Talk:Mormon (word)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Name of the Church

The name is irrelevant, just like the superstition it represents.

Get the facts

If you want the actual truth about anything to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, please visit

www.mormon.org This is a website designed by The Church specifically to answer questions on basic beleifs and facts about the church. It should be noted that mormon.org is biased in order to gain followers. They at no point on the site state their beleif that Jesus was in North America. They also avoid answers and do not seek out opinions of non-church members.

www.lds.org This is the official site for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints -- 199.243.201.203, 18:35, 14 June 2006

Or more accurately, part of the truth. --Kmsiever 04:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, 199.243.201.203, From what I hear, the golden plates arent that golden(60 lbs plates,yea thats logical), but thanks for lds.org and mormon.org, we all can trust that it is the full truth of Mormisnism.--SACP 6:24, 11 November 2006(UTC)

I cannot understand how you guys can be so ignorant, so naive. You don't understand anything about the world, the evolution(s), you just try to live with some stupid 'certainties' guiding your life and making you feel better about your ignorance. I really do feel sorryfor you. You'll never live a real life, but you're allways be guided by others. 204.124.196.29 00:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, you must be so happy with the knowledge that any second you can cease to exist. Seriously, even if evolution really happened(which it didn't), why would you want to believe that?66.58.206.228 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page is used to discuss ideas and concepts about the article. We appreciate your personal beliefs and feelings, but they are more appropriately shared on your talk page. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 10:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dang dude, thats rude to say to others that their wrong*points at 204*. You know scientist have been wrong before, and for all you know we could say your the ignorant one.--Animasage 20:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It is inaccurate in the English Language to use the phrase "The Church" in all caps to refer to the LDS church. --Billiot 06:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The first word in a title is always capitalized.66.58.206.228 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There. Are we happy?

Can everyone live with this change to the intro paragraph? Yes? Say, yes, please? Woo-hoo! AuntieMormom 23:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for asking. Overall, this article avoids indicating whether Mormons are Christians, unlike for example Christianity. If the majority of wiki articles consider Mormons as Christians this article possibly should as well. But I am happy. And thanks again for asking. Addhoc 12:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

hi, i really think that they should have a section about how the "religion" is actually a cult.

I am a mormon, but would someone please explain how The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints is a cult? Adam 16:28 7 August 2007 (Pacific Daylight Savings Time)

That would be a good idea if the church really were a cult, but it isn't.66.58.206.228 00:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the same thing Catholics said about Protostants and Baptist.--Animasage 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A sect or a cult? Modern usage of the word "cult" carries extremist and highly negative connotations, due mainly, I think, to our recent history of cult activity (at least as covered by mainstream media). A more appropriate term might be a "sect." This world merely indicates a group of like-minded people who's beliefs are distinct enough to be thought of as separate from the main. This would be more accurate than identifying Mormons as part of the traditional Christian Church. I believe the article should at least be edited to remove the line "Despite this, many Christian churches believe that Mormons are not part of what is known as mainstream Christianity." This informs us less about Mormonism than it does about the relationship between mainstream Christianity and Mormonism, which could indeed be a separate topic entirely.

Welcome to Wikipedia! By the way, you can sign your posts by typing ~~~~ so it's easier to follow conversations. Since this article addresses the term "Mormon" rather than a specific organization or church (which I'm assuming you must be referring to) we shouldn't make comments on any individual group. This idea specifically has been hammered out quite extensively, I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability as a starting point. Happy editing! gdavies 18:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hokay, I know I'm about to start WW5 (in case you missed the last two editing wars! :) ), but I have made a slight change to the intro paragraph. My bias here is that I am a [non-Mormon] Christian), but this does not motivate my actions.

On the one hand, most Mormons I know would claim to be Christians. On the other hand, nearly all non-Mormon Christians I know would dispute this. That said, I have no desire to alienate people or make them feel bad. So, I propose my edit as a non-loaded acknowledgement of the controversy:

Mormons would describe themselves as Christians, although this claim would be disputed by many non-Mormon Christians.

Please note that this is an unusual controversy - if you are Mormon, there's no controversy; you're a Christian. If you're a non-Mormon, there's no controversy - they're not. To everyone else not involved, however, it is obvious that this is a bone of contention, so I suggest that in the interests of accurate reporting this should be recognised.

I am happy to discuss this, however.Johno 06:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it seems like that's generally the case, but I've seen dozens of cases where leaders of other Christian denominations have clearly indicated their belief that Mormons (or the LDS, as it seems we're discussing here) are Christians, whatever our doctrinal differences. I guess what I'm saying is we should avoid generalizations. A deeper issue here is the definition of Christian, and I'm not sure if that is an issue that has been laid down elsewhere on wiki or is totally out of line here. Some believe Christians have to conform to a certain set of requirements, which often rule out other major Christian sects. Definitions range from very restrictive ("Catholics are the only Christian church") to completely liberal ("if you say you are, you are"). Is there a precedent for this on wikipedia? gdavies 07:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just put something like "Mormons consider themselves Christians, but other churches deny this" or something like that.208.117.13.115 03:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Link w/o consensus

The link doesn't further the definition of the article. It's neither scholarly nor notable, and therefore no more valuable than any of the other 14.1 million sites (Google search: "Mormon", 22 Jun 06) on the captioned topic. --AuntieMormom 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Who broke away?

