretical (as defined by mainstream) beliefs. Karaites are Jewish, as well as Sadducees and Essenes. But Messianics are not. Why? Simply -- they have another existing religion to peg them with: Christianity. Now here's the interesting thing -- if they were small and there was no Christianity in existence, would you classify Messianics as a sect of Judaism, a Jewish heresy, or a new religion? As we can see with Karaites, even heresies can be registered as a Jewish heresy, and not a new religion.

The ugly truth is this, the difference between a sect and a religion is size. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are each bigger than a lot of religions. They ARE Christian-related, just as Karaites are Jewish-related. But they are BIGGER than Karaites.

Is this fair or right or ideal? Well, I used to get hot and bothered about ideals, but fortunately Wikipedia doesn't want us to worry about it.

I appreciate Storm's concern to a point -- if you had to pin Mormonism to some religion somewhere, Christianity is closer than Judaism, but Hinduism is even closer still once the polytheism is considered. Gnostics were dualists. Jehovah's Witnesses are often seen to be polytheistic because of the big J GOD and the little j god.

Ultimately, there is no clean universal rule here. It depends on perspective, doesn't it?

And that's why I proposed to classify by consent. That frees us from trying to define first century Christianity, ideal Christianity, or the proper theological considerations from a secular perspective!

No, let's just let groups make their boundaries and report. Not invent, but report.

THAT's Wikipedia. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You're making sense to me Tim. The context of this article changes the usual lines of debate a bit too. We're only interested in differences that make sense in the context of gender of divine persons. Other distinctions are not relevant and take us off topic. For example, there's no point in having a Protestant section (or a Catholic or Orthodox one really). They have no official differences regarding the gender of the three divine persons who comprise the only God they worship. Why import battles into a page? Beats me. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism is closer to Hinduism than Christianity? Boy, now that is a demonstration of complete ignorance of Mormonism! There is an absolute dearth of even a minor understanding of Mormonism, so let's actually look at what LDS teach and believe rather than what an anti-Mormon website says the LDS teaches and believes. As an aside, what is worse about this situation is that while possessing such an obvious ignorance, there is a obvious desire to voice an opinion. Further, that when seeking knowledge or understanding one would not just ask a Mormon rather than some hack. It is like attempting to understand the Catholic Church by only asking a Southern Baptists preacher or any of your average Evangelicals.

Mormonism, specifically, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is monotheistic. Why? for starters because the Church teaches that God the Father is the only God or entity that exists to worship. Further, the Church teaches that prayer is only made to the Father, in the name of the Son, and by or through the Holy Spirit. Whereas today's mainstream Christianity focuses on one God in three persons, the LDS Churches focuses on three persons in one God.[43],[44],[45],[46] There is only one source of doctrine within the LDS Church and that is found in the Holy Scriptures. What I have provided in the previous scriptures are those taught by the Book of Mormon and I have excluded the scriptures from the Bible for obvious reasons.

Anti-Mormons have made much ado about scriptures in the Doctrine and Covenants that mention gods such as D&C 132:17-20, 37 or D&C 76:58-59. The problem is that they don't understand the obvious i.e. just read the scriptures. The first scripture is discussing a period after the judgement. The second scripture is identifying the potential of mankind through Jesus Christ; we are called "gods, even the sons of God." This context is similar and/or identical to the same usage in the Bible as found in Romans 8:14,19, 1 John 3:1-2, John 1:12. This misunderstanding of the scriptures is often tied into an attack on the LDS teaching of exaltation or theosis; that we might be joint-heirs with Christ, which is interpreted to mean that we may be glorified with Jesus. The concept of theosis remains a sacred, current teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy. It remains a doctrine of the Catholic Church, but is less a topic of focus. This concept of theosis is exemplified in the words of Irenaeus in Against Heresies, bk. 5, preface, "If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods." Irenaeus further stated, "Do we cast blame on him (God) because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were first created merely as men, then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, 'I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High.'...For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality."(ibid., 4.38) Almost all of the great patristic fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, and Augustine among others spoke on deification/theosis. Their understanding, as already demonstrated in the above scriptures has sure footing in the New Testament and the Old Testament. I acknowledge that there are many who will say there is a significant difference between LDS exaltation and Orthodox theosis, but the words these patristic fathers have used are identical to an LDS understanding of the same doctrine taught currently the LDS Church.

If Hinduism teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, that God the Father is the only God to whom one must pray, that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfect life, performed miracles, bled from every pore in the Garden, was crucified for the sins of mankind, rose the third day, ascended to sit on the right hand of God, that he will return again one day, and that there is no other path except through Him to return to be with God, then there may be similarity. HOWEVER, if Hinduism does not teach these things, then there is no comparison. Polytheism is a false accusation against the LDS Church and is only found in the mouths of anti-Mormons that have neither studied the teachings of the LDS Church or have an understanding of the gospel of Christ. If the LDS Church is polytheistic, then Christianity is polytheistic as are the scriptures. SkyWriter, you said let's not "invent", now is the time to begin doing so because what you have been doing is nothing but invention and the worst form of scholarship because you spout statements out of ignorance and have not begun to understand the topic! I ask you now to desist until such time as you actually know something about the topic.

