Talk:Mormonism

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

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;

Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue.
During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box.
After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.

(This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

NPOV

I added a NPOV tag to the section on historicity due to uncited claims which suggested that sources which deny the historicity of LDS are Christian cults trying to defame LDS. Either the claims should be sourced or a neutral point of view should be used.

Theology a separate article?

Given the unwieldy length of the current article, I wonder whether there would be any agreement to a proposal of breaking out the topic of Mormon theology into a separate article. As a point of comparison, note that Roman Catholic theology constitutes an entire category. --AuntieMormom 23:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea, but the article isn't really that long (at least as far as size in kilobytes). I think having an article on Mormonism theology would be better than a single church because we could compare doctrines of each of the churches. --Kmsiever 23:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These types of results are often difficult to achieve: an article that addresses the theology of all the groups under the umbrella of the Latter Day Saint Movement. Some have moved very far from the inital foundation such as the Community of Christ; their doctrine in many ways is Prostestant today. (I would also say that it is a church in transition and I don't know where it will eventually lead.) The other groups would be easier to cover, but then some of them are almost single issue groups. True they are more Brighamite than the LDS church, but so much is similar. For these reasons I would favor a theology article on LDS church. In sheer size it so outnumbers its sister groups that it is the lightening rod for all issues regarding Mormonism.

Now the final question, a theology article. In most respects I still am not sure that I see the need. If such an article was created, how would it look? What would be a general outline? How might it affect the other related articles? I am open to it, but I would like to see more discussion. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it will be very difficult to make one page that compares and contrasts the beliefs of all of those under the Mormonism umbrella. That's why I think that this article should define what groups belong under the umbrella then link to those separate articles. Val42 03:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Storm Rider. I am also interested in this, as actual doctrines are not all that readily available. There are more cultural doctrines than official church ones. I'm afraid that we'd end up fighting amonsgst ourselves about what are doctrines and what are not. Already, the wikipedia has too many not accurate "LDS doctrines" on it, from the plan of salvation chart to deification/exaltation. And because of the cultural teachings that are promulgated will be nearly impossible to wipe out. However, I am open to it. We may want ot combine such an article with a link to Priesthood Correlation Program, and would need to demand cites for every inch of it. Also, would need to explain what are differences between cultural teachings and doctrines, and principles. But also willing to explore the thought. The last attempt at something similar was specifically about the role of Christ and became quite a mess (Jesus in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Auntie, let's hear more of your proposal. -Visorstuff 03:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that my initial proposal is that we simply suck out the Theology section of the current article and slap it into its own article (with the expectation that the Theology article would be the new battleground, generating its own daughter articles, and perhaps its own category, and leaving this poor overworked article alone).

Here's my rationale: I think that no matter what we may disagree on, we can agree that "Theology" -- being immense -- truly is a separate subject from "Mormonism" (which could be treated as nothing more than a fairly brief definitional survey, with links to related articles.)

If the goal here is to create articles that will be useful to the lay reader, then it seems to me that the minutae of esoteric doctrine just doesn't belong in what ought to be a simple survey article.

Could we agree on that premise, and then perhaps split out the Theology article, as outlined above? I suspect that if that were to happen, the Mormonism article could handily survey the topic in a useful manner, and be, basically, finished. (There has to come a point in the Wiki lifecycle where an article is -- for all intents and purposes -- done. Finito. So long as Theology is intertwined with this survey topic, I think that day will never happen. And I suspect most of you old-timers would like to put paid to this one, so you can focus on other hobby articles. Yes?)

Oh, and I endorse the suggestion about producing an article differentiating Policy and Doctrine. Anyone else think this can be done in a manner that won't constitute Original Research? Anyone here operate a scholarly journal? <grin> --AuntieMormom 05:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe what we should do as far as doctrine goes is list what little is common to all and then point out how far appart the various denominations are. We can then link to individual articles for the full doctrine (as far as we have entered).

In the local (Ogden) paper, a regular editorialist is an evangelical pastor (that I happen to know through one of my other hobbies). He pointed out something that I think that is important, something I sort of knew already but I didn't think about it that way until he pointed it out. (You know the feeling. You're doing a puzzle and have two large groups of pieces. You would have discoverted it yourself, given time. Then someone points out how those two large groups fit together. You immediately recognize the connection because the groups are sitting next to each other, almost connected. But the connection is an "Ahah!" moment anyway. Like that.) What he pointed out is that in Protestantism, pastors, misinsters, etc. go between denominations, with little notice because they are so close. He also listed several examples. Even the Catholic Church will recognize the baptism of protestant denominations, and vice versa. But, he pointed out, in the Latter Day Saint movement (he used "Mormonism"), each denomination doesn't recognize that the others have any authority. He pointed this out as something that is inherently understood inside of Mormonism, but isn't understood in larger Christianity. This is why Christians at large don't see the wide separation between the CoJCoLDS and the denomination run by Warren Jeffs (though he used something like "polygamous sects") that we perceive as obvious.

