Talk:Mormonism

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions; Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue. During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box. After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page. (This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

Archives
Archive 1: Jan 2003 - Jun 2006 Archived coverup allegations Archive 2: Jun 2006 - Dec 2006

Cultural Mormonism

There are a few problems with this. It states that following the Word of Wisdom is part of "Cultural" Mormonism. Actually, that's one of Mormonism's doctrines. It is required for temple worship or to be a member in good standing with the Church. I don't know if it might perhpas me practiced more widely in the utah-area than in other places, but it's a doctrine, rather than a cultural thing.

Also, the start says that it is referring mainly to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Cultural section says

"In Mormon fundamentalist groups, the dominant style of dress is popularly called "prairie garb", which might typically consists of long, homemade dresses for women in 19th century stylings, or long skirts and blouses buttoned all the way up, and hair in long braids; and often long-sleeved shirts for men."

It should be more explicitly stated that these fundamentalists do not belong to the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," but rather one of the break-off groups.

Chrieraux 19:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Are Mormons Christians?

The question of classification is way too controversial to be answered in such a flip and unprofessional manner as "nope". If we are to address the question, we need to do so in using NPOV. ex. instead of "Are Mormons Christians", we should have a section something like this:

"Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity"

---Mormons emphatically see themselves as Christians; however this classification is disputed to varying degrees by many theologians. etc. Some Protestant denominations, while disagreeing with tenets of the Church of LDS, believe they are essentially Christian, while others argue that their acceptance of the Book of Mormon etc. (or other reasons etc) place them in a new category altogether. Etc.

(here we could summarize all arguments about the topic and provide info about:

1) the position of Mormon theologians, followers.
2) the position of various Protestant denominations, Roman Catholics etc.
3) the views of most lay Christians/Mormons
4) the politics of categorization.
5) a short list of differences etc. 
6) the position of academic experts on Christianity/Mormonism. 

I do not have a dog in this fight, but I think the current article is doing a disservice to interested readers. Sincerely, --Ampersand 05:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Or one could, as stated in the article, "See Mormonism and Christianity for more information." Val42 06:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that this section is neutral either. It states that Mormans are only "perceived" not to be Christians. Many, if not the majority of prominent Christian theologians do not consider mormanism to fit within the tenets of accepted Christian orthodoxy. Mormans do not believe in salvation by grace, they believe in salvation by works. Furthermore, I have a hard time understanding how anyone who believes that upon meeting the specified criteria, he will become a god of his own world, can be understood to be within what is understood as the historic Christian faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.34.227 (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is meant to discuss the improvement of this article. Please find references for these views then they can be added to this article's page. — Val42 04:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You also might want to look at your definition of Christianity. Your assumption is correct, Mormonism is not orthodox Christianity; it belongs within the Restorationism movement. Orthodoxy is a 4th century product whereas Mormonism claims to be a restoration of 1st century Christianity. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 13:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is an interesting debate between Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Orson Scott Card, author and commited Mormon. Start at the bottom of the page and work your way up so that "Mormonism is not Christianity" is read first. (That was the order of the debate) http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/mormondebate/ Itsadiel 18:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Latter Day Church of Christ, Matthew Gill

User:69.27.11.50 (I assume Matthew Gill) - can you provide a copy of documentation that your religious organization has been registered as such, according to the laws of Great Britain? We need additional verification of the sect aside from your blog (the in the mouth of two or three witnesses thing works on Wikipedia too). Also, can you provide membership statistics? (its not that we don't believe you, its just that there are thousands of people claiming to start a new religion, and ususally more than three months of history can be provided - we just need some verification or official status, and until it is obtained, your group may not qualify as an official church or religious movement).

The section you added would be better placed at Latter_Day_Saint_movement, and will likely be moved their in accordance with Wikipedia Style guidelines, after details you've included are verified. Please do not revert the current changes, as Wikpedia is not for advertisting, and the section as it was written was quite commercial and against wikipedia guidelines (see Wikipedia:NPOV. Continuing to revert back to such a commercial is considered vandalism, and may result in your IP address being blocked. Thanks and happy editing. -Visorstuff 17:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Reasons Mormons may not be Christian

Today I removed the following new edit:

In particular, Mormonism differs from mainstream Christianity, in that it is polytheistic, i.e., it teaches the existence of many gods, and that man may attain divinity. In contrast, mainstream Christianity is strictly monotheistic, and as such precludes man attaining divinity

For this to be acceptable, you need to provide a reference for the statements that Mormons believe and worship many Gods. There may be some clarity needed on definitions. Mormons believe in Theosis, but you will find that theosis is most believed by some of most Orthodox of churches. In addition, Theosis does not create divinity to be worshipped in the LDS sense, LDS believe the Bible when it says we will be coinheritors with Christ. Whereas mainstream Christiantiy attempts to take One God in three persons (the Trinity), LDS take three persons in One God.

You will also find that many religions would claim that the traditional Christianity is not montheistic. Islam is adamant that Christians believe in more than one God; they find the Trinity to be three persons impossible to equal one God. I am more than willing to further the conversation, but to include this information in the article you need to source the allegations to be in keeping with WP:NOR. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There was actually a citation provided, from the King Follet Discourse. However, I am willing to admit that Mormon's, although they believe in a plurality of gods, concentrate their worship on "the god of this world." As such they may be considered henotheistic, as opposed to polytheistic. But this is a distinction many may not grasp. In terms of theosis, there is a vast difference between sanctification, as presented in mainstream Christianity, and Mormon exaltation, in which one assumes the very essence and divinity of God. With all respect, it doesn't matter whether Islam considers Christianity polytheistic, because Muslims do not claim to be Christians, and Christians do not claim to be Muslim. However, I will re-edit this to more reflect the concerns you have stated. CBadSurf 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

With the many differences between Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity, why single out one issue to expand in this article? I think that the section under discussion should be brief then link to the other article for all of the details. Val42 17:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Val42; this is a significant topic that can not be appropriately handled in this article; one of the reasons for sub-articles. This is a recurring problem on Mormon or LDS articles; new editors with valuable contributions seek to expand information that is already covered elsewhere. The purpose of this article is to briefly identify Mormonism and point readers to main articles or subarticles. Mormonism is much broader than just the LDS church. Everything that you have added would be strongly rejected by the Community of Christ branch of Mormonism among others.

I may accept the term heotheistic, but you will find the vast majority of LDS would proclaim to be strict monotheists. It is very similar to Muslims that accuse Christians of being polytheistic because the the doctrine fo the Trinity does not make sense to them. It is impossible to have three distinct persons, but only one God. Where mainstream Christianity focuses on One God in three persons, LDS state it differently, three persons in One God. The fact that LDS believe in Theosis does not make them non-Christian. This is a common red herring that anti-cultists and others bring up. They change the definition of Christianity to fit their specific objective. If one relys only on the New Testament as a guide, it is impossible to develop a definition of Christianity that is limited only to believes of the Nicene Creed; a fourth century doctrine. When you begin to really get into the argument, what is really being said is that Mormons are not part of the 4th century Christianity and the churches that descend from that movement. LDS gladly agree with that statement; LDS are restorationists they firmly believe that their church is restored and does not descend from the apostasy.

I am deleting all information that can not be accepted by all the churches of the Latter Day Saint movement because that is the only information appropriate for this article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I can agree that the entire topic can be better covered elsewhere, for example in the Mormonism and Christianity article. However, one has the impression from reading the discussions that this article is treated as the property of LDS, and a presentation of facts other than what is considered suitable by Mormons is not allowed. That really isn't what wikipedia is about. Case in point is the additions I made. First you said that they were not cited well enough. When I cited them, you now say that this "is a significant topic that can not be appropriately handled in this article." On the other hand, you allow a lengthy quote from Gordon Hinckley (which by the way is not cited) to remain. This does not seem entirely honest to me intellectually.

By the way, the Nicene Creed is not a fourth century doctrine -- it was a fourth century formulation of beliefs held by orthodox Christians from the time of the apostles. The reason for the Nicene Creed was to create a standard by which one could judge orthodox Christianity from heresy. Heretical and gnostic teaching had, of course, been a problem from the days of the apostles. But of course, this is a long discussion which we will not come to agreement on here -- and I don't intend to start a debate on it.

