Talk:Mormon (word)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Divorce figures misleading[edit]

Hello. According to the "demographics" paragraph of this page "In 1999 the divorce rate for Mormons in the United States was 24%,[19] which is well below the nation average."

The link cited is http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm

HOWEVER: on this page, regarding divorce, the following is stated

"Overall, the Mormon divorce rate appears to be no different from the average American divorce rate. A 1999 study by Barna Research of nearly 4,000 U.S. adults showed that 24% of Mormon marriages end in divorce -- a number statistically equal to the divorce rate among all Americans. 5 Members of non-denominational churches (typically Fundamentalist in teaching) and born-again Christians experience a significantly higher divorce rate; Agnostics and Atheists have much a lower rate"

This is not just misleading, it's lying! This citation says the exact opposite of what the Wiki page says!

And the citation given for that (on religoustolerance.org) at the bottom of the page is to this article: http://www.mormonstoday.com/000102/N1Divorce01.shtml

The article is titled "LDS Divorce Rate at U.S. National Average" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.28.61 (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Demographics section[edit]

Surely there is more to discuss in the newly introduced Demographics section than just the divorce rate; however, is this the best article for any of demographics discussion at all, especially if it is US-centric? Isn't this a duplication of part of the information found at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints membership statistics (United States) (which really should be renamed Demographics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the United States or Demographics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (United States) anyway)? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed the section, it innaccuratly quoted the source (here) - the quote was "A 1999 study by Barna Research of nearly 4,000 U.S. adults showed that 24% of Mormon marriages end in divorce -- a number statistically equal to the divorce rate among all Americans." - the article claimed that this divorce rate was less than the general population, which was not what the source claimed. RandomTime 17:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Wearingaredhat, 12 January 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change the starting time period of the Book of Mormon from 2600BC to 600BC as this is in line with the information contained in the Introduction found at the beginning of the Book of Mormon.

Thanks

Wearingaredhat (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Based on commentary on the Book of Mormon at [lds.org the LDS website], it does appear that 600 BC is the correct year. My guess is that the original editor may have meant "2600 Before Present". Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon contains the Book of Ether, which is dated to 2600 BC. The Book of Ether takes one to about 600 BC, which is when the rest of the book picks up. I'll try and find a source for this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Source added for 2600 BC: [1]. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I'm seeing that now myself. I haven't found any "reliable" sources yet. Is josephsmith.com reliable for Mormon issues (see this entry? How about Cedar Fort publishers (see this book excerpt)? I'm going to go ahead and self-revert back to 2600 (I see you already got it for me Qwyrxian (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)), because the unreliable evidence seems convincing to me, but I'd prefer to get a reliable source. Scanning through the Book of Ether on the lds website, I don't see any dates like there were in other sections, but maybe I just didn't find it yet. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The LDS Church version of the Book of Mormon doesn't attempt to date the Book of Ether because of the difficulty (or impossibility!) of dating the events of the Tower of Babel, which is where the story starts off. The rest of the Book of Mormon, which deals with an entirely different group of people, has reference to events which are more realiably dateable, like the reign of Zedekiah and the birth of Jesus, etc.
But from what I have read, the earliest estimate from Mormon scholars is 2600 B.C. Other estimates are similar. Later in the LDS Church's student manual on the Book of Mormon, it says 2200–2100 B.C. is the likely latest dates possible, so we have a range of 2600–2100 B.C., I suppose. I'm not sure how to deal with this in this context, as it's really just a passing mention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the cite you had is fine. Book of Mormon should probably be a little more clear, but for this case, we don't need to go into too much detail. Thanks for your help—I leaped too soon on the first sources I saw without digging further. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

