Talk:Judaism and Mormonism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Prophecy

"Judaism holds that prophecy temporarily ceased after the destruction of the Solomon's Temple, and will be restored with the Messianic Age," It's not NPOV to state Judaism holds this see [hxxp://www.torah.5u.com/prophecy.html hxxp://www.torah.5u.com/prophecy.html]

Editing this page

I tried to edit this page, but then decided that I felt that a good portion of it ought to be revised. I wanted to gather comments before I did so.

First of all I feel too much of the article deals with the various theories on what it means to be a member of or adopted into a tribe of Israel. At best this might be treated in Patriarchal Blessing, if at all.

Refering to comment above, you have my support. Unfortunately not my time to do work on it myself right now.

Sorry, that's my fault. I did that as a novice Wikipedia editor. I have a better idea... - Gilgamesh 23:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Road Map

This page needs to be entirely revamped. I've gutted, after talking to Gilgamesh a good portion of it. Here is my proposed roadmap of this article:

Section 1: Similarities between Judaism and Mormonism. This ought to cover theological similarities such as a commitment to the observance of commandments

Section 2: Differences... This ought to cover significant points of disagreement. For example, while Mormonism believes that there are many gods are in existence, and that every person can become a god, though it worships only one. Judaism, on the other hand, believes that there is only one God and that it is not (nor was it) a human.

Section 3: History of relationship between Judaism and Mormonism This ought to cover things like JS's being taught by a Jewish Rabbi, the baptism for the dead controversy, proselyting in israel and the byu center, etc.

Any suggestions or ideas?--Josiah 04:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Josiah, some additional ideas on the LDS viewpoint. They believe in one GOD and are most definitely monotheistic. However, they also believe that mortals are God's children and may grow to be like Him, but never equal to Him. He will always be their God. If one wishes to focus on the concept of eternal progression while contrasting the LDS viewpoint and that of the Jewish people, then we have a subject of true value. Otherwise, we end up with misinformation and a very little light being placed on a valid subject.

I believe what you are talking about gets into apologetics. That's an entirely different subject.--Josiah 23:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Section 2 in discussion attempts to discuss gods and Gods. They are not equivalent, yet are presented as substantive difference...one is monotheistic and the other not. This is a typcial misrepresentation when people discuss Mormonism and try to discuss eternal progression i.e. that we as children have the potential to grow to become like our Father. I would contend the difference alluded to does not exist; they are both monotheistic. Storm Rider 21:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've been told by Mormons that they avoid the term "monotheistic". Jayjg 22:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Latter-day, Latter Day, and Mormon

First of all, this page either needs to be renamed to reflect its focus on members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or rewritten to include the various other sects affiliated with the "Latter Day Saint movement" Moogle 03:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is for the relationship of Mormonism (as a whole) in relation to Judaism (as a whole). I.e. all the sects of both are included.--Josiah 23:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Two new sections

I have Added two sections, both need WORK! But my concern is the growing section on differences, and not the similarities. The section are Mormon's jew christians, is not really the best topic for this acticle as it is written, but I wanted to get the tribal concept acrossed.

Please feel free to remove, add or reword anything I wrote. I just want this page to be a place where Mormons and Jews can relate to.

VChapman

Priesthood

I have tried to show the similarities and differences between the priesthood in Judaism and Mormonism. It seems choppy to me, maybe someone with better writing skills can clean it up. It seems overly important to me to show that Mormonism adheres to the Priesthood as it was established in Gen, Exodus, Numbers, etc. To my knowledge few or no other christian faiths operate with this respect to both the hebrew text and to the tribe of Levi.

VChapman 5-09-2005 22:49 UTC

The priesthood "as it was established in Gen, Exodus, Numbers, etc." is hereditary. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Star of David section

The star of david is considered a traditional mormon symbol? As far as I know, and I was a mormon for many years, the window in the assembly hall is the only place it appears. 68.96.173.125 05:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"used chiefly in architecture". That's where it's traditional. - Gilgamesh 05:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can only speak from experience as what I observe as a Mormon. I have several stars in my house, my wife and I have necklaces. Another church member has a star of david quilt and yet the chapman family LDS book store in new hampshire has a star of david in their window.

Mormons wear garments under their clothes also, but you don't see those either.

After about 9 months or so I have finally changed out the star of david. I have replaced it with a template that included mormon and jewish topics, and superimpossed the angle moroni over the star. Please be careful when changing the template, I want to also use it an an article I plan to title Jewish Mormons

Judaism as an American religion?

Should the comparison of Judaism and Mormonism extend to whether or not both are condidered (or should be) American religions? Isn't Judaism just as American as Mormonism? Would Judaism exist as healthy as it is without America? Let me explain...

I came across [1] stats on where Jews live. Not suprisingly the bulk of Jews live in either America (where they apparently feel a sense of security due to the Halocaust) and then in Israel itself (which is highly subsidized and might not exist without US aid). Then the adherent number drops dramatically from their - especially in areas including France, Canada, Russia and the UK where you'd expect higher numbers. Here's the ranking:

Rank Nation Number 1 USA 5,602,000 2 Israel 4,390,000 3 Russia 1,450,000 4 France 640,000 5 Canada 350,000 6 United Kingdom 320,000 7 Argentina 250,000 8 Brazil 150,000 9 Australia 92,000 10 South Africa 70,000

So that said, would you consider Judaism a predominently American religion, or a bi-polarized (without negative connotation) religion? Will Mormonism eventually need this type (not nessesarily a mirror) of bi-polarization in the USA and somewhere else (a non-western country), in order to overcome the "American religion" stereotype. Interesting question, and I know Wikipedia is not a place for primary research, but wondering if pointing this out would be important to the article. -Visorstuff 19:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The Land of Israel is central to the Jewish religion. America has only been the abode of the majority of Jews in recent era. There is nothing American about Judaism.

I can't speak about Mormonism, but the fact that it is centered in America seems circumstantial and not inherent. I don't think that makes it an American Religion. -- Nahum | [[User talk:Nahum|Talk]] 18:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Mormonism is often considered an American religion. Founded in the US, the LDS church believes "that Zion, the New Jerusalem, will be built upon the American continent" (Article of Faith 10). Throughout the Book of Mormon, which is set in the Americas, the land is described as a land of promise, choice above all others. Mormon doctrines include the belief that God at least influenced the writing of the US Constitution, most especially to procure the religious freedom that would enable the founding of the church.

However, Mormons believe in bringing their religion to the world, that all mankind may be saved. While it is true that today there are more members of the LDS church outside of the US than within (6.8 million versus 5.5 million), the majority of Mormons still live on the American continent(s).

Oddly enough, the countries with the highest proportions of LDS populations are in the South Pacific. I can't lay my finger on the exact stats right now, but I read that in the church's Ensign magazine some time recently. -- JordeeBec 12:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Mormons

There was an edit today, August 1st, regarding the definition of Jew in Mormonism. It stated that there was a significant difference between the definition presented and what is covered in another article. Basically, I think the editor, 66.93.130.108, disagreed with the definition that a Jew is anyone from the tribe of Judah. The article referred to was much more diverse in definition given the differences between orthodoxy through to reform Judaism. None of the definitions used in the article directly addressed lineage. However, from the most conservative position, only those from a matrilienal descent may claim the title Jew to those who covert are Jews. The question I would pose to the editor is, if you trace that lineage of mothers back, where do you find yourself...Yes, that is correct a tribe of Israel. In effect the definitions are described differently, but you still end up at the same place, which is not significantly different. If I am wrong, please explain and then please rewrite your edit. I still think the point is valid, but it is not significant. Storm Rider 06:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue of descent was only one of dozens of statements on this page that are clearly and obviously presenting only the mormon viewpoint. (Like the "joint Judah-Joseph inter-tribal committee"). From the jewish perspective, if you trace the maternal lineage back, you get to, yes, one of the 12 tribes (except for converts, who are only tribe of "israel"). However, while the Kingdom of Judah may have originally been tribal land, refugees from all the tribes eventually settled there. That's not only supported by history and archeology, also by genetics - diaspora israelites, called "jews", have the cohen gene. So the tribe you get back to isn't necessarily Judah.

The difference is significant in that the Mormon claim that they are one of the "lost tribes" is not accepted by Jews. It's not like Jews are attached to one tribe, and the other 11 are up for grabs. (6 August 2005)

Sabbath

Ok, what's wrong with saying that having sex on the sabbath is considered a blessing? (Actually it's a mitzvah, but that hasn't been explained yet). (05 October 2005)

Anon (User:66.93.130.108) It just doesn't fit and seems out of place. Some would argue that sex within the bonds of marriage is a blessing, regardless of day of week or religion. However, the statement in the article doesn't seem to be supported, nor truly relevant to this article. If you feel it is, it needs more context. -Visorstuff 20:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Until they put the Talmud on-line, I can't exactly point you to source material. How about CNN (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/12/campaign.sabbath.reut/) and the Daily Forward (http://www.forward.com/issues/1999/99.02.12/fastforward.html).

Conversion

A major addition was made yesterday to the Mormon sub-section of the Conversion and Prosyletization section. It appears to be entirely cut-and-paste from Mormon source materials, however, with no distillation. Is this really useful? (8 October 2005)

More edits now added, with regard to Mikeveh and Mormon Baptism. Again, this is cut-and-paste. (8 October 2005).

The Baptism section was started as a cut and paste, but there has been removal of much material not pertaining to LDS baptisms, as well as clarification. The attemt here is to explain the history of baptism very simply, and its origin in the mikvah, and then demonstrate the similarities between the Jewish mikvah and the LDS Baptism, including the all important step of Israelite conversion which is not present in the other christian faiths. This is a very important similarity between ones conversion to becoming and Israelite in Judaism and ones becoming an Israelite in Mormonism.

Noted. Jewish section updated. However the term "israelite" is used in Judaism to refer only to ancient Hebrews, not to modern-day Jews. (This is something else that should be explained, elsewhere on the page). (10 October 2005).

baptism of the dead

The comment about the jewish communities' response to unwanted proxy baptism has been replaced with a comment about the giving of gifts under jewish law. This is inappropriate. Jews do not consider proxy baptism a gift. They consider it an insult and an outrage. Please read the section on the holocaust victims controversy, including references. The change has also lost the context of the original reference. (October 11, 205).

