Talk:Mormonism/Archive 1

Horribly Written

This article is horribly written. Even though I've read it, I haven't the faintest idea what Mormons believe. This article is written for people who have an understanding of the major themes of Christianity and speaks only to people with that knowledge. Who is Jesus? What is the relationship between believers and their deity? How did the Book of Mormon come about? What information does it contain? The bullet point list of typical doctrines just doesn't make any sense.. it refers to other Christian concepts to explain Mormonism and in doing so fails to communicate any whole understanding of Mormonism itself. Beyond that inadequate description, the article focuses on the politics of Mormonism. I don't care about the detractors of Mormonism except as a side-bar - the most important issue is the religion itself.

Redirect to Mormon

Not meaning to step on toes here... If this page need return to a redirect to Mormon, so be it -- I notice the same has been done for Catholic/Catholicism and Protestant/Protestantism. I felt there was an important difference, but perhaps Wiki policy/practice dictates that the above information should be merged in under "Mormon" and this page reverted. LennyG

---

Mormonism vs Latter Day Saint movement

There are so many articles, now, with the word "Mormonism" in their title (see, e.g., Restoration (Mormonism), Priesthood (Mormonism), etc.), that we have to have an actual Mormonism article! This usage would be in conformance with the widespread usage of the word "Mormonism" in such publications as the oft-cited Encyclopedia of Mormonism. It would also put this article in conformance with Wikipedia standards, which prefer such titles as Catholicism, Protestantism, and Methodism to "Catholic", "Protestant", and "Methodist".COGDEN 20:50, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This article is nearly verbatim identical to Latter Day Saint movement. Is that article needed at all? Is there a real difference between the two terms? If there is, should we not keep things clean and reduce the redundancy? Who realy uses that term? Hawstom 20:59, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Hawstom's comments. There is no need for Latter Day Saint movement...all of the material on that article should be merged with this article on Mormonism. B 22:42, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Do we have to go through Votes For Deletion? I've never done that before. I suggest a Redirection from that page to Mormonism. Or a short explanation of the term itself along with a pointer that what it really means is Mormonism Hawstom 02:05, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See my comments on Talk:Latter Day Saint movement. There is a subtle but (I think) important difference between Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement. One is a thing that "happened" and the other is a thing that "is". Mormonism isn't properly a movement, but a set of beliefs, practices, and cultures independent of time and place. It's like the difference between "feminism" and the "feminist movement". COGDEN 04:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As a Latter-day Saint myself, this is my perspective: Mormonism should be used to describe the theology and culture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only. On the other hand, the Latter Day Saint movement, as the [User:COGDEN|above Wikipedian]] pointed out, is more of historical value. In being so, the Latter Day Saint movement encapsulates all churches that accept the teachings of Joseph Smith and/or take the Book of Mormon as scripture. To illustrate, members of the Community of Christ absolutely hate being called "Mormons," but accept the term Latter Day Saint (note punctuation), even though they accept the Book of Mormon as scripture. By this, we can see that Mormonism is essentially limited to the practices of one church, whereas the Latter Day Saint movement is the common history of several churches. One word of caution, though: the Community of Christ seems to be a bit selective about it's history. For example, they use an older edition of the Doctrine and Covenants and question the fact that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy (sections pertaining to polygamy, regard for race in priesthood, etc. were added later in JS's life).Bccomm 17:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Clarification: Mormonism is one Brighamite church and its descendant churches. Tom 16:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

True enough, but it really is a matter of personal opinion. From the Writer's Style Guide, it seems that the CoJCoLDS would like to reserve the term Mormonsim for themselves (though I do wish they would indicate some reasons). Would FLDS, for example, classify themselves as a sect of Mormonism - being Brighamite - or just part of the more broad Latter Day Saint movement? When was the term "Mormonism" coined? Was it within the church? Obviously, from D&C 135, we see that it was used from early on. Bccomm 18:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

True. We need to clarify these issues. I am afraid we may not be accurately presenting all the points of views. I know of no FLDS editors or CofC editors, though I have good contacts who could provide guidance for both. One example of the need to clarify is the disputed between Mormonism and Christianity. Which branches are parties to this conflict? All in the same way? Tom 20:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sects of Mormonism

Umm, Is this the right page to list all the sub-sects of Mormonism? This gets confusing to me, and the entropy never ends. If it is, why should we give Strangites honorable mention, but not FLDS. Isn't FLDS at 20,000 bigger? Hawstom 02:34, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mormon Israelites

I removed the Mormon Israelites. I am going to try to find a better home for it. Excellent contribution. Tom (hawstom) 21:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Question of whether Mormonism is a branch of Christianity

I changed "Christian" to "Non-Mormon" to make it more inclusive. ChessPlayer 22:35, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Chess, I think that it is only Christians who gag at classifying Mormonism as a branch of Christianity. Non-Christians pretty much agree M is a branch of C. I think saying some C reject M as a C branch gives the more accurate understanding. Would you consider reverting? Tom (hawstom) 22:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it more accurate to say "Non-Mormons" rather than "Christians"? Saying the former is inclusive of any objecters in the world. Saying specifically Christians means that for some reason, people who are Christians, (but not Mormon) have a reason to object that non-Christians do not have. This makes the classification a religious dogma issue. I don't think that classification should be dependent on the classifiers religion. If you do, could you add some material to the article explaining why Christians object to the classification while no non-Christians object?

Let me state the last sentence in a concrete way. Imagine a Buddhist or other person from a religion far removed from Christianity, who was classifying religions, and was deciding where to put Mormonism, as a Christian sub-class like say Baptists or Catholics, or outside the broad category of Christian groups, which would mean its something so "Not-Christian" that it belongs in the group which has Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and now along those, Mormonism. Would the Buddhist without a doubt classify it as part of Christianity, where as some Christians, and only some Christians, would say that no, its no more Christian than is Islam, which also worships a supreme being, but is an entirely seperate religion? ChessPlayer 07:17, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think you are right on the trail. As you hint, it is 1) a religious dogma issue, and 2) the non-Christian apparently without a doubt classifies Mormonism as a part of Christianity. Do you think this is appropriately expressed in the article? Tom (hawstom) 05:14, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with you. My Pentecostal grandmother thought Mormons were pagans. But then, she thought Catholics were pagans. RickK 05:21, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Rick. Evangelicals (and or? including Pentecostals) do think Catholics and Mormons are pagans. Only sheer tradition and size keeps them from labelling Catholicism a cult. But, Rick, do you agree that Non-Christians (secularists, Buddhists, etc.) universally classify Mormonism as Christianity? Tom (hawstom) 05:31, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would think so, though I have no evidence to support the opinion. RickK 05:34, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why a person's religion determines whether they see M as a form of C. Consider an atheist who has studied the history of mormonism -- they could very well hold either opinion. Can we say "Mormons, and some non-Mormons, consider the religion to be a form or offshoot of Christianity"? Mbp 07:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we can shorten the mention into a very brief reference to the Mormonism and Christianity article. Could the following work? "From its beginnings, Mormonism has had an uneasy relationship with traditional Christianity, as discussed in Mormonism and Christianity." Tom 02:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that would be a good solution, especially as there is so much good content in that article. Perhaps I'd expand it to ".. a complex and uneasy relationship...". Mbp 04:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As an analogy, do atheists classify Christianity as a form of Judaism? I'm not sure what my opinion is on this, but that's a point we have to consider. 204.185.119.112 16:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think no. Christianity is a descendant of Judaism, grew out of Judaism, and is now a major world religion separate from Judaism. Mormonism may someday be similarly viewed. But not in 2004. Tom 22:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If anyone who claims to be a branch of Christianity is a branch of Christianity, then Latter Day Saints are a branch of Christianity. If anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ is a Christian, then any Latter Day Saints who claim to follow Christ are Christians. The question here is not whether Latter Day Saints are Christians, but "What is a Christian?" and who is qualified to answer that question. Too bad Christ Himself is currently unavailible for comment. --Nerd42 (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it a little disturbing watching people decide that someone who may be ignorant of the differences that do exist between Christian and Mormon doctrine is still qualified to categorize Mormonism as a part of Christianity. Going by some of the logic I see at work here, you could classify an atheist as a christian if enough people agree that this is a reasonable proposition. But is objective truth established by a consensus of public opinion ? Or by facts ? It really isn't that hard to weigh Mormon doctrine against the bible, with careful consideration given to the major doctrines that are accepted by all Christians, and see that there are serious differences... just my two cents. 58.106.231.44 21:42, 25 February, 2006 (UTC)

