Talk:Mormonism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

External Links

I noticed that in the External links section, there are "Official" Mormon links, Unoffical but "Pro-Mormon" links and Neutral, but none that are critical. Any suggesttions for POLITE, yet appropriately critical external links? I'd like to stress that my definition of critical does not include bashing, hate or 'burn in hell' types, but more scholarly, perhaps focusing on scientific issues and non-doctrinal. Forgot to sign. Friedonc (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the citations are from biblical verse or the church website. This article is heavily biased and is in need of reliable 3rd party sources. Schnarr 09:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

We genearlly have kept external links here to a minimum; most, if not all of the current links should be deleted. Mormonism is a very broad topic and the article bloats over time. Mormonism is not doctrine specific, but rather groups with a similar origin, but have evolved into significantly different groups.

When going to specific church articles or Latter Day Saint movement related articles you will find applicable critical exterior links. --^StormRider 16:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed a lot of LDS specific material from the article today. The article is primarily to address the LDS movement in the broadest terms and then link to other church specific articles where doctrines can be more thoroughly investigated. --^StormRider 01:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Lot of vandals lately...

Has this page always been a popular target of vandals, or is this a recent phenomenon? Raekuul 13:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raekuul (talk • contribs)

It is generally a target of vandalism. There may be a recent uptick, but I don't think it has been a significant increase. Thanks for asking. --^StormRider 16:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Have the other religion pages been this heavily vandalized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raekuul (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I work on religion articles in general and I find they all get vandalized pretty regularly. Sometimes it seems like LDS related articles get vandalized more often than others and then at other times it is the other way around. It seems to come in waves. Cheers --^StormRider 01:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent string of vandalism again. Is it appropriate to request semi-protection? -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a semi-protection act would be a good idea.... -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by W.Neelmore (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, I can't say I know what vandals you are referring to - but I can't help but notice that this article seems heavily censored. There are much more... less... attractive facts of Mormonism than are mentioned... 98.168.204.179 (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruggles the Editor (talk • contribs) 14:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem heavily censored. I was reading on another website about the Church of Latter Day Saints and their robust presence on Wikipedia adding things to certain articles and really keeping the criticisms to a minimum. Wikipediarules2221 03:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

When I hear these types of comments I laugh out loud. Anyone with any degree of knowledge when reading the articles on Mormonism and comparing them to any other church's articles or any other religion will quickly realize that if anything, LDS topic related articles are far superior in criticism. There is not a single article, not one, that is written solely from the LDS perspective. If you can dream up the criticism, fringe or not, you will find it on Wikipedia. As long as it is published it will be in an article(s). Instead of making such a claim, please just spend some time reading the breadth of articles. Then compare it to another, say Catholic Church or Islam, take your pick. Then let's talk about what you find. That is an open invitation to anyone. I don't speak form ignorance, but from working on wide spectrum of religious topics. -06:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

LDS Church centric

This article is too focused on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and too doctrinally centered. There is no mention of the move of the Community of Christ and how they relate to Mormonism. There is also very little cultural coverage, which is more of what Mormonism is about. Most of the material in this article is covered in other Latter-day Saint articles. Bytebear (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) and MOS:LDS the term Mormon or its derivatives such as Mormonism are only appropriate when referring to doctrines and practices that have a historical connection to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but not to other denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement. —Eustress ^talk 07:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added some well sourced content to make the article more NPOV neutral, concerning differences between Mormonism and historical Christianity. If you have specific issues with what I've posted please come here to talk instead of reverting all my hard work. I have used a mixture of LDS and non-LDS source material and have done my best to present it in a neutral manner. The only thing I can see as questionable is my use of the word "controversial" to describe the Book of Abraham, but based on my research and wikipedia own article I don't think it is incorrect or POV. All my work is appropriately sourced and accurate, if you do revert something, please at least send me a note or add here what your concerns are so that I can learn and/or fix them.--Alan355 (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, hald my work is gone, and no comments here to discuss it at all, I was under the impression that a relation to christianity section should also discuss details of differences as well as similarities, Mormon theology teaches the Bible is unreliable and Book of Mormon is the complete accurate word of God, Smith's own view was that the BofM was superior to the Bible why was that changed. I would like an explanation or I will change back.--Alan355 (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the issues is that this article is about Mormonism in general, and is not specifically about the LDS Church and its doctrine. It has somewhat of a broader sweep, and there are variations between what the LDS Church teaches and what some of the Mormon fundamentalist groups teach. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, imo the edits on the importance and details about scripture focused way too much on the JST and said very little about the basic theological points on the subject. That's why I edited the paragraph to explain what is meant by "within certain limits". That the LDS have particular reservations about the accuracy and completeness theologically also touches on their beliefs in additional scriptures, modern-day revelation, and an open canon. Within this theological context, the JST is a minor example of this belief, and the details of the JST are better covered in its own article. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes the details are covered in it's own article, but a summary is important, it is indicative of the well documented opinions of the LDS that the BofM is superior and that the KJV is flawed. Smith's additions explain why the KJV is accepted within limits, because they were missing information that Smith fixed in the JST. The RLDS uses the JST and is therefore relevant in a discussion of theology, the changes affect doctrine and change meaning, non christian readers of this article need a fair representation of that fact to understand the difference between believing the KJV and believing in the KJV within limits or however you worded it. My edits illustrate what that means. Furthermore, if you have problems with the last paragraph of the section, please discuss here or make individual edits, there are a lot of references from official Mormon websites and leaders that support these beliefs, I did not put all or many, I put some mormons. In a section discussing relation to christianity, this is appropriate, there is considerable work here describing how it is similar, one paragraph of documented differences is, again, appropriate.--Alan355 (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not very encyclopedic tone to this article...

This article is reading a bit too much like a Sunday School manual or missionary tract, rather than an encyclopedia article. I have made substantive revisions to the first paragraph after the lede, to bring it more in line with other articles such as golden plates, and Book of Mormon. Please assist in this if you can. Twunchy (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I would feel better if this article had a more un-biased approach to Mormonism and cited at least a little bit of the criticisms that are against it. I believe there is a strong argument that Mormonism is a cult so the least that you could do is mention it. Unless someone can state that Mormonism is without credible opposition I maintain that a faith system that claims that Lucifer is Jesus' "spiritual brother" and disbelief in the trinity doctrine is too far of to even try using Christianity and Judaism as its religious foundations. 207.47.244.196 (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article could be used as a text book example of why Wikipedia cannot be considered a credible - or even decent - source of information. Biased editors seem to have dominated this article. What can we do to help make it better? --DoyleCB (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever disagreements you have with the doctrines, that does not warrant criticism. Wikipedia is neutral, not anti anything. If you want to bash Mormons as a cult, go find some other website to hang out on. Bytebear (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Might you be a Mormon? If so you should not even be editing this article. 174.96.61.61 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The last point of view is a false claim. Neutrality should not mean ignorant. A Mormon would know credible facts that someone on the outside wouldn't. An article is neutral when it presents the truth, and is not neutral if it is just from a critics or unbelievers viewpoint. DeltoidNoob (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A cult? Well here's the Webster's dictionary definition of a cult: Date: 1617

1 formal religious veneration : worship 2 a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents 3 a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents 4 a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults> 5 a great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially, such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b, the object of such devotion c, a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion.