We have so far been able to keep this article pleasent for both Jews and Mormons. Do you have an intrest in this article beyond the baptism for the dead conflict? As it stands now, a LDS member can only submit names of family members. What the issue is here, more so than the outrage of some Jews over the practice is the rights of LDS Jews or LDS members of Jewish descent. IF a LDS Jew submits the name of his or her grandfather/mother than thats not an attempt to convert Jews at random, but a family affair, and I want to remind you that still requires mormon and jewish approval. (Oct 14th)

The comment about "jewish gifts" made no sense in the paragraph's context. It was obviously added as a response to the holocaust victims comment, which had been removed. (October 15).

Tribal affiliations

The very clear explanation, which had a short intro and then descriptions within the Jewish + Mormon subheadings, has now been replaced with a hopelessly muddy explanation, which is written only from the Mormon viewpoint. "Jews and Israelites" makes no sense here. The rest is equally biased. (October 15)

Nomination

I have nominated this article for a featured article listing. If anyone has any concerns or questions about this purposal, please feel free to address the issue here or on hte nomination page. I'd like to thank all those who are continously contributing to the articles continued development, and ask that we make sure to keep a NPOV. Jew, Mormons, or otherwise, we can make this a pleasent page for everyone. VChapman (30 Oct 05)

I think this would be a great featured article. --Z.Spy 06:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The comments about the nomination support my own first impression about this page - that it was created to provide "evidence" to support the Mormon myth that Mormons are somehow connected to Jews. Perhaps the suggested name change would be appropriate. (Maybe "Judaism 101 for Mormons"). ANON 66.93.130.108

Please google search Mormonism and Judaism, its Number 1 on the List, which we can all agree is an achievement. Also, Goodle search Judaism and Mormonism. Its Number 4 on the list. My fear, is retitling the article will lead to broken links. In is raw or basic sense, Mormonism and Judaism is the most basic title as this article covers many different aspects of both religions and their relationship. I didn't name it, but I belief it works.

Google ranks pages by the popularity of their domain as well as the individual page, and doesn't parse common words like "and". Wikipedia is one of the most popular sites on the net - that's why this page is ranked first. (I tried searching for "Jews and Mormons" and got several dozen articles on the baptism of Holocause victims).

These kind of comments are so refreshing! One can almost feel the superiority of the author. Human mythology is an interesting subject. When one believer in mythology, that of Judaism, attempts to critique another mythology, in this case Mormonism, the result is at best humorous. A lesson to be remembered for the ANON; when you live in a glass house, it is best not to throw rocks. It would probably be best that you refrain from comment on religious articles; they are based upon faith. A subject that seems beyond your present grasp. Storm Rider 06:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not the only one who had that reaction - look at the nomination comments. If religious articles are based on faith, then why does this article exist at all? It could be replaced by one line that says "Mormons are descended from the 12 tribes", instead of stretching to make all those parallels between Mormons and Jews. (And Jews - and American Indians - have been laughing at Mormons for 100 years...). But I was serious about the name change. ANON 66.93.130.108

I have refrained from responding until I saw other responses. My understanding is lack of inline citations was the primary problem. As far as the Native Americans (Not American Indians, thnx) and Jews Lauging at the idea that Mormons are decendant from Jews, I want to remind you of the folowing.

1. Less than 5% of the modern Jewish popluation can prove their ancestory with ancient Israel, mostly they are decendants with of Russian and Eastern Europe. Now, one the other hand, the Ethopians in Africa, and several asian groups have proven their Jewish decdnt rather recently, but I highly doubt that you are considering these Groups. When you add in the Mormon popluation, less than 2 1/2% of all Jews can prove their lineage all the way back.
2. The Book of Mormon has been ridiculed for inaccuracies, such as Horses, Elephants, Barley, Iron, Etc. Horses were in North America until about 2500 BCE (See National Geographic). There have been animals of the elephant family, extinct, found in the Americas. Mormons believe that most likely Meso Americans intermixed, in theory, with Jewish Settlers. Barley was found in Arizona, ancient barley. The tribes in Arizona are decendant of the MesoAmericans. Irons forges have been found in North America also. Point being, religion is based on faith. The Book of Mormon says that the male men, Levi and Nephi establed Israelite nations, so you can chuck the MtDNA argument out the window right there.
3. The Mormons rightfully believe the priesthood lies with Levi and Aaron, which in my opinion places direct control over the LDS church in the House of Israel, regardless of direct ancestory for any individual members. Also remember, that the Mormon and Jewish world populations are almost identical in number, and I bet you would find an equal or greated percentage of ancient Israelites in the Mormon population than in the Jewish popluation. A Muslim friend of mine recently remarked that Jesus was for the Jews. The LDS belief that if he were to re-establish his church, it would have to be through the House of Israel, is not so far fetched.
4. Utah, formerly was called the Deseret Territory, was eestablished as a place for Jews and Mormons to live with religous freedom. Also remember that Utah(Deseret) was established 100 Years before Israel in 1948. For atleast 100 Years, before the re-establishment of Israel, it wsa the only place on the Earth directly in control of a group claiming to be decendants of the House of Israel.

VChapman (UTC 13:22, 19 Nov 2005)

Please do a Google search for "Cohen Modal Haplotype". You've dismissed mitochondrial DNA out of hand (by declaring the "Israelites nations" to be all male, when membership in the house of Israel is passed in the maternal line...), but there is plenty of other DNA evidence to be found. You can also look at the wikipedia article on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon (none of which I wrote). I don't think it will serve any purpose to continue this here.

As for "Native American", it's about as ethnocentric a term as you can possibly find. (and you do know that First Nation people have their own beliefs about their origins, right? And that none of them involve arriving on a boat 2,500 years ago?) ANON 66.93.130.108

Perhaps I ws unclear. I was attempting to explain the lack of the MtDNA for the Cohen's, but the Book of Mormon doesn't imply that any Cohens were among the small group of settlers. Personally I think alot of religion is Mythology, and I doubt Mormonism nor Judaism has escaped this entirely. I was infact attempting to demonstrate that we don't know all the facts. Science is forever developing. Personally, I have an intrest in the fact that Chimp DNA is 99.97% the same as humans, and the chromozones in Chimps 2P and 2Q are fused, to lower the DNA count from 48 to 46, to prevent humans from back breading with the chimps. Not to jump off subject, nor to go against the Jewish or Mormon belief system, but I personally feel religion is based on both history and mythology. I do however belief in Allani (not sure on English spelling), whom the Mormons call Elehem(again, I can only spell it in Hebrew. I guess I could look it up in the book of mormon for the english spelling if so dedicated, but Elehem(sp) translated is "Heavenly Father", whom LDS begin all Personal Prayers to God with. Just as Jews are not comfortable with spelling out God, Mormons prefer (Elehem, sp). This article is a lengthy attempt to show similarities and differences. In any case, I hope we can continue a dialogue in a peacful and productive fasion. Shloam. VChapman (UTC Nov 19 2005)

There's an old jewish joke: Q - "What do you call a Jew who doesn't believe in God?". A - "A Jew". I think, regardless of best intentions, that there isn't sufficient common ground to have any kind of meaningfull dialog between Mormons and Jews. The building blocks and basic assumptions of the two religions are just too different. At best, I was hoping this page could clear up some misconceptions. (Humans are actually much more closely related to bonobos, but that's another topic).

G-d versus God

Unless you're willing to re-edit all of Wikipedia, writing G-d is absurd. This page is no different from any other page discussing religion, and none use the G-d variation. Non-jews will be confused by the spelling, and Jews are used to dealing with both. (And, in either case, using "g-dhead" misses the point.).

You're right. I've fixed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Just trying to be respectful, as far as "g-dhead", it was a "Find and Replace" mistake.

Do you know the joke about the rapist who asks his victim if it's OK to smoke?

Mormonism in Israel

I've heard that the LDS church actually has an agreement with the government of Israel not to proselytize in its territory. It seems very out of character for the LDS church to agree to refrain from proselytizing somewhere. Why would they make such an agreement? If there is no such agreement and Israeli law prohibits proselytization to Jews in Israel (I don't know if it does - does it?), missionaries are not known for failing to proselytize somewhere just because the laws of the place tell them not to do so. This seems like the sort of information that belongs in the section regarding Mormonism in Israel. Rhesusman 16:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It is against the law to proselytize in Israel. Storefronts (or "information offices" where people can come to ask questions) may be set up and cottage meetings may be held, but active proselytizing is against the law (ie, they can come to you, but don't go to them). The state has occasionally threatened to disenfranchise some U.S. and other protestant (and Jehovah Witnesses) denominations who violate this law (southern baptists, etc.). Church policy by revelation states that members of the church should obey the law of the land in which they reside, and seek through proper channels to change those laws. The church has re-affirmed this policy to Israel when it opened its Jerusalem center, and reminds members who travel there via church-sponsored reasons (ie BYU study abroad, etc.) which is where you've probably heard of some sort of "agreement" (I'm unaware of something more formal, although it may exist). As most older christian denominations do not actively proselytize, and are not evangelical, these laws are of no concern to them.

Mormon cultural beliefs (ie folklore, may have some basis of truth behind it) is that the church is supposed to go to the lost tribes of Israel first, then the gentiles, then the Jews. If this is the case, the church is still working on the first two and the time of the Jews (as a whole) has not arrived for the hearing of the gospel (individuals may join, but there will be a time when widespread preaching will take place there, and the two prophets die, etc.). I'm not sure how doctrinally-solid this cultural belief is, but it is a school of thought.

In any case, it is standard for the LDS Church not to send proselytizing missionaries to countries where they are not recognized, or wehre it is illegal to proselytize. This is why there are storefronts in Israel, UAE, Saudi Arabia, China and other locations, rather than active proselytizing missionaries.

