Talk:Mormonism/Archive 2

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

NPOV

I added a NPOV tag to the section on historicity due to uncited claims which suggested that sources which deny the historicity of LDS are Christian cults trying to defame LDS. Either the claims should be sourced or a neutral point of view should be used.

Theology a separate article?

Given the unwieldy length of the current article, I wonder whether there would be any agreement to a proposal of breaking out the topic of Mormon theology into a separate article. As a point of comparison, note that Roman Catholic theology constitutes an entire category. --AuntieMormom 23:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, but the article isn't really that long (at least as far as size in kilobytes). I think having an article on Mormonism theology would be better than a single church because we could compare doctrines of each of the churches. --Kmsiever 23:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

These types of results are often difficult to achieve: an article that addresses the theology of all the groups under the umbrella of the Latter Day Saint Movement. Some have moved very far from the inital foundation such as the Community of Christ; their doctrine in many ways is Prostestant today. (I would also say that it is a church in transition and I don't know where it will eventually lead.) The other groups would be easier to cover, but then some of them are almost single issue groups. True they are more Brighamite than the LDS church, but so much is similar. For these reasons I would favor a theology article on LDS church. In sheer size it so outnumbers its sister groups that it is the lightening rod for all issues regarding Mormonism.

Now the final question, a theology article. In most respects I still am not sure that I see the need. If such an article was created, how would it look? What would be a general outline? How might it affect the other related articles? I am open to it, but I would like to see more discussion. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that it will be very difficult to make one page that compares and contrasts the beliefs of all of those under the Mormonism umbrella. That's why I think that this article should define what groups belong under the umbrella then link to those separate articles. Val42 03:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Storm Rider. I am also interested in this, as actual doctrines are not all that readily available. There are more cultural doctrines than official church ones. I'm afraid that we'd end up fighting amonsgst ourselves about what are doctrines and what are not. Already, the wikipedia has too many not accurate "LDS doctrines" on it, from the plan of salvation chart to deification/exaltation. And because of the cultural teachings that are promulgated will be nearly impossible to wipe out. However, I am open to it. We may want ot combine such an article with a link to Priesthood Correlation Program, and would need to demand cites for every inch of it. Also, would need to explain what are differences between cultural teachings and doctrines, and principles. But also willing to explore the thought. The last attempt at something similar was specifically about the role of Christ and became quite a mess (Jesus in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Auntie, let's hear more of your proposal. -Visorstuff 03:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that my initial proposal is that we simply suck out the Theology section of the current article and slap it into its own article (with the expectation that the Theology article would be the new battleground, generating its own daughter articles, and perhaps its own category, and leaving this poor overworked article alone).

Here's my rationale: I think that no matter what we may disagree on, we can agree that "Theology" -- being immense -- truly is a separate subject from "Mormonism" (which could be treated as nothing more than a fairly brief definitional survey, with links to related articles.)

If the goal here is to create articles that will be useful to the lay reader, then it seems to me that the minutae of esoteric doctrine just doesn't belong in what ought to be a simple survey article.

Could we agree on that premise, and then perhaps split out the Theology article, as outlined above? I suspect that if that were to happen, the Mormonism article could handily survey the topic in a useful manner, and be, basically, finished. (There has to come a point in the Wiki lifecycle where an article is -- for all intents and purposes -- done. Finito. So long as Theology is intertwined with this survey topic, I think that day will never happen. And I suspect most of you old-timers would like to put paid to this one, so you can focus on other hobby articles. Yes?)

Oh, and I endorse the suggestion about producing an article differentiating Policy and Doctrine. Anyone else think this can be done in a manner that won't constitute Original Research? Anyone here operate a scholarly journal? <grin> --AuntieMormom 05:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe what we should do as far as doctrine goes is list what little is common to all and then point out how far appart the various denominations are. We can then link to individual articles for the full doctrine (as far as we have entered).

In the local (Ogden) paper, a regular editorialist is an evangelical pastor (that I happen to know through one of my other hobbies). He pointed out something that I think that is important, something I sort of knew already but I didn't think about it that way until he pointed it out. (You know the feeling. You're doing a puzzle and have two large groups of pieces. You would have discoverted it yourself, given time. Then someone points out how those two large groups fit together. You immediately recognize the connection because the groups are sitting next to each other, almost connected. But the connection is an "Ahah!" moment anyway. Like that.) What he pointed out is that in Protestantism, pastors, misinsters, etc. go between denominations, with little notice because they are so close. He also listed several examples. Even the Catholic Church will recognize the baptism of protestant denominations, and vice versa. But, he pointed out, in the Latter Day Saint movement (he used "Mormonism"), each denomination doesn't recognize that the others have any authority. He pointed this out as something that is inherently understood inside of Mormonism, but isn't understood in larger Christianity. This is why Christians at large don't see the wide separation between the CoJCoLDS and the denomination run by Warren Jeffs (though he used something like "polygamous sects") that we perceive as obvious.

I got the essence of his editorial. His point should also be pointed out in this article. Val42 19:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Community of Christ-ers Ain't Mormon

An editor above sez: "Some have moved very far from the inital foundation such as the Community of Christ; their doctrine in many ways is Prostestant today."

To which AM laments: Will there come a day when we can simply agree that while they're part of the Latter Day Saint movement, Community of Christ adherents are not Mormon? This is becoming my new pet peeve. They hate it. They hate the confusion so much they changed their friggin' name. Can't we simply grant 'em what they seek: They're NOT included under the umbrella of "Mormonism"? --AuntieMormom 05:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, Auntie, watch your language! It makes me laugh to read your comments; thanks. I have a few pet peeves of my own so I know how you feel. Surprisingly, not all members of the CofC reject the term. My aunt and uncle are members of the RLDS/CofC and are quite comfortable with the term. In fact, they often speak in inclusive langugage about "we" Mormons. I long held the position that the term Mormon was only properly applied to members of the LDS church. However, I have tended to let the definition become more inclusive. The result is that titles become more important to me; sometimes I try to limit articles such as this one to just what can be addressed to the Movement as a whole. I must add I haven't been focusing on this article in a while and I suspect it has bled beyond its title.

The ones who really get my goat is the tiny, polygamist, splinter groups that retain the term Mormon. They are no more Mormon than they are Jewish. However, on WIKI we respect their right to call themselves as they see fit. I think some others should comment, but I think it best to work within the current structure. Thoughts anyone else? Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, OK. I'll shut up about it. --AuntieMormom, chewing a Midol.

I see both of your points, and based on earlier conversations, we standardized on the current naming conventions and styles - which I don't love, but they are the most NPOV. We should stick with them. The other thing we have to treat is that how I understood your proposal is that we are discussing the theology of "Mormonism" by definition would include historical mormonism as we've discussed elsewhere. We should also broaden to include the theology of those who believe in cultural mormonism. The theological differences are immense, but could be a very interesting article. This would be the bottom line of doctrines for Mormonism. Let us know your outline, rather than just breaking this one out, if you can, as I do have somethoughts, but for the most part will trust you and other editors as my editing time has been cut significantly. -Visorstuff 14:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

This new insertion

"Through recent DNA, archeological, and linguistic studies, much criticism has arisen both inside and outside the Mormon church in regard to the historical validity of the Book of Mormon. <REF>([http://www.mormonchallenge.com/dnachal.htm The DNA Challenge to the Book of Mormon]</REF> <REF>[http://www.lhvm.org/vid_dna_med.htm DNA vs. The Book of Mormon]</REF>"

seems to duplicate the paragraphs above re Historicity of the BoM - maybe we could use the links as references up there - but I don't see what it adds. --Trödel 20:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

The following quote from the article indicates that someone needs to re-write this article. This quote is redundant and almost silly in a sophomoric way.