Almost every religion would fall under the first and second definition. Christianity as a whole would have fallen under the definition of #3 within the first 200 years of it being founded, or started. #4 would only apply to the LDS church's views that smoking and drinking alcohol (and drinks loaded with caffiene) is unhealthy for you. As these are widely established facts I don't see how definition #4 really applies. As for definition #5, sure we do have great devotion to our Savior, Jesus Christ. We also venerate Joseph Smith as a prophet. Just like the Jewish religion venerates Moses, or Abraham. Just like most Christian religions venerate Mary, the mother of Jesus. Or Islam and Mohammed. So unless you're going to call Judaism, Islam, and hundreds of Christian religions "cults" for venerating their prophets and people, then don't try to apply that title to the LDS church. And with 13 million members, we're not a small group of people. So why don't you skip the childish name calling in the future? Hmmmm? Oh, and lots of Christians disagree with the council of Nicaea and it's definition of the Godhead. We're certainly not alone in that. I'm sorry if you don't like how positive this article sounds but it doesn't even address the millions and millions of man-hours the LDS church contributes in charitable causes every year. When a disaster hits, we're there and numerous countries and people have thanked and praised the church for it. So maybe this isn't positive enough. Or maybe you've just got a skewed view of things? I'm baised from having observed the LDS church for the last 30 years and knowing and loving everything associated with it. This isn't the 1800s anymore, if you're going to accuse us of something, you need to be able to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximumcool (talk • contribs) 07:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is often disappointing when some refer to any topic concerning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (also known incorrectly as "The Mormon Church") is mentioned in association with Wikipedia. As a practicing member of the church for nearly 30 years, encountering this and other articles and using the word encyclopedic in the same sentence is laughable. The content is largely offensive and unrecognizable to members of the largest "faction" of the "Brighamites" or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. These terms are not fair or accurate because they are not true to the context of the subject matter. As for those who constantly complain that the article isn't critical enough of the Church of Jesus Christ, even though the topic is broader than this largest group, I suggest that your criticism is shaky scholarship at best and hate speech at worst. Why is it necessary to spin the facts to slander this mainstream Christian religion? Why is it necessary to suppress certain aspects of the name, belief structure, history, and surrounding American History of this part of American History. If the organization is bad or evil or deserving of hatred in some way why not let the facts be whole and complete, proportionally balanced and recognizable to those who are either members of the various branches of Mormonism or are in some other way associated with it. Obscure anti-Mormon hate speech and debunked innuendo do not belong here if Wikipedia is to be of any value as a neutral site. Why not let the reader decide what is true and what is not? On almost every point in this article I find links to anti-Mormon websites, sometimes subtly veiled other times not, seemingly attempting to fill this site with innuendo and insinuation (Smith was a "treasure seeker"). Often debunked anti-Mormon ideas such as this are recirculated in this forum because those curious about that branch of Christianity known as Mormonism can be excluded from that same Christianity. Other relevant facts such as the nature of the circumstances regarding Joseph Smith's and his brother Hyrum's murder in Carthage are fiercely opposed. The fact that nearly 30,000 American Citizens were removed by force from their land and property stolen, and families legally murdered did happen. They were disliked by their neighbors partly for their "subversive" political views, but the most volatile of those views in Missouri, abolitionism, is suppressed completely. Is it perhaps inconvenient for those detractors of this uniquely American religious movement to mention this fact while they place links about supposed doctrinal racism under links? I submit that the whole truth about "Subversive" Mormon politics in regard to blacks is devastating to the critics links when the word abolitionism is added to the discussion. If there is fault or blame to be had why not present all the facts and let the true context of history claim the readers attention on the matter. I am again appalled by the dismissal of my nearly 30 years of independent study and experience and that of others as members of the Church, simply because those with another point of view cannot bear it. Ignorance, negative spin, and hate-speech are not what Jesus Christ taught his disciples. For those calling themselves "Christians" I invite you to remember that He taught and expanded on the Golden Rule, not just do unto others as ye would have them do unto you, but do good to and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you (See the New Testament, if you don't know where it is you might try reading it). For scholars and non-Christians I appeal to your intellectual integrity to not simply tear down having decided in advance what people need to see Mormonism as, but to tolerate and even welcome relevant facts that give an accurate and more complete context. I invite both camps to value the independently study of intelligent people who are members and believers in the various branches of Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ, thereby adding a richness to the detail and the insights of people who have spent many more years studying, practicing and believing in this uniquely American Branch of Christianity known as Mormonism. ( Entropy's 1 (Talk)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entropy's 1 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"See Also" section

Don't you find it a violation of WP:NPOV that the current links are all unfavorable aspects of Mormonism? Instead, this section should link to the most salient aspects of Mormonism, like history, religion main pages (LDS, RLDS, FLDS, etc.), and, of course, the criticism main article? They are currently Blacks and the Latter Day Saint movement, Criticism of Mormonism, God Loveth His Children (Homosexuality and Mormonism), List of articles about Mormonism, Polygamy within Mormonism, The Joseph Smith Papers. While these are all important aspects of Mormonism, they are all controversial and potentially negative.  EJNOGARB  01:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Within the article itself it links to the churches within the Latter Day Saint movement and other links to relevant articles. The See Also section is reserved for those articles that are not linked in the article already. If anything is already linked, they can be deleted. The pamphlet can probably be deleted since homosexuality is already linked in the article. --^StormRider 01:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I went back and confirmed that only the Prop 8 and same-sex marriage articles were linked, not the homosexuality article so left it in. --^StormRider 01:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the pamphlet because it seems to just be about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and not Mormonism as a whole. Mike R (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As Eustress notes in the LDS Church Centric section above, WP:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) specifies Mormonism as a term referring specifically to the LDS Church. I think the main problem is that some contributors understand it to include other groups are writing with that idea in mind. Maybe the whole article should be cleaned up a bit to align with the naming convention. Dunno. -jtp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.190.194.20 (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I second what Storm Rider said, and also want to add that this article is about Mormonism as a whole, and that links about a specific denomination of Mormonism belong in the article on that denomination. That is why I object to History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being linked to from here. Notice we have a link to Blacks and the Latter Day Saint movement but not Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If there are other articles on major topics related to Mormonism as a whole, that aren't already linked elsewhere in this article, feel free to add them to the "See also" section. Mike R (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Article should be merged with Latter-day Saint Movement

I believe this article should be merged with latter-day Saint Movement as appropriate. Mormonism should either redirect to Latter-day Saint Movement OR to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and should not be a separate article. Many sections should actually be moved to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article or to any articles about fundamentalist Mormons. --Blue Tie (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If it will get rid of this galling name (despite what the article says without justification, it is still a pejorative for many Latter-Day Saints to be called a "Mormon" -- should I look for the Catholics under "Papists" and Baptists under "Bible Thumpers"?), I will support it. 138.162.128.55 (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. And although the two articles are currently overlapping, I see the Latter Day Saint movement article as primarily historical, and the Mormonism article as primarily cultural and specific to the LDS Church (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints)#The_term_Mormon_and_its_derivatives). I don't see either as being doctrinal in nature, but that should be left to each denomination page. Bytebear (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice that I said it should either redirect to the Latter-day Saint movement OR to the LDS Church. Do you disagree with it redirecting to the LDS Church article? --Blue Tie (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because Mormonism is more about the culture, and the LDS Church article is about an organization. There is overlap, but Mormonism is more broad than the LDS Church, but not as broad as the Latter Day Saint movement. Bytebear (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Mormonism is different from both the LDS movement and from the LDS Church. It is somewhere intermediate in scope between the two. COGDEN 22:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted image