By way of compromise, I propose this section be removed, or contain only the link to the Mormonism and Christianity article.

CBadSurf 04:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

CBad, I would not retract any of my statements. I have been editing Wikipedia for a while now and I have seen the same comments come up consistently. One of the things that is a problem, as I stated above, is how articles bleed all over. New editors on Mormon related articles, both pro and con, will read a single article and then begin expanding the article including information that takes the topic beyond its parameters. It may be that we need to review the other articles and merge them; I personally think there are too many of them, but trying to delete articles is almost an impossibility on wikipedia. Previous editors do generally do not appreciate such drastic change. The result is a plethora of articles.

You may want to review how other church articles are written. I particularly recommend the Roman Catholic Church article. This article is virtually devoid of any critical commentary, however it has been recognized as the Whore of Babylon since before the Reformation. Today there are many Protestant churches that do not recognize it as even being Christian. Further, it has played a role in throughout the Middle Ages that was not in keeping with what one generally would associate with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet, none of it is mentioned in the main article.

Conversely, you will not find a single article about Mormonism or any of its churches without some critical commentary. If one is going to accuse a group of "owning" an article or refusing to allow criticism, it is would not be justified in any of the churches of the Latter Day Saint movement. Not only do we allow critcism, but we write it ourselves. I am not saying we are perfect and free from our own POV, but we, the editors both pro and con, are not deserving of your accusation.

My objective is to ensure well written articles meritorous of an encyclopedia. Articles should match their topics and be in keeping with WP:NPOV and all other policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to accomplish personal agendas, attempt to share the truth about one's own religion, or write religious tracts. My expertise is religion and thus you will find that I edit predominately those articles. I have a particular expertise in Mormonism and early Christianity. I hope that we can work together in the future. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, Let me clarify that I did not suggest to delete the article on Mormonism -- I suggested that the section Mormonism and Christianity refer readers to the Mormonism and Christianity sub-article, where as you rightly observed, the issue can be treated more fully. Although I am new as a registered editor, I am well aware of how wikipedia works. I am certainly not of a mind to accomplish personal agendas (I don't have one) or write religious tracts. But I am certain you were not suggesting that this is what I was attempting. But I must say that, though I am not Catholic, I do take exception to you stating that many Protestant churches do not consider Catholics Christians -- with the exception of Bob Jone's type fundamentalists, I know of few Protestant Churches that would say this.

Nor do I consider my contribution critical commentary. Was what I wrote inaccurate, undocumented, or represent an attack on Mormonism?

Right now, what I am concerned about is reversion of edits without even entering a discussion as to why they may be relevant.

For example, why is it even relevant to have this section if there is an entire sub-article devoted to the subject?

My background is from a Lutheran seminary, in particular Church History, so I am sure we will work together in the future. --CBadSurf 07:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the section has merit only because it mentions a significant point; that mainstream Christianity does not consider Mormons to be Christian. If it was not at least mentioned, the article would be accused of being deficient. Further, I suspect it take no more than one week before it would be added back by a new editor.

I would agree that groups who consider the Catholic church to be nonChrisitian are generally fringe, but it might be a more common concept than you might think. I grew up in the south. There were two groups that could be very friendly because of shared tribution, the Mormons and Catholic kids; neither was considered Christian enough for our good Southern Baptist friends.

You will find that some editors (read me) are impatient at times. So much of what I see is stuff that I have seen before and have discussed repeatedly. It is possible that I am too brusque and have a knee jerk reaction. I should take more time to explain reversions and other edits with editors with whom I am unfamiliar. Regardless, when you have an idea or concept please make a new section on the discussion page and present it. You will find a number of editors that would gladly respond. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your civility, and I do recognize that I am new to this article. However, you say you want this section to remain to make the point that "that mainstream Christianity does not consider Mormons to be Christian" but the effect of the wording is to suggest that only those Christians who do not accept the Nicene Creed do not accept Mormons as Christians -- whereas in reality the acceptance of the Nicene Creed is the definition of mainstream Christianity. You may argue that mainstream Christianity is apostate, but acceptance of the Nicene Creed is none the less the definition. (Hence, according to Mormonism, mainstream Christianity is apostate). In fact, keeping the section heading, but providing the link to the sub-article would better achieve what you say you want to accomplish.

In this case, the apologetic quote by Hinckly takes most of the wording in the section. This could tend to lead readers to a different conclusion than what you propose.

Even though I am new to the article, that does not mean I cannot make a contribution. I believe this section to be inaccurate, and would like to see it improved and made more accurate. Can we work on a compromise together?CBadSurf 17:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

(I will begin a new entry so that we don't get too far over). If I understand your proposal correctly, are you suggesting that we simply list the title, provide the link, and delete the text? The motivation being that the full argument agains being Christian is underrepresented while Hinkley's statement provids too much pro information. I am not sure deleting all the text is best. An alternative could be to shorten it to something such as Mormons firmly claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, but most mainline Christian churches believe they are not Christian. I suspect it would work, but it also seems like an invitation to other editors and/or readers to elaborate. Why aren't they Christian, why they are Christian, etc. It may actually be better to delete the section in its entirety. There is already the listing for the subarticle under the "See Also" section. What do you think? Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you have understood what I was saying now. I can agree with any of these proposals, but I think that to delete the section entirely will be to re-invite its addition later. Perhaps the best would be to keep the section, and add text along the lines of "A complete discussion of Mormonism and Christianity is outside the scope of this article. Please refer to the Mormonism and Christianity article for a complete discussion." Would this work? CBadSurf 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it!

You may want to check out how they handled it on the Mormon. I have always found it interesting how it is appears impossible for an article to focus on Mormonism rather than how others feel about Mormonism. It is one of the reasons I apprciate the Catholic article so much. Readers are able to read an article that is simply about the topic. There are other articles that address the critiques, contrary perception, and anti-Catholicism. I have pretty much capitulated to the fact, but I would like to emulate their articles. It would seem like there should be one standard, but there are obviously standards for the majority and then different standards for minorities. C'est la vie, on y va. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As they say, the devil is in the details. (No pun intended) I agree with you on the Catholic site -- even though as an ex-Catholic I would have strong views on a number of items there. In this particular case, I did not add anything to the overall article out of respect to group being able to create a balanced presentation. It is just I felt this particular sub-section inaccurate. Not because Mormons are a minority -- indeed in this world any person of faith is becoming a minority. Ça aussi, c'est la vie. CBadSurf 03:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotation marks necessary?

Mormonism is a term used to describe religious, ideological, and cultural aspects of the various denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement. The term Mormonism is often used to describe the belief systems of those who believe in the Book of Mormon, a "sacred" text which Mormons believe was translated by Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1829 from golden plates, described as the "sacred" writings of the inhabitants of North and South America from approximately 600 BC to 420 AD. In 1830 Smith published the Book of Mormon and restored the Church of Christ, and the faithful were known amongst themselves as Latter Day Saints. Outside the church, church members have come to be called Mormons because of their belief in the Book of Mormon as the restoration of their religion. As the result of a "revelation" in 1838, the name to the Church was officially stated as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".[1] After the death of Joseph Smith, a succession crisis ensued and the church membership was divided among various sects. The largest group accepted Brigham Young as the new prophet-president of the church and followed him West to the Salt Lake Valley in the current state of Utah. However, there was a large faction that did not accept Brigham Young's claim to leadership and remained in the Midwest. The Community of Christ is the largest church that emerged from the Latter Day Saints who did not follow Brigham Young and it also claims to be the original church founded by Joseph Smith, Jr..

Notice how there are quotation marks around sacred and revelation.