Hope this helps to answer your question. -Visorstuff 21:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[[2]] Is this website wrong then? Rhesusman 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Which part? I am going to assume that you are referring to the following statement in the paper:

"Missionaries of other faiths are allowed to proselytize in Israel, but Mormons voluntarily refrains from teaching under an agreement with the Government."

First, the context - the paper in question seems to be focused on Mormon proselytizing efforts among Muslims, rather than Jews.

Second, what I shared was cultural, not neccessarily doctrinal. I very much doubt that evangelicals "favor prioritizing proselytizing to Jews" at the expense to other gentiles - at least from a doctrinal point of view. They lump all non-believers together culturally and in many cased, doctrinally. The Catholic church does not focus its efforts on converting Jews, but rather, on those who do not believe, and seek to have a good dialogue with the Jews. In other words, I'm not so sure they are called out specifically as promised people the way they are in Mormonism. Typical Mormonism belief is that they'll be taken care of. User:Gilgamesh, while, IMO is not a traditional cultural Mormon, has some interesting insight that some mormons have here: User:Gilgamesh#It_is_not_sinful_to_believe_Jesus_isn.27t_the_Messiah. Most Mormons believe that they are promised people and will have the chance to accept Jesus when that time comes. Most Christian sects believe that the Jews are promised people, but are unsure on what that exactly means. Remember, 50 years before the zionist movement, Orson Hyde dedicated Israel for the return of the Jews. Jews are an important part of Mormonism doctrine, and in particular the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but cultural beliefs have taken their own meaning in many cases, and are equally important in understanding Mormonism.

AGAIN, this is cultural not doctrinal. This is from a Mormonism perspective, NOT an LDS perspective. Big difference. I've not done a good job deliniating between the two in my discussion, and have flipped back and forth. For that I apologize. Usually in speaking of culturally, however, i am referring to Mormonism and its many denominations and adherents and its culture, not a specific church.

Now as for the statement, I'm not sure of a formal agreement. As I stated above in regard to a formal agreement, "I'm unaware of something more formal, although it may exist." I am aware of the church re-emphasizing its policy as stated above, but not aware of a formal policy. I'd like to see the source for the claim. It very well could exist, I'm just not familiar with it. I'll search around and try to find it. Second, it is not legal to actively proselytize in Israel to my knowledge and my reading of their laws. It is legal to have missionaries there, but they are not to go door-to-door, etc. This is why storefronts and information offices are in place. The context provided in the paper on this model is good. And Mormons have those in the middle east as well. Perhaps I mis-read the law, and this is not my area of expertise by any stretch of the imagination. Now if you want to get into the doctrinal thought behind it for the LDS church, that's another question for another time. -Visorstuff 00:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

For all I know the author of that website doesn't know any more about this than I do. I've just heard contradictory stuff as to what Israel's missionary policy was. You've given me more of a straight answer than anyone else has! Rhesusman

Thanks - I think that's the first time I've been told one of my long-winded answers was a "straight answer." Glad to be of help. -Visorstuff 05:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Tribes vs. Castes

I think there's some confusion over exactly how the term "tribe" is used in contemporary Judaism. While there was a tribe of Levi, that is not what the present-day terms Kohen, Levi, and Israelite refer to- rather, they are CASTE designations. With all due respect to whoever said caste is an "offensive term", sorry, that's what they are. There is no "tribe" of Kohen, it is a caste and 'sub-tribe' within the tribe of Levi. An Israelite, on the other hand, is anyone who is NEITHER a Kohen nor a Levite. It makes no difference if you are from the tribe of Judah, Benjamin, or Naphtali- if you're not a Kohen or a Levite, your CASTE is Israelite. For that matter, there is no TRIBE of Israel, either. Rather, all of the tribes (none of which were named Israel themselves) were "tribes OF Israel". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste#Castes_in_ancient_Israel

As far as "ha Kohen, ha Levi"- all these mean are "THE priest, or THE Levite". In that respect, the person who made the last edit was correct; "Israelite" is not the same as "tribe of Israel". I am not an expert on conversion, but I'd like a source that converts are explicitly named as belonging to "the tribe of Israel", as opposed to the more general "the people Israel", or the slightly different caste designation of "Israelite".

If you'd like to use a different term than caste (?), then fine, but it needs to be pointed out and clarified that the terms being described (Kohen, Levite, Israelite) are NOT tribe-oriented. Incidentally, a quick Google search can confirm that many Jews use the term caste to refer to Kohen, Levite, etc...

Thanks, and I hope we can resolve this soon. ShalomShlomo 06:38, 3 December 2005

Even the wikipedia article on caste is quick to point out that the "caste" system in ancient israel didn't have the (now) offensive connotations associated with the indian system. Unless you're willing to put in that disclaimer every time the word is used, we need to find another word. The closest I can think of is "priestly status". Suggestions?

Maybe we should have a one or two sentence mini-disclaimer pointing the reader elsewhere, and then just refer to them as "Kohen", "Levite", etc. I'm happy to spend some time trying to find some sort of better compromise, but it doesn't do anyone any good to give people overtly incorrect information. I think "ancestral positions such as priestly status, assistant status", etc. If we want to tie them to something tribal, have a comment identifying them as "tribal sub-groups", or something. I DO think it would be good to have something indicating that the terms are more complicated than we can go into in this article, and that they should research them a bit further to get a better understanding of exactly what they mean. ShalomShlomo 20:41, 3 December 2005

The wikipedia articles on Leviim and Kohenim use "status", but only once or twice, and mostly dance around the issue. How about "priestly lineage"? (the point of hypertext is that people can click on the link for more info. It's just a matter of making sure Levi and Kohen are live links).

I've written around the issue (I think). 4 December 2005

Name change

While it was clear the page needed a name change, "Mormon views" doesn't accurately describe the content. The Mormon view of tribal affiliation, for example, is that Jews are of the tribe of Judah. Jews don't agree (one of many, many, discrepancies). A better name might be "Judaism 101 for Mormons". [66.93.130.108]

The current title is very clumsy. I am not sure of the better title, Judaism 101 for Mormons sounds condescending and misrepresents what is being discussed, it certainly does not cover everything an elementary presentationi on Judaism would include. Maybe, Mormon views on Judaism, as the title.

I would also suggest to the editor that made the changes that discussion would have been appropriate! Being Bold in this context is not the best choice. Storm Rider 17:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

On that last point, I agree wholeheartedly. [66.93.130.108]

How about "Mormonism versus Judaism"? It is, after all, the contrast points that are being discussed here. [66.93.130.108]

Or, alternately, "Comparisons between Mormonism and Judaism"? (ShalomShlomo 20:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC))

I am not happy with the move of the page - especially without consensus, and without recent discussion. There is a place for page change requests (Wikipedia:Requested moves), and discussion should ensue here first. Second, reeks of pushing one's POV, much more than the article did. If you feel the Judaism section is not properly represented, add it in. No one is stopping you. But to change the title to reflect your POV, rather than the content of the article is wrong. I don't think this article is based on primary research, but on already-written comparisons- from both Mormon and non-Mormon research. The page should be reverted back to Mormonism and Judaism or to what User:ShalomShlomo suggested. A better course of action to what you did, would have been asking other Jewish editors to add in their perspective and research, and finding additional research on the topic, if you felt it was lacking. This is very upsetting.

Now, having said that, lets actually have a discussion about this. The title is too long and cumersome. I vote for moving it back, or User:ShalomShlomo's suggestion of Comparisons between Mormonism and Judaism, which makes sense. -Visorstuff 21:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• P.S. Also - can you sign your posts IZAK? It makes it much easier to follow your thoughts. -Visorstuff 21:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Visorstuff: So far I have said nothing, so I don't know why you think I have said anything. IZAK 03:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

How about..."Mormonism and Judaism"? It would fit with the other article names of similar topics—Judaism and Christianity, Mormonism and Christianity, Islam and Judaism, etc. Besides, I do not think LDS theology pigeon-holes all Jews into the Tribe of Judah—they are chiefly Judah, and also Tribe of Benjamin and Tribe of Simeon, but they have adherents of all tribes, and adhere to Judaism. - Gilgamesh 21:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Mormonism and Judaism" obscures the issue that the topics covered are basically the places where the two religions diverge. I like Shlomo's suggestion. [66.93.130.108]

I aggree that Comparisons between Mormonism and Judaism is a good article title. I think the Mormonism and Judaism is simpler, and has precedence, but am willing to support Comparisons between Mormonism and Judaism. -Visorstuff 22:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly object to the suggested compromise “Comparisons between Mormonism and Judaism”. I really think that the article should be renamed Mormonism and Judaism, after making it comparable to the articles listed above (Judaism and Christianity, Mormonism and Christianity, Islam and Judaism, etc.). The current set-up of the article has no added value beyond the existing articles on Mormonism and Judaism separately, other than the discussion of direct relations between the religions and references of each other (well, mostly one way I would say). I suggest that the trivial parts of the comparison will be reduced or eliminated and the discussion of the relations between the two should be more central to the article. gidonb 22:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixing the article as you suggest is a major undertaking. The name as it is is a problem NOW. I disagree that the juxtapositions aren't valuable. The relations and references are necessarily going to be one way, because Judaism isn't informed by Mormonism. That's not going to change. [66.93.130.108]

I suggest keeping this name until the problems are fixed. That Judaism isn't informed by Mormonism is not a problem. It was just a sidenote. gidonb 23:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I support "Mormonism and Judaism". There is already ample precedence; let's not recreate the wheel. Storm Rider 23:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Gidon, we crossed in our edits. Articles are always in a state of flux and there is no need to wait; change it back and then continue making edits. Storm Rider 23:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider: I strongly disagree with you. I am in agreement with gidonb on condition that he reworks the article. The old name of "Mormonism and Judaism" did not reflect what was going on in the article which was basically 90% of the Mormon view of itself and its imagined relationship with Judaism. The article did not reflect Judaism's across the board rejection of Mormonism in its entirety. IZAK 03:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I will start making the changes in the text. Someone else will make the name change. And we'll see where both meet. This is not the main point. The points are that the compromise is a bad idea and that the article needs to be changed in content and name. gidonb 23:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