The worldmapper image (source) has a CC-BY-NC-ND license (see copyright info). We may want to ask for specific permission that the image be licensed without the "non-commercial" restriction, which is incompatible with Wikipedia's current image policies. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 22:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the image caption shouldn't have an external link. That data should be on the image's page, and the image itself should be pushed to Wikimedia Commons, if copyright permits. I have added the image to Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_December_17. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 22:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This map strikes me as a bit of gimmicky, but in any event, wouldn't it be more appropriate in the LDS Church article? I don't suppose the map has been corrected to include fundamentalists, has it? Not that they would notably increase the size of the U.S. and Mexico, but if it's used, it ought to be accurate. Maybe a better first image for this article might be, for example, a picture of Brigham Young. COGDEN 23:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the source, "also included are over 90 schismatic bodies". I agree that it feels gimmicky, but it is insightful nonetheless, and the article is lacking images. I also agree that the first image should be more of an icon (like Brigham Young, the angel Moroni, or a Book of Mormon) rather than a visual representation of data. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 01:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Their general licence seems to be akin to CC-BY-3.0, which I use for my own images uploaded to Commons, and only requires attribution. Their "non-commercial" stipulation seems to be directed to commercial exploitation on a large scale, and I don't think is intended to apply to us. What worries me, however, is "also included are over 90 schismatic bodies", and if this is the case, we cannot claim this image fully represent what is claimed for it, since we have no way of knowing criteria for inclusion of these bodies. So I'd suggest that, interesting though the image is, and probably usable, it may incorrectly represent the true position, and we should not support that. Rodhullandemu 01:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

First image

I just want to suggest we brainstorm on possibilities for a first picture for this article. Ideally, it would be something characterizing all of Mormonism, but would not also characterize the Latter Day Saint movement as a whole. Here are some of my thoughts:

• Brigham Young
• a temple--probably one of the early ones like the Nauvoo Temple or Saint George Temple that performed polygamous marriages.
• the angel Moroni (suggested by B Fizz) --although that's not specifically related to Mormonism.

Well he is the son of Mormon, after all. =] ...but what do you think? ~BFizz

• a drawing of Mormon pioneers crossing the plains

Any other suggestions? COGDEN 02:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

First Vision (I like the stained glass image, but probably copyrighted), First edition of the Book of Mormon, SL Temple or stylized clipart of the temple. Bytebear (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The stained glass image isn't copyrighted anymore. It was created in 1919 in the U.S., and therefore its copyright has expired. But my preference would be something that uniquely characterizes Mormonism and sets it apart from churches such as the Community of Christ. The Salt Lake temple might work, although it is so closely associated with the LDS Church that it might undermine the fact that other churches claim ownership of the term "Mormonism" as well. The pre-SLC temples might be better in that regard, particularly since polygamous marriages were conducted in them prior to the Manifesto. COGDEN 09:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Though the CoC rejects the term Mormonism, the most symbolic historical items to Mormonism—like the Book of Mormon, the Kirtland temple, or Joseph Smith—are inevitably connected to it. Any of COgdens listed suggestions would be quite appropriate, in my opinion. What about an image of the Moroni statue on top of the Salt Lake temple (or other temples, like this one: File:Engel_Moroni_Bern_Tempel.JPG). Would that be too particular to the LDS Church? ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 10:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What about a picture of the Brigham Young Statue (the one where his arm is stretched forward) framed with the Salt Lake Temple in the background? That way, you have three Mormon icons at the same time (including the Moroni statue). I've seen good photos framed that way, but they are all copyrighted, and I hate to use the fair use justification unless it is absolutely necessary. I also think that there are some really good, iconic Mormon pioneer images, like maybe C.C.A. Christensen's painting of the Mormon wagon trains crossing the Mississippi River with the Nauvoo Temple in the background, whose copyright has expired long ago. COGDEN 19:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What about the original angel for the Nauvoo temple. or the temple with that angel. [[1]]. I also like this picture oc the Christus, on Temple Square [2] Bytebear (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent flurry of edits

I reverted a flurry of edits, mostly by the new enthusiastic editor User:Entropy's 1 and invited him/her to come here to discuss the efforts. The material, while well intentioned, is strongly LDS pov and covers material held in many other articles. Best wishes for a future collaboration! WBardwin (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am Entropy's 1, and have been the one responsible for cleaning up some of what I see as a negative balance towards the Mormonism topic. The origin of Mormonism, which includes several different faiths, offshoots, and a cultural aspect deserves to be treated with more respect. Even though I may be new, I would like to figure out what constitutes neutral? I have many problems with this article's accuracy and have placed peer reviewed articles, references to State Monuments in Illinois and State of Missouri web pages, and they have all been erased. Is it the intention of the editors to only supply or allow negativity at the cost of historical accuracy and completeness? I do not believe that a majority feel this way. The following are a few objections that I have written in my talk page to (WBardwin) attempting to determine the specific reasons for his sweeping reversal of all of my edits.

I will also add one more to these objections. Joseph Smith, a man inseparably linked the Mormonism's cultural and religious part in American history, did not simply die as is stated in the article, he was murdered in an Illinois Jail at the age of 38! I believe that this is an important fact to include in the discussion to provide a clear accurate understanding of Mormonism. By only including the negative, which I believe this article is full of, there is a distortion borne of an imbalance of information. Weather you support the movement or not, understanding it more fully should be the goal here. My goal here is to promote accuracy and balance of the information. The following are some other things I object to in the article Mormonism:

(To WBardwin)...Thank you for your responses. I know that some members of the LDS Church shot and killed some of the mob. As far as a resistance force I am aware of no LDS Church order, ever to engage in war or war-like activities against their persecutors in Missouri. Even the Mormon Battalion was ordered not to fire a shot. So my problem with the Missouri violence reference is that 1. according to the "Mormonism" article the Mormons were the cause of the trouble by their "divisive" ways - to me this is a very negative spin. A positive spin would reference some of those unpopular political views such as abolitionism, etc. A neutral view may be to simply state that some groups of Missourians had a problem with the Mormons and organized Mob violence, accurate, but this way not assigning blame to the victims of this truly American Holocaust. 2. The degree of violence is not accurately implied or stated. A few individuals resisted against instructions from their leaders. On the other hand an overwhelming force of Missourians empowered with State Authority to slaughter a people they did not like. Instead, there is an obvious bias to the negative implying that their was an equal level of violence to those Missourians who initiated violence after asking Mormons to lay down their arms to promote peace by county and state level officials. Next I will state three distortions I see to the Doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. 1st early name of the church was not the "Church of Christ" but the "Church of Jesus Christ." I looked it up to be sure. Am I wrong? 2nd Joseph Smith would never have been comfortable with calling the fledgling organization "his" church. I have many references to this effect, including Smith's own words. This is a second doctrinal misrepresentation. 3rd the obvious omission of what Smith claimed started it all: the First Vision. It can be documented that he claimed such a thing by his mother's diary, by his own writings, and by local newspapers. Why is this so fiercely omitted from the references or Mormonism? Together such things constitute a negative distortion of the truth, an obvious imbalance to the article. Let me ask you this. It may be more popular for detractors of the LDS faith and other splinters included in the Mormonism topic to have their way with the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but is it an accurate representation of what actually happened? Does Catholicism take such weighted opinion from its detractors? Or Islam? Because I have read that they do not have to tolerate this sort of bias. (Entropy’s 1) (Entropy's 1) Entropy's 1 (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entropy's 1 (talk • contribs) [Entropy's 1]Entropy's 1 (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Umm, the members of the Church weren't doing themselves any favors in Missouri, you know. They were a known abolitionist group that was also making deals with the local Native Americans. Even if that was all they were doing, in a slave state that close to the frontier it was a dangerous political gamble on par with Joseph Smith's later order to destroy a certain press in Nauvoo - hindsight says it should not have been done how it was. Just because information is negative about the subject doesn't mean it violates Neutral Point of View. Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (He does it without notability) 17:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to welcome you, Entropy's 1. In response to your comments above, I don't think that "negativity" vs. "positivity" is the way to look at it: the goal is neutrality under the WP:NPOV policy, which includes proportionality under the WP:UNDUE section. We have to present the facts neutrally, covering all the issues generally covered in the mainstream literature, giving each topic the same prominence as they exist in the respected mainstream literature. For example, we would cover the subject in roughly the proportion and tone that could be found in such neutral overviews of Mormonism as might be found in the works of Jan Shipps or Harold Bloom, who are widely respected by both Mormons and non-Mormons. If something about Mormonism or Joseph Smith might be deemed "negative" by some readers, that doesn't really matter in itself. It can be "negative" and still neutral, or "positive" and still neutral. What matters is the prominence that theories and explanations are given in the mainstream literature. As to the other issues, here are my thoughts:

• The academic consensus is that the Missouri violence was attributed to both Mormons and non-Mormons. Initially, Mormons were passive and simply "turned the other cheek" when the Missourians carried out unprovoked raids ("unprovoked" in the sense that there was no overt initial act of violence by Mormons, leaving aside any political provocation which apparently the Missourians thought justified their initial violence). After they were attacked three times, however, a revelation by Smith had authorized them (D&C 98) on the fourth attack to destroy their enemies (and, for that matter, their descendants to the third and fourth generations). They took that revelation at face value. Thus, there were several Mormon offensive military actions or provocations, such as Zion's Camp, several actions by the Danites, Rigdon's July 4th Oration, and the "Daviess Expedition" in which the Mormon militia plundered non-Mormon homes and properties. Though the Missourians clearly started the violence, by the end it was a simple escalation on both sides leading to all-out war. It's no different than how most wars get started.
• Circa 1830, the name of the church was the Church of Christ (see that article). The term "Church of Jesus Christ" was used informally several years later along with several other terms like "Church of the Latter Day Saints" and "Church of God". Finally, after the financial scandal in Ohio, Smith changed the name to the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".
• We can't say that Smith's church was "God's church", or "Jesus' church", because that would not be neutral. I think reference to "Smith's church" simply means the church that he founded.
• As to the First Vision, I'm not sure what the exact issue is with regard to this article, but for whatever reason, there is no contemporary reference to Smith discussing the vision with others. That's not to say that he didn't, just that if he did, there is no evidence other than his own statement years later. The first arguable reference in any document to the First Vision is from 1830. The reference in Lucy Mack Smith's biography wasn't actually written by Mrs. Smith, but by her collaborator in 1853 based on Joseph Smith's 1838 account, and is not present in the original manuscript written by Mrs. Smith. But this is all covered in the First Vision article, and doesn't need to be re-hashed here. All we need here is a brief overview, perhaps, of how the vision is significant to Mormonism.

COGDEN 23:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Mormon" defined?

Recent edits to the intro have asserted the LDS viewpoint that the term "Mormon" is only correctly applied to that church, and not to other "Brighamite" churches. When it comes to a slang-like term such as "Mormon", I find it hard to say that it really has a hard-and-fast definition. That's why I rewrote the intro to say "the term is applied" rather than "the term applies", to suggest the iffy-ness and colloquial-ness of it without asserting that "this is the exact, correct, and immutable definition". ...comments? ~BFizz 07:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

The first sentence of the article reads as follows: "Mormonism comprises the religious, institutional, and cultural elements of the Latter Day Saint movement, founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. in the 1830s and 1840s, when God the Father and Jesus Christ called Smith to be a prophet."

I don't want to get into some sort of argument about the merits of the faith, but that reads to me as decidedly non-NPOV. The portion describing the 'when' of Smith's calling as being initiated by God reads as declarative, without any sort of mitigating statement of possibility. To be honest, I don't really understand why the date describing the Church's founding needs a theological claim appended to it at all - I think it makes far more sense to simply omit everything after "1840s." However, I'm not opposed to having the intro include the concept of Smith's founding the Church being a calling of the Lord - but I do think it needs to be written as belief, not as a dated fact, something in keeping with other articles on religion.

I'd like somebody to defend the current wording, as opposed to simply omitting everything after "1840s" - or, if the info about Smith's calling MUST remain in the intro, justifying the current form over something along the lines of the following:

"Mormonism comprises the religious, institutional, and cultural elements of the Latter Day Saint movement, founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. Mormons believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ called Smith to become a prophet and found the church in the 1830s and 1840s."

I'm not going to edit this right now, but I think it would be reasonable to make some sort of change in the near future. I'm happy to do so if no arguments to the contrary are raised in the next few days. 76.173.253.120 (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like BFizz made the change - I'll leave this up if anybody would like to justify a revert. 76.173.253.120 (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I did make the change. The "called by God" assertion was only recently introduced by User:DeltoidNoob but is clearly outside of WP:NPOV. I've tried not to touch the other edits that DeltoidNoob made, though I disagree with the notion of "misapplying the term Mormon". See my comments above regarding that issue. DeltoidNoob also made the change of calling non-LDS Church demonimations "breakoffs". I suppose since they are the minority in the Latter Day Saint movement, the term applies (I don't argue against its use), though I find it unnecessary. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not confident that the term "breakoff" is neutral, because some of these organizations consider themselves to still be part of the same faith, not a different religion or even a different church from the LDS Church of Brigham Young era. If there is even a possibility of non-neutrality, I say let's get rid of it and use one of the many other clearly neutral ways to discuss this. COGDEN 01:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the term "breakoff" from the intro, per COgden's concern. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Translated Book of Mormon sentence

The scholars and research into the Book of Mormon show this statement to be historically accurate. It's good to appear unbias, but this ideal should not take away from the facts of history, that have been thoroughly researched. This quote also comes from the institution that has done the most research into the matter and adds to the professionalism and credibility of the paragraph and article. Without the quote the reader is left to rely on the opinion from editor's who haven't researched into the matter as much as the sources of the quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeltoidNoob (talk • contribs) 13:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What scholarly research ? The refs were to the LDS and AAF websites, neither reliable secondary or independent sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether a source is secondary or primary is subject to the individual. No one said the LDS website was primary, and if you wish to consider it primary then the AAF would be secondary. The AFF, a foundation dedicated to research about the Book of Mormon would be much more reliable than JohnBlackburne's opinion. If we follow the logic stated by JohnBlackBurne we'd be left in the article with little more than readers opinions and very little works cited. Please see first paragraph again, and please post another reliable source if you wish to dispute the fact.