"The historicity of the Book of Mormon is the subject of some debate. The proponents of a historical Book of Mormon are almost exclusively adherents to Mormonism; those non-Mormons who find history in favor of the Book of Mormon usually convert (such as in the case of Father Jordan Vajda). Detractors of the historical efficacy of the Book of Mormon are typically non-Mormon."

Duh. Do Christians often say that the Bible is not true? Do Jews think that the Tanakh is a lark? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.213.38 (talk • contribs)

Anon 24.8.213.39, I agree with your comment and it is unfortunate that such a simplistic statement needs to be made. However, you might want to read the archives of the article. When discussing a topic of faith, such as Mormonism, you will find a polarizing discussion. "Christians" (read cultists and zealots) are hypersensitive to any language that comes remotely close to being interpreted as the Book of Mormon is true. Even in the context that LDS believe the Book of Mormon to be true. That statement alone is inflammatory to them and needs to be further clarified into, "However, they are misguided in their faith and are going to go to hell for their mistaken errors".

Understand that I am exaggerating, but there remains truth in the statement nonetheless. I am more cynical than many other LDS editors, but I believe I am accurate in my review. Is the statement sophmoric? Yes. Is it still really needed? Unfortunately it is the best we can get. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd replace the quoted sentences with these. "Mormons regard the history recounted in the Book of Mormon to be authentic. Unlike the Old Testament, however, the Book of Mormon is considered to have no historical value by secular historians." These sentences actually have substance, comparing the BoM to the OT (another sacred text with historial content). Furthermore, there's little debate about the BoM's historicity (unlike the debate over OT historicity). And it's not that detractors are non-Mormon but that non-Mormons don't credit he history in the book. And if Vajda believed the history of the BoM before converting, I can't find a reference for that. My search suggested that he converted because of the doctrine of human deification. Jonathan Tweet 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan, I think you might be overstating the view of secular historians towards the Old Testament. I am not aware of any secular historians relying on early OT books as historical. At best, secular historians have a jaundiced eye in using the OT as history. Some of the latter books are used for some historical references, but then we are talking about a narrow application of use.

I still think it appropriate to state that secular historians do not use the BofM for historical references, but there should be no attempt to portray OT as a book of history; it remains a book of faith. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Storm Rider. Claiming that "secular historians" support the narratives of the OT would only open a whole new can of worms. The Jade Knight 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe I overstate the case. Let's try to say something substantial that doesn't overstate the case. It's clear that plenty of secular historians see at least some value in OT history (see [Old_testament#Historicity_of_the_Old_Testament}OT historicity]) and none in BoM history. There's nothing like the OT differences of opinion regarding the BoM among secular historians. So how's this: "Mormons regard the history recounted in the Book of Mormon to be authentic. Secular historians, however, reject the book's historical accounts. The Old Testament, by contrast, is generally regarded as having some historical value even by those who reject its supernatural elements." I can see two honest reasons one might object to my suggestion: 1. one thinks the BoM and OT are equally well-regarded by secular historians, or 2. one thinks I'm not being quite clear about the distinction and should say the same thing only better. Jonathan Tweet 23:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus

The section on Mormon beliefs about Jesus should include the characteristic doctrine that Jesus Christ is Jehovah of the Old Testament, and that Jehovah is a separate person from God the Father. [1] Or has this been debated ad nauseum and I missed it? Jonathan Tweet 19:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This topic is fairly broad in scope. Mormonism inlcudes several divergent belief systems. You probably are aware that the Community of Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have some distinct differences.

What we are striving to achieve in this article is to provide a broad overview without too much detail. The details will then be found in each church's respective artcle. Does that help or do you think that we should be going into more detail than currently found? Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The personage of Christ is hardly "too much detail". He is the foundation of Christianity and (to some extent) Mormonism. To provide a parallel example please note the current (and past) whirlwind of controversy concerning the Council of Nicea. The debate was over the *nature* of Christ's Godhood, it was NO small matter of "detail". This issue was considered so important that a council was convened to address the issue. The fact that the creed was created (after debate and a 'vote' of sorts) shows the great need to establish the nature of Christ. Since there is already a heading concerning the "nature" of Christ on the Mormonism page (compete with numbered statements), I don't think that one more statement would be "too much detail". If that is true then the entire heading — and subsequent numbered statements — needs to be removed on the Mormonism page. --Supertheman 21:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, here's what I'd add. "Jesus is identified with Jehovah of the Old Testament, a god distinct from God the Father (Elohim)." This is under the header of "Typical" (not universal) Mormon beliefs. If that's not "typical" of Mormon beliefs, I'd like to see a reference demonstrating such. Jonathan Tweet 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon teaches there is one God. The LDS church teaches there is one Godhead that consists of three distinct indivdiduals/persons/personnages (take your pick, I don't put a lot of value in these words). I may be abnormal for a LDS, but I would never say "a god distinct from God the Father (Elohim)". I think you would find most LDS state they are monotheists. However, I also understand why others would say differently; much like the debate about the monotheism of Christianity being questioned; three into one is very difficult concept to grasp mathmatically.

As I attempted to say before, but obviously failed, Mormonism is not a homogenous set of beliefs. An article entitled Mormonism is best to use broad brush strokes and allow the detail to be presented in each sects respective article. Super's bit of history lesson notwithstanding, within Mormonism you will find traditional Trinitarianism to the more standard three separate, distinct persons. Do you think it makes sense to attempt to explain all these concepts here rather than in each group's main article? Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And there are even some distinctions in belief amongst members of the same denomination. For example, I would say that the LDS Church teaches that there is only one God for all humankind - God the Father, who together with the God Jesus, and the Holy Ghost make up the godhead - but is a "po'tato" "pota'to" kind of thing in my mind - different ways to describe the same thing (or concept); however, that makes describing it here that much more difficult and results in descriptions that are less specefic than we (at least I) would like --Trödel 14:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I don't mind working at it until I get it right. The identification of Jesus (and not God the Father) with Jehovah is a salient feature of Mormonism, distinct both from trinitarian views and other nontrinitarian views (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses). How about this: "Jehovah of the Old Testament is identified as Jesus Christ (and not as God the Father)." I understand that Mormonism isn't homgeneous, but this section is only about "typical" views, not universal views. If there's documentation that this view isn't "typical," I'd like to see it. Jonathan Tweet 03:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your statement, but I don't have a handle on how the Community of Christ feels about it. The CofC (RLDS) during the past 30 years has really undergone many major changes in their doctrine. I know that they are, as a church, Trinitarian. I suspect they might have problems with it, but I am not sure. I looked at their official site, but did not find an answer to their belief in the identify of Jehovah. I will contact a good friend who is a memeber and ask him this weekend.