I have just a question to the experts here. In the lead section, it is said that the term "Mormon" refers to members of the LDS Church as well as "...in some contexts to members of smaller denominations that broke away from the Latter Day Saint movement." What are these smaller denominations that broke away from the Latter Day Saint movement? If one looks at the Latter Day Saint movement article, it includes many of the well-known small denominations like the RLDS, Strangites, FLDS, etc.. So what denominations broke away from the movement and are still referred to as Mormons? RelHistBuff 12:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that is poorly worded and stating that there were denominations that broke away from the Latter Day Saint movement incorrect. I believe the way the statement should read that the groups/sects broke away from the church set up Joseph Smith. As the movement article states there were many new congregations that were created after the death of Joseph Smith. This was followed by many more groups that have broken away from both the LDS church and the CofC.

While many groups reject the term "Mormon", still others seem to want the affiliation to the name. Individual LDS will express frustration when groups outside of the LDS church use the term or when the media will refer to the smaller groups as Mormons.

Let's still wait for other comments from editors. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is poorly worded. after all, how can you break away from a movement and still be a part of it? In addition, such a statement takes a CoJCoLDS-centric view. From the point of view of some of the older sects, the CoJCoLDS broke away from them. --Kmsiever 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Fundamentalists were a part of the church that had the same beliefs as the Mormons, but broke away for some reason long ago. However, they still call themselves the "Fundamantalist Mormons." 208.117.13.115 03:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that they broke away because the LDS church called a halt to Polygamists. Adam

Claims Of Exclusivity?

It's not clear as a long-time member what this "Claim of exclusivity" is referring to. I do not believe that the Church has ever "asked" the media (I'm also a member of "the media") to refer to it in one way or another. If it has, then I'd like to see a reference. The Church's press releases make it clear how it should be referred to and that is as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." I am sure that it has not asked to be referred to as anything else (especially as a second reference) as this part of the article claims. Who wrote this?

Finally what does the quote of President Hinckley's re: polygamy and excommunication have to do with the subject of "Claims of Exclusivity?" {{Possible Mormon COTM}}

Distinction from other Religious groups section

This whole paragraphs looks like it was written by an angry mormon. Why is the "not" in bold? What does "but is based on beliefs that go as far back as Adam and Eve" mean? This does not belong in an encyclopedia in my oppinion. On a normal page I might just edit this out, but this is a religious page and some cautiousness might be a good idea.

Popular Culture and Encyclopedic articles

This topic is appropriate for an encyclopedia; however, popular culture references are the equivalent of reading the National Enquirer and other rags of its ilk. These pop culture references in serious articles should be removed everywhere - see the recent discussion starting here on the mailing list -- Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are we in denial

If this is a TRUE AND FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA then why are we polishing turds. For this entry to be true we must examine the truth that is engraved underneath the surface. A church that claims to be Christian display no crosses on it buildings around the world. You'll be lucky to see a cross on the front lawn. A star instead is visible on all the buildings. And No mention about Mormons being a financial empire within America. The church is one of the most profitable in the world.

Then again "the community" is exactly that. People that think they know everything.

The reason it's so profitable is good financial practices: staying out of debt, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.50.20 (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I wasn't aware that the definition of Christianity is "any church that displays a cross on its builing." Actually, I think that Christians are people who believe in Jesus Christ, which Mormons do. You might be confused about Mormon buildings if you're seeing stars.66.58.206.228 00:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As a mormon I will tell you this. We don't believe the cross that killed Jesus should be honored. Also I don't know of any stars...--Animasage 20:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The topic is Mormon. I think you are addressing complaints about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Also, WIKI is a public encyclopedia. It is certainly free; note that you were able to make an edit. True is a interesting term, which we do not claim. We seek to ensure that WIKI is correct and unbiased in the information it provides. Identifying the truth of an issue is beyond our scope and/or ability. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, your complaints seem aimed at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Here is the official response about the cross. Other than that, I think you need to bring your complaints to that article. --Lethargy 23:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This really isn't an appropriate place for people to get their backs up. It is necessary to realise that religion is not objective and never will be, and we need to come to terms with that. This from a jack-mormon to the rest of the world.Legars 06:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Mormon-haters with pointless irrelevant arguments bug me but amuse me more.203.131.167.26 10:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

---

New Comment----

I'm attrocious with Wikipedia and couldn't work out how to make a new section so I added to the most relevent section.

Surely it is not verifiable that The Ancient Plates existed, and therefore should not be written as if they were an undeniable fact.

Thankyou

They did exist. have a look at the testimony of the three and eight witnesses in the front of the book of mormon.

Sure it's not truely know but it should still be added in so no Mormon are ticked off.--Animasage 20:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)66.58.206.228 00:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This site is for information on the Mormon religion; no information was added to appease anyone. The information on this site states Mormon beliefs.66.58.206.228 00:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

---

End Comment----

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.67.121 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 17 December 2006

Mormons believe in the living Christ who was resurrected, not the dead crucified Christ. Therefore, the members themselves are the symbol of the church.208.117.13.115 03:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

Somebody should put a list of LDS terminology on here sort of like the list on the Quaker page. It could define terms like "sacrament", "fast and testimony meeting", and "seminary" for those who aren't in the know.

Vandalism

I just removed some vandalism from this page (I assume that's ok). Perhaps the page should be locked down?

Unfortunately I have just had to remove some more in the section about the origin of the term "mormon". It says some things which are offensive and untrue (to cut it short it says Mormons are gay, although there are probably some gay ones (this is debatable, since some people think its impossible to be gay, people just think they are) just like any other religion, you can't generalize like that.

In short, I think this article should have protection to an extent.