It isn't difficult to weigh the differences between the doctrines and practices of Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant and Latter Day Saints and see that there are vast differences. The basic doctrines (Christ is the one and only path to heaven; the Bible is the word of God; etc.) are shared, but not beyond that. If it were so easy, as you suggest, to see the difference between the Bible and the doctrines, then there wouldn't be the many differences in the Protestant branch of Christianity, let alone the other branches. Val42 22:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You might be surprised at the exact level of understanding of the Bible by many of the Mormon editors. The problem with your concern is whose interpretation of the Bible are we going to use to define Christian doctrine? Further, which definition of Christian should be used? Mormons certainly do not claim to be part of the historic Christian church and its sects. They believe their church is the restored church of Jesus Christ. If you wanted to claim that only historic Christian church members are entitled to the term, then I would agree with your definition. I don't think it is an accurate definiton, but it would be one way of excluding Mormons as well as many of groups identified as restorationist. This argument is also seen in, "If you are not a Trinitarian, then you can not be Christian!" I have always found that argument to be disingenuous. The Bible is very ambiguous about this specific subject and it was not doctrine of the historic Christian church until 325 AD. WIKI is simply not the place to argue what the Bible says; you would also not find a many here to argue with. Many of us would be more than happy to explain why Mormons believe what they believe based strictly on the Bible, but that also is not appropriate for WIKI. I appreciate your two cents, but I am reminded of J. Kenneth Grider comment,

"All theologians bring certain doctrinal presuppositions and biases to Scripture as they seek to construct from Scripture their theologies. The true Wesleyan admits this and does not make correct doctrine a condition for salvation. We understand that if our sins are forgiven at the time of our death, we will be taken to heaven, even if our theology is off base a thousand miles. We are Christians if God, for Christ's sake, forgives our sins. He is able to do this only because of the death and resurrection of the virgin-born God-man, Jesus Christ. But we do not need to believe in any given theory of the Incarnation or the Atonement in order to be forgiven through Christ."

If an individuals relationship with God is such that he is forgiven through Christ's atonement, do you think God would classify that person as Christian? I would. Do you think any of us are capable of identifying those individuals? Storm Rider 22:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Listing made explicit

I pulled the list page out of the "see also" and made it explicit in the article that this listing exists. The listing is the main point of this page, or should be. ChessPlayer 20:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

copied from User_talk:Gilgamesh 02:02, 5 July 2004 (UTC):

Moved Mormonism articles in error

Moving Mormonism and Mormonism and Judaism were mistakes and you need to change them back. Next time please propose and discuss making such drastic changes in the talk pages before doing so. For example, please review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism) and the Church's media guide here stating: "The term “Mormonism” is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine [i.e. "theology"], culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." —B|Talk 17:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I've moved the page back pending a discussion. However, I can't possibly agree that the term "Mormonism" is acceptable — I find it very derrogatory and I won't accept it. It may be easy for Latter-day Saints who live in the Wasatch Front who don't deal with as much persecution. But it's still used pejoratively out there, even as a slur. We do not politely call the Roma "Gypsies", nor the Sami "Lapps", nor Catholics "Papies", nor Muslims "Saracens" nor "Mohammedans". And we do not correctly call Latter-day Saints "Mormons", because it's very belittling, especially for those who had to grow up from childhood dealing with the hurtful words, name-calling and inquisitions. No. It's vulgar, it's hurtful, it's ignorant, and it has no place in civilized (let alone academic) discussion. As far as I am concerned, "Mormon" is a body of water and a prophet. - Gilgamesh 01:55, 5 July 2004 (UTC)

Not to forget "Moonies" either. —B|Talk 13:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry your POV differs from the Church's on this point, but you are not the only LDS to share this POV, I respect your feelings on this point and it is well worth discussing. After all it is not the Church's or your POV which controls here; NPOV is king. The Church and its members have generally been ambiguous toward the term "Mormon" and "Mormonism" often embracing it and avoiding it. As to is pejorativeness, it is a matter of context. In its use here in wikipedia, it does not come across in a derogatory way. The conclusion that should be reached is that "Mormon" and "Mormonism" are acceptable (depending on the context) but that "Latter-day Saint" is preferrable. I hope that other LDS and non-LDS wikipedians who have participated in the past will put in their 2 cents here. If it's decided that Mormonism should be struck, then this has far-reaching effect on the Naming convention for Mormonism on which much work has been done. I just don't think that is going to happen though. —B|Talk 13:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My thoughts here run roughly parallel to B's. I agree that it is good to run across your POV, Gilgamesh. To tell the truth it is mind expanding for me, because I had not in recent memory come across such a strong reaction to the term mormonism. To honor NPOV, I guess it would be appropriate to note that there are locales or contexts in which Mormonism is a vulgar slur. Maybe Gilgamesh could find a high-quality way to add that understanding somewhere in the Wikipedia. And as B says, a name change isn't totally out of the question--only unlikely and immensely inconvenient. As for myself, I routinely refer to myself as a Mormon; probably due to my love for the Book of Mormon. Tom 17:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You have to realize. It's not that I don't love the Book of Mormon. I do. And I admire people like Hugh Nibley for standing up for it. But the name "Mormon" has been badly abused in my living memory. I currently live in the Wasatch Front where such abuse if far less common, but I was born and grew up elsewhere. Mostly I just remember scorn and discrimination from children and adults. Often I didn't understand it at first, but then my parents would explain it to me, and gradually they didn't have to explain anything anymore, and I could see more and more of the hurtfulness. It felt like every month that I heard that one of my peers in primary class had been told that one of their non-LDS friends' parents forbade them to play with each other anymore because "Mormons" disgusted them. When I moved to North America at 13, things became quieter, and I almost never heard "Mormon" anymore but instead neutral or endearing uses of "LDS", "Latter-day Saint", "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", etc. Then came Internet access in 1996. Since I'm not of Wasatch Front culture and always have had trouble assimilating (it can be very hard for a non-Utah-LDS), I found myself associating with the kinds of friends I had before; more diverse, more different ranging opinions. Much of the time it was all fine, and people had no trouble with my affiliation that I was never about to hide. But often I would be subject to hateful slurs and "Godmakers"-style attacks from seemingly ordinary people, and it brought back all the same contempt as before. Pioneer-stock LDS from the Wasatch Front in my observation tend to be far more insular, and often don't associate with people not like them; not out of any bad feelings necessarily, but more out of subconscious xenophobia and traditional distrust of outsiders. I am an outsider, though of the same religious conviction, though I've always been able to reach out better to people whoever they are, since they are all my neighbors. From all I've seen, my conclusion is: Hate, prejudice and slurs are all out there, for anyone to receive, as part of the nature of the world, but it's far too easy for insular people to rarely receive them when they are too hesitant to try. I don't regret my openness, since I try to live in the world (though not of the world), since ultimately it's far better than neither living in the world nor of the world. But my skin is only so thick, and it's not fair for a culturally insular person to completely disregard all the abuse others have to take by association. - Gilgamesh 18:12, 5 July 2004 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that some people find the word Mormonism offensive. However, that cannot be a reason to rename the Mormonism page or to replace all references to Mormonism with something else. Even if the word Mormonism is taken by some as pejorative, that doesn't change the fact that it's standard. Some people (you'll find them on AM radio or Fox News) use the words feminism or liberal pejoratively, but that doesn't make those words un-politically correct, because they are standard and widely accepted. The word Mormonism has been around forever, and there really isn't a word or phrase in common use that captures the precise meaning of the word Mormonism. The phrase Latter Day Saint theology doesn't count, because Mormonism is more than mere theology, and there is great theological disagreement among different Latter Day Saint sects. COGDEN 19:32, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unlike "liberals" and "feminists", I admit that the name "Mormons" was coined by vulgar and pejorative people, not by "Mormons" themselves. I admit that some probably delight in jabbing the sensitive by refusing to say "LDS". But in all candor, I am afraid that "LDS" actually sounds more "cultish" in today's society than "Mormon". Quakers, Amish, Mormons, etc. all sound more like quaint old religions to the average secular Joe. I think that because "Mormons" and "Mormonism" are derived from the Book of Mormon, and they thus call attention to an importantly unique part of us, we should do whatever it takes to adjust our own thinking and hijack the terms for our own use. That, I think, is part of why the Mormon editors (long before I ever got involved) had little heartburn with the terms. We should be able to separate the issues of our own strangeness and our real conflicts with society from the issue of which name we agree to be called. We have real issues. Parents refuse to let their kids play with ours. But all of that is much, much deeper than the simple choice of a name. My solution when I see a non-Mormon vacillating over terms is to simply show him by example that "Mormon" is not offensive. He can't offend me with it if I don't let him. I am a Mormon, yes I am. Now, about polygamy and the Mountain Meadows Massacre, sigh. Tom 23:51, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hoping to contribute more light than heat, a quote: "The nickname Mormon is associated with the Church and its members because we accept as scripture a book titled the Book of Mormon.....Members of the Church do not resent being referred to as Mormons, nor does the Church resent being referred to as the Mormon church. As we have said, however, it is not the correct name of the Church. Its correct name is, as we have already explained, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. Marion G. Romney, 2nd Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, General Conference address, April 1, 1979 Dan 20:09 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, Dan, I think that about does it. I will remove the NPOV dispute after adding a note that to some the term Mormonism is very offensive. Tom 02:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm removing it from the NPOV notice from naming conventions as well. Like many Saints, my position mirrors Dallin H. Oaks': only the term "Mormon Church" bothers me. As an adjective, I embrace the term. Cool Hand Luke