I think there is some wisdom in stating the typical views. It is one of the reasons that I support the Christianity article and its focus on the Orthodox beliefs. However, I also believe we should echo as the Christianity articles does, the beliefs of minority viewpoints. Does that make sense? Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that I look at the section about God again, I see that this article makes some distinctions among Mormon sects. In parallel to that section, how about I write: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that Jehovah of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ (and not God the Father)." I'd add that to item between #1 and #2 (since it's chronologically before his life as a man on earth).

I see no problem with the statement. It is accurate. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious significance of England

"a place of religious significance... as the Anglicans had done in England". Is this true? If so, it's news to me, and I was brought up an Anglican. Cripipper 04:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Walking Down By Avalon

The lines "Did you ever hear about Jesus walkin', Jesus walkin' down by Avalon?" from "Summertime in England" refer to an ancient legend that Jesus once visited England. References to this legend include a poem by William Blake and the inspirational song "Jerusalem." Blake's text (from Milton) is as follows:

And did those feet in ancient time

Walk upon England's mountains green?

And was the Holy Lamb of God

On England's pleasant pastures seen?

And did the Countenance Divine

Shine forth upon our clouded hills?

And was Jerusalem builded here

Among those dark Satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold!

Bring me my arrows of desire!

Bring me my spear! O clouds unfold!

Bring me my Chariot of Fire!

I will not cease from mental fight;

Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand

Till we have built Jerusalem

In England's green and pleasant land.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Degrees of Salvation

There has been some confusion about the Mormon definition of "salvation." "Salvation" as a doctrine can be interpreted as being short for "saving from death." Mormons believe in two kinds of death: physical and spiritual.

Salvation from physical death means a literal ressurection of the body. This is garunteed to all mortals by the grace of God and nothing can be done to prevent it.

Salvation from spiritual death means returning to the presence of God. It is offered freely, but may be rejected as God will not violate man's right of free will (or as the Mormons call it, moral agency)

Merge with Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Someone explain to me why this article should not be merged with Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? --Splitpeasoup 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read through the archives of this Talk page (see near the table of contents for a link)? --Kmsiever 04:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Short answer is the Mormonism is a broader term than just the LDS church. Although Mormon is a term most often used for members of the LDS church, Mormonism is appropriately used for all churches/sects that evolved from the church founded by Joseph Smith. To combine the article into the LDS article would not be appropriate. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I see. Thanks! --Splitpeasoup 19:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Recently User:153.26.176.34 added in these [2] bits to the article; I wasn't sure what to make of them, and a few people on IRC weren't, either. We did find this page [3], which seems to be the source, but the page itself doesn't seem to have a neutral tone, and I'm not sure how much I trust them as an authoritative source, when they seem to have it out for the Mormons; possible NPOV concerns, at all? Ultimately, my curiosity is piqued, but I'm looking for opinions and/or advice from people who know what they're talking about a little better, before and if I take any action. Thanks in advance. Luna Santin 10:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed them. The first section is about the nature of God, not about anything having to do with God. The edit in the second section is a deviation from the other points in the section. Considering these are the only edits the person has made to any of the Mormon-related pages, I do not see the value in the contribution. In fact, I see it as nothing more that agenda-based editing. --Kmsiever 14:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Typical Mormon Beliefs

It says: "Mormonism is based on belief in Jesus as the Messiah, in the Israelites as a covenant people, and in additional scripture such as the Book of Mormon." If it mentions the Book of Mormon, it should mention the Bible, too. After all, the Bible is comparable to the BoM in terms of importance to Mormons, yes? Also, an uninformed reader is going to take reference to "Israelites" to mean people that Jews and secular historians take to be Israelites, while for Mormons the term includes (among others) northern Europeans. Here's my suggestion: "Mormonism is based on belief in Jesus as the Messiah, in the Israelites (including northern Europeans) as a covenant people, and in scriptures such as the Bible and the Book of Mormon." Jonathan Tweet 14:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Bible should also be mentioned. I think the earlier statement was attempting to show what else Mormons believe in, but your statement is better.

You have me a bit stumped on northern Europeans and Israel. When LDS speak of Israel, they are speaking of the full house of Israel; the twelve tribes. The people we know as Jews today are a remnant of the House of Israel. LDS believe today that all can enter of the covenant of Israel by agreeing to follow Christ, receive baptism, etc. Thus, Israel is where those who believe are gathered. I am not aware of any specific teaching that alludes to one of the ancient tribes having settled northern Europe. It is taught that the lost tribes will return/be recognized in the future. Sorry, but I think that is an erroneous statement. Ancient Israel was the covenant people, but today the covenant people is still Israel, but also includes those who follow Christ. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happened to all that new covenant stuff in Hebrews 7 and 8, eh? (It's an honest question, im a bit curious.) Homestarmy 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, northern Europeans are descended from the Lost Tribes (according to LDS, etc.). See [4]. This tenet was one of the exciting revelations in the 19th century, that "we northern Europeans" are the same chosen people that the OT is talking about. It's true that others can be accepted into Israel through "adoption" (baptism), but one of the empowering messages of J Smith was that "you" (the northern Europeans in his audience) are God's chosen. Storm Rider, I'm surprised that you haven't run across this idea. Anyway, I have references showing that this view is legitmate LDS teaching. See my link, above, and this one [5]. Jonathan Tweet 22:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I just have not run across it as focus on northern Europeans. How does this differ from the teaching that residents of Central and South American, the islands of the Pacific, etc. are members of the House of Israel? For the statement to read accurately one would have to include these other peoples, no? Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reference above was to a 1910 article in a church publication. The point is makes is as follows:

The Ten Tribes, so-called, that were taken captive into Assyria, are destined, according to Biblical prophecy, to be gathered in the latter-days and become a great power in the earth. The Hebrew prophets—notably Isaiah, 11th chapter, Jeremiah, chapters 30 and 31, Ezekiel, chapter 37, and Zechariah, chapters 12 and 13—graphically describe the gathering of both Judah and Israel, the former to Jerusalem, the latter to a land chosen for them as specially bestowed upon Joseph, (Gen. 49:26; Deut. 33:15-17) who held the birthright in place of Reuben, who forfeited it through transgression. These predictions are to be fulfiled as literally as those concerning the dispersion. The scattering of the tribes of Israel is mentioned in the Old Testament repeatedly, but the course taken by them after their captivity is not definitely given in the books counted as canonical. However, it is clearly stated that they were taken into the "north country," and that in the latter-days they will be brought from the north country, as well as from other places where they were to be scattered.

As the quote states, from a biblical perspective no one knows where the lost tribes have gone, except the statement the "north country". Recently, prior to 1910, it has been argued that the prophecies concerning the gathering of Israel in the latter days are being fulfiled by the coming in of descendants of the house of Israel in northern Europe, through the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, as restored by the angel of the Most High. It is evident from the blessings bestowed by the patriarchs of the Church upon the heads of Saints from those lands, that they are of the house of Israel, belonging to different tribes, but particularly of Ephraim. There is no doubt in the minds of those who have investigated this subject, that when traveling northward, as described by Esdras, the tribes of Israel mingled on the way with Gentile nations, and that numbers of their posterity are to be found in the various provinces of Germany, in Switzerland, in Holland, in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and the numerous islands in the far north.

Northern Europe may have many descendants from Israel, but mainly from the House of Ephraim are known to exist. This does not mean they are the only tribe to be known or the only location. As the article states, the Americas are also the home of the trives of Joseph.