Are these necessary?Erik-the-red

I noticed this as well when reading the article, and I wondered if this was a deliberate insult by someone or an attempt to point out perceived bias. Then again, the whole intro is garbage -- it reads more like an LDS pamphlet than an encyclopaedia entry. AntarcticFox 03:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the quotes. AntarcticFox, do you have a proposal for what information can be deleted so that it does not read like a pamplet. I am not sure I agree with you on you statement, but if you have a constructive recommendation to improve the article, please propose it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I take exception to the description of the Book of Mormon as a sacred text, as according to the second sentence, as opposed to a more encyclopaedic statement that it is a text held sacred by Mormons or, perhaps, less elegantly described as a religious text. This is not a result of my beliefs -- it is merely the result of what I believe to be a rather poor choice in sentence structure. Then again, further research into LDS related articles on Wikipedia has shown me that most of them suffer from NPOV problems, as do most articles on Wikipedia where there is at least one person on the planet with a computer and an axe to grind about the topic. -- AntarcticFox 04:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't oppose your edit; however, the sentence states:

• "The term Mormonism is often used to describe the belief systems of those who believe in the Book of Mormon, a "sacred" text which Mormons believe was translated..."

To me qualifying the sentence with no less than 3 "believe/belief" would seem to make it clear to the reader that this text is something believed only by Mormons and not anyone else. I would gladly accept your proposal if we can get rid of the repetitive qualifiers of believe. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quetzacoatl, Kolob, and the Endowment ritual

I may have got some of this stuff wrong. Please let me know (specifically) what is incorrect. I am doing my best to understand LDS with the information that is available to me. I focus on these particular issues because I find them interesting and they are not in the current article. I find them interesting for various reasons: I find them strange and novel, they are quite different from other related religions (i.e. Christianity), they are intriguing due to their secretiveness, and they are a subject of ongoing controversy due to outsiders misunderstanding and misrepresenting them and due to LDS members' secretiveness regarding them. Please, by all means, correct what is possible to correct as I am certain I am misunderstanding some of this, and have been told I am misunderstanding some of this. Yes, some of it I already know is incorrect and I am simply filling in the blanks (making it as easy to correct as possible) because I do not have all the information.--24.57.157.81 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs/Gospel

1. Gods and spirits are corporeal beings. They are supernatural beings with real, human, bodies (I will refer to them as spiritbodies for now.) They do not shapeshift, even if it was within their supernatural abilities, and they always appear human.
2. A spiritbody, whose name is Jesus, has appeared on Earth a number of times throughout history. One instance of Jesus' appearance (apart from His appearance as Jesus Christ from 0-30 BC) was that of the Mesoamerican God Quetzalcoatl [1][2]. Drawings of Quetzalcoatl as a snake or dragon are said to be stylized drawings of Jesus, not literal representations.
3. Jesus travels to and from Earth from a planet near a star called Kolob. The manner in which He and other spiritbodies travels is unknown, and it is presumably supernatural. Jesus is also Jehovah.
4. Kolob is within our physical universe, however the location of Kolob is unknown. The planet can be visited through non-supernatural means, such as a spaceship. This area of the physical universe is known as Heaven. The spiritbody Elohim (LDS God) is also on this planet.
5. All human beings are descendants of the spiritbodies of a man and woman named Adam and Eve, who came to Earth from the planet near Kolob in or around the year 6,000 BC.

First, you are getting into deep water and I am not sure you have any foundation to understand. Jesus Christ talked about drinking milk before eating meat; this is one of those situations:

We do not use the terms supernatural beings generally. I am not familiar with a Christian religion that would use those terms. Our Father in Heaven is God. As God we believe He can do anything He chooses to do. The concept of shapeshifting is forgein to Latter-day Saints. I am not aware of any doctrine in any Christian church that preaches this concept. I am aware that in mythology there are such concepts, but that is outside the parameters of this conversation.

Jesus, the Son of God, gainied a physical body by coming to this earth. We believe that all things are spiritual. Within Mormon doctrine at no time do we believe that Jesus came as anyone else other than Jesus Christ. He never appeared and use another name. Quetzalcoatls is white god found in ancient American belief systems. Mormons would say that there is a high probability that this is a residual belief, though twisted, of the original appearance of Jesus in the Americas after his resurrection as recorded in the Book of Mormon.

Kolob is believed to be a star close to the throne of God. It serves no pupose in Mormon doctrine other than that statement. No prophet has provided more information than that. Some have speculated further, but it is speculation and is not doctrine.

Adam and Eve were not spirit bodies; they were persons of flesh and blood. They became/were mortal. Yes, Mormons believe that Adam and Eve were our first parents. I am not aware of any doctrine that they came from the throne of God. What we teach is that we were all together in the Spirit world before this earth. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nauvoo Endowment ritual

An initiation ritual LDS members go through is called the "Nauvoo Endowment." This ritual is performed before the LDS member begins his or her missionary work and/or before the LDS member marries and is done at the discretion of a higher priest. The ritual takes place inside the Temple, and is usually performed as a large group of members of identical Priesthood.

The ritual is comprised of religious cleansing and religious instructions and revelations kept secret from lower members. The instruction and revelations imparted depend on the Priesthood level of the group, but the rest of the ritual is the same. Both sexes perform the same ritual, more or less.

LDS members performing the ritual do the following:

In private, they remove their current clothing and dress in a single piece apron, called the "Shield." The apron is plain green and has a fig leaf on it. They proceed into a room called the _______ Room, full of small curtained areas, each with a person called an Officiator (male Officiators for male members, female Officiators for female members). Individually, each member enters one of these areas.

Inside the curtained off portion, the Officiator blesses the member by lightly touching various parts of their body with holy water and consecrated oil. The Officiator provides religious counsel and provides them with a spiritual name. This name is unique to that particular ceremony, not the person. However, due to the secretive nature of the ritual, most members believe, for the duration of the ceremony, that their spiritual name is a unique to them. The members then undress. The Officiator helps them into their Temple Garment, an undergarment which has spiritual symbols on it, which they are told to wear for the rest of their life. The Officiator then dresses them according to sex. Members are dressed all in white. Women wear a white veil, white dress, white sash (a girdle worn as a sash), slip, and pantyhose. Men wear a white hat (resembling a pastry chef's), white pants, collared shirt and tie. Both sexes drape a white sheet over a shoulder and wear white slippers.

After each member has performed this part of the ritual, they gather in another room, called the _______ Room. This room is the Temple theater. Members are seated based on sex: males on the right, females on the left. They receive an introduction from an Officiator, and then watch a re-enactment of the book of Genesis, as interpreted by the LDS church. In contemporary times, the re-enactment is presented as a film on a large movie screen. In the past, however, this part of the ritual was live theater (by various Officiators playing the parts of God, Adam, Eve, etc.).

At different points during the re-enactment, the members are asked to pray and make various oaths, and move their robes from one shoulder to the other. Members are told of sacred religious signs (based on the level of Priesthood they are attaining) they must use in order to get into Heaven once they die, and are instructed to keep these signs secret. The signs are various hand gestures--folding the fingers a certain way--and various handshake grips. Revealing this signs, they are told, is heretical and Satanic. Prior to the 1930s, members had to make a verbal agreement that they be eviscerated (and, thus killed) should they reveal these signs.

After the film and the religious instruction, members then leave the theater and queue up at a curtain to another room, the Celestial Room. Before entering through the curtain, each member is tested on his or her memorization of the previous instruction, including the hand gestures. Members then enter the Celestial Room and the ritual is over.

Upon completion of the ritual, members have attained a higher level of Priesthood.

If two members are getting married, they proceed to the Sealing Room.

This is close, but it is full of errors. This information is already fully covered in Endowment (Latter Day Saints). At now time is anyone told it is heretical or Satanic to reveal the signs and tokens. We covenant with God not to reveal them. Is is Satanic to break a covenant with God? My personal beliefs is that the Evil One does all he can to thwart the will of God. He relishes when any human breaks the laws of God. Mormons are covenant making people. I wish that we never broke covenants or promises, but we all fall short in one thing or another. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was perfect, in fact I explicitly said it was not. I would not say a list and a short paragraph describing the ceremony constitutes "full coverage." The entire Endowment article is basically history and poorly explained theology. The religious understanding is explained poorly (heavenly gift? What's that?), the only symbolism discussed is washing and anointing which is just a rehash of that article, and the actual ceremony is described, in point form, in two paragraphs at the end of the article. That's not full coverage. What I wrote for the description above is in fact shorter than what is there now, and manages to describe the entire thing from start to finish.--24.57.157.81 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

---

IMPORTANT NOTE: (Storm Rider's reply is regarding what I wrote before. I erased it because it was getting messy, and also to temper the negative tone I used initially.) --24.57.157.81 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is too rich. Please, please let us all know about where Extraterrestials come into play in the Endowment. This is the worst form of Anti-Mormonism; it has no basis in reality and is made from whole cloth. Please do some bloody research. The web is full of exact quotes of the Endowment and no where will you find anything remotely like this is "secret knowledge" left to be revealed in the temple, oooooohhh; scary stories to tell "Christians" to warn them from the evils of Mormons. Did you know that Mormons also have horns; of course they only come on on Blue Moons after raping their 18th wife when she is two, but has born 87 children and she jumped off the Salt Lake temple's top most spire into the Great Salt Lake (several miles away) and swam to safety after walking barefooted to the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas and was saved by the preacher who raised her to adulthood. She now, SAVED, teaches the good Bible believing holy rollers about the wickness of Mormons. I think Mormons eat their young; don't they? I am almost certain they do.