Most people recognize offhand the term "Mormon" or "Mormonism" than than "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". I think that's the best arguement for keeping the term.The Scurvy Eye 20:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

October 8 edit

I liked your October 8 expansion, COGDEN, it made is clear for me that the CJCLDS church that I had been fully equating with Mormonism is actually just a subset sect of it. Could we slso throw in a few references to some example entities or sects other than the CJCLDS church that are also within Mormonism? --Gary D 19:40, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

"While Mormonism as a whole covers a broad range of beliefs, the belief in prophecy tends to limit the scope of theology available to zealous followers within each individual sect." I'd like to see you explain this a little better, COGDEN. Even I had a really hard time seeing through to what it really meant, and I only Think I understand. Tom - Talk 22:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I propose we make a Mormonism WikiProject

See Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.#Propose we make a Mormonism WikiProject

I went ahead and made the WikiProject under Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. I hope the project will be useful to editors looking for work to do. To this end I've compiled a list of red links and short Latter Day Saint articles not listed as LDS stubs. Cool Hand Luke 18:56, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Storm Rider

Great edits, Storm Rider! Tom - Talk 05:47, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'll second that. Good Job!! Bruce 06:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Theology

User:206.158.2.80, you added some beliefs that are not common to all Latter Day Saints. You may wish to find a more appropriate article, such as Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Or perhaps we need to have (or do have) a means of separating the Latter Day Saint movement branches into two theological groups.

• Trinitarian (CofC) vs. non-trinitarian (LDS)
• Radical (LDS) vs. non-radical (CofC)
• Ecumenical (CofC) vs. non-ecumenical (LDS)
• Fundamentalist (LDS) vs. non-fundamentalist (CofC)

I think User:Visorstuff may help on this issue. Is there a place where we attempt to look at various classifications and groupings within the Latter Day Saint movement? It might be said that the term Mormonism (as I wrote recently in the thrid paragraph of Latter Day Saint) has become most descriptive of the LDS brand of LDS Restorationism, and that therefore it is more appropriate that this article neglect the CofC theology in favor of the more Non-trinitarian/radical/non-ecumenical/fundmentalist theology of the LDS Church. Thoughts? Tom - Talk 16:41, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

We don't have that anywhere I know of, however, it belongs on the Latter Day Saint page, after or before the list of denominations. Although I agree that Mormonism is typically associated with the LDS Church, it is much broader - it covers the history, culture and branches of the Latter Day Saint movement. Anyone who adheres to the teachings of the Book of Mormon, whether or not they accept Smith, Young, or even the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (ie think it teaches good things, adheres to it as scripture), would be an adherent of Mormonism. Let's not dilute that meaning. -Visorstuff 00:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You would certainly think. I see things that way too. Mormonism=The Book of Mormon. But what about if you have largely disclaimed its fundamentals? Are we willing to stake our reputation on saying the CofC adherents are Mormons? Is that NPOV policy compliant? Should I ask my correspondent? Tom - Talk 20:12, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

It does not matter if they disclaim it's truthfulness. What matters is if they adhere to its teachings. There are some within the Church, sadly, who do not believe the Book of Mormon to be true - rather they believe it is inspired, non-historical scripture, or that it contains good teachings. Some of these would say the Book of Mormon is the word of God, others may not. However, they adhere to its teachings and would thus be classified as adherents to Mormonism.

I agree that CoC are moving farther and farther away from "Mormonism," but until they completely turn away from the history, culture and teachings they are still a part of Mormonism. Please note I didn't say they were Mormons, but rather adherents to Mormonism. The term Mormon in its connotation is narrow enough now to refer to members of the LDS Church and its 20th century offshoots, not most of the pre-1900 offshoots. It is NPOV to say they adhere to Mormonism. But not to say they are Mormons. I am willing to stand by that unless convinced otherwise - feel free to ask your friend. -Visorstuff 20:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we are going to discuss theology, which I agree we should, let's stick to theology based on the standard works. It is not appropriate in this medium to delve into those doctrines taught in the journal of discourses; were it so, we would still be endorsing the Adam-God theory. I will attempt to make some changes in this order, but would request to know how others feel in this regard? Storm Rider 18:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement that the doctrines of the LDS Church should be represented by the Standard Works. I attempted to modify the anonymous edits that were to me offensive, without removing them completely. In fact, I personally believe that if we're going to represent the teachings of the LDS Church they should be the Articles of Faith, which were written to that end. Billlund 21:23, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Caffeine

I read a poster the other day that said something to the effect of Mormons don't drink beverages with caffeine in them. Where is this noted in the Mormon Scriptures?

It isn't. There is a scripture, called the Word of Wisdom, that suggests a person should avoid "hot drinks". In the CoJCoLDS, this has been interpreted as "coffee and tea", and the church has made an administrative decision (not found in the church canon, but accepted by most members as authoritative) to interpret "hot drinks" as "coffee and tea", and to consider it to be a mandatory commandment. Some members of the church also avoid other caffeinated beverages, but that's considered a matter of personal choice. Personally, most Mormons in my generation (X-Gens), at least that I know, have no problem with cola drinks. COGDEN 06:46, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Alright. I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, just trying to get details--What about iced tea?

I've met Mormons who see no problem with iced tea, but that's rare. Most are probably okay with herbal tea. The Word of Wisdom isn't entirely a health issue. It's kind of like Kosher: it's related to health, more so in the past than today, but it's taken on a spiritual importance beyond mere physical health. COGDEN 21:06, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

And hot chocolate? That's easily classified as a "hot drink". What happens here?

Going back and expanding on COGDEN's statement above, nearly immediately after the revelation was received by Joseph Smith, he interpreted "hot drinks" to mean drinks that were brewed hot - and stated that he felt it meant coffee and tea. Members of the Church are left to interpret as they will, aside from the five no's stated by Church authorities (coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco and harmful drugs). One church leader said that we should interpret and use our common sense - just because it doesn't say not to dive into a swimming pool without any water in it, doesn't mean it won't hurt us. Again, aside from these five items, the individual is encouraged to choose for himself/make his own decisions. For a complete discussion on when the word of wisdom became a binding commandment, and standard for "worthiness" to enter the temple, see Word of Wisdom. Bottom line on your hot chocolate - if you are a Latter-day Saint, you choose for yourself if it's bad or good. No definitive statement has been made. -Visorstuff 18:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It's mainly a matter of personal choice, with a few bright lines: the LDS Word of Wisdom certainly covers alcoholic beverages, all tobacco products, caffeinated coffee (as a beverage), hot black (and probably, but I'm not sure, green or white) tea, or recreational narcotics. Regarding everything else (like iced tea, herbal tea, decaffeinated coffee, O'Doul's, alcohol or coffee used in cooking, caffeinated soft drinks, Red Bull, No-Doze, prescription narcotics, etc.), I've seen different people make different choices. Personally, for example, my standard is to avoid the non-medical use of all strong mood- or mind-altering substances, and I don't care if it's hot or what plant it originated from. But everybody wouldn't necessarily agree with me on that. COGDEN 20:05, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Attempting to be the smart-arse with the one (yes, one! -- though at least he's Notable enough to have his own WP entry) LDS I know well, I raised this very point while he was drinking a half-litre of half-cola, half-Fanta (you may correctly infer this incident occurred in Germany). His attitude was pretty much 'doesn't say "no cola", so you can have cola', if I might crudely paraphrase his sage and learned exegesis. Pardon my rambling addition to a zombie thread. :) Alai 02:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is from the Doctrine and Covenants chapter 89 verses 4,5,7,9 . . . ."I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation. "That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good," " . . . Strong drinks are not for the belly," . . . . . . "hot drinks are not for the body or belly." The Doctrine and Covenatnts are part of our sacred scriptures with the New and Old Testament, the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. David O. McKay the nineth president and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints had said this: "Stimulants are to the body what the lash is to the lagging horse-it causes a spurt forward but gives no permanent strength or natural nourishment. Frequent repetitions of the lash only make the horse more lazy; and the habitual use of strong drink, tobacco, tea, and coffee, only tends to make the body weaker and more dependent upon the stimulants to which it is addicted." In 1952 David O. McKay visited the Queen of the Netherlands, at tea time he told her . . . "our people do not believe in drinking stimulants and we think tea is a stimulant."

The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints does not believe in partaking of stimulants or intoxicants. What individules do are there own choises.

I myself am a Mormon and interpret the Word of Wisdom as such: Caffeine is ok, but iced tea, coffee, alcohol, and tea is not. The only exception to this is herbal teas. Please keep in mind these are only my personal beliefs. Yellowbuddy

Question

I just have a question about something in the article. It talks about "embarrassing prophetic misteps." What is that talking about?