There is further vandalism that needs addressing: references to "the great liar" in the first paragraph and other attacks are hardly unbiased.

Merge with Mormonism

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

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

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

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

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

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

There has not been any comments on this section in a while. It will be difficult to find out exactly how long because no one dated their comments. I'm going to remove the merge-tag. Personally, I think that "Mormonism" should be merged to "Latter Day Saint movement". Val42 02:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The word mormon

The word mormon comes from a prophet in the book of mormon, mormon is a prophet historian who abridged the book of mormon and so for short thats what people calls us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.80.75.2 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

no it didnt happen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.184.202.13 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You were there? Man, you must be an old one! Zarahemlite

BTW, I just found a link to this guy's last edit. Succinct.

Allegedly

Hey, I just made a very short, simple addition to the page, and I can't help but feel that it may strike some questions, perhaps controversy. I merely added the word "allegedly" (although I admit that a better word could probably be found) into the intro concerning Smith's translation from the "ancient plates". Please know that I did this with no malicious intent towards the religion, or to cast any doubt upon their beliefs, but I believe that the only definite, or factually proven truths should be stated as definite articles. To be truthful, and to abide by Wikipedia's rules, we have to acknowledge that that may not be the truth. Thanks. FinalDeity

Said would be more appropriate, see Wikipedia:Words to avoid. --Lethargy 19:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. FinalDeity

EVERYTHING SAID HERE IS NOT TRUE. THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION,THAT TEACHES THE WRITE THINGS; ARE THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS.

WRITE THINGS? Do you mean RIGHT THINGS? I believe that is called intellectualism. :) Zidel333 05:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to review how to use punctuation as well.Legars 06:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Why can't everybody turn aside their differences? it seems that those who cant write stupid comments like the person who stated "EVERYTHING SAID HERE IS NOT TRUE. THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION,THAT TEACHES THE WRITE THINGS; ARE THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS."

Allegedly the pope is Catholic, allegedly Baptist are Christians, allegedly Christ turned water into wine and healed the sick. If you start adding the word allegedly to things that you do not believe then it will never end. Atheists will argue that things contained in any book of scripture only "allegedly" happened. Even if you add that many do not believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God, it would give the atheists the right to claim the same about the bible, Jewish people to say the same of the New Testament and so forth.

Why not something like: "According to Mormon history, Joseph Smith received the plates from . . .". That's the way encyclopaedias usually phrase it. It's not loaded at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.131.167.26 (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

The mere use of the word history in an obviously religious context is already suspicious. I just came across this topic and I am surprised at the existence of all the Wikipedia entries on the LDS church and its scriptures. For these articles not to sound like obvious proselytism, it would take quite bit more effort. Maybe the problem is that most writers here are believers and might not even notice how slanted the writing is.

Scholarly usage

The Scholarly Usage section contains the following:- 'Additionally, "Utah Mormon" is often used as a derisive term among the LDS themselves. A "Utah Mormon" is one who outwardly lives every tenet of the faith without maintaining a deep spiritual conviction.' I would like to see a valid citation for this claim or have it removed as mere heresay and not factual.SerialCoyote 10:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I have heard the term used in reference to a "Utah Mormon" being someone who has always lived in Utah and might be a little naive about the church outside Utah...maybe arrogant about being superior because of being from Utah. So, it isn't really a precise definition given here.

Utah Mormon or Utah Turkey Farmer Mormon is from what I hear is a common term out here in California. My wife (who is LDS) and her friends use it sometimes, as they consider themselves "progressive" Mormons (I'm sure this has alot to do simply with being on the west coast). This defintely isn't a citation but just letting you know it does exist and could be researched and verified probaly. --Sodium N4 21:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Utah Mormon" is a term you are going to hear almost everywhere there is a population. We have it up here in Canada, and I'm sure it occurs everywhere else too.Legars 06:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Does "progressive" have something to do with ignoring counsel about not watching certain movies? Just an observation. . .203.131.167.26 10:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the statement that a Utah Mormon is a Mormon born and raised in Utah. Meaning of course, that a Utah Mormon is naive about the Church outside of Utah. Also, I believe that asking that question about "progressive mormons" is rude and uncalled for. At the very least, it doesn't belong on this page. Anniid 05:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is any type of scholarly usage of the term, if so it should be referenced in the article. I am familiar with the term, but it has a variety of meanings depending on the user. I find it applies more to cultural differences within the membership than spiritual conviction. Anniid, I am not sure it is worth taking personally, but I also recognize that we all have personal hot buttons. I think it is appropriate that if the term can not be referenced, then it should be deleted. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

VANDALISM - URGENT

Hello people - we have some serious first paragraph vandalism. I came to this page to learn about Mormonism, and I get this!! --Gautam3 04:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and keep an eye on it, and if the vandalism continues I'll request this article for semi-protection.