For those who view the statement as bias, remember that it is also a quote, which is different than statements in the article. By quoting other sources instead of just writing without quotes, this alerts to the reader that the quote is different than the other statements in that it may come from a bias source (which is not saying a source is necessarily bias), and so dissipates any hidden bias which keeps with the neutrality of the article. For reference, please review other articles that use quotes in their article.

The statement also is in accordance with all churches that formed from the appearance of Joseph Smith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeltoidNoob (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The AAF exists to "provides evidence for authenticity of the Book or Mormon", so it is no more independent than the LDS site. Even if it were, quotes should be used carefully to illustrate views, not to replace neutral text with a POV claim.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the AAF, but it states it is a scholarly group that collects information from other scholars about the Book of Mormon and the ancient peoples of the Americas. I don't see how this conflicts with any of our policies regarding reliable sources. The information is written by scholars and reviewed by other scholars. Individuals may disagree with their information, but that does not signify their information does not meet our standards.

John, you seemed to confuse a group's objectives with independence. Based upon your definition we would have exclude Fawn Brodie who clearly stated her purpose was to demonstrate that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. AAF would be independent as long as the LDS Church does not control their output/product. I am not aware of any direct relationship between the LDS Church or the AAF...at least, they present themselves as being an independent, non-profit organization. --^StormRider 18:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Storm Rider presents a valid point. If we take JohnBlackburne's point of view the article will be devoid of most of it's sources. "Dictated" leaves out valid facts, and once again, the article is more credible with the quote. Article should more represent facts as discovered by those who have done research, than by critics who have not. There is no evidence to the contrary so it should not be displayed otherwise. Once again, please re-read this entire section and let's come to a consensus before making edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeltoidNoob (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The quote I gave was from here, the "About AAF" link on their front page. It is the first statement on that page and in full is "AAF publications provide evidence for authenticity of the Book of Mormon". So it is not independent, in the sense of independent thought or independent lines of study: it exists to promote the teachings of the LDS. Further the reference was not to full source, but rather a selective compilation of quotes with no context. There's no indication of the "research" mentioned above, nor where the research is. It is not a reliable academic source by any standard.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of the above discussion is beside the point. The real issue is that DeltoidNoob's edit says that Smith translated "by the gift and power of God". An endorsement of LDS theology like this is not acceptable under the WP:NPOV rule. In addition, whether or not the AAF is a reliable source is not the question--the issue is whether or a link to their website is a reliable source. I don't think it is, because we know nothing about the editorial process and any peer review other than the fact that the web page was "compiled by [unnamed] AAF editors". If the AAF publishes in a peer reviewed journal, then we would want to cite that journal. As to citing the LDS website, such citations are generally only appropriate in order to document official LDS positions or perspectives. To show the "truth" of something, it is more problemmatic, and you would want to cite something that has been peer reviewed. COGDEN 19:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have raised DeltoidNoob's edits at the edit warring notice board: [3] --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The editors are named on their site i.e. the editors that do the review. As I stated I am not familiar with the site or even these individuals, but they present themselves as scholars. A quote can easily state, "translated by the gift and power of god" as long as it is attributed or referenced. Doing so does not, nor ever has, violate NPOV. What violates NPOV is stating it without an attribution or reference. The key issue is that Wikipedia cannot be placed in the position of stating a fact or defining something as true. I would say that such a statement if vastly superior to the statement that Smith translated the plates "by a unique gift" with gift linking to the article on seer stones.

When I quickly reviewed AAF website it was full of quotes, references to other scholars, etc. More than anything it appears as a gateway site to the work of scholars that address their topic of interest.

It is acceptable to quote reliable sources on Wikipedia. This edit appears to do that. I do not agree with any of the reasoning that has been put forward to disqualify the edit. However, it would be appropriate to discuss if there is an alternative way to word the same type of edit. Any proposals? --^StormRider 21:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Simply putting the material in quotes and including a reference does not transform non-neutral material into neutral text. It would be unacceptable, for example, to begin the Earth article as follows: "The earth is a "flat, four cornered surface resting on the backs of turtles" which contains continents, oceans, and islands, and is the only known source of natural life in the universe." On the other hand, you might be able to say something like: "The earth is a planet containing continents, oceans, and islands, and is the only known source of life in the universe. According to Professor Bob Jones at the Creation Science Institute of Arkansas, the earth is a "flat, four-cornered surface resting on the backs of turtles"." This, of course, would have WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE problems, which is another matter.

As to citing a gateway site, that's problematic. The articles they link to might be citable, but not the gateway. Even if a webmaster or editor is reputable, that doesn't mean their website has been fact-checked. Plus, website information is transient, and is never the best source to cite unless it is the only source of information available. COGDEN 22:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

So a gateway site such as Encyclopedia Britannica is not acceptable, where they pull their sources is acceptable? You are choking on gnats and swallowing camels. It is perfectly acceptable to say that Mormons believe "xy and z", just as it is acceptable to say the AAF has stated "x, y, and z". It is also just as functional to use quotes with a reference. It is done all the time in almost every article on Wikipedia. A gateway source, such as AAF or EB, is nothing more than a collection of reputable sources. AAF is not a blog, it is not personal opinion, it is a group of scholars that have collected information on a given topic. Now if we can prove that these are individuals with no qualifications in the topic or nut jobs, you might have a case. But, that does not seem to yet be the case. I am more than willing to discuss any information that would disqualify the site's editors, but we need facts and not people's opinions for that. --^StormRider 23:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica is peer reviewed and fact checked. That's the crucial difference. There are plenty of online reliable sources. But it's problematic to site an opinionated group's un-reviewed web page. It doesn't matter if the webmasters are Nobel laureates: if it's just their website, it's not enough. It has to go through some sort of process of fact checking or peer review, or have some kind of verifiable acceptance by academia as a reliable source.