While Wikipedia isn't necessarily a democracy (more like a decib-ocracy - rule by the loudest), it seems that more people support "comparisons between". The changes already made seem to indicate a swing back to the original Mormon-viewpoint-only problem. Do we really want to go through this again? [66.93.130.108]

I believe the majority want Mormonism and Judaism as a first choice. I started cleaning up the article. There is much more to do, but the new set-up already justifies this title. gidonb 01:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe any of the above three statements. [66.93.130.108]

Just count the preferences stated above. This is not a prediction of the possible outcome of a vote. gidonb 02:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As I see it, the articles deals with four distinct topics:

1. Mormon claims of House of Israel descent
2. Jewish Symbolism in Mormonism
3. Relationship between Jews and Mormons
4. Comparison between Mormonism and Judaism

All strongly relate to Mormonism and Judaism. The title Comparisons between Mormonism and Judaism does not cover the content very well. gidonb 03:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What you're describing is "Judaism as it relates to Mormonism". If the page is titled "Mormonism and Judaism", than you have to put back the stuff you've just taken out, about the different views of the diety etc. (oddly enough, all those things highlight stark differences between the two religions). [66.93.130.108]

I would say more of the opposite, if already, but by no means exclusively. As shown above, only Mormonism and Judaism covers the article. At times, I did strengthen the contrasts. I am no POV pusher, however, and I am fine with the fact that I may also have eliminated some contrasting detail as you point out. In many cases the article was (and is) far too detailed. The source of the quote on drinking on Purim, in your example, is hardly central to the Jewish diet (nor is the quote itself, nor is the drinking on Purim, nor is Purim a central Holiday in Judaism). gidonb 06:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Passover is argueably THE central Jewish holiday. And, since Mormons don't drink alcohol, the relevance of Jews being REQUIRED to drink is obvious. [66.93.130.108]

Yeah, that is indeed very arguable. At my home Pesach certainly is most central, yet in Jewish law Yom Kippur is usually considered to be the holiest day of the year. As you may have noticed, precisely at this point I changed the wording "Jews have no prohibitions regarding alcohol" to "Jews are required to drink alcohol on certain occassions (although this can be substituted by grape juice)". Thank you for raising this point. gidonb 08:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In Jewish law, Passover is the first holiday you're required to observe. As for grape juice, one Mormon twisting of Jewish practice is the claim that all the "wine" mentioned in the Bible is actually "new wine", ie. grape juice. Do you really want to feed this? [66.93.130.108]

Side note and personal disclosure - I have an issue with anonymous editors trying to control the direction of Wikipedia. If you are part of the community, I feel that you should have more say in the directions of articles, etc. Other editors are seen as trusted and keeping the direction of the Wikipedia in line with its goals. Yes there are differences of opinions, but we know what the differneces are by the user. Many of us discount other anonymous users comments as they are not seen as trying to take an active role on the wikipedia. Although this is unfortunate, it is how things are. If you really want to be a part of Wikipedia, you should register. If not, don't try to control the direction or create articles (per the new wikipedia rules yesterday), but rather edit and stick to editing only. Many anons are great editors, but they should stick to that - especially after the fiasco yesterday [3]. That is my personal disclosure and therefore I seriously discount (probably unfortunately) most of what you say. No offense meant, just my experience in the past four years is that anons usually are hiding strong POV and often have axe's to grind, when trying to direct the outcome of the direction of wikipedia and articles like this. Again, another reason anons votes are discounted on Requests for Admin, etc. I will do my best to overcome this view of mine for this discussion, but thought it best you understand my position, as I do take your opinion with less wieght than the others. Sorry - and hope you register. -Visorstuff 17:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

My name, in particular my last name, would be directly relevant to this article. Therefore I've chosen to not register just yet. I've probably spent as much, if not more, time on this in the last two months than any other editor. [66.93.130.108]

I don't think anyone's requesting you register under your full name or last name, particularly, but why not create an account for convenience of reference, if nothing else? Also, either way, please sign your comments with ~~~~, so as to create both a link to the account or IP you're editing under, and a timestamp. Alai 23:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

At least I completely agree with Visorstuff and Alai in one regard: It is very poor form and a little ridiculous to remain as an anonymous user when a major topic is being discussed. I urge Mr. [66.93.130.108] to either stop being an unregistered user or to stop being looked upon suspiciously by others as maybe being a "POV-warrior". Again, I repeat that I support Visorstuff's and Alai's views about Mr. [66.93.130.108]'s status and I urge the latter to "come out of the closet" and try to inter-act with us all here in the more accepted and acceptable Wikipedia manner. IZAK 07:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting assumption.... 66.93.130.108 16:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

:I'm aware the edits and history (particular as it relates to Judaism) of your IP address. I feel bad that as an admin I have that opinion. I should not. But I do. And it is based on my experience here. I do hope you register shortly, as you have much to contribute, but will be taken more seriously after the registration. Please know that no offense is meant, as you have shown promise, I'm just letting you know my personal belief on why I may seem condescending (I hope I don't) and may discount what you say, hold your opinions at a different weight than others. You obviously have some expertise in something, or you wouldn't be here. But there is a difference between Anons and registered users for a reason. Please take my comments for what their worth, as I'd love to see you become a part of the Wikipedia community. I'd also recommend branching out of the "Mormonism and Judaism" edits to other related articles. You may consider joining a project such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement or Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism based on your particular expertise. In any case, edits made to Iron-related and other topics seem cursory at best, leaving those who read your edit history to think you may have a speficic agenda with this particular topic. Again, not that there is anything wrong with that, but who knows who else may share your IP address lending you credibility or taking away from it. Being able to track you as a user helps us identify how to work with you better. Anyway, take it for what it's worth. Enjoy! And hope you stay. -Visorstuff 19:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. I created the cast iron cookware page, and since creating it have put about as much work into that as into this. This page is just has more churn at the moment. I've also added stuff to other jewish-related pages (b'nai mitzvah, etc.), but again, less churn. [66.93.130.108]

I'm not wild about the new title, which sounds rather clumsy due to the rep'n of "Mormon", nor about having a page move and then a page move debate, but I'm pretty flexible about where it should be. Given Gidonb's edits to conform it with the M&J title, and the lack of objection to that endeavour, I'd be inclined to support a move back to the old title. Alai 23:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Mormonism and Judaism simple and to the point. It fits the general topic, and I also want to point out that the Judaism Section was mainly written by non-Mormons. Also, the proper procedure was not followed for a requested name change. Maybe Wikipedia should not allow name changes by non-registered individuals? I am unhappy with the inability to send messages on a users talk page, because people are making "SUBSTANCIAL" changes to an article including the name, yet we can not contact them to find out why.

User:Vchapman (07 Dec 05 UTC)

It doesn't, largely as a result of the infamous "... on Wheels" farrago. I believe that User:IZAK performed the move in question. You can of course leave messages on the talk page of an anon contributor too, though admittedly the success in reaching the person you want may be variable if it's a shared or dynamic IP. That's not apparently the case for User:66.93.130.108, though. Alai 00:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I am that which I am 66.93.130.108 00:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Very Disturbed is a minor way to put my feelings. The article is not only renamed, but the entire format has been changed without a general discussion or concenses. I am about to take this to mediation!!!! 23 seperate topics have been reduced to only 4. Somebody please revert this back, I am not going to make any changes on this article as I feel the recent changes over the last 2-3 days have totally lost the NPOV. 1/2 this article was written by non-mormons, yet the editing individual has removed the Jewish Perspective. The Article is mainly from a LDS POV, altough this is not what most people imagined. But this a false perspective as I believe the editing individual to be Jewish, or at least an adherent of the Judaism Faith.

Congrats, after only 15 or so contributers, at 2 Years of work, someone has managed to offset the NPOV and skew the article to a POV. The POV I speak of is not a LDS/Mormon POV but a Jewish POV on the Mormon Belief System. House of Israel has been renamed Mormon Claims on the House of Israel. Being there are equal number of Jews and Mormons in the world, or at least very close, and the fact that UTAH was establised 100 Years before the State of Israel, and that the Mormons first major action in 1841 was to dedicate Israel from the Mount of Olives, to the Jews, and not to themselves. Sorry about my typing, I am a little too upset to follow up on this tonight.

User:Vchapman

Agreed, please revert. Given the number of contribs, change has to be more gradual than this. (I won't comment on the second paragraph) 66.93.130.108 00:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

WOW, 66.99.130.108, there is something we acutally agree on. :) I have sent a message to User:Jayjg and asked for some advice and help on this matter. User:Vchapman 12-07-05 UTC.