Kothar 04:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is continuing, including repeated offenses by the same ip addresses and so forth. Semi-protection seems waranted.DocBiohazard 04:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I've tried to warn whatever users that I've reverted for vandalism... if it's mostly repeats we can solve that but there's a different one every day... gdavies 08:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be permanently locked down to prevent edits by unregistered users. The vandals need to inconvenienced by the need to go through the steps of continually creating new throwaway accounts. That will send the lazier ones back to their gameboys. VandalKicker2 16:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up some vandalism last night (4/27/2007). One of the 'articles of faith' was changed to 'Mormons must be stupid bigots' or some such. Just trying to do the right thing. Giminy 02:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Mormon population in the US

I like to find out what's the total population of Mormons...or members of the LDS church in the US. According to the Wikipedia Utah article, over 70 percent (or close to three/fourths) of the state's population are Mormon, despite the US census don't collect any demographic data on religious denomination. The highest number of Mormons of any state goes to California at one million. I appreciate anyone to include demographic data on how many Mormons in the US. 63.3.14.129 04:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Protestantism

Regarding recent change in wording, I think it's important to realize that the LDS church (and other Mormon churches as well) are not protestant, and identifying them as such is incorrect. They were not a break off of the Catholic church (like many other protestant churches). Instead, they are correctly identified as Restorationist churches.gdavies

I agree with this, it is wrong to label them as protestant, because that also implies that they are christians, or accepted as thus by other christian protestant churches. As they do not adher to the same basic christian fundamentals, and have created a lot of their own theology and scriptures, and as they consider themselves the sole and only true church, most other christian churches consider them as a cult. Despite this and that I agree with them, I respect much of mormon accomplisments and how their church is organised and many of their values.

Haha, I don't think anyone wants to get into an "are Mormon's Christian" debate here, but I have to say its offensive (and rather humorous) to Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) when people say they aren't Christian (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/25/26#26).gdavies 19:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Though for my part, I've never understood why Mormons want to be considered "as Christian as" those they consider to be hopelessly apostate. "We're the same faith as you...er...apostates."  ;-) rasqual 06:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The LDS church has been labeled Protestant by several groups; however, I view this as a stretch. It evolves from Mormonism being labeled part of the Restorationist movement, which is also labeled Protestant.

The conversation of who is and isn't appropriately labeled Christian is a fun conversation. First, attempt to prove your position, either pro or con, by using just the New Testament. Afterwords, attempt to prove your position by what men have said about who is Christian and who is not. The difference between the two definitions and positions is appropriate labeled the teachings of men and has nothing to do with God's definition of Christian. It does not matter whether you think Mormons are or are not Christian, the exercise works well for both.

You might also consider studying the history of Christainity. Literally millions of people have been persecuted or killed in the name of religion. I conclude that the same spirit that motivates people to kill others in the name of relgion is also the same spirit that motivated people to crucify Jesus Christ. We are challenged to prove the truthfulness of teachings, never to kill those who do not believe as we do. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles of Faith?

I really liked this article because it went in to the correct subject. The term "Mormon" and what it means historically. But I don't like the Beliefs section because it just encourages the addition to any and every doctrine to be put here. I think there are plenty of links to get people started on their quest for doctrinal belief and practices without the Articles of Faith presented here. Not to mention there is already an articls about the Articles of Faith. If no one objects, I would like the section removed. I will check back later. Bytebear 01:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This happens on a lot of church related articles. Editors seem compelled to add excess information when they should just stick to the exact subject and link or "See also" all the related articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) 02:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't know. If you have those 13 fairly short sentences up that's really all you need for doctrine. it's pretty succinct and should probably stay as a good summary of the church's doctrine.203.131.167.26 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Articles of faith shouldn't be here. This article seems to be discussing a variety of claimed mormon groups, and the articles of faith are mainly a focus of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A list of links leading to doctrines would be better. Wrad 02:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Joseph Smith, as the one common force behind the Latter-Day Saint movement, is the author of these thirteen articles. All Mormon sects have a common root in the teachings of Joseph Smith. Certainly the idea that the articles of faith are only accepted by the CoJCoLDS is unreasonable as this took place before the succession crisis (and consequently before the existence of a sect under that name). gdavies 07:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

About the wrong translation of Amish into Mormon in the movie "Witness" in French, Spanish etc.

I don't know where you found out that the term Amish was wrongly translated into Mormon in the movie Witness with Harrison Ford, but I don't think that this is the truth regarding the French translation. The first time I saw that movie, it was the French version of it, I didn't speak English at that time and I it was clear to me that the action was taking place in an Amish community. Therefore, I can't imagine that the translation error is true. I can't tell for the other translated versions of the movie.

--Vbrachet 22:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just looking at a blog [1] there are comments by ironically enough, witnesses that say it was French (Belgium), Italian, and Polish. Here is another reference to the French translation [2]Bytebear 06:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hidden Doctrines?

Why isn't it mentioned that Mormonism includes a belief that if you are a good Mormon, you get to be the savior of your own planet, much like Jesus was for Earth? Additionally, why not mention that a central belief in Mormonism is that humans can be come gods? I would think that these would be the sort of thing Mormons would want to promote, since it is was really sets them apart from Christianity. 69.163.31.111 18:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Theorettacially speaking, the statement that you made is correct. I dont mean to do anything unlawfull on this page but Moses 1:39 states "39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." then If you look in Doctrine and Covenants 19:11-12 states "Eternal punishment is God’s punishment. Endless punishment is God’s punishment." Summing it up, wherever it states Eternal or Endless, it could be swithced with God's. I hope that this helps explain where they get that idea. Adam

This site is for learning basic Mormon beliefs and history. If you want to get really in-depth, you should talk to the missionaries.66.58.206.228 00:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. First, not all Mormon denominations teach this doctrine. Second, it is not doctrinal for Latter-day Saints. The scripture the cultural belief is based on says that man may become "gods" - the same word used in the old testament to refer to angels AND dieties and that Christ himself used when he said "ye are gods, children of the most high?"