I got the essence of his editorial. His point should also be pointed out in this article. Val42 19:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community of Christ-ers Ain't Mormon

An editor above sez: "Some have moved very far from the inital foundation such as the Community of Christ; their doctrine in many ways is Prostestant today."

To which AM laments: Will there come a day when we can simply agree that while they're part of the Latter Day Saint movement, Community of Christ adherents are not Mormon? This is becoming my new pet peeve. They hate it. They hate the confusion so much they changed their friggin' name. Can't we simply grant 'em what they seek: They're NOT included under the umbrella of "Mormonism"? --AuntieMormom 05:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, Auntie, watch your language! It makes me laugh to read your comments; thanks. I have a few pet peeves of my own so I know how you feel. Surprisingly, not all members of the CofC reject the term. My aunt and uncle are members of the RLDS/CofC and are quite comfortable with the term. In fact, they often speak in inclusive langugage about "we" Mormons. I long held the position that the term Mormon was only properly applied to members of the LDS church. However, I have tended to let the definition become more inclusive. The result is that titles become more important to me; sometimes I try to limit articles such as this one to just what can be addressed to the Movement as a whole. I must add I haven't been focusing on this article in a while and I suspect it has bled beyond its title.

The ones who really get my goat is the tiny, polygamist, splinter groups that retain the term Mormon. They are no more Mormon than they are Jewish. However, on WIKI we respect their right to call themselves as they see fit. I think some others should comment, but I think it best to work within the current structure. Thoughts anyone else? Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK. I'll shut up about it. --AuntieMormom, chewing a Midol.

I see both of your points, and based on earlier conversations, we standardized on the current naming conventions and styles - which I don't love, but they are the most NPOV. We should stick with them. The other thing we have to treat is that how I understood your proposal is that we are discussing the theology of "Mormonism" by definition would include historical mormonism as we've discussed elsewhere. We should also broaden to include the theology of those who believe in cultural mormonism. The theological differences are immense, but could be a very interesting article. This would be the bottom line of doctrines for Mormonism. Let us know your outline, rather than just breaking this one out, if you can, as I do have somethoughts, but for the most part will trust you and other editors as my editing time has been cut significantly. -Visorstuff 14:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

This new insertion

"Through recent DNA, archeological, and linguistic studies, much criticism has arisen both inside and outside the Mormon church in regard to the historical validity of the Book of Mormon. <REF>([http://www.mormonchallenge.com/dnachal.htm The DNA Challenge to the Book of Mormon]</REF> <REF>[http://www.lhvm.org/vid_dna_med.htm DNA vs. The Book of Mormon]</REF>"

seems to duplicate the paragraphs above re Historicity of the BoM - maybe we could use the links as references up there - but I don't see what it adds. --Trödel 20:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The following quote from the article indicates that someone needs to re-write this article. This quote is redundant and almost silly in a sophomoric way.

"The historicity of the Book of Mormon is the subject of some debate. The proponents of a historical Book of Mormon are almost exclusively adherents to Mormonism; those non-Mormons who find history in favor of the Book of Mormon usually convert (such as in the case of Father Jordan Vajda). Detractors of the historical efficacy of the Book of Mormon are typically non-Mormon."

Duh. Do Christians often say that the Bible is not true? Do Jews think that the Tanakh is a lark? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.213.38 (talk • contribs)

Anon 24.8.213.39, I agree with your comment and it is unfortunate that such a simplistic statement needs to be made. However, you might want to read the archives of the article. When discussing a topic of faith, such as Mormonism, you will find a polarizing discussion. "Christians" (read cultists and zealots) are hypersensitive to any language that comes remotely close to being interpreted as the Book of Mormon is true. Even in the context that LDS believe the Book of Mormon to be true. That statement alone is inflammatory to them and needs to be further clarified into, "However, they are misguided in their faith and are going to go to hell for their mistaken errors".