As to the quotations issue, I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. The problem is not that quotes are used. Rather, I'm saying that using quotes does not nullify the lack of neutrality of a statement like "the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God." If we make such a statement--quotes or no quotes--it has to be attributed to somebody, not just stated flatly like it was in DeltoidNoob's text. COGDEN 07:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• If I may, let's pull this away from the somewhat abstract and get down to the brass tacks as it were. The variant forms of the sentence in question are these:
  • "...the faith drew its first converts while Smith 'translated the Book of Mormon (over 500 pages) by the gift and power of God in about 60 days'"
  • "...the faith drew its first converts while Smith was dictating the text of the Book of Mormon"
• I'm having a very hard time seeing why the first would be preferable. It seems to engage in subtle puffery, what with the "over 500 pages ... in about 60 days" statement. Why is this important to the statement? From my view, it's not, really. Saying he "dictated" the Book of Mormon is a fairly neutral representation of what Smith did, and it takes no position on whether he was "translating" in a scientific sense, receiving text by revelation, or making it up as he went, all 3 of which are theoretically possible. Highlighting one of those options or opinions, that it was "translated by the gift and power of God", is not that important in the context of the sentence as a whole. That claim can be and is covered elsewhere. Plus it's just more wordy and doesn't flow as well as the original text. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the first is wordy and generally a failure at style. The factoid about 500 pages in 60 days can be included in a separate sentence, but this particular sentence is talking about "the faith draw[ing] its first converts". The extra info makes the sentence feel like a jolting roller-coaster of topics without stopping for a period break. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

500 pages in about 60 days

I've reworked the '500 pages in about 60 days' tidbit into the article, along with the 'gift and power of God' statement. I don't love the sentence, it doesn't absolutely need to be in this article. But I wanted to see what others thought on this placement and wording. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just delete it, for two reasons: First, I take issue with the statement's accuracy. It's true that most of the translation took place within about 60 days, but not all of it. Smith apparently resumed translating after the loss of the Book of Lehi in September 1828. However, the translation was sporadic until early April 1829 when Cowdery arrived in Harmony and they could translate full time. Thus, the translation of 500 pages technically took about 9 months, or about 180 days. Second, the sentence in question is unnecessary and unhelpful to the topic. Why do we need to include the exact number of days during which translation occurred? So what? This is a relatively trivial fact that belongs in other articles and is not crucial to the topic of Mormonism. COGDEN 07:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I would second COGDEN's view. I think it's unnecessary in the context. The issue of the translation process and how long it took should be dealt with in Book of Mormon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I think this information is pertinent, I would agree that this article is not the best article to mention it. The BofM articles and the Joseph Smith article would both be better locations. If we have reliable sources that state it took 90 days, then it is important. The information I have read seems to only count the days actual translation took place, not the actual days passed between the beginning of translation and last day of translation. I again mention the need for a reliable source for this comment. --^StormRider 16:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of feedback I was hoping for. I agree that it felt like a misplaced detail. So where should it go? Book of Mormon, and perhaps Joseph Smith, Jr.? ...comments? ~BFizz 18:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Details (even more detail than is proposed here) about the time periods for translation are already found in several articles, including Joseph Smith, Jr., Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1827 to 1830, golden plates, and Book of Mormon. We are not going to find a reliable source definitively saying that the translation took place in X number of days. Any such statement would be pure speculation, and we would need to clarify that it's just a guess. There is no way to know for sure, based on the current historical record, the exact or even approximate number of days on which Smith did at least some translation. It could be as few as 30 days or as many as 200 days for all we know. We can say definitively, however, that most of the translation took place from April 7 to June 30, 1829, so if we say anything along those lines, that's what I'd say. COGDEN 20:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

On the current topic of relevancy, the paragraph where the sentence resides is talking about the Book of Mormon, and so it seems the sentence adds support to the preceding sentences in that respect. The sentence also adds some cited works which add to the professionalism of the article, which is lacking references in many pivotal key areas. Also it's good we review the article as a whole and then the paragraph as a whole, so as to not accidentally make a false comparison between two ends without remembering what connects them.

Also on the topic of relevant sources, in seeking to find unbias sources it seems we're looking for someone without a "dog in the fight" instead of sources who have done proper research. What's more important is that we portray things as they actually are, which means finding unbias research that portrays reality. When looking for someone without a dog in the fight or so called "neutral" sources, it's easy to be found on a slippery slope of excluding the most credible sources of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeltoidNoob (talk • contribs) 04:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

To me it looks like you're in the minority here, Deltoid. We should probably remove its mention from this article in light of the above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If the discussion reveals that it's best we remove it, that's okay. But the precedents in the last paragraph that starts with "On the current topic of relevancy" haven't been refuted or supported yet, and it would probably be best to refute or support those points before coming to a consensus, as taking action without good argument tends to promote edit quarreling. Then we may best take an educated vote based on all the evidences and sound discussion brought forth.

This discussion section and the patience of the editors is also praiseworthy.DeltoidNoob (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is saying that we have to find "neutral" sources, if such a thing exists. the only requirement for sources is that they be reliable (and neither the LDS nor AAF website is considered a reliable source for the number of days Smith translated--not because they are biased, but because they are not the kind of sources that would be cited in academia). Where bias comes in is in how the sources are used. Thus, it's not a problem that some source says that Smith translated "by the power of God". What matters is that this is characterized as a religious tenet rather than a consensus historical fact, and that we not give that opinion undue weight in relation to the scope and content of the article or in relation to other competing opinions. We also have to make sure that the opinion belongs here given the granularity of the article, or whether it is more properly covered in another article. COGDEN 20:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Mormon theology claims to situate Mormonism within the context of Judaism

All Christian religions "Claim to situate their beliefs within the context of Judaism", so this statement is weird, and wrong. Christians say that Old Testament prophets such as Isaiah, and others predicted Jesus... If you want I can find hundreds of examples that make this statement sound ridiculous. Actually I'm just going to change it to "Mormon theology LIKE ALL CHRISTIANITY claims to situate IT'S beliefs within the context of Judaism"myclob (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the point of that was, actually, that Mormonism claims an even closer connection to Judaism than does the rest of Christianity. Mormons believe (or used to believe) that they are actual Israelites and have every bit as much right to be called the "chosen people" as the Jews. Other Christians don't make that claim. So maybe we can word it differently. I guess it's not really that Mormons claim to be Jews: it's that Mormons claim an affinity to Judaism because they are Israelites and they are equally a "chosen people". COGDEN 17:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's probably significantly moreso than a typical Christian denomination. The people in the Book of Mormon being part of the House of Israel has a major impact in this regard, I think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

re: "to an extent that goes beyond what most other Christian denominations claim". This is very subjective. It should just read that "There are some aspects of Mormon theology that..." There are many things that Mormons believe that are less associated with Jewish traditions than other Christian denomination. As we all know, an encyclopedia should stick to facts, that can be proven. I think that when you say stuff about Mormonism doing something more than "other Christian denomination" it doesn't sound right. Which other Christian denominations? All of them? Every single last one? No. Jews for Jesus situate themselves more closely aligned with the old testament than Mormonism. There are surely other Christian churches that were started by Jewish rabbis, or old testament scholars that are more "situated" within traditional context of Judaism than Mormonism. When you make a statement that is so watered down with qualifiers, it becomes not much of a statement at all. "To an extent that goes beyond what most other" is too big of a qualifier, and even it is a little too broad. myclob (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I was happy with how it read initially, prior to your changing it. If you have a better solution, I'd like to hear it. There's little doubt that it does go beyond what the vast majority of Christians would consider its relationship—it's certainly moreso than the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and mainline Protestants, and members of these groups make up the vast majority of Christians in the world. It could be reworded to "moreso than most other adherents of Christianity" which would be quite an obvious statement to make and would take the focus off measuring the denominations to measuring what most Christian individuals believe. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

LDS Text

Please Explain More: Does Mormonism require the "corruption" of Judeo Christian Scripture and the "apostasy" of it's teachings in order to find relevance? In other words, If either of these events didn’t take place, (at least to the extent proposed), why would a "restoration" be required? Ultimately, we have no historical or political indication that it happened – no times or dates, no locations and no evidence of the groups involved. For example, I'll use the "Biblical Exodus" to emphasize my point. We know factually that an innumerable population of Hebrews lived in Egyptian territories during a certain BC time-period. We then learn these Hebrews suddenly migrated from Egypt and began forming settlements in Israel around the same time. A good historical starting point for discussing the Biblical “Exodus”. Where is the Mormon starting point for discussing the “great apostasy”?