Actually, one of the problems when even discussing these things is that Mormons don't agree on what it means for something to be doctrinal, much less what such doctrines may be. That is to say, the line dividing doctrine from culture is wide and fuzzy in a religion that prides itself on lacking the creeds which make such lines pretty bright and clear in orthodox Christian confessions, whether they be Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, or other groups who recognize each others baptisms despite their differences. rasqual 06:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

While many Latter-day Saints (as opposed to the broader Mormonism) believe they can become gods and create their own planet with purple dinasaurs, it is about as doctrinal as "Saturday's Warrior." LDS Church President Hinckley has tried to clarify it:

• "I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become (sic)." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about." (San Francisco Chronicle April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1)

• "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it.'" (Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997: )

The bottom line, is that we don't exactly know what it means to be a god. We have ideas, and they may be right, but none are cannonical or spelled in the "revelations." If it is a hidden doctrine, it is hidden from the Latter-day Saints as well as the outsiders, as we can only speculate.

Hope this helps. You may want to understand the difference between cultural beliefs and doctrinal beliefs. You'll find it in every religion. -Visorstuff 19:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The main reason is the topic of this article is "Mormon", the term. This term is used to describe a broad range of groups without a homogenous doctrine or theology. Much of this is already covered on the respective church pages as well as several other articles. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Book of the Law of the Lord (Strangite)

I added this text to the LDS texts section in the side bar. Why was it removed? It is/was an important text in early Mormon history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.59.46.243 (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Never mind, it appears to be back now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.59.46.243 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Now it's gone again. Anyone know why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I just went to see who was removing it, but I couldn't find any edits from your ip adress (either of them) and no edits on from the 15th to the 17th that put this into the LDS texts box... gdavies 19:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I put it back up, but it was removed yet again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Once again, there is no edit from your IP address and this change was never made... see this article's history. gdavies 07:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong article's history, gdavis. It's in Template:LDS, and the Strang book has indeed been added and removed, but it doesn't seem to have a good explaination for when it's removed, just that it's "NOT" a Latter Day Saint text. I have no strong sympathies; I can see arguments either way, but because Strang's groups is so small and he already has a link, maybe leave it out? Cool Hand Luke 07:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

how embarassing... haha, yeah sorry about that. I think that the link to the Strangites suffices as well, these boxes are getting a little cramped. gdavies 17:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Page Semi-protected??

Although I see that the article is supposed to be semi-protected, it doesn't seem to be preventing unregistered or new users from vandalizing it. Am I misunderstanding the meaning of the tag? Bochica 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The semi protection was only set for three days. I've protected it for another week (until Feb 17 this time). (Semi-)protected pages are considered harmful, but I don't foresee anonymous vandalism ever letting up on pages like this. It does look to be a little better though, and maybe moreso after another week. Cool Hand Luke 17:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I really think this page needs to be protected I found some blatant vandalism, which I am fixing. lorinhobensonLorinhobenson 18:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We're getting a big surge of vandalism again, so I'm going to semi-protect again, at least for a while. COGDEN 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Controversial Positions As Fact

Simply put, the sentence: "Mormons believe in Christ as the Savior of the world, and are therefore Christians, although they are not recognized as such by some groups.[4][5]" is taking one side over another in a theological dispute. Such a declaration has no place in an NPOV article. Noting that Mormons consider themselves Christians while other groups do not is necessary, but stating openly that Mormons are, in fact Christian, though other groups fail to recognize them as such, just pushes the Mormon POV at the expense of neutrality.R.E.S.A. 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

By that same argument, then the Christianity page should say that Christianity "claims to be" or "self-identifies" as monotheistic since many outside of Christianity challenge this. On the other hand, I do agree that the causal relation in that sentence is problematic. In reality, I should have reverted back to the [long standing version], which simply states that they "describe themselves as Christian," and I apologize for not doing so. This statement is the most neutral and leaves the larger, more complex debate for further down in the article and for the separate religion pages as the term Mormon covers more than one church within the Latter Day Saint Movement, and the categorization is debated even within the rest of Christianity and in the secular world. --FyzixFighter 03:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That is probably a better way to put it, I was just trying to fix the negativity of they "claim" to be Christians. (Which is on the opposite POV.) I apologize for any problems, and I will try to be more careful next time.Jukilum 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mormons

First of all I am the son of a mormon mother, who is the daughter of a mormon father, who has a brother who was a bishop in the Mormon church. First mormons are Christians, they beleive in Christ's sacrifice, for us to be cleansed of sin. IF you disagree you might as well claim Jehova's Witnesses are not Christians. Trust me you will not make it far out your door. Second the reason you do not see the cross in Mormon temples and worn by Mormons is because it is beleived to be too holy to be represented. I hope you can respect that when everyday on MTV you see a "Baptist" girl dirty dancing wearing a cross, hmn? I agree with all who said this if you want the facts visit your local church, talk to a Mormon, or visit the website. But do not go spinning you non-Christian propaganda around. That is just rude.

I to am Mormon. However I thought that we didn't use the cross because it is the symbol of Jesuses' death and we thought more on his life?--Animasage 20:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I learned that it was because it was the atonement (which we believe was not on the cross) is far more significant than his death.

It's funny that Mormon's say that they believe in the same Jesus as Christians. Look at the quote by Gordon B. Hinkley under the "Distinctions from other religious groups" headline where he explains that Mormons really don't believe in the same Christ.