This is going to be a fun ride. You best pull in your minister now, because you are getting way out over your skies on this one. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What an interesting stereotype of me you've provided for the peanut gallery: an ignorant bigoted Christian in over his head and trying to smear Mormonism. Do I have horns, too? --24.57.157.81 18:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, now, let's not forget that you are saved and it is only us cultists Mormons that have horns. Feinging humility is unbecoming. This is not personal, but it is infuriating and rather common for new editors to come in on a crusade to "proclaim the truth" of Mormonism ater they have only read base, common, anti-Mormon literature. The vast majority of which, as evidenced by your edits, has nothing to do with Mormonism and everything to do with the creative minds of some Evangelical. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe they keep coming back because what you think the truth is is not in the article. How about you provide a referenced paragraph which counters these "anti-Mormon" misconceptions? Wouldn't that solve the problem? The reason I added these things is because they aren't in the article, nor is anything contradicting them in the article. p.s. your stereotype is still interesting but I'm not Christian. --24.57.157.81 06:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

All of this is already covered in other articles. If each article only repeated what other articles had then every article would be extremely long. This is supposed to be a very brief description of each of the groups within Mormonism. LDS articles are well researched and referenced and I encourage you to spend a little time reading them. I am curious, if you are not Christian why do you only spend time reading anti-Mormon literature. I find that very odd. When I study Islam I read the Quran; when I study Catholicism I read the Catholic Catechism and other teachings. Strange method of research, but I assure you that at the end of your research you will have no understanding of Mormonism. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I read "anti-Mormon" literature because I find these specific rituals and beliefs fascinating, strange, and disturbing, and I would like to know more about them. Since no one in the LDS church will talk much about these issues, "LDS approved" information is extremely limited and hard to come by. I am not studying Mormonism, I'm studying these particular rituals and beliefs. The same way I would study the Eucharist ritual for instance (Now that I've seen it, that article is worse than the endowment article, I'd say). --24.57.157.81 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This article not consistent with the article on Joseph Smith Jr

Section 1.3 the Succession Crisis of this article states that "There is little dispute that Joseph Smith, Jr privately and publicly taught and practiced plural marriage; he certainly alluded to the practice in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132." However section 2 of the article Joseph_Smith,_Jr. is a discussion of the uncertainty and controversy on whether Joseph Smith did teach and practice plural marriage.

I just wanted to point this out so that folks more knowledgeable on the subject can address the inconsistency.64.105.48.146 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)APF

Reform Mormonism

This group is using wikipedia to promote itself and it is a very small group - see the yahoo discussion group --Trödel 22:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Book of Abraham

I read more about the controversy about the Book of Abraham. Very insightful material in the FAIR website. I will make a change in wording. An unsigned user had added the assertion about the Book of Abraham translation, based it would seem on very shallow research. Reiddp

Just be warned - FAIR is a hardcore spin machine run by mormons. While I specifically haven't read their info on the Book of Abraham, i figure it's likely the most spin-oriented article they have. The actual source document Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham from has been found and examined by egyptologists, and not surprisingly turns out to be ancient egyptian funeral texts (which is why Joseph Smith found them in a sarcophagus along with a mummy) For exaple, examine the funeral related images at Sacred Texts with the facimilies in the Book of Abraham, particularly Facimili 2

Alienburrito 00:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Most reknown?

"Momonism is now not only the most reknown religion but the most practiced religion, in the world Mormonism and most of mainstream Christianity[1] have had doctrinal disagreements since the beginning of the Latter Day Saint movement in the 1820s" - Even assuming a full stop after "world", the first part of this is ridiculous: "most reknown"? "most practised"? meaning? reference? --Hugh7 20:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ishmael

I was wondering if Mormonism has any specific view that coule be added to the Ishmael article. --Aminz 08:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Critics or controversy

I am very concerned looking through several Morman articles that there is no discusion of criticism or contrversies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.194.79 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

This comes up from time to time. The article you are looking for is Criticism of Mormonism. Val42 02:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

MORE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE NEEDED.

Let me remind everyone this is Wikepedia - not a forum for evangelism. I'm sure somebody, somewhere from the LDS church is monitoring this webpage 24/7. Why not, countless non-Mormons access the site everyday. It’s a great opportunity but it's also a violation of the “unbiased” policy of Wikipedia.

The LDS community needs to provide more facts. For instance, you cite a "Great Apostasy" in church history after the Apostolic age. But you fail to mention WHO was involved, HOW it happened or even WHERE it happened. What proof do have - historically that the Gospel of Christ was ever changed or corrupted by this "Apostasy"? It's a romantic idea and reconciles your deepest belief, but it provides little creditability to unbiased researchers accessing the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmirarchi (talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

No, Mmirarchi, I think you misunderstand what Wikipedia is and should be doing in this article. Wikipedia is not asserting any of what Mormonism believes to be true, not even the existence of God. Further, Wikipedia is not asserting the existence of Jesus Christ, Moroni, the Gold Plates, the Great Apostasy, etc. etc. If you think that this article is worded in such a way that any religious doctrine is being asserted as fact, feel free to identify that passage because it should be reworded.

What Wikipedia should be doing in this and every article about religion is stating the fact that adherents to this faith believe X,Y and Z. Thus, we can say that "Mormons believe that there was a Great Apostasy, etc etc" and this is a statement of fact. If we say "There was a Great Apostasy." then we are stating religious doctrine as fact and this is inappropriate.

I don't see the words "Great Apostasy" in this article. Perhaps it is mentioned in the article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Feel free to review all the LDS-related articles to ensure that the wording is couched in the NPOV stance that I described above.

--Richard 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All this information is here, just not in this article. This is just a summary article. For more detailed information about LDS views of the apostasy, see for example Restoration (Latter Day Saints). COGDEN 04:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmirarchi, you have been making many edits of late, which I have reverted due to their tendency to state your opinion rather than referencing them with the statements of reputable experts. In addition, you have to spend a little more time getting to know all the articles regarding Mormonism and the LDS faith in particular. For example, this article is "Mormonism" it is similar to Latter Day Saint movement in that it is a catch all for all of the groups that descended from Joseph Smith. These churches or sects are not uniform in their beliefs, but are quite distinct in some of their beliefs. The Community of Christ resembles more a Protestant church in many of their doctrines (they ordain women to the priesthood, believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, and deny many of the latter revelations of Joesph Smith. Other groups, subsets of this particular group, are even more adamant in rejecting Smith's later prophecies and denying that polygamy was never taught by Joseph Smith, but retain many other beliefs similar to the LDS church. The bottom line is you can't paint all of them with a single brush so you must be more careful.

In closing, and as an aside, the Apostacy for LDS is real. When you see over 26,000 different, distinct Christian groups in the world today, I find it difficult that anyone can come to a conclusion that there has not been an apostacy to a significant degree. In many ways, as a student of religion, how do any churches exist except they claim direction from God. However, very few of them do. Roman Catholicism claims apostolic succession from Peter forward. Not one Protestant group claims a restoration or authority to create their church came from God; rather each was created by a man with doctrines they felt were more true than those taught by Catholicism. There was one Jesus with one baptism and one doctrine; now there are over 26,000 different ones. How does one not think there was an apostacy? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, thanks for your comments. It should be noted that many of my edits derive from common knowledge about Evangelical Christianity & Judaism. I also noted that a substantial amount of your edits (along with others) don’t cite references either. As a scholarly community, it's assumed that we don’t need to cite every stroke of our pen - our professional knowledge serves as a reference itself in many cases. Our scholarly ethic depends on integrity. If our doctrine is in question, it can easily be verified through additional research by anyone.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmirarchi (talk • contribs)

Um, sorry to interject my opinion here, but the above is just plain wrong. Wikipedia is NOT a scholarly community. The odds are against editors being scholars. There may be some scholars who are editors but it's more likely that most editors are not scholars and even if they are, there is no guarantee that they are scholars in the field of the article that they are editing.