--Parlod 21:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great question. This statement was poorly worded. I believe the author meant some "Mormons well-aquainted" with opinions by church leaders that have been held up as prophetic pronouncements. In other words, there have been some things church leaders have said that have later been "proven" to be unfactual, unsupported, or later doctrinally denounced. These may include: the possiblity of life on the moon and mars, man not being able to travel to the moon, the adam-god theory and various theories about evolution, rain/water and the future of man, etc. -Visorstuff 22:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that was poorly worded, and rather POVish. But I wonder if V's edit somewhat overcorrects: aren't there some revelations (characterised as such at the time) that have been amended by later revelation? Plural marriage, black people, revisions to the text of the BoM all spring to mind. Alai

I don't think I over-corrected. Blacks being able to hold the priesthood again was expected and promised since the policy went into place in the 1845, so that is not a big deal. Most of the BoM revisions were to bring the text into conformity with pre-publication manuscripts (yes, even some of the white and delightsome and pure and delightsome edits and black/dark edits), to modernize text because word usage/connotation changed (same as changes made to the KJV in the past 50 years - for example, closet and chambers have very different meanings than they did 200 years ago) and to encourage correct doctrine to be taught (if smith had used the word dark/pure in pre-publication mss in half of the entries and black/white in the other half, and you want to make sure that Mormons are not using the BoM as a tool for preaching against civil rights, you correct all entries to be consistent). Plural Marriage is the difficult one, but doesn't show "embarrassment" by most Latter-day Saints. While it is not an "official" doctrine of the church, per se (since the manifesto prohibits it being taught), celestial marriage is, and that hasn't changed, but rather Saints are encouraged to obey one commandment (to obey the laws of the land), and the other one is not in force. This is consistent with other scripture, including one that prohibits pluraly marriage unless God specifically commands it (jacob 2:27-30) and another saying that if God commands something and you cannot complete it, because of man, but you've tried everything to obey, you are justified in not fulfilling it at the time (D&C). Mormons generally believe that the Prophet alone can change doctrines/policies and set forth doctrines/policies for the Church (overgeneralized statement but culturally true) - in this way, if the Prophet stood up and said, LDS are now trinitarian, that would meet with some uncomfortability at first, but then would be accepted by the membership of the Church. So I don't think those doctrine/pollicy changes fit into the same category as the author's intent - embarrasing situations or things taught that are proven untrue. The topics you mentioined are easily explainable within a Latter-day Saint's mind, but strange quotes from people recording in their journal that a Church leader said that men live on the moon and they dress like quakers, whether or not they really said it or not, is another thing completely and seems odd, inconsistent and results in the description that was included in the article prior to my edit. -Visorstuff 17:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- I also have another question. "It says "Smith compiled a theology that attempted to answer nearly all of the unresolved religious questions of his day." Is the word "compiled" being used saying that Smith created this theology based on his own study and understanding? I'm not saying it is, I just want to know if that's what the writer intended to say. I just want to make sure it stays NPOV. Sorry if it seems like a stupid question. :P --Parlod 23:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea on that one. Tom, do you have any insight? -Visorstuff 00:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think 'compiled' is OK (compiled /= authored), but I wonder about 'attempted'. Does that ascribe this as intent to Smith? Perhaps better to say that it "was believed" to address those issues, if what we're describing is the purported scope, etc, of the end product itself. Alai 01:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Alai with "compiled" and "attempted." And thanks, Visorstuff. --Parlod 01:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've made an edit to that general effect (#999!). Please feel free to edit away at my wording if it can be further improved (or is wandering in the wrong direction entirely). Alai 02:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good edit. -Visorstuff 17:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks Alai. --Parlod 18:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The 'influenced' bit was niggling at me too; I think Storm Rider's edit takes care of that nicely. (Some discussion of whether he was indeed "influenced" in a mundane sense is probably appropriate, but not in this exact spot.) Alai 19:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Infalliblity

I removed the following from the Theology section:

While the modern prophet is traditionally considered (for all practical purposes) infallible, critics of the faith claim there is a growing tendency towards discounting prophetic pronouncements as personal opinions or beliefs of those leaders. Defenders of Mormonism argue that church leaders have always asserted a separation between prophetic prouncements and personal opinion.

This basically is not true, members of the CJCLDS believe that prophetic pronouncements of a prophet are "true" or invallible, but they don't believe that the prophet is infallible - the only infallible person on earth has been Jesus Christ. This misrepresentation of the understanding that a prophet can be called of God and receive revelation (i.e. be the mouthpiece of god) but not be "perfect" should not be on wikipedia as "infallible". Trödel|talk 17:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I actually think that is the definition of infallible - that the work or person is perfect, when operating in the scope of what it was designed - for example, the Bible has mistakes, but on doctrine, most Christians believe it is infallible. The pope is infallible, but will still share his personal opinions that are not. When he does his blesssings or pronounces doctrine, etc (officiateing in his office) he is infallible. May want to add back in and clarify what is meant to the casual reader. -Visorstuff 18:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are right of course (see webster definition of infallible; however, I think that as the third definition most people don't make the distinction between being infallible in doctrine and being "incapable of error". I put it in here because I do think the concept should be included on the main page, however the crticis/defenders approach does not avoid weasel terms. Trödel|talk 19:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fringe Mormon Beliefs

OK, rather than engaging in an on-again off-again battle regarding the Mormon Beliefs section, let's discuss where those beliefs are found. My specific concerns are listed below. I've not listed items where there is no concern. Billlund

Nature of God

• God is an exalted, perfected man who was once a human being like us. I'd prefer to see this as mortal rather than human being.
• There are many Gods in many universes. What is your reference for there being many gods? From our perspective there is only one God, Elohim.

Jesus Christ

• Jesus Christ was the biological and spiritual son of Mary and God the Father conceived though sexual intercourse. What is your reference that Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse rather than as the scriptures state, that the Holy Ghost came over Mary and she conceived?

• Christ atoned for the sins of humanity and allowed everyone to have eternal life. Also made it possible for some Mormons to gain access to the highest level of heaven. Even Pres. Hinckely agrees that Mormons are not the only people to receive exaltation. Further the term "Mormons" can only be applied to the followers of Christ in this dispensation. What of the followers of Christ (Jehovah) prior to the Meridian of Time? I think you are being excessively narrow.'

Salvation

• Grace, acceptance of Jesus, baptism into the Church of Christ and correct behaviour while alive are all essential for salvation. This statement contradicts your statement above since the Church of Christ is much larger than the LDS Church since it stretches across all dispensations.

Afterlife

• People spend eternity in one of three Kingdoms of Glory.
• Only the most worthy Mormons will live in the Celestial Kingdom with God and Jesus. Again, the term Mormon would exclude followers of Christ outside of this dispensation and those who are righteous in this dispensation.
• Those who defy and deny God will be cast into outer darkness. References again. Your description is far too broad given that only a handful of people in all dispensations would qualify being cast into outer darkness.

Scripture

• The Bible if it has been properly translated is inspired by God, but may contain some human errors. Your reference is off here. The term is as it has been translated correctly meaning that there are many true portions to the Bible, but many precious parts of the Gospel have been removed over time due to error and design of evil men.

Mormon faith versus other faiths

• The Mormon church is the 'restoration' of true Christianity, of the form it had at the time of the Apostles. All other "Christian" churches have drifted away from the original church set up by Christ. Why put the word Christian in quotes. I don't think that anyone, including Pres. Hinckley would argue that other Christian churches are not trying to follow Christ.
• Only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has true divine authority, and correct teaching. Again I think you are being very narrow here. The LDS Church has the fullness of the Gospel, but does not deny that other churches have portions of the Gospel.

• Nonetheless all other churches and faiths have much of value to teach people. OK, you do acknowledge the truth found in other religions.

I added signature for the above. There is need to discuss the beliefs section. At the moment, I am wondering how many "Mormons" would agree with this statement of belief (I am seeing it as a sincere attempt at apologetic ecumenical harmony): We are saved by grace and do not earn the atonement. However, as Jesus is the Lord of our life we are responsible to live as He teaches us. That sounds like US Evangelical theologian/teacher R.C. Sproul, not typical Mormonism. Are we trying to describe Mormonism in all its glorious color or harmonize it to a bland color of gray? Tom Haws 17:28, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Agree that there needs to be more disussion. Is the section supposed to be what Mormons as a whole believe? Mormonism meaning Latter-day Saints rather than Latter Day Saints? For example, the beliefe section states: God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one God (2 Nephi 31:21), though they are separate beings. The Commuinity of Christ would certainly not agree with this statement, nor would they with the idea that God was once mortal (nor would many LDS scholars). While these are cultural and specific to LDS theology, they may not fit under all who call themselves Mormons (strangites, FLDS, etc.) Let's stick to the articles of faith and keep it simple, not aplogetic. -Visorstuff 17:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Section was added by this anon [1] who may not have understood our difficulty with the nuances you summarize. I hate to be deletionist, but where should this info go, or is it already elswhere, or is there an identifiable beliefs of Mormonism? Is it pretty much the Brigham Young and Strang church heritage? Will the believers in Mormonism please stand up (besides us ortho-LDS). Tom Haws 18:11, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

The current belief section is closer to what I would consider "canon" than the original anon edit. However, I think this should be moved out of theology. Theology should probably discuss the lack of a formal theology, but instead statements of faith and descriptions. We should stick to actual official beliefs and not extrapolations of those beliefs by prominent members (not taught in General Conference or published CJC materials). Trödel|talk 01:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This section is really a problem. My edit was no good, and Storm Rider doesn't really like his either. Why not the Articles of Faith? Too indescriptive of the color of Mormonism? Tom Haws 16:32, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think the main problem here is that poor wording can result in changing the meaning of what was originally intended. Does anyone here think that "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie(a Mormon apostle) would be a good source?The Scurvy Eye 21:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Incommunicable attributes

Removed from article. I hope anon comes to discuss. Tom Haws 17:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

No divine being has incommunicable attributes.