I feel that this article needs a little revision. It says that "Mormonism is the largest branch of the Latter-Day saint movement," which is confusing, as it implies that some Latter-Day Saints are not Mormon. "Mormon" and "Latter-Day Saint" are synonyms. Also, the article says something about the difference between the FLDS and LDS churches is that the Latter-Day Saints never practiced polygamy. That is untrue. Both religions practiced it, but only the LDS faith abandoned the stopped. Next, it should be mentioned that the reasons that members of the LDS faith prefer to be called "Latter-Day Saints" are the following: 1. The Book of Mormon is only one of four standard works of scripture that the LDS faith embraces, all of which are used harmoniously to define one cohesive doctrine. 2. The full name of the religion is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and its doctrine says that this name was given to it by revelation, which indicates that God the Father has a preference as to what his church should be called. It is also made clear in the Book of Mormon that the Lord's church must be identified by his name. 3. For the sake of practicality, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints prefers to be referred to by only one name; there is much anecdotal evidence that many people do not regard "Mormon" and "LDS" as sysnonyms-- not the least of which is the confusing first paragraph of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wirecaballo (talkcontribs) 00:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot here, but the most basic point to address is the issue of "Latter Day Saints" and "Mormons". There are some Latter Day Saints who are not Mormons. Mormons generally refer to members of the LDS Church, and sometimes the term is used to refer to the FLDS Church and other Mormon fundamentalists. There are groups within the Latter Day Saints movement, including the Community of Christ (RLDS Church) and other groups that did not follow Brigham Young, that do not self-identify as being "Mormons", but they are Latter Day Saints because they are part of the Latter Day Saint movement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: add parenthetical[edit]

I'm thinking, based on WP:D, that this article needs a parenthetical, probably "Mormon (terminology)". There are many articles for things that may be referred to as "Mormon", and this article, specifically about the terminology, is less prominent subject than Mormonism, which is specifically about the people and the religion. When people are looking up the word Mormon in an encyclopedia, they generally want to learn about Mormonism, and not about the particulars of the terminology. We should help them find the article they are looking for 90% of the time. In this case, Mormonism seems to be the "primary topic" according to WP:D.