(Note: Please avoid mentioning the Comma Johanneum again - it's loosely merited and already discussed. Looking to be more academic and engaged in the true development of this article). HBCALI (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears there is at least some of the information you're looking for is at Great Apostasy#The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Culture and practices

What on Earth is this sentence supposed to mean: "As a result of the Word of Wisdom, the culture in areas of the world with a high concentration of Mormons tends to be reflected." It makes no sense, grammatical or otherwise, and one citation leads to a US News and World Report table about health in American cities, and the other to a page with this headline: "Maverik name deal valued at $600,000 annually." It strikes me as NPOV cheerleading in favor of the article's subject. An article about a religion with supposedly millions of followers ought to do better. O0drogue0o (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph on theological and doctrinal differences with historic Christianity

Some problems that I see with the paragraph that User:Alan355 keeps on inserting are that it includes far too many details for a summary section, mentions some points that imo are not really notable, and engages in a little too much original synthesis. For example:

1. Polytheism - this point was argued quite a bit over on the Christianity talk page with result being that LDS are categorized under Monotheism. You can also probably see some of the debate when others discussed adding LDS to the Polytheism article itself. Gathering a smattering of quotes from not necessarily doctrinally authoritative sources - I always wince when we use "Mormon Doctrine" and "The Seer" was actually disavowed by LDS Church leadership back in 1865 - is not the best way to present LDS or Mormon theology and doctrine. For example, in on the same section you're using from TPJS Smith is quoted as saying "I want to set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God--that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all".
2. God status and Kolob - a bit of a sticky point, even among the LDS Church, and far too detailed. Kolob as the residence of God itself is very a minor theological point in LDS theology - the point is not even the point of mentioning it in the Book of Abraham text where it is mentioned only as analogy to the importance of Christ. More important theologically is the belief that God has a physical exalted/perfected body.
3. Modern prophets vs scripture - this is only technically true only from the viewpoint of TC - really it should be modern prophets are more authoritative than past interpretations of scripture. From the LDS perspective this is a non-point because they will always see the two in agreement - any perceived contradiction will be due to incorrect interpretation or incomplete knowledge in the past.
4. Baptism for the dead - I don't think that this is that notable, merely the LDS resolution to the Fate of the unlearned dilemma.
5. Eternal nature of marriage - valid, though I wonder at the notability in a summary paragraph I do think this could be mentioned
6. Polygamy in heaven - may be a cultural belief but definitely not a doctrinal statement. Again I dislike using "Mormon Doctrine" for official statements of doctrine.

And there's already a link at the top of the section to Mormonism and Christianity so we don't need another one at the end. Overall though, why do you want to mention just these points - there several other points of doctrine that are much more theologically significant such as the beliefs about the pre-existence, the afterlife, the purpose of life, free will vs predestination, open vs closed canon, etc. To me in the paragraph in question comes across as an attempt at sensationalism rather than to give a succint summary. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair to discuss here, probably should've first anyway. I understand your concern over popular or older beliefs that may not be "canonized", but some of these differences are major to traditional christianity and is oft cited as evidence of incongruence and some are canonized, but as Doctrine & Covenants is not valid wiki source material, we must use secondary research and interpretation. Mormons may believe in and worship the one God, but also teach that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are seperate Gods, and some leaders have taught, I cited two roughly 100 years apart, that there are more than that. Many of the other points such as polygamy in marriage, Lorenzo Snow's quote are so well taught that they warrant consideration here, ongoing prophecy is significant in that it makes Mormonism and it's scripture fluid and changeable to the outside observer. Not to be personal but just because you don't think that a particular belief or teaching isn't significant doesn't mean that traditional christianity views it that way or that the LDS feels the same way. The official website discussed many of these points. Feel free to discuss similarities, emphasis on helping others, building strong moral families, community support, some of that is already mentioned. What if it was phrased "Some common beliefs and teachings, that are different from traditional Christianity..." and not use the word doctrine and a paragraph describing similarities. This section is about the relation to Christianity, so a discussion of similarities and differences is appropriate and responsible. --Alan355 (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by traditional Christianity? Are we talking about the majority of Christianity, Catholicism, or are we taking about the minority, as in Evangelical? The doctrine of the Trinity, acknowledged to be incomprehensible by scholars, states that each member of the Trinity is a God; that they are three distinct persons; yet somehow they are one God. The teaching of a shared essence was created in order to say they are yet one. Islam claims this is polytheism. How is it different from LDS theology explained in the Book of Mormon that says there is only one God? When discussing the topic of the Godhead, you have to be very careful to explain the context of each claim. That is why LDS so easily claim to be monotheistic.

The teaching of polytheism states that all the gods are worthy of worship and the adherents choose to follow/worship one of the pantheon. There is no pantheon within Mormonism; there is only God. Jesus taught us to pray to God the Father; that is the only God LDS pray to and no one else.

Who cite it as evidence of incongruence with traditional Christianity? Best we site that source rather than anything else. Who speaks for all of Christianity?

Polygamy in marriage is well known in Christianity because so many of the most famous prophets of the OT practiced it. When did it stop being practiced? Was it just social custom for the change or revelation from God?