After further consideration, I would still think your statement too narrowly interprets LSD beliefs. Further, I would re-emphsize that this teaching is not a common focus. The Bible teaches us they went to the north country and we believe they have yet to return. When they do return we expect them to bring futher revelations and teachings of Christ with them. I hope this helps. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to broaden the reference to Israelites. Personally, I see the identification of northern Europeans as Israelites to be the most important "Israelite" revelation because it applied to Smith's audience, but here's a broader treatment: "Mormonism is based on belief in Jesus as the Messiah, in the Israelites (including the Ten Lost Tribes) as a covenant people, and in scriptures such as the Bible and the Book of Mormon." Jonathan Tweet 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That statement is the most accurate of those proposed. LDS continue to believe in the literal restoration of the House of Israel. All people, regardless of blood lineage, will become members of the Israel.

I believe when you refer to Europeans as being Israelites, it is more appropriately ascribed to the Bible; the lost tribes went into the north country. Mormons believe it was confirmed by the success of missionary labor that this was so or believed to be so. In that LDS believe in the restoration of Israel, it is not surprising that LDS believe the covenant people would not recognize the truth of the gospel restoration. Thus the initial success of converts in Europe. I hope my comments are a source of clarification. I appreciate your willingness to listen. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Mormonism", Theology, History and other Issues

Not being an expert on LDS or "Mormonism", yet a student of religion, I hope you will take these suggestions seriously without thinking that I claim such an expertise.

In line with earlier discussion about moving the Mormon Theology section, I would like to suggest that in the present entry it seems too dominant, especially given the lack of attention paid to other aspects such as practice, history and the possible diversity of beliefs. This might be even more problematic given the fact that a conscious effort has been made to distinguish between LDS and Mormonism. I'm assuming that, and not without warrant, the Mormon Theology presented here is mostly that of LDS. I say "not without warrant" because even I know that LDS members comprise a vast majority of those identifying as "Mormon". That fact aside, however, if Mormonism isn't strictly LDS then Mormon Theology should perhaps include competing beliefs and differences in theology. For instance theological justifications of polygamy by "Fundementalist Mormons" are alternative theologies and not simply fringe beliefs. Though there is some mention about the differences between RLDS and LDS. The most unfortunate side effect of the current structure of the entry, may be that some readers see it as partly appologetic of the LDS church--that is as being close to an ingroup or official stance. This brings me to another matter.

As a student of religion, and not simply Theology, I look for among other things a good historical understanding of a current relgious group. This HISTORY would make more sense of when, where and why groups like the RLDS broke with what has become the current LDS. It can also provide the reader with insight into the current differences between mainline Mormonism (LDS) and the various smaller groups. Furthermore, information about Mormon PRACTICE may also do so. What is Mormon ritual like? How does it relate to theology and popular belief? What about mission? The last question seems to me very imporant given the fact that one of the few things the layman or laywoman thinks they know is that Mormons are all about mission--and clearly mission is important in not only the Church but also in the Mormon "subculture", to use the phrasing of the entry. Even though the entry identifies Mormonism as a religion, a subculture, an ideology, and a movement only the ideological aspects are well covered as Theology (despite the criticisms above). Mormonisn's aspect as a MOVEMENT would hypothetically be covered in a history of that movement. What about the subculture? We do not at present learn much of anything about Mormonism as a subculture. Again I will reiterate, not because I believe so but because I can see the possibilities, that the current presentation may seem to some like the official LDS stance. This is heightened by the lack of attention to culture, history and practice in favor of Theology. It is also not helped by the fact that the discussion of polygamy, for instance, is explicitly appologetic of Joseph Smith instead of historically complex--and I am not suggesting that it is innacurrate but there is more to the way one presents something than the accuracy of well chosen statements.

I have made these suggestions, not to attack the writers and editors here, who as far as I can tell have done a great job in their presentation of what is actually on the page. I only hope that they consider addressing some of these issues. My suggestion also is that in addressing them the page will seem more balanced and less likely to be interpreted as stemming from a POV perspective to many readers. Thanks for considering.PelleSmith 14:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with what has been said about the confusion between the term Mormon and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It appears that the article is meant to discuss the different religions/sects to which the term Mormon can be applied. However, it fails to distinguish the groups and mostly describes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints exclusively and none of the organizations that dissented from it. I propose that this article be severely truncated to only contain a small article and list of all religions/sects that might be labelled as Mormons. Then each religious group can be discussed in depth on its own page. 128.187.182.73 15:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)latortugamorada

Notes

Is it really necessary to have hundreds of scripture references in the notes section? I don't think they qualify as reliable sources, seeing as they are open to individual interpretation. Of course it may be useful to include one or two in the main body of text, but the notes section looks ridiculously bloated. --Lethargy 02:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Providing references

We generally do not use WIKI as a reference, however we do link to other others. References are to specific statements by reputable sources; an entire web site is not a reference. Look for an expert that has published a book or article and has stated what you are tring to prove. Does this make sense? Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that an entire website cannot be a reference. It depends on the assertion you are trying to support, the nature of the issue and the specificity of the url that's provided. I agree that it's preferable to support an assertion by linking to as specific an external page as possible and that has now been done with the passage at issue in the article. I also believe, however, that it's preferable not to delete someone's content wholesale because you believe it is insufficiently referenced. Rather, one should add a "citation needed" or something along those lines. 75.33.203.190 16:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As the remover, I claim it is completely appropriate - "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain... Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references..."(source) Granted - better Wikilove would have been to use {{fact}} but, as expected, the source is completely unreliable. First it is self published - thus not to be used: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."(source) Finally, even if you argue that it is a self published about the topic it does not meet the criteria because 1) there is doubt about who wrote it, 2) it is self-serving, 3) it is contentious.(source) --Trödel 20:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the issue is not about referncing a web site - it is about providing reputable sources of issues that are being discussed. If there is a web site that says mormons eat green cheese only or live on the moon or have one eye in the back of their head doesn't mean we should reference it. Personal experiences, such as "why i left" series on exmormon may provide good ancedotal examples, but don't really do much more than provide hearsay. Scholarly journals - even those who are about why mormonism is harsh or wrong, such as sunstone or even the tanner's web site/publications would be more reputable and useful. Try getting something from them.