If you want an encyclopedia edited by scholars, go check out [www.citizendium.com Citizendium].

In any event, whether the editors of an article are scholars or not is irrelevant, the "professional knowledge" of the editors is considered highly suspect at all times and can NEVER "serve as a reference itself" in any case. That is why verifiability is king. No Wikipedia editor is a reliable source unless he/she has published a work that has gone through a professional publication process (one with a review process). And even then, it is not the Wikipedia editor who is the reliable source but the publication. Thus, if a Wikipedia editor who has published 50 books and 300 journal articles asserts "X" but is unable to cite a published work that asserts X, X is still considered an unsourced statement and therefore subject to deletion at any time. No kidding. Read the policy.

What allows us to make edits without citations is the general consensus that what we write is true. If anybody challenges the existence of the consensus by disputing the assertion, the choices are (1) provide a verifiable citation to a reliable source or (2) be prepared to see the assertion deleted.

That is how Wikipedia works.

--Richard 07:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In turn, what I'm seeing is the systematic elimination of contrary views. I’m convinced that even if I placed a reputable source (as I did on several edits), my words would be edited through bias.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmirarchi (talk • contribs)

This kind of broad generalization is difficult to respond to. Perhaps you would care to provide examples of those sourced edits and we can review and discuss them on a case-by-case basis.

--Richard 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Now for the Great Apostasy question. You raise a good point. How could there be 26,000 different Christian denominations if there was no "Apostasy"? Well, as a University Graduate student majoring in World Religions, I can assure you there's not nearly that many. By definition, the term "Evangelical" represents a single sect of Christianity. Evangelicalism has over 30 million adherents. Do the math...the population of the earth isn’t large enough for 26K "different" Christian faiths (30,000,000 X 26,000). And that would be assuming everyone alive is Christian - which we know isn’t true. Let’s not get into the 1 Billion Catholics – that would through your math off the chart.

Mormons cite an "Apostasy" but have no historical evidence that it took place. Catholics KNOW the date and circumstances in which the Church was formed. Protestants KNOW the date and circumstances surrounding Martine Luther's "reformation". The notion of a "Great Apostasy" is like telling a patient they have Cancer but not specifying what type, how long they have to live or how to treat the disease. It's vague. Who would trust that doctor with their care? I would want specifics - Wouldn’t you?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmirarchi (talk • contribs)

The above discussion of the "Great Apostasy" is not directly relevant to the editing of this article and has been moved to Talk:Mmirarchi. --Richard 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge with "Mormon"

The "Mormon" article is stated to discuss the "usage of the word" and not the faith or the organization. This seems to me a dictionary entry masquerading as an encyclopedia article meaning that it violates Wikipedia policy. Regardless, its content could easily be merged into this article without any confusion to the reader.

Comments?

--Mcorazao 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to favor that. They could easily be combined. They are really the same concept: a Mormon by definition practices Mormonism, and Mormonism by definition is the beliefs, practices, and culture of Mormons. We just need to keep this article distinct from Latter Day Saint movement. COGDEN 22:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Next question: Are you motivated to do it? I'm not particularly an expert on the subject. --Mcorazao 03:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The term "Mormon" has usage beyond what Mormonism is. See "Christian" which follows the same idea. Christianity does not necessarily reflect the "Christian World". Neither does Mormon culture necessariliy reflect Mormonism. Also Mormonism should not have information about early usage of the term (by non-Mormons) because that is no longer part of Mormonism, but it is relevant to the term "Mormon". Bytebear 21:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed content

I HATE when people remove my comments from talk pages. Please see previous version here. Incidentally, when you say you are "moving a discussion" please move all the text of the discussion. People like me like to keep track of what they say in conversations. Historical Wiki and my comments are important to me. Removing them is censorship, and violates wikipedia guidelines. That said, my removed comments may be found [here] and should be kept for historical purposes in the least. -Visorstuff 23:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

REMOVED CONTENT

Some of the discussions not germane to revising this article have been moved to Mmirachi^(talk). Please join us there. Thanks. Mmirarchi 21:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly my issue - the content wasn't "moved" it was deleted. My comments appear nowhere on your talk page. There is not another page in your namespace that I saw with my comments. Don't say it was "moved" unless you've really "moved" the content. Don't delete comments, rather archive them, and then "move" the comments in their entirety to your talk page. -Visorstuff 14:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Gold verses Golden

The first section mentions the "golden plates". The first, and many, references on church websites, use the phrase "Gold plates". Would not the term gold plates be better and more historically correct? Gunnerclark 21:38, 21 May 2007 (cst)

Golden plates is used about as much as gold plates, at least based on my crude Google search. It's a close call, but I see no compelling reason to rename the golden plates article. I think I like it better, because golden plates always refers to these particular plates, whereas gold plates could also refer to dishware. COGDEN 23:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles of Faith

The LDS Church's Articles of Faith have been copied wholesale into the article several times, and I have deleted them citing Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. There's no need to copy the Articles of Faith anyway, since all the topics therein are discussed in the LDS Church's article. Moreover, the AofF has never been considered a definitive or complete statement of LDS beliefs: it's sole purpose, from the moment Smith included it in the Wentworth letter, has been to serve as a proselytizing tool, which makes it inappropriate to cite verbatim as if it were the church's creed, even if there were no Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources policy. COGDEN 00:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

On another point, this article goes beyond the LDS Church, and includes cultural Mormonism and fundamentalist Mormonism. People shouldn't be deleting information about these elements of Mormonism. COGDEN 00:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Articles of Faith are published as part of the Pearl of Great Price - a book included in the LDS Scriptures. How is that not definative? Unless you mean "complete" by the term "definitive"? True, they're only a very very basic summary, but do hit some of the highlights of unique doctrines of the church. Alienburrito 02:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Beyond the issue of Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, I think COGDEN's point is that "Mormonism" can refer to the beliefs or practices of groups other than the LDS Church, as well as the LDS Church. Some of the Latter Day Saint denominations do not include the Articles of Faith in their canon. While they may be a definitive statement of some LDS Church doctrine, they certainly don't necessarily define what is "Mormonism". –SESmith 21:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What is "Traditional Christianity"?

If you are christian, dosen't that mean you belive in Christ? If so, aren't mormons Christian? Or am I missing something? If my defintion is correct, then what is traditional christianity? Or when you say "Traditional Christianity" are you refering to the Catholic church? If so, what right have you to say that the Catholic church is the "Traditional" church? How do you know that what Christ established on this earth was the Catholic Church? Or any other Christ centered church? Why can't that church have been the mormon church? Zarahemla resident 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Traditional Christianity" means those who believe in that the Nicean Creed defines their Christian belief. I prefer the term "Nicean Christians" or "Nicean Christianity". I believe that these terms better define what is meant, but the consensus has gone against me on this. What do you think? Val42 15:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

One major difference bewteen the LDS and mainstream Christianity (which is what i assume you mean by traditional) is their view of God.

For example, I was told by a pair of their missionaries that Jesus is our spiritual older brother, a spririt child of God just as everyone is, just that he's the first born. To mainstream Christians, Jesus has always been God from before the beginning of time to beyold the end of time. The beginning/end of time does sound contradictory, but the main idea is that Jesus, being God, exists outside of time and has no beginning or end. Any of you mormons want to elaborate on this point? Alienburrito 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

You are correct; mainstream Christianity believes that God and Jesus are the same God. The concept of the Trinity is beyond understanding. LDS believe that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ are separate and distinct beings or individuals. LDS believe that the scriptures are clear that when Jesus prayed to the Father he was not praying to himself and when he stated on the cross, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me, he really was forsaken by his Father and not his ownself. I will also say that mainstream Christianity is absolutely clear that the scriptures support their position of the Trinity; when you have seen me you have seen the Father, the Word was with God and the Word was God, among just a few passages of scripture.