It's me, anon (what a cool name, eh?). I think this line would help immensely in clarifying LDS teachings. This particular distinctive LDS belief about God helps folks understand a lot about views on eternal progression, possibilities about God's past, etc.

For those of you who don't understand the line I added (which was taken away), it basically means that, in LDS teachings, every attribute of God's deity is communicable to other beings. It also carries the traditional LDS teaching that no incommunicable attributes of deity exist (but communicable ones do). Hence the doctrine of eternal progression. Popular theism (especially in Judeo-Christian heritage) has, on the other hand, taught that God possesses incommunicable attributes like absolute (rational) omnipotence, eternal omniscience, self-existence, omnipresence, immutability, eternality (always with the full nature of comprehensive deity), etc. Non-LDS folks get flustered about the language of "becoming like God fully" because they assume God has attributes like these that can't be communicated. They think it means we can become omnipotent like God (but what is really being said is that we can have power like God). These same people internally use the language of "becoming like God / Jesus", but do so with an assumption that communicable attributes (like power and knowledge, not omnipotence and omniscience) are in view. Hopefully that was persuasive. I'd like to see the line re-added.

Can you add it back with an explanation for unlearned folks like me? Tom Haws 06:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The "vision thing" for this article

This article is becoming some kind of a monster, and I think we need to come to a consensus about what this article should contain, considering how important and central the topic is. Obviously, the article should be some kind of concise overview, as there are numerous other more specific articles. The article should also be very general, to include all the diverse kinds of Mormonism. The article should also not be too redundant of other articles. Apart from that framework, I'm not sure what to do with the outline of material that has been recently added to the article. Any comments? COGDEN June 29, 2005 00:25 (UTC)

The anonymous "Some Critics"

Recent edits have gone back to the anonymous "Some Critics" state or believe. Whoever introduced this language that presents these mysterious and unamed poeple who believes the LDS is sexist, homophobic, etc. should state who these people are. Without attribution the statements are of little value. The reader is left not knowing who has formerly come out against the chruch. Is some bloke in the backwoods or is it a actual organization. If it is not attributed, I will delete the language. Storm Rider 30 June 2005 02:55 (UTC)

I removed the following language today from the article:

some outspoken critics believe that change within the LDS Church is almost certain to occur, whether by acceptance of the new evidence or through a rift amongst the membership. This is not a common belief among Latter-day Saints

I don't really see where this has a place in the article. I suspect that "some" outspoken critcis also believe that the whole church is not worth a sop buckets worth of muck, but I don't see how that has anything to do with the price of tea in China or in what the Church or its members continues to believe. If one feels that we can't do without such comments in the article, source/reference it so that readers will understand the value of such statements. Storm Rider 04:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Good edit.The Scurvy Eye 21:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Exmormon.org

Not to split hairs, but the link section includes a link to "[http://www.exmormon.org/] - A website for those questioning Mormonism.". However, doesn't this site more appropriately belong on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page, as it is for those who question The Church's teachings, not Mormonism in General. I don't see many Community of Christ or Strangite or Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints former adherents on Exmormon.org. Seems like the wrong page. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 1 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)

We have made a conscientious effort to define Mormonism as the that gospel/organization which came from Joseph Smith. I think the numerous links that refer strictly to the LDS side of things should be removed to the LDS site. However, for those with a limited understanding of the definition of Mormonism, such an action may appear to be too restrictive. Storm Rider 4 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

You people have got it all backwards. The Latter Day Saint movement is the all-inclusive term for Joseph Smith Jr. followers in general. Modern Mormonism refers to Brigham Young/Utah followers in particular. I myself am an RLDS member in a Restoration Branch - RLDS refers to Joseph Smith Jr. and Joseph Smith III/Independence followers. The other groups not covered by those terms are still Latter Day Saints and may or may not be Mormons based on what they call themselves. --Nerd42 (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Link removal - again

I've removed teh following links - as they are not relevant to this particular page. This page is about Mormonism - not the LDS Church - big difference in teh bigger Latter Day Saint movement - that said, I'm moving the links to the following locations:

• Joseph Smith's Polygamy - Documentation of Joseph Smith's seduction of other men's wives - would have moved to Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, Jr., but the link is a dead link.
• BYU Shock treatments - A history of homosexuals at BYU - not quite sure where to put this - there is no Homosexuality and BYU or LDS Church - so it has not moved to another page.
• African Americans and Mormonism - Blacks and the Priesthood in the Mormon Church - Moved to Blacks and Mormonism
• A View from the Foyer, a forum for ex-Mormons, Cultural Mormons, Jack Mormons, and New Order Mormons to discuss their issues and experiences with Mormonism. - this is not an educational site - has no "educational value" - it is like linking to a dating site - see Talk:Polygamy. it is a bulletin board. It's not even as good as exmormon.org. That said, I've placed it at Opposition to Mormonism

Questions? Concerns? This is proper use of terminology. -Visorstuff 8 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)

Admirable effort. Thanks. Tom Haws July 8, 2005 16:03 (UTC)

I, COGDEN, also moved some links, as follows:

• BYU Speeches - given by Latter-day Saints at Brigham Young University, Provo, addressed to BYU students --- moved to Brigham Young University
• BYU Television - Church affiliated TV-Channel operated by Brigham Young University, Provo --- moved to Brigham Young University
• BYU Studies (historical and academic articles, sermons) some past issues online --- moved to Brigham Young University
• Provident Living - addresses lifestyles for spiritual and temporal welfare --- deleted, because it is already on the CoJCoLDS article
• Forever Families - addresses provides practical, scholarly and sacred information for strengthening individuals, marriages and families of all faiths --- moved to CoJCoLDS article
• FamilySearch.org - used for family history and genealogical research --- deleted, because it is already on the CoJCoLDS article
• Gospel Library - contains official publications and texts --- deleted, because it is already on the CoJCoLDS article
• LDSresource.net - an online listing for aspects of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints --- deleted, because it is already at the CoJCoLDS site
• LDS General Conference Scriptural Index - links from scriptures to the general conference talks that cite those scriptures (created at BYU) --- moved to CoJCoLDS article
• Mormon Answers - frequently asked questions about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints --- moved to CoJCoLDS article
• LDS Today - news related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. --- deleted, because already at CoJCoLDS article
• Meridian Magazine - online publication for Latter-day Saints. --- ditto
• New Order Mormons - A website for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who no longer believe some (or many) of the doctrines of the LDS church, but who want to maintain membership for cultural and social reasons. Includes a forum for discussions or support. --- ditto

--COGDEN July 8, 2005 23:20 (UTC)

I have removed the following links because they specifically relate to the LDS Church; as we have agreed Mormonism is much broader than that. If links are to be re-added to the site; please discuss why they belong and how they apply to Mormonism and not just the LDS church. Those links that are specific should be moved to the respective sites.

Additional Websites

• The Scriptures - Internet Edition published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 1965 to present, essays, academic articles, fiction, poetry. Searchable archive of past issues.
• Journal of Mormon History (academic journal)
• Sunstone (monthly magazine, conferences) 1975 to present, past issues on-online
• FAIR - the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research
• Master's theses on Mormonism - online collection of master's theses on Mormonism hosted at Brigham Young University.

Opposing Views

• Exmormon.org - A website for those questioning Mormonism.
• Refuting Mormonism - Biblical arguments and scripture to refute the claims of Mormonism.
• Zarahemla City Limits - Essays on Mormonism.

It seems like we have been moving in this direction and I agree with that direction. Storm Rider 04:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Disputed?