In my own research, some of these supposed "major issues" are not really "major" for a majority, but affects less than 3 percent of all involved with the latter day saint movement (meaning the 18-20 million who touch the latter-day saint movment, whether lds, coc or antis/ex's). it is that this minority is vocal. Same with the online exmormon movement. i'm doing a study, and i'm estimating that there are way, way less than 10k exmormons online (my guess is around 5k, or about a half of a half percent) but need more research to be done first to prove it) but they are very vocal and visit multiple exmormon sites, making the group seem much larger. that said, womans issues are important in mormonism, but we need to find reputable sources on this - both pro and con. Also, remember that mormonism is bigger than solely the LDS church at least how we on wikipedia define it. -Visorstuff 16:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the information being included, but it needs to be NPOV, the source used is not reliable and reputable, it needs to be more specific about what the complaints are (gender roles is somewhat vague), and there were the weasel words "some feel". Also, it needs to be made explicit which group the comments are targeted at (e.g. FLDS, LDS, CoC). Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Words to avoid, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, and especially Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states:

This page in a nutshell: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Also note that this problem is not solely with the content you have added, it happens all over Wikipedia, and unfortunately it seems to happen more so with religious articles as people post information from either a believer's point of view or from a critic's, rather than a neutral one. --Lethargy 20:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I like Trodel's previous edit - placing the burden on the specific person making the claim - I'm going to change back the section to that - as it is completely appropriate. Also, unless the exmormon site takes responsiblity for the opinions of all posters, then it shoudln't reference exmormon.org, but a poster on exmormon.org. -Visorstuff 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just made the change - I think we should still at least reference a reputable anti-mormon publication or notable church critic if there is one that discusses this, but I'm not familiar enough with it being discussed other than a few online examples and not-neccessarily-negative works such as Maxine Hank's compilation Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism. and Corwall's The Institutional Role of Mormon Women. For example, it doesn't come up in a review of the Tanner's topics (http://www.utlm.org/navtopicalindex.htm). In addition Packham's discussion about prozac and mormon women is outdated - as more recent studies show that prozac use in higher among educated people, and Utah (which has a high, but not the highest prozac usage rate) has one of the top two education levels per adult in the US. In other words, you'd expect to find high prozac use in utah based on education, not religion. Simply said, women and mormonism is an issue that needs to be addressed, and is not fully addressed in critical material (or at Women and Mormonism), and doesn't seem to exist in published works available in my personal research. Perhaps there is a feminist out there that has more details and can help? In the mean time, let's leave the section as is until reputable data can be added in. -Visorstuff 21:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that there are reputable sources - but exmormon.org is not one of them. I suspect Dialogue has some - as I have a vague memory of reading something like this - but it would be less polemic than the original poster wants. And since I don't have the time to find sources for things all the things I think should be included, why should we waste our time discussing this, or searching for them - the duty is on the person who wants to add the info. --Trödel 00:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally (and timely) is a blog about gender imbalance in who submits articles in Mormon studies journals [6]. A review of Dialogue doesn't have much on the topic aside from those already mentioned here and in women and the Church page [7]. Sunstone's entries on Women and Feminism mostly deal with feministic theology (ie mother in heaven, women and priesthood blessings, etc), Sonia Johnson and other mormon feminists being censured for teaching false doctrine, and ERA-related items. [8], although I did find two interesting articles - one from the march 1907 (a bit out of date) called "Gerda Lerner's 'The Creation of Patriarchy'," and the other from March-April 1981 titled "The Psychological Needs of Mormon Women" (also out of date). Slim pickings for published work on this topic. The scholarly side of me is left to conclude that this is an over-exaggerated topic based on the lack of written scholarship on the topic. However, the other side of me knows that this is something that is discussed in the grassroots. But apparently it is not taken seriously in Mormon studies (either critical or supportive) and other academics. -Visorstuff 18:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

I mentioned Wikipedia:Words to avoid and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words above, but I figure this merits its own section.

We should avoid phrases such as "Most modern members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that, although each individual may receive personal revelation to guide himself in his personal life, only certain people have been divinely appointed as prophets to authoritatively speak the mind and will of God, as in Biblical times." Are we citing a survey of "most modern members"? We could clean this up by quoting a General Authority or actual church doctrine, rather than attributing it to "most" members.

"although members of some sects (including a few of those belonging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) prefer not to be identified as Mormons." We can never verify that "a few" Latter-day Saints don't like to be called Mormons, and even if we found a handful of individuals who don't like to be called that, it wouldn't be from a reputable source. Also, which sects are we talking about? --Lethargy 23:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the first footnote in the article states "Mormons also point to Numbers 11: 26-29 and Revelation 19: 10 in the Bible in support of this teaching." Avoid using this generalization, please name a specific person who points to Numbers 11: 26-29 and Revelation 19: 10. Was it from a church manual? --Lethargy 23:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

This text was deleted:

The establishment of the Mormon Church, along with the Great Awakenings that occurred in the nineteenth century, marked the movement towards the notion of North America as a place of religious significance, as the Anglicans had done in England, as the Catholics had done in Rome, and as all Christians do in the Holy Land. Mormonism is arguably the culmination of a distinctive impact by the American people on Christianity.^{[original research?]}

I don't believe it is original research, but rather simply uncited - leaving here in hopes someone knows a reference --Trödel 14:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Impossiblilty

If Joseph Smith saw God hed be dead. And God and Jesus are one person so... -Crion Naxx

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." — Hamlet (I, v, p. 166 - 167) Val42 01:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh heck no dont quote hamlet to me he was a nerd and besides if anything contradicts the bible its incorrect.-Crion Naxx

You seem to be well read; impressive grasp of the Bard. I am not sure what this question has to do with the article or if you are suggesting an edit for the article. Are you making a comment? If you are making a proposal, you will need to be more clear in what you want to do.

Regarless, how do you interpret the following two scriptures? Ex. 33:11 and Ex. 33:20

11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

There would seem to be an obvious conflict. You seem to be familiar with verse 20, but yet Moses spoke as a friend, face to face, with God. How do you make both statements true? Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point but i believe what its saying is that He didnt talk to Moses as a servant but as an equal. As a friend. And Moses doesnt neccesarily have to see Him to talk to him face to face.-Crion Naxx

This is an interesting point. In The Pearl of Great Price, in Joseph Smith History it states,"I saw a pillar of light which gradually descended until it fell upon me." It is generally belived among the LDS(I am One) that this pillar of light "transfigured"(im not sure this is the best word for it)him for a time so he was able to speak to and see God and Jesus Christ. Only after this pillar of light fell upon him did he see the 2 personages. In general, however, it is understood among the LDS that you cannot see God and live without this "pillar of light", whatever it was.Noblesteed 16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Noblesteed

I see, i could get killed for saying this but the canonicity of the book of mormon is questionable to me. -Crion

I don't know why you would think that? The vast majority of humanity does not recognize the Book of Mormon as canon although they understand it to be a book of scripture for some people. I have never heard of Mormons attempting to kill someone because they do not believe; however, history is replete with examples of individuals and groups who were killed because of their beliefs "in" something. Joseph Smith was such an example.

One of the doctrines strongly held by Latter-day Saints is that all people have a right to worship who and what they desire. We also claim that same right. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a Christian; believing in the book of mormon would compromise my beliefs. .-Crion Naxx

How so? What specifically in the book of mormon contradicts the bible? How does "convincing the jew and gentile that Jesus is the Christ...the eternal God" compromise any Christian's belief? I've heard this from many "christians" who have never read the book of Mormon. -Visorstuff 16:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly only Mormons with full intellectual honesty could accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God. Because of its source (translated by a prophet according to LDS theology) only LDS Church members and feel-good nonconfrontationalists from other sects could ever accept it.

However most of the doctrine is completely compatible with other faiths - honestly you could accept about 95% of the Book of Mormon without becoming Mormon, but that 5% and its history would push you over. Crion Naxx has the full freedom to accept or reject the book as he would like, although quite frankly it's probably good to have some familiarity with its contents first before a decision is made.Primalscreamtherapy 00:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge

This page and all LDS pages should be merged under the title Mormonism. All LDS pages are talking about Joseph Smith's teachings, the page is about his teachings anyway, so that goes to reason they read the book of Mormon therfore Mormons.You may want to seperate your modern church from its past however its past can't be changed. The current "big" branch is still preaching about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and they were part of the Latter Day Saint movement, Church and Mormonism.