I don't think the current title makes any sense; rather, it should be "Mormonism and Judaism". That said, when I last looked at it the article itself would have strongly benefitted from some re-organization and NPOVing - it was very much a "Mormon view of Judaism" article in the past, except for the parts I had NPOVd myself. Also, I'm not sure what the founding of the State of Utah and the State of Israel have to do with the current dispute. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, the title "Mormonism and Judaism" is very POV especially considering the content of the article and the fact that Jewish objections to the LDS claims are glossed over (barely mentioned). Izehar (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I spent a considerable amount of time putting IN the Jewish objections - they are now gone. (the founding of the state of israel etc. were presented as evidence of Mormon philo-Semitic leanings. Sorta the same way a Texan loves beef.) 66.93.130.108 17:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar, here the same answer applies. In my latest edits I have gone a long way in NPOVing this article, especially with respect to the previous hiding and de-emphasizing of all Christian elements of Mormonism. The religion was presented as extremely close to Judaism, which is totally disconnected from reality. Although some interesting similarities exist, these are two are different religions altogether. I have made a beginning of neutralzing the article, entered structure that was missing (it was just a bunch of facts and fables) and took out some of the beating around the bush. Yet much more needs to be done. I encourage you not to ask, but just go ahead and continue strengthening the neutrality of this article. gidonb 21:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Informal vote on the name

Back to the topic of this chapter, now that the article adheres somewhat better to the Wikipedia standards, it is time to think about a new name. Please list your preferences here. Do list new options, but only if you also vote for them. Sorry, registered users only. If no consensus is found, we will take this to the official procedure. gidonb 00:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments to votes by other users were and will be copied to the "comments" header gidonb 03:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Mormon views about Mormonism and Judaism (current)

1. Izehar 00:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
2. IZAK 06:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
3. maayan 16:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Mormonism and Judaism

1. gidonb 00:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Storm Rider 01:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Gilgamesh 01:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
5. VChapman 02:27 UTC 8 Dec 2005
6. Yoninah 06:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (However, I would like to note that I find the whole article very upsetting and dangerous. Putting Mormonism and Judaism on the same plate makes them seem like "either-or" choices for the unknowledgeable Jew. While Judaism is not known for heavy-handed proselytizing [either of people from other faiths or unaffiliated Jews], Mormonism is, and parts of this article read like a smooth PR piece.) --
7. JFW | T@lk 15:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC) On the condition that this does not become a proselytising Mormon mouthpiece again.
8. The article as it now stands is broader than just Mormon views. It also contains, for example, Jewish views on whether Mormons should baptise Holocaust victims for the dead. The title should reflect what the article actually about. COGDEN 18:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
9. -Visorstuff 19:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
10. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC) - the title would be consistent with similar WP articles. Strongly supporting JFW's condition.
11. Standardise title, edit contents to suit. Or at any rate, would need a better alternative than the current moved-to title. Alai 03:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Nahum | [[User talk:Nahum|Talk]] 04:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Very plainly we do not need an article about the Mormon view of Mormonism and Judaism. Fix the article, don't ruin the name. Tom Haws 07:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Forgive my arrogant and hasty comment. Perhaps the name Mormonism and Judaism isn't ideal, though it may be the best we can do. How about Judaism in Mormonism. There are several articles whose names, I think, suffer from a vague use of the world and. Archaeaology and the Book of Mormon, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, Mormonism and Christianity. Maybe there is a bigger issue here we should be confronting. Tom Haws 14:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comments to Yoninah's vote, copied by gidonb 03:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to Concerns I'd like to point out, unlike other Christian faiths, a Jew who joins the LDS church is still a Jew. ---

Nope A Jew who joins any other religion is still an (apostate) jew. Just because Mormons keep calling the person a Jew doesn't mean their status has changed with regard to the Jewish community. 66.93.130.108 19:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Confussed It had been previously said, "What do you call a Jew who doesn't believe in G-d, A Jew". So a Jew who has forsaken Heavenly Father, which in my opion is essential to ones Jewishness, is given a higher status in Jewish society than a Jew who decideds to join the Church?? Please explain. User:Vchapman

There seems to be clear consensus about renaming the article. Let's make the change back and work to fix the article. -Visorstuff 20:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Visorstuff. I would also like to suggest that this article be re-edited to closely follow the format of Judaism and Christianity, which sets up the two religions as different and then seeks to find their points of convergence. That is a scholarly argument befitting of an encyclopedia entry. This Mormon views about Mormonism and Judaism article seems to be insinuating that Mormonism is "kosher" because it's willing to use all these neat Jewish symbols, and even lets Jews keep their own religion after they've embraced Mormonism. Yoninah 05:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well if there is a consensus about the consensus I will turn to moderator to change the name of the artcle accordingly. I intitiated the vote, so this is my duty. gidonb 06:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions on Mormonism

While editing the article, I had two questions on Mormonism so far. One is on the symbol used in the article and the other on a center in Jerusalem. Both appear in the text. gidonb 07:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A third question. Does anyone have a source for: "Many Mormons claim that Mormon doctrines and practices are more closely connected to primitive Christian rite and to ancient Hebrew Judaism than to modern mainstream Christianity"?

OK, after some more reading, I will be somewhat bolder. In general, there seem to be some discrepancies between Mormonism in this article and the other articles on Mormonism. It seems that we get here a far more "Jewish" version of LDS beliefs here than in the other articles. I regret reaching this conclusion. gidonb 08:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, and I think I know who is doing it, and why. This is just another case of trying to "converge" with Messianic Judaism in order to preach to unsuspecting Jews in order to bring them to Apostasy unfortunately, all very tendentious and POV and in contravention of Wikipedia is not a soapbox. IZAK 11:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In general, Mormons do not single out Jews to preach to them, but rather, just the opposite - they are respected when it comes to their belief system. It is in the culture of Mormonism to try to convert gentiles first, and when the time is right, then to the Jews. (not that Jews are not preached to- they are - but they are also seen as promised people who will be taken care of. So IZAK, I am confused if you are saying that the Mormons editing this are trying to push Messianic Judaism or not. It is not in the culture of Mormonism to push that to Jews at this time. Someday yes, but not at this time. -Visorstuff 17:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I regard Messianic Judaism as an entirely different theology. To be honest, I've received just as much harassment and persecution from Messianic Jews as I have received from Haredim. Though not often discussed, these LDS beliefs are part of the central tenets of the theology. The Israelites are an inseparable part of it, included in the Book of Mormon and in the Doctrine and Covenants, and this organized religious practice has been around for far longer than Messianic Judaism or even aliyya alef (1830 for LDS Church, 1882 for aliyya alef, 20th century for Messianic Judaism). On October 24, 1841, Orson Hyde visited the Mount of Olives and dedicated the region for the return of the Jews. Through this longstanding affinity, LDS don't consider themselves Jews, except for Jewish Mormons who have no problem or interference doing this. If a Jew converts to the Church, or is of Jewish ancestry, or comes from the main tribes of ancient Judah (Judah, Benjamin, Simeon), then are considered closer to Judah and no one blinks if they continue to call themselves Jews. Likewise, LDS consider themselves regathered Israelites, but most (though not all) patriarchal blessings indicate a tribe that predominated in the Kingdom of Israel. No one disagrees that there was overlapping between these two diverged cultures, as some northern tribes lived in Judah (such as the belief of Lehi and his family) and some southern tribes lived in Israel, and that the dispersion of the Kingdom of Israel reflected a net loss of every tribe, but ten tribes in particular lost the bulk of their distinct identity, and the rest united to become simply Jews, while the rest were dispersed eventually to every land on earth. (In fact, my brother's wife is identified Tribe of Judah, but she has no clear genealogically traced ancestry to Jewish populations, and she does not consider herself Jewish.) This is orthodox LDS theology that has been around since the beginning, adhered to by no fewer than 12 million people worldwide, and is not a newfangled covert means of converting Jewish populations. In fact, Jewish populations have been afforded a great deal of cultural independence and protection from the highest Church levels in places where the Church predominates, such as in the Wasatch Front. The Church donates regularly to local Jewish functions, and provides security services to Jewish conferences, etc. For Israel to be Israel, in LDS belief, the survival of the Jews is just as important as the survival of the Church. IZAK, this is a good faith article, fully intended to be simply "Mormonism and Judaism". If you feel that the concerns of Haredi Judaism are not adequately addressed, then I encourage you to add to the article, rather than writing it off as perceived Mormon propaganda. - Gilgamesh 22:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

(after a conflict) IZAK, you never know, however in another policy Wikipedia also encourages us to think the intentions were pure. In that case you would think for example somewhere along the lines of different editors, who are selfselected into editing different articles, because of where their heart is. In any case, it is our task as editors to make sure that the content on Mormonism generally matches across the board. gidonb 17:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

After getting this page REVERTED back to what it was last week, I would consider adding a section on Messianic Judaism and a small compare and contrast to Mormonism, that is if the MAJORITY of contributers agree with this.

User:Vchapman

Vchapman, I strongly disagree to both proposals. [1.] Reverting the page would eliminate the creative work which has been recently invested in this page. This work put structure into the issues between Mormonism and Judaism that were included in this page, so that now readers can understand what the texts are about. It also eliminated some biases, that were discussed above. To elevate this article to the Wikipedia norm more work needs to be done. [2.] Not withstanding its self-given name, "Messianic Judaism" is not a recognized branch of Judaism. Therefore, if you would like to contemplate on the topics of Mormonism and "Messianic Judaism", it should be done under Mormonism and Christianity, or better, on a separate page. However, if you wanted to discuss branches within Judaism with a special emphasis on the moshiach by Jewish principles, it can be done here. Regards, gidonb 12:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That recent creative work involved DELETING lots of other creative work.66.93.130.108 17:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge only irrelevant, redundant, superficial or incorrect material. I also added many points and I am not done with the clean-up yet. I do not see any reason why this article should not adhere to the regular Wikipedia standards. However, if you know something that is relevant to the topic Mormonism and Judaism and is (now) missing, please add it or put it back. gidonb 17:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

IN YOUR OPINION. You don't seem to see the value of direct contrasts. You don't seem to understand why there need to be any sentences that begin "unlike LDS". 66.93.130.108 21:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Observation The changes you are making are happening very rapidly. And there is no real discussion, just massive edits. Don't the original or at least contributers with one to two years experience on this page have any say? Also, I feel you are unaware of the Religious and political negotiations that have gone on over the last year to maintain a NPOV. This article concerns Mormonism and Judaism, and there was, at least before these recent edits both parties working together to keep the article going. Are there any Mormon individuals involved in your group now?