I agree--the Christ of the Mormons is a totally different character than the Christ of any other religion. Other Christian groups disagree on various points of doctrine but largely agree on the nature of Christ. Mormons teach radically different things about Him and claim that His teachings, which the Christian groups follow, have been distorted and are unreliable without the revelations handed down by Joseph Smith. Therefore Mormons do not follow the same person or teachings that the Christians follow, and are not Christian. To simply say in a Wikipedia article that all those who disagree that Mormons are Christians are simply wrong because Mormons believe that their Christ was the Savior of the world is very obviously writing the article from a Mormon point of view.R.E.S.A. 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably the most contentious line is the last of the first paragraph: "Mormons believe in Christ as the Savior of the world, and are therefore Christians, although they are not recognized as such by some groups." Especially saying, "and are therefore Christians" assumes a definition of Christianity that is not the most widely held among those who consider themselves Christian. I would suggest the following as a more neutral statement: "While a disputed position, Mormons categorize themselves as Christians because they believe in Christ as the Savior of the world." DaneWeber 02:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us speak in academic terms for a second. I believe it would be correct to say that mormons believe themselves to be Christians but this does not make it so. According to very strict definitions, mormons are not Christians and neither are he jehova's whitnesses. I make it very far out of my door every day by the way and I will thank you not to use that sort of language here. Indeed, the definition goes to the root of the doctrine taught by a church. Some protestants have remained Christian enough to use that term for themselves and some have not. They, like the mormons are still protestant but not Christian anymore. You are free to use whatever words for yourselves that you wish but that does not make it a factual reality. Words mean things and I disaprove of trying to re-invent the definition of Christian so that the mormons can be members again. Mormons believe that they are correct in their teachings so why do they care if they are still Christians or not? If we expand the definition of Christian to include mormons then it would also have the affect of including Hindus as well. --Billiot 06:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Strict definition from Merriam-Webster states that a Christian is "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." Wikipedia definition states that a Christian is "A Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, referred to as the Christ. Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God, who lived a life free of sin, who at the end of his earthly life was crucified, and then on the third day, rose from the dead, and later ascended into heaven, with the promise to return." Based on these strict definitions, are we certain that the Mormons are wrong to equate themselves to this noun? Kail Ceannai 07:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A second thought. It wouldn't hurt to have a section or a link to an article describing the dispute as to whether Mormons are Christians or not. The facts Mormons use to suggest that they are. The facts others use to suggest that they aren't. Kail Ceannai 07:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point and someone should create just such an article. It would do good to have it all on a page that is clear from the beginning to show differing points of view. A note on the definitions though, the oldest and most widely used definiton of a Christian outside of the English language is someone that believes in the Trinity. There are sects of Hindus that accept some of the teachings of Christ as well as the muslims but they fall short of the definition when the either fail to see Christ as the son of God or do not recognize the Spiritus Sanctus. In my understanding, while the mormons accept many teachings of Christ they do not accept him as the Son of God or the Trinity. I am not saying they are wrong just that they fall short of the oldest established definition.--Billiot 14:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Mormons absolutely do believe that Christ is the Son of God, although their understanding of the Trinity is unique from other sects. They baptize "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost," and believe that each being is distinct from the other, though completely united in purpose. A different take from the traditional view of the trinity... but still very Christian. gdavies 14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Good show, Billiot, but do be careful when making statements about what Mormons believe. Mormons, in fact, do, as gdavies pointed out, believe that Christ is the Son of God. The difference is that their God has a physical body and Christ is his biological son (as is humanity). In Mormonism, the Father and Son are merely extremely powerful physical entities, distinct in essence and united only "in spirit". This is, needless to say, radically non-Trinitarian and no more Christian than is Islam. Indeed, Mormon presidents of the past were less eager to try to stretch Christianity to cover themselves:

"We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense.... It is a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century."—John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 167

I hope that can help lay the idea that Mormons somehow are Christian to rest.R.E.S.A. 16:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. Wow. Don't we all wish life was that simple? I think it's fairly easy to say that there's a large body of "Christians" out there that can be seen as a satire on religion... i.e. turn to VH1 and see some videos (there's crosses everywhere... not much Christianity though). The fact that John Taylor saw a huge amount of hypocrisy in 19th century Christianity somehow makes Mormons not Christian? Brilliant.