This is not the main reason I suggest the change however. They should be merged because all the other religions I've read about on Wikipedia include the movements or beginings, middles and currents on their main (only) page. As in Buddist getting only a Buddism page, Hindus getting only a Hindism page and so on. If they are not merged then I feel that all of the other religions should have similar adjustment to the Mormons. As Mormonism has three (3) different listings as of today, Sept. 26 2006, Latter day Saint Movement,Latter day saints and Mormons. They should all be listed under Mormanism. Anarcism, Capitalism, Communism have many forms but only one (1) page each.

lol: I was wrong there are nine (9) pages on Momonism as of today (maybe more are hiding) Latter day Saint Movement,Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ,History of the Latter Day Saint movement,Jesus in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Missions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon, Mormonism, and there are lists with (small) pages of even more sects. I'd be willing to wager that all of the different branches not only follow the book of Mormon, but also all but one originated in Utah.

Joeseph Smith's MORMONISM and the book of Mormon is what all the above pages are all refering to.

And a quote from Latter Day Saint movement page shows the connection."The Latter Day Saint movement spawned many religious denominations, some of which include a set of doctrines, practices, and cultures collectively known as Mormonism, although some do not accept the designation Mormon."

There is a link to this article from the Exmormonism article, backed up in the discussion section of Exmormonism. It seems only logical that there should be a link back. greenw47

I'm not sure you understand how this and other encyclopedias work. You are not correct at all about how other religions are dealt with here in Wikipedia. Please go have a look before you make those types of statements. If there is an umbrella term, like Mormonism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, then there should be one page for this generalized descriptor. However, there should and are also seperate pages for denominations, movements, specific practices, sacred texts, etc. etc. There are plenty of pages about Hinduism and Buddism to use your examples, and a heck of alot more dealing with Christianity and/or within its denominations (e.g. Catholicism). There are Mormons who are not LDS members so simply merging the two would not be appropriate. Also the "Book of Mormom", while it should clearly be mentioned in the Mormonism entry and the LDS entry, deserves its own page just as much as, for instance the "Vedas" do. It is possible that some merging would benefit the entries, however you need to be specific and clear on what should be merged. The suggestion of merging all things "Mormon" is not desirable at all.PelleSmith 17:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia:Snowball clause. This has been suggested before, and it just isn't appropriate to Wikipedia. Bytebear 01:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

This article is tagged as needing citations. The problem with providing the citations brings up a topic that I've brought up before, the direction of this article. If this article remains as it is, an umbrella covering all of the Joseph Smith, Jr.-descended sects that claim the title Mormon, then we'll have to provide a citation from each of them to support each statement made in this article. So, first of all, we have to define which sects belong under this umbrella. Then we need to provide the citations from each of them to support each statement. This article will look <sarcasm>good</sarcasm> with five or more references after EACH AND EVERY PERIOD in the article. Val42 14:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Religion?

Technically Mormonism is filed under being a cult, so I am changing all terms of religion to cult.

(The above unsigned message was left by Kris Classic.)

Thanks for taking this to the Talk page. Once you get a consensus here on the Talk page that these changes should be made, then by all means make them. In the mean time, I've reverted your change. Also, please sign comments by typing 4 tildes "~~~~" And new comments usually got at the bottom of the Talk page. And, no, I'm not a Mormon defending my home turf. Jonathan Tweet 15:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides, if you were to change the word religion to cult here, you'd have to change it in a lot of other articles, and i don't think we want to get into that one here.Legars 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, while it may be debatable that Mormonism fit the dictionary definition of a cult in the first few decades following its establishment (without making a statement either way on its truthfulness), it would be difficult to argue that it is a cult now, especially with its church members so spread around the world.Primalscreamtherapy 00:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Scripture

Under beliefs it says "The Bible is the word of God as far as it has been translated correctly" Sorry I find this sentence daft! Please can this be spelt out which bits are translated correctly and which are not according to Mormons? I thought the Bible is the meaning of the texts in the Greek and Hebrew when it is not translated, when it is translated it is a Translation of the Bible. To say "The Bible is the word of God as far as it has been translated correctly" misses the point surely. Don't you mean a "TRANSLATION OF The Bible is the word of God as far as it has been translated correctly?" DO you mean an untranslated Bible is therefore the word of God without question. Otherwise it is a pretty pointless phrase.

I may be able to assist in helping to shed some light on the meaning of the phrase. Mormons believe the Bible is the word of God. English speaking Latter-day Saints prefer to use the King James version of the Bible. In other languages, other transaltions are used or preferred. LDS understand that the Bible, regardless of which Bible is used, is but a translation of a translation. There are no known, original documents to translate, but a collection of translations that have been translated a number of times.

The phrase acknowledges that there may be mistranslations in the Bible (and between different translations), but it is still held to be the word of God. It also alludes to the fact that no single translation of the Bible professes by their translators to be inerrant.

I am not sure if I was successful, but I hope this helps. Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider is right. Some of the errors are deliberate (i.e. conniving religious leaders in the dark ages changing doctrine for their own benefit) and some are accidental (i.e. mistranslations). Frankly, most of the errors come from the difference between the source languages and modern languages. Mistaken interpretations often abound for scripture because even the best word in English is often not enough. It should be noted that Mormons do not even consider the KJV version of the Bible that they use to be absolutely correct, merely the best Bible in terms of doctrinal purity and word flow.Primalscreamtherapy 00:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that the Bible is a translation of a translation? Translations of the Bible followed the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Whilst they may not be the originals they are faithful copies of older documents BUT NOT TRANSLATIONS. These are copies of the originals and NOT a collection of translations that have been translated a number of times. Whilst there may be mistranslations in some translations and no doubt this is true sometimes, one can believe that the Bible is the word of God regardless of whether it has been translated correctly or not.To say that "The Bible is the word of God as far as it has been translated correctly" sounds like a cop-out excuse to reject the bits you don't like. I think to use this phrase it would only be fair to give some examples and evidence of where it has been mistranslated in every major translation, otherwise it is pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studge (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not here to debate translation issues. In Mormonism, that is the phrase taht is used "as far as it is translated correctly" - which is why it is righfully in this article.

Now, as far as the translation issue - if you grab your latest KJV, you'll notice that the title page says "compared to the original Greek" not translated from it. The KJV is translated from the German, Hebrew, Vulgate and other bibles, but is not a translation from the original manuscripts - which don't even agree with each other. Translating is more than rendering from one language to another, it is to "express in another medium," "to to change the form, condition, nature, etc., of," to "transform; convert," "to explain in terms that can be more easily understood; interpret."

In this case, what Mormons should mean is that we don't have the original texts and we believe that there are some inconsistencies between texts and that it is important to understand and interpret what the original writer meant. Joseph Smith's translation of the bible was more to help us understand what the writer meant, not so much (but in some cases) restore the original text, or to provide a plainer rendering into english from the original languages. The bible took place in Aramaic, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Egyptian and Syriac, and other languages - many which are dead, and so the Bible is a translation out of those tongues as well, just to be writtten in the Koine Greek that many texts are (which is comparable to ASL versus English if you are familiar with Sign Language - ASL leaves out many words and lets many things become assumed - so does the Koine Greek - it was teh base denominator language of the time - overly simplistic and not accurate, but very simbolic). Koine Greek is as dead of a language as Hebrew, Latin and various egyptian languages. Bottom line is that this is a complicated issue and Mormons just simplify that by stating they belive the Bible as far as it is translated correctly - or interpreted to be the same as the writer meant. Not so far different than other christians - just different terminology -Visorstuff 09:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Focus of this article

I don't see the focus of this article to be about the beliefs and doctrines of the LDS church or any other Joseph Smith believing group. Leave that for the main articles. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article for specifics on the Utah based church annd the Latter Day Saint movement for early history and non specific issues.