User:Vchapman

Please see my answer to Izehar in the topic above. The edits took into account many of the problems in the discussions that you refer to, as well as the fact that its candidacy for featured article failed. While the article has benefitted from the latest interventions (not only mine) and many points made on the talk page, more needs to be done. Please clarify your last question. gidonb 22:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Idolatry

How 'bout the fact that according to halakhah, certain Mormon practices are idolatrous? Izehar (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Izehar, the point is already implied in the text. To explicitly test all customs of the Mormons (or other Christians for that matter) by the halakha may be akward, as all Jewish dominations agree that the halakha does not apply to non-Jews (but only the Noahide laws). That said, if your purpose of spelling it out is the kashrut for non-okhlei akum, than this particular custom would become relevant and sharpening the point would be justified. Regards, gidonb 18:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I was pointing out the anomaly that as (according to the article) it is widely believed amongst Mormons that they are the descendants of the ancient Israelites (and as such, the "chosen people" with whom G-d made The Covenant on Sinai), then halakhah is binding on them as well (and therefore certain doctrines are in violation of The Law). Also, the Noahide Laws do include prohibitations against idolatry and blasphemy; I'm not sure though if they apply in the Mormons' case, as stricto sensu they believe in G-d as well. Izehar (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar, the belief of Christians that they are the new Israel is much wider spread than just the Mormons. The Mormons claim to be direct descendants, but just like other Christians they claim that many laws based in or based on the Tanakh are not applicable to them today after the "comming of Jesus". Just as with the African Hebrews, there is no proof for the claim of a direct connection with the Israelites/Jews. Please go ahead and improve the text to the best of your understanding. I will add the akum part if you missed it. gidonb 20:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Mormon's don't claim to be the new Israel, simple they claim membership in Israel. This is indifference to the rest of the christian world! [[User:Vchapman]

Alas, without sources I cannot edit. I am one of those stubborn adherents of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Izehar (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources' here a direct quote from the LDS Bibical dictionary expressing the LDS viewpoint on the issue with related sources

BIBLE DICTIONARY - ISRAEL

One who prevails with God or Let God prevail.

This name was given to Jacob at Penuel (Gen. 32: 28) and at Bethel (Gen. 35: 10). It also applies to his descendants and to their kingdom (2 Sam. 1: 24; 2 Sam. 23: 3). After the division of the kingdom, the northern tribes, as the larger part, retained the name Israel, while the southern kingdom was called Judah. The land of Canaan is also called Israel today. And in another sense Israel means the true believer in Christ, as explained by Paul (Rom. 10: 1; Rom. 11: 7; Gal. 6: 16; Eph. 2: 12). The name Israel is therefore variously used to denote (1) the man Jacob, (2) the literal descendants of Jacob, and (3) the true believers in Christ, regardless of their lineage or geographical location.

1. Gen. 32: 28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
2. Gen. 35: 10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.
3. Sam. 1: 24 Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet, with other delights, who put on ornaments of gold upon your apparel.
4. Sam. 23: 3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.
5. Rom. 10: 1 BRETHREN, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be asaved.
6. Rom. 11: 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest awere* blinded
7. Gal. 6: 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
8. Eph. 2: 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

As I wrote in the new introduction, these claims are on and beyond the rest of Christianity. I share your concerns on the lack of sources, Izehar. The Mormon-specific claims seem to be not older than the 19th century anyway. gidonb 22:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit unhappy about the unsourced statement that early Jews recognised other gods. This is the view of a few academics, but there is no proof within Jewish sources for this assertion, making it suspect at best. The fact that Dan Brown takes it for a fact does not mean we need to do the same. JFW | T@lk 16:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, people. I think I may read up on this article and what has been discussed recently. :-D Tom Haws 06:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Conversion to Mormonism

The article currently reads: "Prior to baptism, an investigator will interview with the local ward Bishop. In certain situations, an interview with the Stake President may be necessary before the church agrees to baptize an individual." Has something changed in the last few years? That's not how it used to work. Converts had to interview with a missionary (like the zone leader), not the bishop. TacoDeposit 03:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

We'll need to find out more specifics from someone who knows, but here's what I understand: Children of record (ones who grew up in the church who are eight or about to turn eight) need to be interviewed by the bishop. Converts are interviewed by the district leader or zone leader. Some cases need to have and interview from the stake president or mission president, respectively. Val42 04:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I know of an occasion, which is why I put the comment in the first place, where an investigator needed to be interviewed by the Stake President. My Bishop explained to me, convected felons on probation or parole might be require the higher level of interviewing. In some cases the church will delay baptism until an individuals sentence is finished. I can not cite any sources, but I have been involved with such a situation before with an investigator, whom I was working with. User_Talk:Vchapman UTC 9 dec 05 22:10

The case that I know of where the mission president interviewed some converts was in a mission district. The district president lived in the same city as the converts that needed to be interviewed. But their baptism was held up until the mission president could come (during a mission zone conference) from about two hours away to do the interview. Maybe this is the case in mission districts, but in stakes it is the stake president who does the interviews in these cases. Val42 20:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Shabbat Shalom, I'll ask my Bishop tomorrow. I am attending a new ward and will want to see him anyhow. User_Talk:Vchapman Sat Dec 10, 2005 16:46 SLC 23:47 UTC

Anon editor 66.93.130.108

I find the majority of this Anon's edits to be completely POV. Their last edit included deleting a topic that described LDS support of Israel, taking a statement that stated an individual's lineage was within Judah to be "Mormon-defined". The statement is the assumption is the individual is from Judah or a Hebrew and has nothing to do with a Mormon definition. The gist of the statement is if a jew is converted they do not loose their jewish heritage or their ability to claim that heritage in the eyes of the church. If the Jewish people feel differently that is "their" issue and not a Mormon's.

Read the embedded comments - the statement about LDS support of Israel said that Mormons supported peaceful coexistance of Jews and Arabs, and said NOTHING about Jews supporting the same thing. The attempted implication was obvious. As for lineage withing Judah, Jews DO NOT ACCEPT the Mormon definition of "lineage within Judah". Even one of the other LDS editors wrote about a relative of his who was "of the tribe of Judah" but had no Jewish ancestry. Yes, it is OUR issue. What's your point? 66.93.130.108 14:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The point is the reference in the comment was a jew converted to Mormonism. As in a jew is a jew with an ancestry that even your narrow view point would consider a jew! It had nothing to do with tribe affiliation; the gist was when a Jew converts to Mormonism they are still proudly viewed as Jewish. If the Jewish people wanted to ostracize them for converting that is beside the point. Going out of the way to attempt to belittle the Jewish individual who converted by stating they were Jewish only as the Mormons would view a Jew is POV and unacceptable. That was the point! Storm Rider 20:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Please clarify - is the descendant of a Jewish male who has converted to Mormonism and a non-Jewish female considered Jewish by Mormons? (And, given the statements above, why did you remove the reference to who is a jew??? 66.93.130.108 21:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

When I read the vast majority of the recent edits to this page, as a LDS, I find it to become hostile to LDS theology and mostly ethnocentric. The same editor writes, "Unlike polytheistic religions, where gods are typically ascribed human bodies (including gender and even race),"...Who is polythesitic? Don't insinuate, and don't create doctrine of Mormons that doesen't exist. The hypocrisy is that they then accuses Mormon editors of using original research while editorializing with "The question of what Jews think about Jesus is itself based on a fallacy - the assumption that Jews think about Jesus at all." This is an assinine statment...the assumption is WHEN jews think of Jesus their thoughts would be...! Further, it is original research and POV. If you are going to create rules for other editors it is best to follow them yourself.

Polytheistic religions were the religions of the time of Abraham. Nothing was said about Mormonism in that paragraph. As for Jews thinking about Jesus, Jesus HAS NO PLACE in discussions of Jewish theology. That is straight from the soc.culture.jewish FAQ. http://shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/17-03.html. 66.93.130.108 14:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, having let off some steam; I apologize. Yes, I agree that the article needs help, but it does not need to be stripped down and become so POV. Maybe before this ANON goes on another streak of editing they could discuss of their general thoughts before cutting loose. It will save reverts and result in a better article. Storm Rider 07:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This page has been radically changed, without discussion, after I spent months working on it. 66.93.130.108 14:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

So now you feel you should be able to make wholesale changes without discussion? Do you think that is acceptable when you accuse others of having done the same thing? Put your feelings aside and move on. You are too good an editor to be caught up in these kinds of actions. Storm Rider 20:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed two paragraphs, and you or anyone has the right to change them again. (Or at least, that's what I was told when I complained). I note that your reversions have been themselves reversed, and not by me. 66.93.130.108 21:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but again, this is one example of anons no getting the same respect as registered users. You are good, but need to use consensus to your advantage - which is difficult as an anon user. -Visorstuff 20:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know I'm going to have to do it. 66.93.130.108 21:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Done, and my new name is FiveRings. Ohayo. FiveRings 22:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (formerly 66.93.130.108).

Discussion on symbol

Previously hidden text in the article, copied by gidonb 12:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The Angel Moroni and Star of David are symbols sometimes displayed by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

QUESTION: is this combined depiction also used by the LDS Church? (Question by gidonb)

Explanation, the LDS church, except for Moroni Statues on the temples, does not have any religious symbols in their wards (houses of worship). And LDS temples are not used for weekly Sabbath worship. LDS wards have no religious icons or symbols except paintings of prominate prophets, such as Noah, Moses, Nephi etc. The Star of David, is in some LDS artitecture, but is more often worn by members of the church, or displayed within their house. I know for example, the Chapman Family LDS bookstore in New Hampshire as a suncather with the star of David in the Window. I also know a LDS social worker with a painting of some young woman sewing a quilt with a star of david into the quilt. It is nowhere as prominate as in Judaism, but it is also not non-existant. So to answer your question, no, but niether is the Star od David. I cannot speak for the inside of an LDS temple, I have not been endowed yet, at have yet to ever enter one. User: Vchapman 19:24, 10 December 2005 (time stamp added by gidonb 12:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

• Vchapman: If, as you say, that "...the LDS church, except for Moroni Statues on the temples, does not have any religious symbols in their wards (houses of worship). And LDS temples are not used for weekly Sabbath worship. LDS wards have no religious icons or symbols..." then there is absolutely NO reason to include this self-invented "logo" for an article such as this that is meant for a NEUTRAL encyclopedia, and we don't want people around the world getting the wrong notions into their heads by you "feeding them" non-definitive "symbols" created out of thin air. Nobody is interested what "...the Chapman Family LDS bookstore in New Hampshire..." do for themselves or what an "... LDS social worker with a painting of some young woman sewing a quilt..." does for herself -- this is not an article about "Case studies of what symbols Mormon families adopt for themselves"! So the bottom-line here is that this "Moroni-Star of David" concoction must go, and has no place in this kind of article. IZAK 19:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, what I asked Vchapman is whether the combined symbol is generally used in Mormominsm or whether this is his own invention. Designing such a symbol and placing it in an article is original research and POV pushing. I think Vchapman answered and did not object to the previous removal of the symbol by me. There is of course no objection that he uses the symbol on his user page and perhaps not to my copying the discussion with the removed symbol to this page, as an illustration and reference to a discussion held in the article. [4] Likewise, if Vchapman says there is no use of idols except for this one you are free to read this as Mormonism uses idols in such and such instance. Regards, gidonb 19:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your both being rather unreasonable about a nice image custom made for this article. It is on topic and encapselates the subject. Simply include in the caption that it is not in official use. There is nothing wrong w providing self made images to the wikipedia. Sam Spade 19:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that this self-designed image encapsulates the subject. I would say that it only illustrates the previous bias of the article. gidonb 19:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetz

Ahhh, Sam Spade is with us, hello Sam, are you a Mormon too? Goodness you sure do get around don't you, whenever it's a topic relating to us little Yehudim? At any rate, haven't heard from you in a while, how's life been lately for you? Quiet or what? IZAK 21:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to give you a hint, I am currently having a glass of french wine. Things are actually very hectic to me, prosecuting a (largely unsuccessful) arbcom case against Chip Berlet, finishing up w final exams, and traveling throughout europe (in the last 30 days I have been in Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Germany and the Nederlands). I ate the most delicious suckling pig (head and all) at a Weihnachten Parti on saturday near Aachen. If your still confused about my religious leanings, have a look @ User:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases. Happy Holidays, Sam Spade 22:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Enjoy your travels, food and wine and good luck with your exams! ;-) gidonb 00:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Must have worked, 1 A down, and it looks like another on the way... Thanx! Sam Spade 01:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome. In this case I better wish you good luck again! Anyone else in urgent need of (A)s? Just leave an RfB (request for blessing) on my talk page.... gidonb 01:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

:D Sam Spade 04:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mormon view of the House of Joseph

Similarly, hopefully the Mormon view of the House of Joseph will not remain as a POV article either. IZAK 18:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I started working on that article. Perhaps some material needs to moved between the articles. I will think it over. gidonb 19:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

houses of worship?

I note that there is mention of temples, but no mention of modern houses of worship (synagogue, shul, temple, whatever). Last time I checked, Mormons didn't allow non-Mormons to attend church functions, so clearly there is contrast here. You folks want discussion - so discuss.

Only members in good standing are allowed in the LDS temples. (Note, that the Community of Christ, does allow and encourange non-members to attend their temple services.) Other meetings elsewhere non-members are not only welcome but encouraged to attend. Many chapels actually have "Visitors welcome" on the most-prominent side of the meeting house. Val42 22:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

LDS Temples are sites of highest sacredness. They are believed to be the "House of the Lord". As such, a high degree of spirituality is sought and encouraged by all who attend. For this reason, temple attendance is limited to those who demonstrate by both word and deed they seek to be a disciple of Christ. Entrance into the temple is achieved by speaking with a Bishop and a Stake President where a set list of questions are asked to determine worthiness. As long as those questions are answered in a positive manner, one receives a "temple recommend", which will allow one to enter the temple. Note that one can be dishonest and still attend the temple, but that is thought to create more spiritual harm to the individual rather than the holiness of the temple. Further, the temple is not a place for group worship, but a place for individual covenant making. For group worship, one attends the other meetinghouses. There are approximately 120 temples in existance today whereas there are thousands of meeting houses.

So in summary, Mormons do not control attendance to "functions". Functions are practiced in meeting houses and are welcome to all; Mormon and non-Mormon. Temple attendance are necessarily regulated to maintain the Spirit. Does that help help? Storm Rider 18:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello jguk, I do not know about this particular source, but in general I agree with you that we should be concerned with the ease at which personal websources are quoted, just because they have their own domain name and look reputable. I also agree with you that receiving a good recommendation or prize on the web can be based on little more than the looks of one's site or the good intentions as stated by the enterpreneurs. Thank you for raising these doubts. More specifically for this site, many other sources with similar information exist, also some with higher quality. If you wish I will be happy to add some to the resource list of the article. Just drop another note. Best regards, gidonb 15:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If you have better references, please cite them. Ideally, all our information would be reliably referenced, the more we encourage that, the better, jguk 16:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Baptism

There was a new entry today, Jan 11, that stated that if an LDS member had joined another church, baptism would be required upon their return to the church. Can someone please confirm this is true. Storm Rider 08:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wish Granted :) VChapman 12 Jan 2006

link to the "Amusing weirdness with Missionaries" article

I am somewhat unhappy with the link to exmormon.org (the last of the external links). If it is to remain, one ought to be warned beforehand of the link's obvious bias, not to mention its potential for inaccuracy. A few anecdotes are not sufficient to portray a universal trend. As such, I see no reason why it should be included.

I am a Latter-day Saint, and although I have heard perhaps a few times that Temple ordinances today resemble Solomonic Temple ordinances, this has never been official doctrine. It is mere speculation. Yes, it is quite common that there may be similarities, but not that they are exactly the same. Furthermore, Latter-day Saints in certain areas might be less or more aware of what goes on in other religious ceremonies of other religions. I clearly remember taking missionaries to various services: they wanted to go to see what they're like, and were encouraged to do so by their mission president.

A good indication of the status of speculation regarding the similarity between Solomonic and Latter-day Saint Temple rites, it is written: "The nature and extent of these ancient ordinances and the exact location in the temple buildings where they were performed have been the subjects of much fruitless speculation." (Richard O. Cowan, "Sacred Temples Ancient and Modern" in The Temple in Time and Eternity, ed. Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks. Provo, UT: The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies at Brigham Young University, 1999; p. 105.)

The rites are similar in that certain rites, such as anointings, were used in the Solomonic Temple to consecrate priests, which are used for similar reasons by Latter-day Saints (in that all of its men constitute one large priesthood, compared to Judaism where it is restricted to various groups/tribes).

The link, as it stands, contributes nothing to an understanding of the issue in question. I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Kitabparast 03:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Link Disabled -- It was full of doctrinal errors and prejustice. VChapman 12 Jan 2006

The link you disabled is right on topic. It is not a link to the root of the exmormon website, or even against Mormonism for that matter, but rather to a story that illustrates a case of Jewish-Mormon interaction. This is what the Wikipeda article and the linked article are about. The Mormon POV is already well represented in our Wikipedia article. gidonb 00:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The referenced story provides an accurate depiction of how typical Jews feel about Mormon missionaries. For that reason alone it's worth keeping. FiveRings 01:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, VChapman. For gidonb and FiveRings: It presented a story that illustrated a case - from one are we to draw generalities? If we should present something that shows what some/many Jews feel about Latter-day Saint missionaries, then it would be better to link to an article, lecture, or other webpage that discusses that issue explicitly and exclusively - and such webpages are out there. It would not be appropriate to link to an anecdotal narrative. It has no academic value. Kitabparast 03:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the article has no academic value. Its discourse reveals attitudes of Jews and Mormonism towards each other's religions that are at the core of our discussion. Also, the perception that case studies, ethnographies or narrative in story form are not useful is from a social science point of view outdated. I would like to refer you to articles by Robert Yin. He can be accredited with some of the increased acceptance and theoretical underpinning of micro-studies, case-studies and anecdotal narrative in the social sciences (I mean outside anthropology, where it was always legitimate). I developed my research interests in other times, so I am still somewhat confined to the quantitative social sciences, but the change in the appreciation for the qualitative studies has passed the point of no return. On the other hand, more articles are of course always welcome. gidonb 04:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ethnographic research is at the core of social science when it comes to ingroup/outgroup interactions. Perhaps the solution here is to create a section called "What Jews think of Mormons". FiveRings 19:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Jews do not think so much about Mormonism, definitely not as much as Mormons think of Jews and Judaism. As we all know Judaism refers mostly to persons who are ethnically Jewish. Even our "missionaries" get personal only with Jews. Of course Jews interact in daily life with everyone, but it is not the case that our books deal to a large extent with people who belong to the "other" religion or that we are otherwise interested in proving others wrong or right. On the contrary I would say. I had a tough time finding even one good article on interaction between Jews and Mormons, and even then the Mormons want to delete it because of the domain name. I would say there is an asymmetry in mutual interest, much stronger than with Christianity in general. Christianity is also very focused on Jews and Judaism, and while the opposite is not the case, the lesser intensity of interest is to a degree compensated by the extreme demographic inequality between the communities. As you acknowledge the importance of ethnographic research, I am very interested also to know what you think on these issues. gidonb 23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly asymmetry, in as much as Mormons believe they have a link to Jews, and Jews don't return the favor. When I lived on the east coast (in New York) this was more pronounced. On the west coast, they're unavoidable. But the Jewish response to Mormons is certainly informed by Jewish feelings about proslyetization in general (NEGATIVE), and by the question of whether or not they are "people of the book" (most Mormons would, no doubt, be surprised to hear that we find Moslems to be more acceptable). From personal experience, I would note that the textbook I used as a kid in Sunday school included a survey of other religious, and Mormons weren't distinguished from other Xtian sects. Jews have certainly embraced the recent DNA studies etc. that have identified some Africans and (sub-continential) Indians as descendants of Israel (thus Operation Solomon, etc.). These same findings are pretty hostile to Mormon beliefs ... As for ethnographic research, it's hard to find such things on the 'net (except maybe in blogs). And, apparently, folks here don't understand the distinction between individual monographs and statements of doctrine. FiveRings 21:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I would find it difficult to portray a single interaction between two Mormon sister missinaries and a Jew as representative of Mormons or Jews. The Sisters lack of understanding of doctrine is embarrassing and one would hope not typical of LDS missionaries. It is a problem when missionaries are young people between the ages of 19 and 21 for young men and 21 and 23 for young women with no specific doctrinal training; they are equiped with the knowledge they have personally gained from scripture study, Sunday services, and most have had seminary (scripture study during high school years). I would also question the motivation of any individual who lists an entry on exmormon.com. It is hardly an objective web site. It is also my understanding that microstudies and anecdotal narrative are used to support an overriding principal. What is the overriding principal that is being supported by this particular narrative? The woman was no mensch and the missionaries were uncouth and ill-informed. Storm Rider 20:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute that this interaction took place. It is full of fiction. I'd doubt any Mormon missionary is that ignorant about the destruction of the temple, rites, and more. I could be wrong, but that is pretty pathetic. It also reads as if it was written by a exmormon more than coming from one my interactions with my Jewish friends, who would have asked much differnt questions and picked much bigger points to fight on. Anyone who attended a Synagogue could have written the post, unfortunately. I'm stunned. Storm Rider - good assessment. -Visorstuff 23:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the ex-mormon link. I did remove the "Rabbi Gershom" links, the guy might (or might not, his website is unclear) have something to do with the Jewish renewal movement, or he may just be making it all up, but in any case I am not sure that he is a useful authority here, and certainly not a representative rabbi. I added a link to Jews for Judaism's response to Mormon missionaries -- yes, it is anti-Mormon prostelyzation, but it is an accurate reflection of the general Jewish feelings on LDS, especially among more religious Jews. I also added a link to an interesting article from the Mormon Association of Letters reviewing a book on the concept of chosenness in LDS and Judaism. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have second thoughts about the ex-Mormon article because of material I just found by the same author that was cached in Google. The author may not be as neutral as she appears in the article itself. If no one objects I will do away with it. I am glad that Goodoldpolonius2 found more comprehenisve information on Jewish attitudes towards Mormonism. gidonb 00:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"A quote from the opening page of exmormon.org"