Jesus is unlike any of the other sons and daughters of God. He was and is unique in all the universe. Though LDS believe that he is the Son of God, Jesus was the creator, at the direction of the Father, of this world and all other worlds as a spirit. He is eternal and yet he is the Son. He is Alpha and Omega, first and last. There are similarities and conflicts between the two belief systems.

As an aside the doctrine of the Trinity for LDS is the doctrine of men created to placate the concept of One God teaching of monotheism. For LDS there is one Godhead, which is one God, but it has three separate, distinct, beings in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Many LDS are adamant they are monotheists, others will call LDS Henotheistic, which may apply, but the fit is not complete.

You have a penchant for the mysteries of God. If you are really interested in the mysteries I would recommend a book by the name of Jesus the Christ by Talmadge. Most find it very dry; it is heavily footnoted. I found it to be absolutely fascinating and read every word of it. I would not recommend reading it unless you possess a serious interest in knowing the Savior in more depth. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey stormrider -

I started reading Jesus The Christ years ago. Now that I think about it, it's been about 20 years, 1986 or 87. Wow time flies. Admitedly i was in college at the time, and yes, the book WAS dry, but it did interest me enough that i've been meaning to get back to it.

I must say, thought, stormrider, sometimes your choice of terms confuses me. I'm very unclear what you mean by 'a penchant for the mysteries of God'. If you mean I'm interested in the nature of God, or at least various people's ideas on the nature of God, that would be a definate yes. Alienburrito 03:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Articles of Faith Response

The Articles of Faith are the basic fundamentals of the Mormon Church! Why should they not be included in the article? Zarahemla resident 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Zarahemla, Mormonism is a generic term that can apply to all the groups that fall under the Latter Day Saint movement. I am not sure whether these Articles are valued across the board within the groups.

Regardless, we understand the value you place on the Articles of Faith, but this article is not the best place for them. Further, rather than write them all out, it would be better to simply link to them. Does that help you understand a little of the thinking of others? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"traditional Christianity" vs. "mainstream Christianity"

There are a number of problems with the phrase "traditional Christianity" when used in this context. First, it's POV because there is a possible inference that "traditional" is good and "untraditional" is bad. Second, because Mormons are considered Restorationists, there is the strangeness of considering Mormonism a restoration of primitive early Christianity vs. what? "traditional Christianity"?

"Traditional" usually implies "older". If the rest of Christianity is "traditional", what is Mormonism? "modern Christianity"? That would suggest a different claim that what I understand Mormonism to claim.

Some "mainstream" Christians would claim that Mormonism is a new and modern adaptation of "traditional Christianity" because of the addition of new scriptures and new doctrines. But, this is plainly POV and thus unacceptable in Wikipedia.

This is why I replaced "traditional" with "mainstream". I'm open to discussing a better term if someone wants to propose one. I just think "mainstream" is superior to "traditional".

I don't think that we can characterize the difference between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity as solely or even primarily Nicene vs. non-Nicene. There are non-Trinitarian churches whose primary difference is the Nicene creed and it Trinitarianism. The Jehovah's Witnesses is one of them. Except for this primary difference, the rest of the doctrinal differences could be ascribed to varying interpretations of Scripture. Well, even non-Trinitarianism can be ascribed to a different interpretation of Scripture but the point I'm making is that non-Trinitarianism is the major sticking point for them.

For Mormons, non-Trinitarianism is not the only major sticking point. The addition of new scriptures to the canon is the other major sticking point. Polygamy is a bit hard to swallow but there are scriptural and historical bases for it and most Mormons don't make such a big deal of it any more anyway. All the rest of the doctrine could probably fall under the category of "varying interpretations of scripture" although the claim that men can become "like Gods" is probably also a sticking point.

In any event, "non-Nicene" is not a good way of characterizing the differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity.

--Richard 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream isn't very good, either, because many Mormons would disagree that Mormonism is outside the Christian mainstream. Since a suitable word or phrase does not really exist, I think we have to chose the least of several evils. As to traditional Christianity, I think that's fairly good, because really, Mormonism isn't based on tradition. Even though it claims a connection to 1st century Christianity, that connection is not one of tradition, but of restoration. COGDEN 18:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with COgden. The term "tradition" bring a context to the conversation that mainstream does not. That context is not present with Evangelicals, but all of the high church Protestants definitely understand the importance of Tradition and its value to Christianity today.

Personally, I have always interpreted the term mainstream as more power-packed as a term. If you are not in the main, than you must be strange or wierd.

I recognize that the term traditional Chritianity has its short comings as highlighted above. Mormonism believes the church is the restoration of the original church; thus some Mormons think of it as the traditional church. Another term that I have used, but comes with the same problems, is Historical Christianity. It brings the acknowledgement of recognizing that Christianity today has existed for a long period. I have generally found orthodox Christians to be comfortable with the term and Mormons can be comfortable with it because they feel that history demonstrates the Apostasy. Just some thoughts. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would definatly say that "mainstream" would be the right term to use in regard to the Trinitarian view, one of the major disagreements between Mormonism and most of the rest of Christianity. I'd say its apropriate because of the sheer numbers - the last set of numbers I've seen for Christianity in general is about 2.1billion then about 13million for the LDS Church, and if i read their stats page right, about 7 million for Jehovah's Witnesses. Feel free to comment if you think there's more to the term mainstream than just numbers. Alienburrito 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Nope you have the gist of it. Traditional Christianity is also used often, but mainstream here on Wikipedia is used most often. There is not really a perfect term, but what we are trying to communicate is the Christianity that descends from the 4th century after the council of Nicea where the doctrine of the Trinity was accepted as sacrosanct for the Christian church. All churches, except those that claim to be Restorationist, are the theological children of this mother church. You are aware of the importance that Tradition plays in the orthodox churches; Protestants genearlly forget Tradition and focus on what the scriptures say. I am painting with some broad strokes here and there are exceptions.

I would also say that Catholics highlight that they origin is straight from Peter and thus they possess the same apostolic authority of the original apostles. Protestants generally believe in the priesthood of the believer; that there is no Apostolic succession per se. That would seem to be a prerequisite for a protestant church to have broken away from the Church that claims this priesthood succession.

Mainstream Christianity accepts certain bedrock truths, the Trinity being the major foundation for the appelation. LDS see this "requirement" as the result of the doctrines of men. The great councils decisions were the result of discussio, debate and by final vote; there was no claim to revelation. The concept of prophet and twelve apostles that lead the church had been lost by this time. Good questions and thoughts. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Transhumanism

I understand why a transhumanist would want to have an outlet to attract people to their movement, but it has nothing to do with Mormonism. Further, it is spam. It professes to have nothing to do with any religion; thus it is not Mormonism or anything that could be classified as Mormonism. It is a movement that some, seemingly few, Mormons have joined. I say great, but you can not advertise a private group unaffiliated with Mormonism and parade it like it does have something to do. We do not allow Mormon Rotarians to advertise, or alumni associations, or any other group that has members that are LDS. It is simply not done on WIKI. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Strom Rider, your particular perspective on Mormonism is not in force here. The items in dispute are as relevant as others you have kept in the list. --Arosophos

I appreciate your personal agenda, but it has no place. Please address the issue: are they notable? What do they have to do with Mormonism? As far as I can tell nothing. If you do nothing to explain why the revert will stand. Are there any reasons to keep them other than they are you personal soapbox? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As Mormons, our agenda certainly has a place here, and it should be presented objectively -- not merely through the lense of Storm Rider. Are Mormon Transhumanists notable? Yes. They were recently on the cover of Sunstone magazine, which is a notable Mormon journal. Do Mormon Transhumanists have anything to do with Mormonism? Yes, but you don't have to take my word for it. If you would like, you can read about them here: http://transfigurism.org/community/files/11/sunstone_west_2007/entry2338.aspx

Of course, I don't expect you to agree, but that does not seem to be the most important matter here. This page is not about what you agree with. How do you propose we resolve this, despite disagreement? --Arosophos

What you are trying to do is make Transhumanism part of Mormonism. It would seem that Mormonism has nothing to do with it, but that Mormons are transhumanists. This distinctionis significant. Based upon your logic; we would need to have links to Mormons who are gay, Mormons who are golfers, quilters, chemists, engineers, rotarians, etc. Mormonism is not Transhumanism; if it were, then I would support it being added.