This article should focus on the term "Mormonism" and what it means historically, and how it is used to describe these groups. I see this article being short, but instead we have huge sections on theology and doctrine, which is covered in better detail in other articles. Why are we duplicating content? I could just copy the LDS article and paste it here and it would be the same information. Let one this article point to those others that have less ambiguity to the history and then we don't have to deal with covering all the doctrines of all of Mormonism. Bytebear 01:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree more with you. The article bleeds in many directions and does justice to none of the topics. It should focus solely on the definition of Mormonism and which groups fall under the banner. It should then clearly point readers to articles where more specific information regarding each group is covered. I suggest you start deleting material and putting in appropriate links. Thanks for being first. Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Throwing me under the bus, are you? Can we get some more consensus so when I do get pelted by rotton tomatoes for "being POV" that we can point to this discussion for clarification on what the article is about. Bytebear 03:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, come on Byte, be bold. I hope you can hear my laughter from there. Yes, it would be wise to wait, but I would caution you that change takes an interminable amount of time on WIKI. It is particularly difficult when pulling back an article and trying to "put it back in the bottle". Editors have agendas and they have expended significant effort to write articles, even when it was the wrong article to write. Deleting their work, even when it is the appropriate thing to do, is very time consuming. At some point, the only way to quickly find out is to propose the change, explain why, and then make it. I will support you, but I think you are the best editor for the job. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. --Lethargy 20:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was being bold this afternoon after I saw some of you edits. I would still encourage an article that is focused only on the term Mormonism and its adherents. The real meat of the topics will be on the main articles that describe each of the groups that fall with in it.

I would also be careful of some of your edits. Stating that the Church of Christ became only the LDS church is POV; all of the groups claim to be the "true" successor to that organization. Also, the history section should be very brief; the focus is the term, how it is applied, and who falls under the umbrella. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My idea, although not fleshed out was to look at two aspects of Mormomism: 1) Historical Mormonism, meaning Joseph Smith and the early church - the Latter Day Saints and 2) modern views of Mormonism, which would focus (nearly) entirely on the Utah based church - the Latter-day Saints, as other denominations do not really carry the name Mormonism as far as I know). I suppose there could be a section on Fundamental Mormonism, but I think that is off topic a bit for this article. Bytebear 22:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was also having an issue with the name of the church. I wanted to say it was the Church of Jesus Christ and then later The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but should it be Latter-day Saints? I also didnt want it to read like Young changed the name of the church. Ugh, this subject is so complicated. I took the history from the main LDS article, but I think it could be paired down even more, focusing on who called them mormons, and why. Bytebear 22:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I also don't like the term "adherants" as it is too universal, particularly when discussing theology. "Adherants believe X, except when they are of the denomination that believes Y". I will try to use terminology that applys to all churches. Maybe belief shoudl just go as far as Smith and the Book of Mormon and nothing further. Bytebear 22:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone mention the controversy of mormon polygamy? I mean, many poeple will probably look this page up to find the connection between polygamy and mormanism. ~Cheezyphil

I am working on a timeline of the different denominations that encompass Mormonism. This should cover Polygamy. Bytebear 04:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have basically done a hack job of cut and paste, but I think I got the general flow of the article. I am trying not to hit on any doctrine or beliefs unless it directly relates to the branching of sects. I also think that a mention of the belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet and the Book of Mormon is a common factor in all of Mormonism, maybe touching on which churches downplay the the term like the Community of Christ. Ok, I am going to bed. Will work more later.Bytebear 04:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Early Succession/Succession Crisis

You keep saying "succession" with "success" being the root word. You mean "secession." 65.7.232.42 04:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi User:65.7.232.42. "Succession" is the correct word in this instance. It means "what comes next," or "what comes after" or the order of how things should proceed [9]. Seccession, on the other hand means withdrawing from [10], such as the southern states did that led to the civil war.

There is, perhaps, a bit of an irony that there is confusion on the term, as deciding who the leader was after Smtih's death (the succession crisis) caused some branches of the Latter Day Saint movement to secede from the main body of the Saints (a seccession crisis).

The instructions given in the Doctrine and Covenants through Smith made it clear that the church should vote on and as a whole approve/sustain or reject certain matters, which the largest body of the saints sustained the twelve as the new leadership, while other smaller groups rejected this and caused the current split in the latter day saint movement. According to these instructions, teh smaller groups should have accepted teh new leadership as sustained, however, there were many other issues at hand that led to people staying behind in the midwest - and in some cases, hurt feelings on both sides due to a difference of opinion on everthing from church properties to ordinances to authority. Perhaps one day the fissures will be healed and all latter day saint groups will reconcile and be brought back into a single church through the proper means and authorized baptism (which is my hope). In any case, thanks for your comments and allowing this insight to be explored. -Visorstuff 04:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias in Article

In the "Are Mormons Christians?" section there is no argument against their inclusion in the Christian brotherhood. The only statements made in it are that of a Mormon! The balance in this section is where? I find it insulting, if anything, to have Mormons referring to themselves as "Christians," on many grounds. Namely, that they have rejected the Word of G-D for a book written by a man named Joseph Smith in the 1800s, a book which contradicts itself numerous times (D&C 121:32; PoGP:Abraham 4:Heading; and PoGP:Abraham 4:1 all contradict its premise of one G-D in favor of many; D&C 130:22 says that G-D the Father and Son is fleshy, not Spirit; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46 says that G-D was once a man, but was MADE a deity, thus compromising the eternity of the true G-D).

It also seems to me that just about all of the articles pertaining to things of the LDS "Church" are biased, as if a team of Mormons just sit around the computer all day, editing this site and others to ensure it looks favorably upon them. So much so that truth is lost in Mormon dreams and fantasies, except, of course, to those brave enough to actually seek it out. 76.18.133.235 1:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Your points may well be valid, but they also constitute original research. Find some good sources from Christians who reject Mormonism's claim, which I believe the article Mormonism and Christianity has many. Be aware of two issues, however. First this article is not specifically about the LDS Church, and you would get some opposition from the Community of Christ who are a part of the greater Christianity movement. Also, there are appologists in the Christian camp who have spoken in defence of the Mormons claims. (see Ravi Zacharias, [11]. Bytebear 03:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I've found that bias begats bias, so to speak. Those who have an agenda with an article often have the feeling that any article worded differently than they would like is evidence of a massive conspiracy.Primalscreamtherapy 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Bible as scripture

Contrary to the above post, Mormons do accept the Bible as scripture (and they accept the Bible's Jesus). Due to this fact, I changed a few sentences in the main article. Actual facts about why some Christians do not regard Mormons as Christian would be welcome, but please stick to the facts, especially when stating what Mormons believe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.179.69 (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