Recovery from Mormonism

A site for those who are
Questioning their faith in the Mormon Church
And for those who need support
As they transition their lives to
a normal life.
We are not affiliated with any religion
and we do not advocate any religion.

This is the misson statement from ex-mormon.org. I think it makes the point of a complete lack of NPOV. Any material posted on a subdirectory of www.exmormon.org mus be, atleast considered, to adhere to their mission statement. Also, the web site is not for Jews and their opinions, but ex-communicated Mormons!

VChapman 14 Jan 2006 UTC

A must view for individuals adding anti-anything links

a video clip from FairLDS.org [5]

11th Article of Faith

The Articles of Faith are considered conical scripture by members of the LDS Church and are published in scripture form in the Book of Mormon Quads (A single book containing the Bible (Old & New), Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price. Thus the Name, Quads)

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

With the having been said, I am deeply concerned that recent links are anti-Mormon, whereas Mormons are commanded by God to love the Jews or deal directly with God (3rd Nephi, I believe). Our religion prohibits anti-semitism, and also allows all men and nations to adhere to their own faith. That having been said, the Sabbat service I attended last friday night, had a prayer from the Reform Judaism prayer book that asked for peace for all men and nations and that peace is only through God Almighty. So, I can also attest that Judaism holds the same beliefs.

Shalom, VChapman 14 Jan 2006 UTC

No, Judaism actually acknowledges the existence of women. FiveRings 21:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Check the reform Judaism prayer book, somewhere around page 146 or so. :) I think custom has it, that all men means men, their spouses, children and property. Of course Mormonism acknowledges the existance of women. In a laughing thought, thus our past pratice of polygamy. Truth is Mormonism believes in Hevenly Parents, both Hevenly father, Our God Almighty and a heavenly mother. VChapman 14 Jan 2006 UTC

Um, you do know that there's more than one reform prayer book? Most of the newer works make gender inclusion specific, especially in the reform and reconstructionist movements. The older ones suffer from the same Hebrew translation problem that taints many other religions works. But in either case, I'm guessing you don't refer to the "heavenly mother" as "goddess". FiveRings 01:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

True, I'll give you that much. But I want to explain the priesthood to you. We believe in two orders of priesthood. The Malakezdek, given to Abraham by the Prophet Malakezdek, by the laying of hands. We believe that this priesthood is the authority to act in the name of God. The other priesthood is the Levitical (Aaronic). Mosaic Law is very specific. The priesthood is carried by men. Thus all the Jewish Y chromozonal(sp) tests for Kohen DNA. Membership in Israel is on the Maternal side, and this is the case in the LDS church. My children, from my first marriage, can not be blessed into the church as children of record, they have to convert. Their mother is not Mormon. But specific tribal affiliation is on the male side, as in the Tribe of Levi and the priesthood. Too my knowledge the LDS faith doesn't adopt Gentile converts into Levi. Levi is established by pedigree only. In Judaism and thus Mormonism, both males and females have specific roles. Mosaic Law places the priesthood with the men, and membership in Israel with the women. Mormon's do believe that men and woman can become celestrial kings and queens of heaven. Although, men may have multiple wifes, as in the Torah in about every book. The Torah(Bible) is very specific on the roles of men and women. You going to challenge 5766 years of religous teaching? Regards, VChapman 15 Jan 2006

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the discussion at hand. Our prayers and practices acknowledge both males and females (with different prayers, even). Your quote above doesn't. You folks believe that god has a penis. We don't. That IS 5766 years of teaching. 03:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this brings up an interesting question though. Are you saying that the children of a Mormon female are considered Mormon, even if she's not married to a Mormon male? If so, this would be the first I've heard of it. 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course children of a Mormon female are considered children of record with-in the Mormon church. As far as the topic on hand, it just comes off that you believe that the priesthood under mosaic law is sexiest, thats all. Otrhodox Judaism still doesn't allow women rabbis, so we are not alone in our belief of authority lieing with the men. VChapman 15 Jan 2006

I think there is a nuance that those unfamiliar with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would not get from this comment. Children of record are not "members" of the church exactly. They count as members until they are 9 years old, at which time if they have chosen to be baptised they continue to be members of the church and are counted in the membership totals. If, however, they do not get baptised, either because they have chosen not to, or, more likely, thier parent(s) no longer attend church and are not encouraging them to get baptised, they are NOT counted in the membership totals. The local congretation to which they last belonged still has their name on thier membership lists; however, they are not counted as part of the totals. For example in my Ward, there are about 20 names of people between the ages of 9 and 29 that are listed on the class and membership lists; however, they are NOT included in our total membership number of about 300.

Therefore, although childern of a Mormon female are considered "children of record," they aren't really properly labeled as Mormon (in the same sense as being called a Jew) unless they choose to be baptised. Trödel•talk 20:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'll agree with the above statement, but want to make the point that they are culturally Mormon, even if they haven't joined the church. Just as a point, when the children with my current wife, a Mormon female, choose to become baptized, they will be interviewed by the Bishop who only holds authority for MEMBERS of his ward. When the children with my Catholic ex-wife choose to join the church, they will most likely have to interview with a mission zone leader, whom has the authority to approve Gentile converts. Trust me, as a single father, I quickly learned they could not be blessed as Children of Record unless their mother was a member. VChapman

See your talk page for more information - as I think this is straying off topic. Trödel•talk 22:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that's interesting. I had no idea the children of an unmarried Mormon woman were considered Mormon. Do you also consider the children of a male Levite to be Leviim ONLY if he's married to another Jew? (If so, your laws on lineage really are the same as ours. I'm impressed). Orthodox Judaism recognizes women as Bat Cohens if they are of priestly lineage. The problem with female rabbis stems from Tahorot issues - it's not an "authority" problem (and rabbis are only "authorities" in as much as they are more learned in the law, and therefore their opinion is sought out and respected. There's no penalty for disobedience). 19:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A male levite who's mother is a gentile would be required to convert into the church. Gentile converts are not adopted into Levi after converting.

The Laws Concerning Kohen and the Bishopric. Please note, Leviim are technically born holding the Aaronic(Levitical) priesthood, however the LDS ordains all worthy young men into the Aaronic order. It is our belief however that when enough Leviim are located with-in the church, the Aaronic priesthood will be desolved as the keys to that order of priesthood rightfully belong to Aaron and the Tribe of Levi.

The Laws D&C 107

68 Wherefore, the office of a bishop is not equal unto it; for the office of a bishop is in administering all temporal things;

69 Nevertheless a bishop must be chosen from the High Priesthood, unless he is a literal descendant of Aaron;

70 For unless he is a literal descendant of Aaron he cannot hold the keys of that priesthood.

71 Nevertheless, a high priest, that is, after the order of Melchizedek, may be set apart unto the ministering of temporal things, having a aknowledge of them by the Spirit of truth;

72 And also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the church, to sit in judgment upon transgressors upon testimony as it shall be laid before him according to the laws, by the assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen or will choose among the elders of the church.

73 This is the duty of a bishop who is not a literal descendant of Aaron, but has been ordained to the High Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.

74 Thus shall he be a judge, even a common judge among the inhabitants of Zion, or in a stake of Zion, or in any branch of the church where he shall be bset apart unto this ministry, until the borders of Zion are enlarged and it becomes necessary to have other bishops or judges in Zion or elsewhere.

75 And inasmuch as there are other bishops appointed they shall act in the same office.

76 But a literal descendant of Aaron has a legal right to the presidency of this priesthood, to the keys of this ministry, to act in the office of bishop independently, without counselors, except in a case where a President of the High Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, is tried, to sit as a judge in Israel.

Hope this help, VChapman 16 Jan 06 UTC

Not really - it was a simple yes/no question. However, this is straying off topic, as already noted, and I'd rather not make the problem worse. 05:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Caffeinated beverages

A question was hidden in the Diet Section of the article. I have transferred it here to answer it:

QUESTION: Do not Latter-day Saints also prohibit the drinking of caffeinated drinks?

This is a matter of choice within the LDS church. Some LDS feel it is absolutely unacceptable to drink caffeinated drinks. They feel that knowingly putting any stimulant into the body is to dishonor the body/temple of one's spirit. Other LDS feel it is acceptable. You may want to read the Doctrine & Covenants, Section 89. This is known as the Word of Wisdom and is used to guide the LDS in their diet choices. Hope this helps. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Though I would be hard pressed to bring a bottle of caffeinated Soda to an LDS function. As a general courtesy this is simply not done. User:VChapman