I have a suspicion that any of the many anti-Mormon websites have been used to "clarify" differences. Let's look at the one or several that you are using for this list of differences. It then is quicker to get to bottom line and answer more cleanly the issues. --^StormRider 20:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Storm, thank you for your thoughts, yes the doctrine of the Trinity is difficult. Fair point, Mormons do not worship the “other gods” that many Mormon leaders have taught of. The underlying meaning of Mormon worship of One God is not the same as what is understood in Trinitarianism. I will concede that a better wording would be to state belief in other gods though only one is worshiped. Polygamy has never been practiced in Christianity, you are referring to early Israelite traditions. Though you may disagree with my edits, I am vehemently not an anti-mormon, I am trying to find a fair balance description of theological differences and similarities(many similarities already included). But just because a few authorized Mormon websites, which was the source for most of my research don’t view these issues as divergent, doesn’t mean that Traditional Christianity represents this the same way, and the fact that some authors describe differences doesn’t make it anti-mormon, that is a very charged term. Most of my sources either were or referenced apostles or prominent leaders, McConkie, Robinson, Talmage, Joseph F. Smith, Hinkley, to name a few, if the leaders don’t speak correctly about doctrine and common beliefs then who does? Especially if the belief of continuing revelation says that their teachings are supposed to reflect correct interpretation. I use the phrase traditional Christianity as used in the article Mormonism and Christianity, it’s the same term used there. Mormonism is more than welcome to teach whatever it wants, I don’t care, man can become a God doesn’t bother me, Kolob doesn’t bother me, but it needs to be represented in an honest way, and not to make it look less controversial to other Christians. My edits didn’t pass judgement on anything, the readers need fair information to come to their own conclusions. I have done my own research on mormonism off of Mormon websites and LDS literature and BYU research, I don’t need an anti-mormon website to tell me no denomination I’ve ever studied taught that man can become a God (though the Bible says we can become like God, no interpretation of that resembles the LDS perspective), that God was once a man or that marriages can last into Heaven, these are direct contradictions or extrapolations to what the Bible states. I have been told more than once by mormons that information was “anti-mormon propaganda” only to be later informed that the information was correct. The only one of the differences that has been accused of being incorrect is polytheism and I’ve ceded that, the rest are legitimate. There are large discussions to be had over the theological significance of Kolob, or polygamy in heaven, but I figured briefly mentioning them would be best, so as not to infer judgement or support. Any LDS or mormon reference is going to be pro-mormon and any reference to books or articles disagreeing with that will be called anti-mormon, so can we find a balance that will briefly, appropriately describe both perspectives?--Alan355 (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Storm Rider read my mind here and said what I was thinking (as usual, right SR?). I agree with FyzixFighter too that this all seems a bit much for this article, which is really just an overview of a class of churches. The edits seem to be quite focused on LDS Church "doctrine", and such a focused treatment is not really what this page is meant to address. There are enough specific pages in WP that address all of these topics in relative detail. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a bit much. I only added a couple sentences that mentioned a hand full of differences in summary. Several others on this discussion page have observed a pro-mormon trend, I was merely trying to balance that out briefly.--Alan355 (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant just what I said in the rest of my comment: this article "is really just an overview of a class of churches. The edits seem to be quite focused on LDS Church 'doctrine', and such a focused treatment is not really what this page is meant to address. There are enough specific pages in WP that address all of these topics in relative detail." I'm not sure how I could express this in another way that would be more understandable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Good Olfactory (talk • contribs)

Alan, criticism or divergent views are not anti-Mormon and I concur with your statement that anti-Mormon is a charged term. However, I will only use the term when it is appropriate. I appreciate scholarly criticism and doctrinal differences, but let's make sure that the tone of the discussion and the presentation of facts maintains this same quality.

Good is quite correct that this is a top level article and should maintain that position. Although the LDS Church is by far the largest group within Mormonism, it does not control the term. There are many groups under this title and are more appropriate considered the Latter Day Saint movement; even that the LDS Church would like to claim the term Mormonism to itself.

It may help to keep edits to this page and then move forward after consensus is achieved. --^StormRider 09:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If I may interject gentlemen. I would like to enter a different point of view. What purpose does preventing so called "pro-Mormon" voices from influencing this article on "Mormonism?" Will something be lost if this occurs? I am including the paragraph below that I wrote Oct 31st 2010 after having a few of my edit's reversed and experiencing frustration that no discussion was occurring to explain why offensive, and negatively charged terms like "faction" were being used and defended. Read it and I invite serious discussion on what is neutral and what is "Anti-Mormon."

It is often disappointing when some refer to any topic concerning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (also known incorrectly as "The Mormon Church") is mentioned in association with Wikipedia. As a practicing member of the church for nearly 30 years, encountering this and other articles and using the word encyclopedic in the same sentence is laughable. The content is largely offensive and unrecognizable to members of the largest "faction" of the "Brighamites" or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. These terms are not fair or accurate because they are not true to the context of the subject matter. As for those who constantly complain that the article isn't critical enough of the Church of Jesus Christ, even though the topic is broader than this largest group, I suggest that your criticism is shaky scholarship at best and hate speech at worst. Why is it necessary to spin the facts to slander this mainstream Christian religion? Why is it necessary to suppress certain aspects of the name, belief structure, history, and surrounding American History of this part of American History. If the organization is bad or evil or deserving of hatred in some way why not let the facts be whole and complete, proportionally balanced and recognizable to those who are either members of the various branches of Mormonism or are in some other way associated with it. Obscure anti-Mormon hate speech and debunked innuendo do not belong here if Wikipedia is to be of any value as a neutral site. Why not let the reader decide what is true and what is not? On almost every point in this article I find links to anti-Mormon websites, sometimes subtly veiled other times not, seemingly attempting to fill this site with innuendo and insinuation (Smith was a "treasure seeker"). Often debunked anti-Mormon ideas such as this are recirculated in this forum because those curious about that branch of Christianity known as Mormonism can be excluded from that same Christianity. Other relevant facts such as the nature of the circumstances regarding Joseph Smith's and his brother Hyrum's murder in Carthage are fiercely opposed. The fact that nearly 30,000 American Citizens were removed by force from their land and property stolen, and families legally murdered did happen. They were disliked by their neighbors partly for their "subversive" political views, but the most volatile of those views in Missouri, abolitionism, is suppressed completely. Is it perhaps inconvenient for those detractors of this uniquely American religious movement to mention this fact while they place links about supposed doctrinal racism under links? I submit that the whole truth about "Subversive" Mormon politics in regard to blacks is devastating to the critics links when the word abolitionism is added to the discussion. If there is fault or blame to be had why not present all the facts and let the true context of history claim the readers attention on the matter. I am again appalled by the dismissal of my nearly 30 years of independent study and experience and that of others as members of the Church, simply because those with another point of view cannot bear it. Ignorance, negative spin, and hate-speech are not what Jesus Christ taught his disciples. For those calling themselves "Christians" I invite you to remember that He taught and expanded on the Golden Rule, not just do unto others as ye would have them do unto you, but do good to and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you (See the New Testament, if you don't know where it is you might try reading it). For scholars and non-Christians I appeal to your intellectual integrity to not simply tear down having decided in advance what people need to see Mormonism as, but to tolerate and even welcome relevant facts that give an accurate and more complete context. I invite both camps to value the independently study of intelligent people who are members and believers in the various branches of Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ, thereby adding a richness to the detail and the insights of people who have spent many more years studying, practicing and believing in this uniquely American Branch of Christianity known as Mormonism. ( Entropy's 1 (Talk)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entropy's 1 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am open for a discussion. Entropy's 1 (talk)

The goal of Wikipedia is to present neutral articles, not to present articles that are perceived as being either pro- or anti-Mormon. It's not an exact science: what one reader may view as "anti-Mormon" may be generally considered to be neutral by other edits, and likewise with "pro-Mormon". One way to help promote neutrality is to do our best to use sources from disinterested writers. So to answer your question, theoretically the only purpose in preventing "pro-Mormon voices" from influencing the article would be to promote greater neutrality, but I'm not sure that it's a major problem either way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So, neutral is ideally more objective, that seems OK. I realize that this is not going to be a perfect process for anyone because of the nature of the site, however I would like to find a way to contribute relevant facts that I feel complete the picture. So, it sounds like to change things the type of sources I am looking for are not associated with the LDS Church or the Book of Mormon or BYU? Does this type of distance apply to other controversial topics? It seems unnecessarily restrictive and one sided. If I find something from an LDS Scholar is it appropriate for this site? What is disappointing about each and every wiki article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to me is that the information is barely recognizable, and I am familiar with the topic. The term "Brighamites" for example I have never seen it used from what I would call a reputable source. I would just like a chance to balance the many references to things like "succession crisis" with something with a little more substance. Entropy's 1 (talk)