I sense that your interest in getting it added to bring attention to something that is important to you, but that importance is not directly related to Mormonism; it is "other".

My actions are not personal in nature. LDS and Mormon articles periodically get all kinds of links added to them. If you research the archvies and the history you will find a number of links that have been deleted. What we seek on Wikipedia for the links section are those that pertain directly to topic. A Mormon can be many things, but Mormonism and the LDS church is rather narrow in scope. Does this make any sense to you? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That does make sense, but I disagree that it applies to the current situation. Mormonism, arguably, IS a form of Transhumanism -- not in the historic sense, but in the ideological sense. That's the importance of the relation. Transhumanists are not monolithic, and are not all atheists or secular, as implied in your original description. The rise of Transhumanism has been effected not merely by secular humanists, but also by religious humanists, among whom we should count Joseph Smith. I'm not trying to make Transhumanism part of Mormonism; I am pointing out that Mormonism is a form of Transhumanism, definitionally, in that it is an ideology that posits imminent fundamental changes to the nature of humanity toward physical immortality, and that our actions will have something to do with it. Arosophos 06:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any significant scholarship that has made this connection or defined the relationship of either the LDS church theology or Joseph Smith in such a way. If you have references it should not be a link, but a section in the article. What is your relationship with the link in question? I read on the web site that there are not very many LDS who fit within this movement currently; what is your motivation in having it linked? These questions are not to break the ongoing line of questioning and my position, but it will help me to understand your motivations.

You have made some very broad assumptions; currently I would say that they seem more a personal perception than an actual scholarly percerption. It still feels like it isn't really notable, and more a desire to gain attention to a movement that is quite small. I may be too much a puritan in the context of links on all of the Mormon articles to which you have added these links, but it still seems like your are stretching. I look forward to hearing more and I would like to hear from other editors. I may just be off in lala land. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, again I would like to remind you that this article is not about the LDS Church exclusively, or its doctrine in particular. The article is about Mormonism, which, even among members of the LDS Church, is more diverse than LDS Church doctrine -- and, so far as the LDS Church is concerned, this appears to be quite intentional. Recognizing that there is already an article on the LDS Church, we should here make an effort to portray Mormonism accurately in the broader sense. Such accuracy necessitates a portrayal of the complexity, nuance and diversity of Mormon thought. If we do not do this, we are poorly representing the ideology. It is my opinion that your narrowing of material is misdirected. The article on the LDS Church is too broad, and this article is too narrow. Indeed, I would be quite comfortable with seeing the non-LDS Church links from the LDS Church article moved here, and the external links in the LDS Church article narrowed to those that are explicitly representing or criticizing the official doctrines of the LDS Church.

Regarding the academic importance of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, you may also see an article written by a non-Mormon scholar, James Hughes, who has been observing and writing about religious influence among Transhumanists. James Hughes is a well-recognized secular Transhumanist, and a professor of bioethics and sociology at Trinity College. Here is a link to the article, which makes substantial reference to the Mormon Transhumanist Association and one of its publications: http://ieet.org/archive/20070326-Hughes-ASU-H+Religion.pdf

Regarding the personal matter, I am a Mormon, a member of the LDS Church, and a member of the MTA. My motivation, here, is much like yours: to ensure my understanding of Mormonism is represented, not to the exclusion of others' understandings (pro and con), and not out of balance in relation to the influence of other understandings, but certainly as a part of the overall tapestry, so to speak. This is how we pursue the Wikipedia ideal of objectivity. Arosophos 12:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I will start a new paragrpah thread given the number of indents.

Yes, Mormonism can be used to describe all groups that have evolved from Joseph Smith; however, most reject the term. It is specifically applicable to the LDS church. The Fundamentalists enjoy using it because they find it aggrandizing to ride on the coat tail of the LDS church. The article itself points this fact out. It is not used by the other significant groups such as the Community of Christ, Bickertonites, etc. What you are looking for is the term Latter Day Saint movement; this is term is equivical in its breadth and ecompasses all churches that descend from the Joseph Smith.

Although I agree that groups identifying as "Mormon" are only a subset of those that identify as "Latter Day Saint", there are nonetheless many non-LDS groups that identify as "Mormon". This article only recognizes the fundamentalists (which are actually many groups), but that is not for lack of others. Furthermore, LDS Mormons are far from monolithic in their perspectives, and there does not seem to be much attention given to that fact in this article. In addition, I'll point out that the fundamentalists simply will not agree with your characterization of their use of "Mormon", and I suspect you know that despite your comment. Arosophos 17:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any references for how many Mormons are Transhumanists? Just curious, but I suspect we are not talking about huge numbers of people. The links are not used for advertising groups, as I said before Mormons come in all types and sizes, but that does not make every club, association, etc. a particular Mormon joins part of Mormonism. I am a bit flummoxed by this insistence that somehow not lising your link on nearly all of the main Mormon related pages is censorship or portrays a lesser form of Mormonism. I still see this as a personal issue.

There are roughly 60 members of the association, and around that many more who, although not explicitly members of the association, are aware of and sympathetic with the association. Beyond that, there are many other Mormons who hold similar views without knowledge of the applicability of the label "Transhumanism". Furthermore, this is not just another club or association that some Mormon has joined; it is specifically an association related to Mormonism, and particular views of it. For example, I would not be disappointed if you tried to prevent the posting of a link to the NRA simply because a Mormon joined it; however, I would be quite disappointed if you tried to prevent the posting of links to Affirmation, FARMS, Reform Mormonism, FAIR, the Mormon History Association, Sunstone, or even New Order Mormons. It is not objectivity that would prevent these links, but rather a narrow subjective perspective on Mormonism. Arosophos 17:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please review external links and then let's talk again. Some of the items particularly germane to our conversation are the following:

Links normally to be avoided

"Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate #material" or "unverifiable research".
3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.
7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.
8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.
9. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.
10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked."

I would still think other editors should comment to ensure that I have not misunderstood policy. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the criteria for links to be avoided. The links I provided certainly provide unique resources that are not intended to mislead readers. The links are not intended for promoting a site, except to the extent that the site reflects the intention to promote an important aspect of Mormonism. The site does not exist primarily to sell products or services, and it is owned by a non-profit organization. The site does not contain advertising, does not require registration to access content, and should be accessible to all web viewers. While one link does go to a search engine, it is not to a results or aggregated results page; rather, it is to a search engine that enables persons seeking more information about Mormonism to access it more directly, without trying to sort among non-Mormon related search results -- certainly a valuable tool for increasing understanding of the article's subject. The links do not go to a social network, blog or wiki. Most importantly, the links are to sites that are directly and obviously related to the article's subject. Arosophos 17:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I went to the Mormon Transhumanist Association link that you have added. I found their FAQ which has the following to say in the second question:

What is the relationship between Mormonism and Transhumanism?

Few have recognized the relationship between Mormonism and Transhumanism. On the one hand, Mormonism is a spiritual ideology of the Judeo-Christian tradition that advocates faith in God leading to salvation. On the other hand, Transhumanism is a mostly secular ideology that advocates ethical use of technology to extend human capabilities. However, Mormonism and Transhumanism advocate remarkably similar views of human nature and its future ....

This seems to say that there is no recognized relationship between the two other than what Mormon Transhumanists say there is. That is, there are Mormons who are Transhumanists and vice versa, but they are not comingled. This web site itself shoots down your argument to add it to this article. It may be more appropriate to add this to add this link to an article about Transhumanism. Val42 17:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not say there is no recognized relationship. It says that few have recognized it. Those who have recognized it include editors of notable Mormon magazines and notable professors of bioethics. A growing number of persons are recognizing the relationship. There are, for example, Transhumanists calling for a Transhumanist religion, which, when exposed to Mormonism, have asked whether it might be what they are looking for. Arosophos 21:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe this link should be on an article about Mormon Transhumanism because it would serve to illustrate such an article. Nevertheless, it still does nor serve to illuminate this article. Val42

I disagree, of course. However, given that the current consensus appears to be to keep this topic extraordinarily narrow, I will wait to see if that changes in the future. As soon as other external links are added that demonstrate a broader focus, I will revisit this. Arosophos 00:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

How do the LDS determine what is doctrine?