Why is the Mormonism and Emma_Hale_Smith page disputed? Adding a disputed tag to the artilce, the disputor should tell on the talk page the reasons why. If no reason is given, the notice will be removed in 24 hours. Would love to address "factual" accuracies, but both pages are "factually" correct and are documented. Perhaps you were thinking of the NPOV tag? In either case, please explain. -Visorstuff 21:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC) I'll post this comment on User talk:Jobarts as well. -Visorstuff 21:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the {{Disputed}} tag probably wasn't the most appropriate for the Mormonism page. Perhaps the {{controversial3}} or {{Cleanup}} tag would be better. I'll switch it to {{controversial3}} for now. Anyway, here's what I don't agree with in the Sexism and Polygamy/Polygyny section:

"All faithful Mormon men... generally speak for God." Not true. In the context of the LDS church, only the prophet has the authority to speak for God to the whole church or world. Everyone can receive revelation for their stewardship. A bishop receives revelation for his ward, a father receives revelation for his family, everyone receives revelation for themselves. One never receives revelation for another's stewardship (unless counseling that person is part of their stewardship, e.g. a wife counsels her husband concerning the family) or receives revelation that contradicts revelation given to a higher authority. (God doesn't say "except you.") Revelation from an authority may say that it is meant generally, with exceptions, e.g. the Patriotic Order generally should be followed. There are cases when the father of a family is not fit to lead, so the mother does instead.

"The same authorities are not afforded to women." Relief Society leaders, Young Women leaders, etc. receive revelation for their stewardships and all women receive revelations for themselves.

See Doctrine and Covenants section 43 and Alma chapter 32, verse 23

Maybe we should just make this a disambiguation page for all the different sects. As it is, this page is a bit confusing. Jobarts^-Talk 02:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

These issues don't really belong on the Mormonism page anyway, as they are specific to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They need to be moved there. This page is for generic Mormonism, which doesn't necessarily exclude women from the priesthood. COGDEN 04:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Timothy, this article is centered on Mormonism and not the Book of Mormon. Having said that I still there there is value to your statement. Do you feel there is a difference between the various churches descended from the church founded by Joseph Smith? Further, given that the article has long since been divided into different subjects, in this instance rightly so given the importance of the subject matter, is there another way you feel this can be handled justly? For example, I think we should at least refer and link to the article at the bottom. Storm Rider 15:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Mormonism, Blacks and the Priesthood

I removed the huge addition to the article today regarding Blacks and the Priesthood. The following is what is deleted:

"====Racism and subsequent reversals====

Mormonism has taught that Black people and other people of dark complexion exist as such due to a curse or the result of God's displeasure. According to the Mormon scriptures, Blacks were the descendants of Cain. In the book of Mormon, the changing of the skin color of the presumed white Cain into a Black man was linked to the mark of Cain, a popular White American Christian extrabiblical theory of the 19th century (note this theory was not present in Christian circles outside of Europe and America like Ethipia or India for example). In the case of Blacks, Cain's curse had been accompanied by a mark, which Mormons consider to be an actual change of complexion, flat nose, and full lips. And this 'mark' is the explanation of how Black people came to exist as visually distinct from whites. Although this mark is not considered a curse in itself, the association of God's displeasure, cursing, and dark skin is very clearly made in the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price. The offensive nature of these interpretations and scriptures have been jusfied by the Mormon belief that in the end everyone is given a fair chance to be with God . Despite the fact that the Mormon curse has been lifted in 1977 that allows Blacks to enter the priesthood, the main issue of Mormonism interpreting black skin being the result of a mark on Cain (whereas in the Bible a mark can just be a small tattoo on the body)lingers strongly in the scriptures and subconscious of the Mormon religious structure. Ironically this curse had never been recognized by anyone until the 18th century

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, ad seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be and the Lord put a mark on him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then other curse is pronounced upon the same race - that they would be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree." Journal of Discourses, Volume 7, pages 290 291

"In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them." Journal of Discourses, Volume 2, page 172.

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.

"Though he was a rebel and an associate of Lucifer in the preexistence, and though he was a liar from the beginning whose name was Perdition, Cain managed to attain the privilege of mortal birth....As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage. He became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition." Mormon Doctrine, page 109.

Regardless of the 1978 change in practice which allowed black members of the Church to receive the priesthood, the current Official Position of the LDS Church is that the policy of racial exclusion was instituted by God."

This belongs in the article on the Blacks and Mormonism. I will attached the actual article later (I did not seek it out before making this edit.). What this article attempts to briefly explain or summarize is the general beliefs of Mormonism as a whole, i.e. all groups that have evolved from the religion started by Joseph Smith. Although this editor put in a great deal of work and it was edited a few times, it is such a huge add-on that it changes the purpose of the article. This might also be appropriate for the article on the LDS church, but most certainly it belongs on the Priesthood. Storm Rider 18:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider...I may agree with this edit, but I think that there are doctrines that surround lineage and race that are taught within the canonized scriptures of Mormonism, and I think it would be entirely appropriate to have a discussion of these issues on this page. For example, there are many teachings within the Book of Mormon that deal with race and lineage; one could argue that most of the book is organized around such principles. In summary, I believe that contained within "Mormonism" are some distinct teachings regarding race and lineage, and I think these should be commented upon. --Timothy 21:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Timothy, I see a distintion between Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. Further, I see differences between how the various groups (particularly the CofC and LDS churches) have dealt with this issue. Also, the article has long since been divided given the importance of the history of Blacks and the Mormonism. The article can be improved by linking to that article.

Given the subject matter of this article, I think that should be adequate. Storm Rider 15:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This page is a joke

Those doctrinal summations are modified to be palatable, not succinct and clear. Doesn't anyone here have the guts to just tell it like it is? -Anonymous

Take for instance the following: "Jesus Christ was the only begotten son of God the Father." Without qualification, do you really think this is clear? This has historically been taken to mean something very different than the LDS meaning. This needs to be qualified, or it's just glib!

I think saying that is perfectly clear-anonymous

They may not be succinct, but they are accurate - across all Mormonism - not just LDS. How do you think the above statement needs to be qualified? Adherents to Mormonism believe that, and the various Mormonism denominations interpret it differently. LDS believe he is the only begotton Son in the flesh, whereas CoC believe that he is the bodily condesension of God the father, the strangites believe he was the only begotton son. Remember, this is not a LDS doctrine page, but a page outlining similarities of Mormonism doctrines. It's like saying the page on Christianity doesn't fully represent the Church of Christianity page, or the Catholics, or the Baptists, or the LDS Church. In order for us to address your concern, you will need to be more specific. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, and would like to address your concerns, but not sure I understand them all. Please expound. -Visorstuff 17:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"Jesus Christ was the only begotten son of God the Father" is just poetry until some substantive, meaningful content is given to it. That's like saying, "I believe in John Williams", when there are 20 different entries in the phonebook. Different phone numbers, different addresses, different people. If this article is going to be informative, and not just obscuring, the doctrinal summaries need to be more unequivocal and descriptive, instead of ambiguous and up for grabs. Language is supposed to carry distinct meaning, not obfuscate. -Anonymous

Yet scripture is purposely ambiguous, as to allow the reader to understand on his own level. Take Jesus' teaching about "take up your cross and follow me." That is taught througout all of christianity. Some - especially in the phillipines take that litterally, adn will be crucified for short periods of time to follow his example as an ordinance, while other Christians believe that means they should sacrifice themselves for the gospel, and other think it means that they should endure their challenges with a christ-like attitude. Mormonism, within Christianity is just as ambivilous - see the discussion at Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#Interesting_question - even the early events in Mormonism such as the First Vision are interpreted vastly differently by various Mormonism sects. This page - which is an overview of Mormonism - not the LDS Church - should be sufficiently vague about the specifics in order to give an overview of Mormonism's commonalities between sects, not interpret for the reader something that may change depending on the denomination, whether it be Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Community of Christ, Cutlerite, Strangite, True and Living Church of Jesus Christ, Saints of the Last Days, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or one of the dozens of other beliefs within Mormonism.

In fact, let's look at the statement "Jesus Christ was the only begotten son of God the Father" within the LDS Church -

• Some members believe that Christ was the physical Son of Elohim
• Some members believe that Christ was the only converted Son of Elohim (begotton also means converted)
• Some memember believe that Christ was begotton of the Holy Ghost
• Some members believe that Christ was the condensention of God (God himself)
• Some members belive that Christ was begotton by Adam
• Some members believe that Christ was physically concieved by God the Father through sexual intercourse or other natural means
• Some members believe that Christ was the Firstborn son of God in the pre-mortal realms
• Some believe that Although he was the only begotton, God had other children prior to this earth and that Jesus was the pre-eminent and firstborn of God, making him our elder brother
• Some members believe that Christ was the only begotton some of God in the flesh or into mortality - contrasting with Adam and possibly others who may have also been "sons of God," but chose to become mortal by their own means - such as partaking of the fruit (see Luke and Matthew Geneaologies, other statements in the old testament).
• Some members believe that this means that Christ has divine physical and spriritual attributes and strenghths that other mortals cannot possess in this life
• Some members believe that this means that Christ was a man just like the rest of us, but had a special mission on this earth, and the man affect of being the only begotton was the title for accountability for those who rejected him as a prophet,
• Some members believe that by being the only begotton this gave him power over death.
• Some members believe that being the only begotton gave Jesus a certain level of Omniscience, etc.
• Some believe that Jehovah and Christ are the same, some believe that Jehovah and the Father are the same
• and the list goes on...and many don't believe all of the above. The doctrine is vague -

The doctrine of the Church is that Jesus was the only begotton Son of God in the flesh. Other Mormonism sects have differing beliefs than the LDS Church. Even you stated "This has historically been taken to mean something very different than the LDS meaning." I'd disagree - there are just less bounds on what it is limited to. I'd state that it is just as debated among other christian sects as it is between traditional Nicean Christianity and Mormonism.