As for Christs parentage, Mormons believe that we are all spirits of God the Father (he is the father of our Spirits) but obviously that we have separate physical parents. Christ, on the other hand, is of divine parentage both Physically and Spiritually, giving him power over death, enabling him to live a perfect life, etc. etc. etc. What with Arianism, Adoptionism, and Ebionitism and the First Council of Nicaea, it's fairly obvious that Christianity has not always (as it probably does not now) agreed on the nature of God the Father (or Jesus Christ for that matter). Mormons see a lot of Biblical evidence for the Corporeal nature of God the Father, while other Christian sects do not. (one is Phillipians 3:21) This simple difference in theology, though very far-reaching in significance for the LDS, surely isn't enough to exclude Mormons or other "mainstream" Christian groups as not Christian. gdavies 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the fact that a past president of the religion in question said that Christianity was empty and corrupt makes Mormons not Christians. If he had been saying that the Christians of the 19th century were hypocrites, why would he not have used the word hypocrite? Is it wise to accuse a man of sufficient discernment to rise to a position at the head of a religion of saying that all Christians of the 19th century were hypocrites? That would be a rather sweeping generalization, one that I don't think is a probable interpretation of John Taylor's meaning here. Rather, he is saying that Christianity itself (for he says "Christianity," and not "Christians") is a "sounding brass", and furthermore something that the Devil could not improve upon to "spread his work". If John Taylor, a president of Mormonism, says that a religion is a "sounding brass" then I don't think that , at least at the time of John Taylors' leadership, Mormonism was identifiable with that religion.R.E.S.A. 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait... are you making the argument that Mormon's aren't Christian because they don't think they are? I would use that quote for a variety of things, but certainly not to prove the Mormon's don't believe they're Christian. I guess that by that same definition Martin Luther wasn't Christian either because he believed the Catholic church was corrupt. I think you're missing the very basic and essential point of the Mormon belief in the Apostasy as described in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. That's the whole concept of Restorationism: none of the current churches have the approval of God, and so a prophet is called to restore it. gdavies 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that, although I can see how my words could logically be interpreted as such. I'm not missing the Apostasy; it's central to my understanding of the divide between Mormons and Christians. Basically, Christians say 'here's the Bible, we believe it,' and argue about how to interpret it amongst themselves, and then Mormons come and say 'no, the Bible's all corrupted, it needs to be re-interpreted and these other books need to be read alongside it. Basically, everything you think you know about Christ and what he said is wrong, here's what he really said.' You can't equate those two religions; one holds to one set of teachings with differences in how to interpret them, the other holds to a different set of teachings entirely. Thus the division between Calvinists and Catholics, for instance, who argue about how to interpret James and Paul, but believe both to be divinely inspired and reliable is essentially different from the division between Mormons and Catholics, where each holds the other's basic religious texts to be unreliable at best. R.E.S.A. 23:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the comment above, I think that the comment below shows a missunderstanding. The comment above didn't say that the Bible is still corrupted, it just said that it was. This is partly true, because Joseph Smith added some clarifications and re-wordings that can be found in Joseph Smith-Translation in the back of the Bible puplished by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints66.58.206.228 00:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I also wholeheartedly agree with Storm Riders comments below, and can only add that I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of LDS perception of the Bible. I carry my Bible to church every Sunday, to my sharing the gospel class twice a week, to my Book of Mormon class (in which we refer to it frequently) twice a week, and even to my biology class (where we also read from it often). In my gospel doctrine class, this entire year will be spent studying the New Testament, from which I've taught two lessons in the past two months. Next month the leaders of our church will speak to all members in a general conference for a total of 10 hours (in addition to a priesthood and relief society meeting), during which hundreds of references will be made to the Bible and Christs teachings therein (as has happened twice a year for over 176 years). Latter-day saints will continue to memorize Bible passages, read from the Bible in daily scripture study, and learn Bible teachings in virtually every church class they will ever take. Surely we rely quite heavily on this book you say we think is "corrupted." gdavies 03:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be best R.E.S.A. is you remain silent on what a LDS believes. You tend to have a decidedly twisted view of what we believe. I suggest you limit your statements to what you believe and allow Mormons to state what Mormons believe. This is not to offend you, but it is to ensure that confusion is reduced to a minimum.

A few points:

1. The definition of Christain focused on the Trinity that is attempted to be used is a 4th century creation. It is "one" definition, but it certainly is not the definition of a Christian. Interestingly, Jesus Christ would not recognize that definition. If you limit a definition to the Bible, which you say you believe, we will finalize this issue quickly and easily.
2. All issues that motivated all reformations (given that there are some 26,000 plus different Christian churches in the world is significant) is a disagreement on doctrine and perceived truth. Please do not attempt to paint Mormonism as anything other than disagreement on concepts of truth. You would only be kidding yourself. The reason there was a need for a restoration was not because there was no truth, but because there was error that needed to corrected.
3. The prophets in all times have always called people to repentance. Can you think of one prophet who did not? The latter day prophets have done no different.
4. There is only one Jesus of Nazareth, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, bled from every pore for the sins of the world, was mocked in fake trial, crucified unto death, rose the 3rd day, and sits on the right hand of the Father. This is the Jesus adored, acknowledged, and taught by Latter-day Saints. I firmly believe this is the same Jesus taught by other Christians churches; if it is different, then there is a problem in deed.
5. There is already an article Mormonism and Christianity. I see no need to create another superfulous article to address a topic that is already covered. The topic of this article is the term "Mormon", a follower of Mormonism. It should be succinct and to the point. However, it has mushroomed by numerous editors unfamiliar with the vast number of articles relating to Mormonism and its various sects. If anything, this should state what a Mormon is and refer to other major articles.

Obviously this topic needs discussion, but it needs to be addressed in the proper article, which does not mean every article that mentions Mormonism. Further, to achieve the best article requires a good understanding of history of Christianity of during the first 400 years and then an understanding of the Reformation. Many of the "facts" bandied about demonstrate a narrow understanding of these histories. More importantly, much of what people have understood about early Christianity has been rewritten to a significant degree during the past 50 years and is currently being rewritten with new scholarship and discoveries. It should never be forgotten that this is a topic of faith by all of their varied believers; one's faith does not negate or disprove the faith of others. When we talk as if it does, we deomonstrate our own lack of understanding of history and the purpose of Wikipedia. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I can only echo what Storm Rider has said above and add my voice in support. Let the Latter-day Saints themselves decide what they believe. SESmith 01:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This must be one of the most heavily censored articles on wikipedia, maybe the scientologists come off a little worse. Both articles bring a whole new mean to propoganda.