So my proposal is to rename this article as "Mormon (terminology)", and redirect the article Mormon to Mormonism. We can link to this article from Mormonism, and also from the disambiguation page. COGDEN 23:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. I agree with this proposal and think that it's a good idea. I have noticed over the months that many editors who edit this page make edits as if the article were about Mormonism, when really it is much more narrow a topic, so I agree that those searching for "Mormon" should be redirected to Mormonism. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
While this makes sense to me, I checked Christian and Muslim, and both of them go to a page just like this one (for example, the first line of Christian is "A About this sound Christian (help·info) is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament"). Or am I still misunderstanding what the purpose of this page is supposed to be? We don't have to be consistent with other articles, but it seems like we should unless there's a compelling reason not to. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It's unclear if it would apply here, but there is related policy discussion going on right now at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Genus and species. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, I think this article differs from Christian and Muslim in that this article focuses on the terminology, whereas those are about a particular person who is Christian or Muslim. Unlike Christianity or Islam, the term Mormonism already refers to a people and not just a religion. Thus, there is no need for a separate article called "Mormon" or "Mormons" that refers to the people who are part of Mormonism. But there is a good reason to have an article that focuses on the terminology, given that there is a lot you can say about the word Mormon.COGDEN 09:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
But the first line of this article says that "A Mormon is an adherent, practitioner, follower, or constituent of Mormonism...." That sounds to me like this article is about the people who follow the religion called Mormonism. So, if we do move this, then I think it would make sense to create a replacement article that is about the people. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree the lede seems to suggest the article is about Mormon people, but the article is actually about the term, not the people. The topic of Mormon people is discussed in Mormonism. I don't see a need for a separate article (at least yet) about Mormons as a class of people, but if there were one, I'd be inclined to name it "Mormons" by analogy with Jews. (See WP:AT statement regarding plural form of "names of classes of objects".) COGDEN 13:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Partial support. I agree with much in this proposal. A parenthetical like "Mormon (terminology)" will work fine. I also think the current Mormon article isn't the primary one, but I'm not convinced that most people are helped by being redirected straight to Mormonism. There are currently at least two dominating Mormon articles in wikipedia other than the current Mormon article. An -ism is in its historical context used as a "collective derogatory term" or as the dictionary says as "a form of prejudice or discrimination, either for or against a group". This is especially true for the mormon -ism. This is probably why Mormon believers, like myself, avoid call our belief mormonism and why disbelievers more likely use that term. Mormon is more neutral and equally used by belivers and nonbelivers alike than mormonism is used. If you google the words "Mormon" and "Mormonism" and count the number of believers and disbelievers you can actually measure the difference in belief associated with the words. I think mormonism as the primary mormon article isn't as equal or neutral choice, because it doesn't equally include all beliefs or points of view. HelloWorld50 (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss further what the best name for the current Mormonism article should be, or whether we should create a new article about the Mormon people, but it seems like there is at least no strong opposition to renaming this article Mormon (terminology). So I'm going to make the change and see what happens. If anyone really does oppose this, then lets discuss further. COGDEN 21:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We have not yet evaluated the primary Mormon topic. There are at least one other higly sought and referenced mormon article other than Mormonism. WP:D only mandate a primary topic if one of them is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box". Exceptions may exist when there is a consensus for doing so. I suggest we continue testing the new primary article and then test other frequently sought mormon articles, also the renamed one if applicable, each one for a equally measurable amount of time. I also think the Mormon (disambiguation) page is a powerful test-candidate that can be used to evaluate what people seek. I think this way of testing would give us lot's of reasonable hard data to properly evaluate the primary mormon topic. Are you in for some further testing before deciding? --HelloWorld50 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "testing"? Is there a way we can do statistics on what users are looking for when they type "Mormon"? If so, then I think that's great. One thing I think we can be sure of is that this article is not the main topic. If there is a main topic (and I think there is), I think it has to be Mormonism, although I can possibly see room for the creation of a separate "Mormons" article that discusses Mormons as a people. Basically, this would just involve a split of the existing Mormonism article into Mormonism and Mormons. But I'm not convinced yet that this is a good idea. COGDEN 23:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
COGDEN's point is strong--even if we don't know what the main target people are looking for when they type "Mormon", it clearly is not this--an entomological/historical analysis of a certain term. As for what HelloWorld50 is suggesting...I don't see how we could possibly get "hard data", unless there's something at the toolserver that I've never heard of. Also, this probably isn't the right page to try to figure out whether to use a dab and whether or not there's a primary topic. Probably the best way is to put a discussion on one of the main articles (like Talk: Mormonism), then put links to on other relevant pages (and an active Wikiproject, if there is one). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Though I usually prefer selecting a primary topic, in this case I think it might be wise for Mormon to redirect to Mormon (disambiguation). I've made the change for now, but am willing to step back and discuss if this is controversial. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I think there definitely is a main topic. When people want to know about Mormon or Mormons, there is a specific topic they want to know about 95% of the time. Right now, that topic is reflected most closely in Mormonism, but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of creating a Mormons article, by analogy to Jews, which I think would clearly be the main article. COGDEN 09:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Talk:Mormonism#New "Mormons" article. I propose we take the remainder of this discussion there. COGDEN 23:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Mormon (terminology) --> Mormon (word)[edit]

I propose another renaming, this time from Mormon (terminology) to Mormon (word). Most articles about words, like Man (word), seem to use the "(word)" parenthetical, and this seems more straightforward. If nobody opposes, I'll make the change in a few days. COGDEN 20:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Archive?[edit]

This talk page is very long, and most of the conversations are stale. Is it time to archive this talk page again (maybe everything prior to 2011)? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I set it up to archive automatically. COGDEN 03:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I've fixed the automatic archiving code. Graham87 09:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

From Talk:Mormon (word)/Comments[edit]

The following contribution was previously found at Talk:Mormon (word)/Comments, but it belongs on this talk page instead, so moved it here. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In the first paragraph the following is said of the mormons:

Mormons most commonly carry knives in their back pocket...if one of them is to be approached by a non-christian. In which they will skin the person and use their blood and skin for communion on the following Sunday.

Not only is this really bizzare but it is poorly written. Have there been cases when non-christians were skinned and their blood used for communion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.168.255 (talkcontribs) 09:56, 28 January 2007‎