I recently have had some conflict with a mormon on another page that I edited, and it got me thinking. I posted this same set of questions and comments on his personal page, but I thought it might be good to post here too. How exactly does an LDS determine what is church doctrine and what is not? I would THINK that a sermon by Joseph Smith would be accepted as an official statement of doctrine or practice. Apparently it's not. Some comments from mormons have indicated they believe that only the Scriptures of the LDS church (http://scriptures.lds.org) qualify as doctrinal statements or guidelines for practice. Yet at the same time, it appears that the church does teach things that at best are only hinted at in the scriptures. An example of this would be the idea of a Heavenly Mother. THere's a song in the church hymnal about it, Hymn 292 , and several articles at the church website that refer to it, for example Daughters of God from the Nov 1991 Ensign by President Hinckley. There's no references to this idea anywhere in the scriptures that i'm aware of, except perhaps in a very vague way. (And no, I don't plan on getting into the flap i've heard about surrounding this issue. I just want to use it as an example of a belief that is far from being clearly stated in the scriptures).

I've also always been given the impression the church also promotes itself as having prophetic leaders who can speak by inspiration, which solves the problem of people having wildly different views of the Bible because of its lack of clarity on certain things.

So, back to the origional question. How does one determine LDS doctrine? from the LDS Scriptures? From the public statements of the church's prophets? Some of both? Pick and choose the stuff you like from both and ignore the rest? Some other totally different way? Alienburrito 22:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to your question and different LDS will have different opinions on the matter. It's a matter of considerable debate within the LDS Church. For an official statement from the LDS Church on what is doctrine and a discussion about the statement, see this blog entry HERE. As the bare minimum that most LDS would accept, doctrine is defined by what is in the Standard Works and official statements made jointly by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Others would add statements made solely by the presidents of the church, but many others would disagree and say that if the entire First Presidency and Quorum of 12 don't ascribe their names to the statement, it is not doctrine in the strict sense. Thus a statement of Joseph Smith that is not otherwise legitimized in the Standard Works or a joint statement is not necessarily doctrine. Still others might include any statement made by a member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve, or even anything said by a general authority. There is no answer, other than the doctrine of the church is what the church claims it to be. If it's something that someone has said or is in a hymn, but is not otherwise legitimized by the Standard Works or a joint statement, chances are the church leaders view its truth or falsity as something that doesn't really matter in the scheme of things so they don't bother to "confirm or deny". –SESmith 02:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

---

SESmith - to me, your explanations makes the LDS sound pretty much like Christianity in general. Some christians say the Pope is the final authority, some catholics even reject Vatican 2's approach to practicing the faith. Most baptists would say mostly interpretation is up to the consience of the individual member, many christans are somewhere in between. The LDS say the leaders of the church are prophets - see Gordon Hinckley's profile at Families Forever - I would hope having a prophet around would avoid disagreement about what was doctrine or not. What I don't get I guess is what use is it to have someone that claims to be a prophet if they can't proclaim or clarify doctrine authoritatively. Just seems pretty useless to me. I'm leaning towards the prophet thing being a scam to be honest. Alienburrito 03:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Some of the same debates on doctrine and authority to declare it that exist in Christianity exist within the LDS Church—it is not a monolith, despite the perceptions of many. The "prophet" can and does do what you suggest (define doctrine), but when he speaks to define doctrine it is always done in the form of what I referred to as the "joint statements". The most recent examples are found HERE and HERE. Much of the prophet's role is to remind the LDS of the doctrine that has already been revealed in the past—primarily in the Book of Mormon—or to focus the LDS on what particular doctrines are important for them at that point in history. –SESmith 03:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting points. What i'm pondering now is this. From the reading I've done on the LDS Church, the vast majority of Joseph Smith, Jr's teachings weren't joint statements, they came from him and him alone. There's a handful of revelations published in the Doctrine and Covenants where some of Smith's associates were invovled in receiving the revelation, but the vast majority are solo. Yet it seems that some of Smith's doctrinal teachings are rejected in modern times, which is where I ended up butting heads with a mormon or 2 here. It also seems that the prophet going solo on revealing or clarifying things has gone by the wayside, and I don't get why. Alienburrito 03:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

Yeah, that's interesting. It seems that if the LDS Church wants to accept something JS said as "doctrine", what they do is canonize it and put it in the D&C. There's a lot of stuff he said in the D&C that was not a "revelation"—stuff from letters, sermons, etc. I agree that there's been a change, and that the prophet doesn't usually go off on his own like JS did and declare doctrine. I think this might have something to do with the fact that JS is viewed as "THE" prophet of the restoration—it was his job to do the heavy lifting of restoring all the lost truths, and that while subsequent prophets have the same type of calling, they are not required to "restore" truths in the same way JS did. Also, the church accepts all the members of the 1st pres. + Qof12 as prophets, so maybe the idea is that if doctrine is going to be declared then all the prophets have to agree on it? –SESmith 21:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I would clarify that prophets are not "required" to do anything. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve as viewed as prophets, seers, and revelators; however, that does not mean that each or any of them act in the capacities of these callings or positions. They possess the keys of those offices, but the vast majority of the time they act in the role of "adminstrator". For some, to act as a prophet is simply to lead; for others it is to guide by specific revelation. Most LDS would say that each President of the church operates in that function, but seldom have we seen a prophet function in the same capacity as Joseph Smith. He was unique among the Latter day prophets up to this date. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant "required" in the sense of God asking them to do something. If they felt God asked them to do something, I think they would view it as a "requirement" of their calling. –SESmith 22:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

SESmith - here comes the $64,000 question now, the one I was hoping to get to eventually. Why are some of Smith's stuff cannonized and some not? Have the followers of Joseph Smith just decided they're gonna pick and choose what things they like and don't like? It sure sounds like it from what i've read so far. That definatly puts some dents in the church, the current leaders especially, as something/someone to look to for information on God and salvation. Alienburrito 02:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

I don't know the answer to that and I don't know if there is an answer out there that the church has put forward. If I had to guess I would say that that has been one of the roles of subsequent prophets—deciding what statements of Smith's are important enough to canonize. They would probably claim to have made those types of decisions on canonization under inspiration from God. If an adherent were to believe that God was guiding the process, I don't see how it would put dents in the church or the leadership. It's kind of similar to how many other Christians see the process of compiling the Bible. If we look through history, the choice of what went into the Bible and what was excluded can seem awfully arbitrary. Some devout Christians get around this by arguing that all along God was somehow guiding the process.

All that being said, I should re-emphasize that just because a statement of Smith's is not canonized doesn't mean it's totally dismissed in the LDS Church either. There is fairly widespread respect for Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, a collection of (mostly) uncanonized teachings of Smith, as well as some of his writings or his scribe's writings in History of the Church. As I mentioned above, although there is no consensus, you can probably find a fair number of LDS who would consider the statements in either of these sources to be doctrine. –SESmith 10:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, at this point, I'll chalk our disagreements on this stuff up to different understandings of what a prophet is. I must admit I expect that a prophet, when he speaks about God, to be teaching doctrine. A prophet's teaching needs to also fit in with previous prophets. Not that a prophet can't teach something that previous prophets haven't taught, but his teaching does need to be consistent with previous prophets. I'll use Jesus as an example. His teaching is very different from those of Moses, but the New Testament cites numerous statements of the Old Testament Prophets to support the idea that his coming and the new approach was part of the plan.

Of course, that does seem pretty simplistic, but then again, in recent years, I've come to the conclusion that most of Chrisianity is irrelevent to my life, partly because of such overly simplistic stuff as above. Alienburrito 01:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)alienburrito

?? I wasn't advancing any personal "undertanding" in an effort to convince you of anything—I was just trying to answer your question and offer my understanding of the way different LDS approach the issue differently. I therefore don't understand what "disagreements" you are referring to ... ? It sounds like your vision of what a "prophet" is would gel nicely with many LDS people's views; there would also be LDS that disagree with that approach. –SESmith 10:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)