As I stated above I really don't mind a clause in the article that states that Mormons believe themselves to be Christian. I also think that a seperate page should be devoted to showing both or perhaps mutiple sides of the issue. If it is true as is stated above that this issue comes up in every article that mentions the mormons then just such an article to takle the issue is clearly needed.--Billiot 07:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See Mormonism and Christianity. Cool Hand Luke 07:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the above mentioned article and find it very inadequate for the purpose stated in this dicussion. It has some serious NPOV problems and focuses on relations between mormons and protestant groups. One would assume from reading that article that the main point of contention was scripture but it is not for this purpose. Also, acording to the the notes above the view of the term Christianity as aplied by the mormons would indeed include some hinus under the label yet they reject that term themselves. We need to understand that there is a difference from having Christ as the center of your faith and most important historical person to your faith and falling under the label of Chrisianity. Chrisianity has a very long and well established definition and you really can't blame other churches for not wanting to expand it to make other feel good about themselves. Again, I know full well that mormons believe themselves to be Christians, and that is fine but the other side should be shown as it is not a universal acceptum. Just look over at the Catholic site and see how must discussion is generated on just the NAME of The Church that should be applied. This issue clearly isn't settled and shouldn't just be a slug fest on a talk page. Like I said earlier, there needs to be a seperate article that deal with the definition of Chrisianity where different view points can be presented.

on a personal note, and you can take this as you will, I really don't see the problem. This type of linguistic problem has only arrisen becuase of vagueness in the English language. It all really just look slike marketing to me in a trying to prove the other guy wrong match. There really should be much more to your belief and worship of God then saying "I belong to ____ Church." This issue is being debated enough to clearly show that an article is truely needed. Then maybe everyone can just state it as they see it, back it up and then maybe we can start to understand each other.--Billiot 07:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've looked it over myself. (It's nice to see that such an article already exists!) The main problem with it is that it tends to use the word "claim" where "believe" would be more appropriate. The Christian beliefs sections, on the other hand, favor the words "tradiation" and "seen" rather than using the accusatory word "claim." I'm slowly tweaking the LDS sections to be a little more neutral and tweaking them accuracy regarding generic Mormon beliefs. I can't write authoratively on the other sections, so I'm just leaving them be. Kail Ceannai 11:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is meant to cover the relationship between Mormonism and Christianity. There is not reason to have a seperate article for "Are Mormons Christian?" or anything similar. I think that any inadequacies you see should be addressed at that article, as Kail Ceannai is doing. I know there are differing perspectives, and there are whole books on the subject, but Mormonism and Christianity is the article that encompases that subject. Perhaps it could use a subheading about the definition of Christianity (or are you speaking of something more general like something to be included with Christianity)? As an aside, I think it's manifestly false that Christianity has an ancient and well-defined meaning. It is and always has been fuzzy around the edges. Cool Hand Luke 11:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page problem

Why is almost all of the text on the talk page blue?

Incorrect

"Largely by a prophet-warrior-historian named Mormon..."

Mormon only wrote 12 or so chapters, which accounts for only a small part of the book. However, he is recognized as being the last person to write in the book, regardless of how little/much he wrote. Stealthymatt 18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire sentence you quote is: "According to the religion's founder Joseph Smith, Jr., this book was written on golden plates, largely by a prophet-warrior-historian named Mormon, who the book says was killed in a great battle between pre-Columbian civilizations during the 4th century." This is accurate; according to Joseph Smith and the book's own claims, Mormon is the person who abridged the numerous Nephite records and wrote his abridged version onto the golden plates, so his writings constitute the bulk of the text of the entire Book of Mormon. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I misinterpreted it. It may (unless already done) need a clarification. Also, he wasn't the last, he was the 2nd to last (his son Moroni wrote the last section). Stealthymatt 19:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on verifiability

I am challenging the verifiability of this statement: "There is no incidence of physical harm within the Latter-day Saint church."

From Wikipedia's policy on verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Therefore, it needs a source. Jawns317 03:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right. The very fact you tagged it implies that it's controversial enough to require citation. However, I think the whole section should not be in this article. Content like this belongs in the LDS Church article, if anywhere. Cool Hand Luke 03:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

so should there be a citation on EVERY thing ever mentioned in wikipedia? there are some things that dont need citation, such as, saying that some apples are red... Letuce 03:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation for every potentially-controversial statement. If someone says they'd like a citation for it, it probably needs one. Cool Hand Luke 03:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

so if i went and asked for a citation for everything, my demand would have to be made? Letuce 03:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you honestly think a statement is even slightly questionable, Wikipedia could be improved by you flagging it. If you started tagging manifestly obvious statements at random, that would be different, but this editor has given us no reason to assume bad faith. Cool Hand Luke 04:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

ok then, i guess i wont mind myself to ask for citation on anything that is slightly questionable to myself.

but lets go back to this topic, jawns317 is challenging the verifiability of that statement, if he has any doubt that it is false, wouldnt it be better for him to go look for citation of something that disagrees with the initial statement? i am LDS (aka mormon for those who dont know) and i know that the statment is true, if he is so sure that it is not, then he should have no probleme finding a credible source of the contrary. Letuce 07:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Letuce, I don't think you're quite getting it. Read through the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. When it comes to statements that are challenged, the burden is not on the challenger to come up with a source that disproves the statement; the burden is on whoever wrote the statement (or whoever wants the statement to remain) to show where the facts are coming from. If you know this statement is true, please let us know HOW you know. Did you read it in an LDS publication? Have you looked over any empirical studies or police reports? The reason I am challenging it is because I think it is too sweeping a statement. In fact, were the burden on me to disprove the statement, I think a single example of an LDS church member being convicted of, say, domestic violence would be enough to do it. But again, the burden is not on me. So ... let's get this statement sourced. Jawns317 12:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the discussion is moot at this point, because the section has been removed. (Rightly, I think.) Jawns317 12:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)