Alastair, the only doctrinal statement in the current scripture is found in the Proclamation on the Family. This is the only doctrinal statement ever made that addresses the possibility of a mother in heaven; however, the words it used are "heavenly parents". As is stated in the current article, there is a hymn, as in one hymn that mentions the topic of a "mother there" meaning in heaven. This hymn states, "In the heavens are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason; truth eternal tells me I've a mother there." This hymn is actually a poem that was written by Eliza R. Snow and then was put to music by James McGranahan. It is not a doctrinal statement. In my studies of comparative religion, the belief or teaching that comes close to this, although it far exceeds it, is Marian teaching. Whereas Mary has long been venerated, prayed to, adored, and loved by Catholics, LDS has only this logic that there may be a mother in heaven; however, we do not pray to, venerate, adore, etc simply because we have not further teaching about it than what I have stated here. There is a second article that is worth reading for additional understanding found here. I think it is fair to say that the LDS Church teaches that both men and women may both be joint-heirs with Christ, that both may be glorified with him, and that gender is an eternal, personal trait. Further, that the LDS teaches that men and women may be gods only in the same context that the Bible teaches it. To go further than the Bible is to distort the teachings of the Church. Cheers. --^StormRider 09:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

{big smile} Thank you so much Storm. I'm reading your post carefully and following the links. This is exactly what the article needs. Readers want the Mormon POV (like all others) explained clearly. How on earth could we classify it until we know what it is? Your first reference alone is enought to demonstrate that there is going to be some depth to the Mormon position. I'm reading on to see if you've pointed us to reliable secondary sources of interpretation. It looks to me like we've got the ideal thing happening here with a Mormon contributing Mormon views from reliable sources. :D Alastair Haines (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I would be happy to supply third party interpretations of the scriptures presented above. When one wants to learn about watch making, one does not ask the butcher how a clock is made. One always asks a watch maker himself and then one really knows what is taught. I generally allow these types of accusations go on without response because I find them so ignorant of reality. However, when repeated multiple times and when used to draw a false dichotomy, then a response is requested. Based upon the LDS canon, it is impossible to draw any conclusion other than LDS teach monotheism. However, that does not mean there is no mystery about their teachings. How can the Son be separate from the Father and yet be God? My response is an echo of Jesus' when he prayed that his disciples might be one even as he and the Father are one found in John 17:22 .

Doctrine is found in LDS canon and no where else. This can be very confusing to the casual student of the LDS Church and its teachings. Prophets may interpret scripture and they may, through the direction of the Holy Spirit, share revelation to the membership. However, the revelation does not become doctrine unless it is added to the canon of LDS scripture. Men, who may be prophets or apostles, may make statements, but they speak only as men until their statements are added to the canon. Peace. --^StormRider 10:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Although the Sola Scriptura of my own tradition draws a narrower circle, many view prophecy in very similar terms to those you describe. I think I hear important things in what you're saying. Anyway, I think we're making progress thanks to your generosity with sources. The one thing that concerns me is that Tim is more expert on the Trinity than I, he's not an ogre, but he will push us to present material in a rigorous fashion. It may help him be more generous if we respect his ardour for faithfulness to sources and the full spectrum of published opinion. There are many ways forward if we let sources establish the facts, and if we are generous regarding one another's characters, while honing our phrasing of facts to clarity and honesty, without fear or favour. Wiki is exciting when it forms such teams of diverse minds. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not think Tim is a ogre. I think he is a bit zealous for his personal beliefs. It is difficult for him to see Christian history except through his own lens. That may be a noble perspective in a different environment, but it will cause difficulties when attempting to edit from a neutral position. Nothing is more worthless than stating an opinion without having first researched the topic. When I studied Islam, I read the Qur'an and I discussed the text with Muslims. When I studied Catholicism, I read the Catechism, countless texts of patristic fathers, the writings of popes, and Catholic theologians. I am comfortable writing from their perspective because I know their perspective. More importantly, I know when I don't know.

Robert H. Jackson, the imminent Supreme Court Justice, stated, "In our country are evangelists and zealots of many different political, economic and religious persuasions whose fanatical conviction is that all thought is divinely classified into two kinds---that which is their own and that which is false and dangerous." For our context on Wikipedia, we must realize truth is hidden and undeclared and no one has it. Sources will provide who thinks what and it is our task to seek the best sources. Cheers. --^StormRider 11:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, friend, I think Tim, you and I are agreed about the place of sources and have been demonstrating that by providing them. We still have work to do, perhaps a lot of it. But, just now, Tim and I have the most work, because you've given us sources to interact with. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)