For most of the denominations the 13 Articles should be enough. I'm not so sure about some of the smaller ones (and it definitely doesn't apply to those fringe Fundamentalist polygamist sects).Primalscreamtherapy 23:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should state that no serious historian would write in an encyclopedia that Jesus ever visited the north american continent (before any other more capable Europeans) and that this simple fact is an interesting modern downfall for this whole religeon. Really Mormonism is interesting to people who want to read about strange 19th century sects who still exist today (unfortunately). I do not think we want a WikiPedia entry on Mormonism to state anything like its a real truth or factually based belief. That would be lying. KirkMartinez 3:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such it reports facts; in religion articles it reports beliefs. We do not take a stand on which beliefs are true or which are false. If we did, all the religion articles would be presented as mere fantasies of humanity. In addition, wikipedia is not a soapbox for those with personal issues that are seeking a bullhorn for their personal message; those issues are best handled on personal blogs. You may want to spend some time reviewing the purpose of wikipedia. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV

I took the following POV section:

"It should be noted at this point that if one were to closely examine the Mormon faith with the Christian faith of the Bible that there are differences, some striking while others are subtle. Gordon B. Hinkley may believe that he is a Christian in the same sense as people who are Protestants and Catholics, but to this it should be asked, "If the result of the Mormon faith is to come to the same faith in Christ which brings salvation as is found in Protestantism , then why would Joseph Smith have had the 'revalation' that all of Protestantism was absolutely wrong?"

And replaced it with a section showing the same argument but without the bias:

"However, many other Christians including Protestants assert that Mormon theology is incompatible with the teaching of Christ as found in the Bible. Those who take this view refuse to accept Mormons as Christians."

I also replaced the loaded phrase "no evidence of these plates remain" with "after the translation, according to Mormon theology, Moroni returned to collect the plates".Primalscreamtherapy 23:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Restoring erased "Addressing false statements, and omissions on the Mormonism page"

This section was removed, this is a partial restoration of that discussion. See new comment at bottom for explanation.

I agree with the original sentiment expressed when this section was originally removed. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a soapbox therefore I have moved the repost to the posting user's talk page. --Trödel 04:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you fellas don't mind, I'd like to *at least* keep this. This is NOT "soapbox" this is a pertinent discussion concerning the CORE issue of who and or what is responsible for the salvation of man. Supertheman 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Onward and (hopefully) upward...

Visorstuff wrote: "...the person in 1520 would be saved by both the atonement and our temple work. He could not be saved without either."

This illustrates the difficulty with the Mormonism page that I have been addressing for quite some time. Visorstuff accurately notes that within the Mormon Church a person is saved through Christ's redeeming work AND this or that work done by — in some form or another — the Mormon Church. In the past I have put the responsibility on Joseph Smith (possibly too much), whereas Visorstuff has placed that responsibility on the shoulders of the people within the Mormon Church, and it seems that Storm Rider agrees with that interpretation. Whichever one wishes to hold responsible for the co-salvation of man — either Joseph Smith or the Church of Mormon (or even the Mormon priesthood) the fact remains that the difference between Christianity and Mormonism is this distinction... that Christians hold that Christ is SOLEY responsible for the salvation of man, and Mormons hold that Christ AND man (Mormon workers) are responsible. If I am misinterpreting the statement by Visorstuff: "He [a person] could not be saved without either.", then please explain my error. This goes directly to the verse(s) I quoted earlier:

Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Acts 15:9-11 "...he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

As I said, please explain how my assertion that Mormons believe that salvation is achieved by Christ AND the Mormon Church is wrong. This is s very, very important issue to the Mormonism page (IMHO). Thanks. Supertheman 03:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading the state of the Mormonism page (and newer changes) very carefully, I believe that possibly we could expand the "Are Mormons Christians?" to include some basic differences that both sides could agree on, with the topic that I have been discussing (repeatedly) as part of that list(?). After all, don't both sides agree that there *are* differences? If there were no perceived differences to Mormons, then the Mormon Church would be superfluous, correct? Should the proposed changes be conducted here, or on someone's talk page?

The only thing I wish to be changed/added on the Mormonism page is the *distinction* between salvation and exaltation and how these terms differ for Christians. I would think that since Mormons agree there are fundamental difference, and differences that are quite important (to Mormons) then this would be something that both sides could embrace. I am aware that Mormons might find the assertion that they are not "Christians" offensive, so perhaps a proviso that the list is from the viewpoint of Christians, and vice-versa could be added? What are your thoughts? Supertheman 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This brings up a longstanding issue that I have with this page: This page should not exist and should instead redirect to Latter-day Saint Movement. This particular discussion should occur on the talk page of Mormonism and Christianity. I think that that article is overly broad as well, but at least this discussion fits in better there. Val42 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree Val42. Supertheman, please feel free to continue this discussion on my talk page. For starters, I can see how you are interpreting my statements. Neither salvation nor exaltation is possible without Christ. That said, when you share the gospel or witness to others, are you or are you not contributing to their salvation? Can they be saved without the hearing of the word? Can they be saved without Baptism if they feel that God has instructed them to be baptized? This is Mormons belive Obadiah and Isaiah and refer to when they talk about people being "saviors on moutn zion" or "how beautiful ...are the feet." We do not save anyone, but we can teach and we can perform a work they cannot do for themselves, unless an angel suddenly appeared to teach them as paul and others had. No man can be saved in ignorance. Would love to continue the dialogue at my talk page. -Visorstuff 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the basic difference I see between me (or anyone) being a messenger of the Word, and "work" needing to be done by the Mormon church is twofold... one, *anyone* can share the gospel with a person, whereas only Mormons can do the "saving works" and two, sharing the Gospel is not "works" it is simply spreading the Gospel of Christ. The Bible is very, very clear that "no work done by the hands of man" can contribute to salvation, nor does it need to. Performing a ritual *for* someone is far, far different than sharing the Gospel. A person who has the Gospel shared with them makes a conscious choice either to accept or to reject that message, it is a completely free choice. Also, a person could read the Gospel for his or herself and accept Christ that way, I don't need to enter into the equation. Remember the Ethiopian who was reading the scripture and asked Philip to "explain it to him", any Christian could have done that, but if we didn't the Bible says that "the rocks will cry out". Point being, God does not NEED us for anything, He chooses to use us to be a messenger of His word, but we are performing no "works" to facilitate salvation for any person.

At any rate, I think we could work on the info concerning Mormonism vs Christianity on the Mormonism page (or remove it, as some have suggested). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Supertheman (talk • contribs) 02:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Mormon views on masturbation

For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of a new article, Religious views on masturbation, at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft, especially the section User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Other_sects! After it looks good on user space, it can be posted on to article space. CyberAnth 08:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Archive

Wikiquette Alert

Theology a separate article?

Community of Christ-ers Ain't Mormon

Criticism

Criticism

Jesus

Religious significance of England

Degrees of Salvation

Merge with Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Recent edits

Typical Mormon Beliefs

"Mormonism", Theology, History and other Issues

Notes

Providing references

Weasel words

Deletion

Impossiblilty

Merge

Citations needed

Religion?

Scripture

Focus of this article

Early Succession/Succession Crisis

Bias in Article

Bible as scripture

Removed POV

Restoring erased "Addressing false statements, and omissions on the Mormonism page"

Mormon views on masturbation