So, back to your original question "Doesn't anyone here have the guts to just tell it like it is?" The answer is yes - and we did in the article - and you don't like it. But that is how it is. The doctrines laid forth are vague in teaching - in application and belief they become specific. Now if you want to get into the specifics about what the LDS Church believes (which is non-trinitarian, unlike some other Mormonism sects, such as the community of Christ which is trinitarian) that belongs on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page and article. Make sense? Are you getting Mormonism and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints confused becuase it is the largest sect in Mormonism? -Visorstuff 16:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This is like saying "All Americans believe in right and wrong" is an accurate, or even helpful statement. Why not just list out the overarching general beliefs that different "Mormons" have about the words "Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God." -Anonymous

Because they are so varied from denomination to denomination within Mormonism sects that we'd have to list out 20 churches and be specific about how each of them view the Godhead/trinity. Then the article would need to renamed "Latter Day Saint denomination views on Christ being the Only Begotton Son." Seems like a task that someone else can undertake, but is not appropriate for this article. -Visorstuff 18:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I find it interesting that an anonymous editor without the character to sign his own "name" has the temerity to assert that the article doesn't "tell it like it is" and that the true Mormon doctrine is being obfusacted. Exactly how does the statement that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God become unclear??? Some 325 years after the time of Christ the churches now known as orthodox came up with an incomprehensible creed to explain how they interpret that simple, clear statment. Then, all of a sudden, the son is the father!?!? Oh yeah, let's bend over backwards and become totally illogical so that Christians can somehow maintain the clarion call of One God. "Orthodox" Christianity has turned that simple statement, Jesus is the only begotten Son of God into complete mush and now you want to blame Mormons for just sticking to the simple meaning of the words. Storm Rider 19:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand the historic view of the Trinity. Its creeds explicitly deny that the Son is the Father! The fact is that most Christians wouldn't agree with the statement, "Mormons believe that Jesus Christ it the only begotten son." We need to respectfully pay attention to doctrinal content behind words, and use language as it was intended: not to obfuscate, but to elucidate. -Anonymous

Not to defend Storm Rider's comments (as he is perfectly capable of doing that himself), but in addition to saying that the son is not the father it also states that the father and son are the same. "This is the great mystery" according to one Christian church father. However, Trinitarianism is not the point of this article nor should be discussed here, aside from the fact that some Mormon denominations are trinitarianistic, and others are not. I think we are plenty familiar with Trinitarianism. However, not all of Mormonism is trinitarianistic.

You wrote: "We need to respectfully pay attention to doctrinal content behind words" and that "The fact is that most Christians wouldn't agree with the statement, 'Mormons believe that Jesus Christ it the only begotten son.'" Ummm, okay. We are paying attention to doctrinal content and context. That is why it is written how it is. But it is not supposed to be written from a Christian point of view. It is written from a Mormon point of view, just as Buddhism is written from a Buddhist point of view. AND, this article is not about what other Christians believe. This is about Mormonism and Mormonism beliefs. The simple statement in Mormonism beliefs that they believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotton son of God in the flesh. No other explanation required. Some Mormonism sects are trinitarian, some like the largest sect is not. Not all chrisian denominations are trinitarianistic, but they all believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I must be missing your point, as you seem to be arguing that we should write this from your point of view, rather than the stated beliefs of Mormonism.

How is the statement "Mormons believe that Jesus Christ it the only begotton son" incorrect?

-Visorstuff 18:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I must correct all of you people and i decided here was the best place, you say there are many churches of "mormonism" while most of these have different belief's from LDS, this is because all others are false and LDS is the only true church that believes in the prophet joseph smith, and i think that would classify them as "mormon" i know all this be cause i am LDS and what you will learn from most other christian churches about us "mormons" is not true, when you want to learn about a religion or a people then don't go to the people who despise them, go to the people you want to learn about.-LDS saint

The term "Mormon" is explained in the article. This article is not specific the LDS church. It specifically states that. If you want the article on the LDS church, go to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Read the article. Please. The Scurvy Eye 23:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wholesale revert of User:71.106.80.135's edits

71.106.80.135, my apologies for the wholesale revert - however, the vast majority of your edits were specific to the LDS Church - not the broader Mormonism movement or the Latter Day Saint movement (as compared to the hyphenated Latter-day Saint, who is an LDS church member). Please note the difference of sects and groups who do not subscribe to these beliefs who still claim they are Mormons or adhere to Mormonism culture and teachings and history. Latter-day Saint doctrines belong at Latter-day Saint -Visorstuff 18:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up, Visorstuff. I should have been more general when describing some of the doctrines, and should have used the term Latter Day Saint rather than Latter-day Saint. I will make the corrections to bring my edits in line w/ the broad theme of the page (though I do believe that the doctrines discussed in the Mormonism article must not disagree or misrepresent the views of the LDS Church, which is the church most definitely implied by the term "Mormonism." (unsigned by User:Westbrook348)

Westbrook348 Thanks for understanding, some of your edits were stylistic and are needed, but I felt the detraction outweighed the benefit of keeping. The history of your edits may be found here: [2], so you can re-create items that you feel you need to re-incorporate. Welcome aboard. You can sign your edits on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) that will automatically sign and date-stamp your edit. Also, you may want to check out (or join) WP:LDS or List of articles about Mormonism. We've found it easier in the Mormonism aricles to use as much of the original wording and then break out specific beliefs in specific pages. For example, FLDS don't believe in Elohim the same way that LDS belive in "the father." They believe "the Father" is Adam. Community of Christ believe that the godhead is trinitarian, and LDS believe they are three distinct personages, with at least two having bodies. Your edits were well-intentioned and are very appropriate - but in other articles. Happy editing and glad to have you around. Hope to work with you in the future. -Visorstuff 20:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only "mormon" church, I know this because I am "mormon" A.K.A. LDS and I have to correct you, "mormons" believe that the god head is three different beings, two of which are in the form of a man, but do not have bodies, one has to be a human on earth to have a body, and FLDS and Community of Christ are not "mormon" nomatter what they claim.- LDS saint

Excuse me, the LDS belive that one of the main reasons we even came to this earth was to gain a body like in the likeness of the Father's body. God the Father and Christ have physical bodies, but they are not mortal. Being an LDS does not immediatly qualify one to be an expert (I don't claim to be).The Scurvy Eye 23:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sound mean in my above comment. I don't mean to.The Scurvy Eye 23:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely with scurvy. I also am lds. We also believe,
that the comforter dose not have a physical body, but is still a member of the god head Even though Christ, and God the Father do Pattyman 02:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"LDS Saint," you can claim to be Mormon. I claim and aspire to be a Latter-day Saint. I know many who are not Latter-day Saints who claim to be Mormons (see Strangite and FLDS for example). The LDS Church, which I am a member of, does not "own" the term Mormon.

Scholars throughout the world distinguish between those in the Mormonism movement. Mormonism is defined by a belief in the Book of Mormon. As there are hundreds of churches who do, they are all part of Mormonism, and thus "Mormons." Latter-day Saints, are specifically the church you say you belong to. Both are part of the Latter Day Saint movement (unhypenated) which is defined by belonging to a church founded by or one that that claims succession to the church Joseph Smith founded. I'm unaware, LDS saint, of one scholar within or without Mormonism that would side with you. We've adopted the nomenclature of the academic world, not of the culture of the largest Mormon sect, which you have adopted.

Second, some within the Mormonism movement do not believe all that you claim about God. There are some that believe that Adam and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith rather than Elohim and Jesus. Some believe in the trinity, while others reject the idea that the Holy Ghost is a personage, but rather believe it is a spritiual fluid or something similar to your understanding and belief in the Light of Christ. In fact, there were heated disagreements on this in the LDS church hierarchy less than 150 years ago, and some within the church still believe it (although I believe falsely). Please don't be arrogant to claim that you are the only one who can claim to be a mormon, for that is what some of our "Christian" brothers claim about us. They believe they "own" the term "Christian" and that because we don't fit their mold of what a Christian is, we are not one. The mind-set you are projecting to others is exacly that, and quite discriminatory. No matter - and please do not take offense to these comments, but take them in the spirit in which they are intended. Hope this helps. AND, hope you register and join us in editing wikipedia. We need more Latter-day Saint, Latter Day Saint and Mormonism editors. -Visorstuff 00:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted sentence reverted

I just reverted the deleted sentence, "; although Smith himself married several women who were already wedded to other men." The source is ISBN 156085085X, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/insacred.htm

The book isn't online, but this is from the publisher: "Finally, Compton is to be commended for candidly trying to come to terms with some of the most knotty and controversial aspects of early Mormon polygamy, including the evidence that Joseph Smith took as plural wives in a full physical sense women who were already married to other men. Compton argues, for example, that "fully one-third of his [Joseph Smith's] plural wives, eleven of them, were married civilly to other men when he married them. ... Polyandry might be easier to understand if one viewed these marriages to Smith as a sort of de facto divorce with the first husband. However, none of these women divorced their 'first husbands' while Smith was alive and all of them continued to live with their civil spouses while married to Smith" (15-16). Compton further points out that "there is evidence that he did have [sexual] relations with at least some of these women, including one polyandrous wife, Sylvia Sessions Lyon, who bore the only polygamous offspring of Smith for whom we have affidavit evidence"

--Quasipalm 22:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If the article contains a Jesus section...

The Mormonism article contains a section on the "Nature of God" and a section on "Jesus." Shouldn't there also be a section on God the Father and Holy Spirit in order to preserve parallelism?

Also, if the article is going to specifically refer to Mormon theology there should be a certain amount of clarification as to what most "mormons" believe. Perhaps there should be a breakdown of the various denominations within the religion with accompanying numerical statistics. For example, when one refers to "Christianity" he draws upon his own presupposition of a Christian within his culture. One cannot say that Christianity cannot be accurately described because there are "too many denominations" and widespread beliefs such as Protestant (in general), Roman Catholic, and Greek Orthodox. On the contrary, each of the largest Christian denominations should be accurately described in detail. However, this article seems to take the position that every mormon denomination can be described accurately through a quick breakdown of what is considered "mormon" theology. I think this is where most of the confusion is coming from and results in a watered down version of their faith.

Perhaps the "theology" section should be allowed to rest within each individual mormon denomination page so that there would be less disagreement concerning exactly what each denomination believes. If this were to occur, the current Mormonism page could be better used to describe the history of the movement and the encompassing vocabulary of the term rather than messily describing what mormons generally tend to believe. Even the Christianity page doesn't go into as much detail concerning "beliefs" as this article tries to do. I think the theology/beliefs section has become entirely too specific and has therefore disregarded describing "general beliefs" and has rather begun to delve into mormon theology which is obviously going to be controversial when listed on the main page.

Tarentinos 18:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a very good point. This article is full of doctrine when it should be talking about the term. History should be referred to the Latter Day Saint movement. Doctrine should be referred to the individual denominations, keeping the distinction between Mormons and Latter Day Saints. Val42 18:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Restored Gospel

"those who died without the opportunity to accept the restored Gospel in life will be taught by those who did accept the gospel in life". I suppose it means the mormons will teach the non-mormons? Before this line, nothing is said about the restored Gospel. The same wording should be used throughout the article or at least new words should be explained. Piet 09:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not that limited. It will also include all those who have accepted the Gospel, not just the restored Gospel but those from the church that Christ established circa his death and resurrection. And according to D&C 138, "... the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality; And who had offered sacrifice in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of God, and had suffered tribulation in their Redeemer’s name."[3] This would include the faithful all of the way back to Adam. This includes a lot of people who would not be considered Mormons. Val42 03:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What are Roman Catholic views on Mormonism?

Moved off-topic post and reply to the anon user's talk page also added my response. Trödel•talk 19:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

JubarPhd's edit/'mormonism' offensive

From your edit summery: "Refering to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a mormon is not offensive and is in fact a term which the LDS church uses to refer to its members. See also mormon.org"

The bit that you clipped out states that some other than the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints may find it offensive, so your reasoning in removing this bit is flawed.

See also Moved Mormonism articles in error on this talk page for further discussion about mormons finding the term 'mormonism' offensive.

I'd suggest that, rather than us two keeping on reverting the passage, we leave it alone and allow others to comment here and reach a consensus. --DakAD 02:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why JubarPhd insist on deleting it. There are many groups that evolved out of the Latter Day Saint movement that do not use self-describe as Mormons. In fact, I think most prefer not to use the term. The phrase should stay in the article as it is correct. Storm Rider 06:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, the term Mormon is similar to the term Nigger. That article states: "the word denotes, rendering it a powerful pejorative and abusive term when used by persons of other races." In a simlar way, many Mormons find it offensive when others call them that, and others do not. I am one that finds it a somewhat perjorative term when called it by non-"mormons" who know the name of the church, however, I'm not offended by it when its used by the Associated Press or other church members.

In addition, within the Latter Day Saint movement, some hate the term mormon, while others self-identify. Latter-day Saints, Strangites, FLDS, Apostolics all self-id as mormons. COC, Mongeleas, Bickertonites, Hedrickites do not. There are many cultural elements of "mormonism" that are acceptable. I think the original version is best, sorry User:DakAD. -Visorstuff 22:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, not all mormons are LDS, but all LDS are mormons. Mormonism may be offensive to you, but there is simply no other word for it. I'm curious why you save your offense for only non-members though.

Btw, the church itself says that calling a person a mormon or calling the entire church mormonism is fine. [4] Seems to be a none-issue. --Quasipalm 03:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Very true - I am aware of the official suggested wording for referring to the church in the media. You'll notice that the church and the AP style guide discourage the use of the term Mormon fundamentalist, although in an academic forum, it will be used. Rather than being "fine" it is considered "acceptable" - just as in some countries, Negro is still an acceptable term - but in the states it is not. Mormon to me still carries some connotation. I am a Latter-day Saint.

Having authored a number of these articles and been involved in the standardization of the nomenclature of Latter Day Saint movement terminology on wikipedia, I am well aware of the distinctions between mormons and Latter-day Saints. That said, I grew up in a time where mormon was either perjorative or celebratory - again, much like the word nigger. It was fine for us to call ourselved Mormon, but when someone else did, we wanted to be known as latter day saints. You'll find the same feeling in american black culture. Because Mormon is a culture as well as a religious movement, and in some cases an ethnicity, we have to be careful about labeling folks. Just my two cents. -Visorstuff 05:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I would also agree with Visor, it really depends on who is saying it. When non-Mormons use the term it depends on their understanding of the term. With some, you can sense that it is definitely being used pejoratively and yet others will use the term in an acceptable manner. As a matter of course, I always prefer the term Latter-day Saint to Mormon. Storm Rider 21:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So, one can never say a negative thing about a mormon, only a later day saint? I fail to see the difference. -Quasipalm 22:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

External link removal (again!)

The external link section I removed consisted entirely of links relating to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is too narrowly focused for this more broadly-reaching article. For more, scroll up and check on Visorstuff's reasoning for removing similar links about 8 months back. Tijuana Brass 00:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

About the mormonism article

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and we do not mind being called mormons. But we do not refer to our religion as Mormonism. We do not have sects, we have wards, branches, and stakes. Our book, The Book of Mormon, is Another Testemant of Jesus Christ, just to let you know, because a lot of people get mixed up with that. We have a Bishop and a Prophet. we are christians. check out the links below and you will find some more info. on us. we also have other standards than other religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormongirl262 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

(following the above were a number of links to pages branching from [www.mormon.org], which I've removed for brevity... check the page history if you're interested) Tijuana Brass 00:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that most Latter-day Saints do not refer to their religion as Mormonism, and that Mormonism properly applies to the culture at least as much as the religion, there are indeed multiple Latter Day Saint sects. The Jade Knight 03:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

I have deleted the following, which I don't think is LDS doctrine: or those who have received a spiritual witness that Jesus is the Christ but later rejected it. (becoming Sons of perdition). The Jade Knight 17:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the reference, but it does take not just a spiritual witness but a much greater knowledge with a rejection to become a Son of Perdition. Cain is the only one that we've been told has so qualified. I don't know of a reference for these pieces of information though. Val42 20:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Smith taught, "What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against Him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 358)[5] See also Ensign April 1986 and True to the Faith. Trödel 23:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bruce R. McConkie in Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966], 746 stated: Those in this life who gain a perfect knowledge of the divinity of the gospel cause, a knowledge that comes only by revelation from the Holy Ghost, and who then link themselves with Lucifer and come out in open rebellion, also become sons of perdition. Their destiny, following their resurrection, is to be cast out with the devil and his angels, to inherit the same kingdom in a state where "their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (D. & C. 76:32-49; 29:27-30; Heb. 6:4-8; 2 Pet. 2:20-22; 2 Ne. 9:14-16; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 47-49; vol. 2, pp. 218-225.)

Having said this it has been further clarified that a Son of Perdition does not live by faith, but by a sure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that God the Father lives; yet, they choose to follow Satan and reject all things having to do with the light. Hope this helps. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it helps give a source for the misconception—it is important to note, however, that Mormon Doctrine doesn't necessarily reflect LDS doctrine. The Jade Knight 00:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)