Understand that I am exaggerating, but there remains truth in the statement nonetheless. I am more cynical than many other LDS editors, but I believe I am accurate in my review. Is the statement sophmoric? Yes. Is it still really needed? Unfortunately it is the best we can get. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd replace the quoted sentences with these. "Mormons regard the history recounted in the Book of Mormon to be authentic. Unlike the Old Testament, however, the Book of Mormon is considered to have no historical value by secular historians." These sentences actually have substance, comparing the BoM to the OT (another sacred text with historial content). Furthermore, there's little debate about the BoM's historicity (unlike the debate over OT historicity). And it's not that detractors are non-Mormon but that non-Mormons don't credit he history in the book. And if Vajda believed the history of the BoM before converting, I can't find a reference for that. My search suggested that he converted because of the doctrine of human deification. Jonathan Tweet 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, I think you might be overstating the view of secular historians towards the Old Testament. I am not aware of any secular historians relying on early OT books as historical. At best, secular historians have a jaundiced eye in using the OT as history. Some of the latter books are used for some historical references, but then we are talking about a narrow application of use.

I still think it appropriate to state that secular historians do not use the BofM for historical references, but there should be no attempt to portray OT as a book of history; it remains a book of faith. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Storm Rider. Claiming that "secular historians" support the narratives of the OT would only open a whole new can of worms. The Jade Knight 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe I overstate the case. Let's try to say something substantial that doesn't overstate the case. It's clear that plenty of secular historians see at least some value in OT history (see [Old_testament#Historicity_of_the_Old_Testament}OT historicity]) and none in BoM history. There's nothing like the OT differences of opinion regarding the BoM among secular historians. So how's this: "Mormons regard the history recounted in the Book of Mormon to be authentic. Secular historians, however, reject the book's historical accounts. The Old Testament, by contrast, is generally regarded as having some historical value even by those who reject its supernatural elements." I can see two honest reasons one might object to my suggestion: 1. one thinks the BoM and OT are equally well-regarded by secular historians, or 2. one thinks I'm not being quite clear about the distinction and should say the same thing only better. Jonathan Tweet 23:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

The section on Mormon beliefs about Jesus should include the characteristic doctrine that Jesus Christ is Jehovah of the Old Testament, and that Jehovah is a separate person from God the Father. [1] Or has this been debated ad nauseum and I missed it? Jonathan Tweet 19:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is fairly broad in scope. Mormonism inlcudes several divergent belief systems. You probably are aware that the Community of Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have some distinct differences.

What we are striving to achieve in this article is to provide a broad overview without too much detail. The details will then be found in each church's respective artcle. Does that help or do you think that we should be going into more detail than currently found? Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The personage of Christ is hardly "too much detail". He is the foundation of Christianity and (to some extent) Mormonism. To provide a parallel example please note the current (and past) whirlwind of controversy concerning the Council of Nicea. The debate was over the *nature* of Christ's Godhood, it was NO small matter of "detail". This issue was considered so important that a council was convened to address the issue. The fact that the creed was created (after debate and a 'vote' of sorts) shows the great need to establish the nature of Christ. Since there is already a heading concerning the "nature" of Christ on the Mormonism page (compete with numbered statements), I don't think that one more statement would be "too much detail". If that is true then the entire heading — and subsequent numbered statements — needs to be removed on the Mormonism page. --Supertheman 21:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Rider, here's what I'd add. "Jesus is identified with Jehovah of the Old Testament, a god distinct from God the Father (Elohim)." This is under the header of "Typical" (not universal) Mormon beliefs. If that's not "typical" of Mormon beliefs, I'd like to see a reference demonstrating such. Jonathan Tweet 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Mormon teaches there is one God. The LDS church teaches there is one Godhead that consists of three distinct indivdiduals/persons/personnages (take your pick, I don't put a lot of value in these words). I may be abnormal for a LDS, but I would never say "a god distinct from God the Father (Elohim)". I think you would find most LDS state they are monotheists. However, I also understand why others would say differently; much like the debate about the monotheism of Christianity being questioned; three into one is very difficult concept to grasp mathmatically.

As I attempted to say before, but obviously failed, Mormonism is not a homogenous set of beliefs. An article entitled Mormonism is best to use broad brush strokes and allow the detail to be presented in each sects respective article. Super's bit of history lesson notwithstanding, within Mormonism you will find traditional Trinitarianism to the more standard three separate, distinct persons. Do you think it makes sense to attempt to explain all these concepts here rather than in each group's main article? Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there are even some distinctions in belief amongst members of the same denomination. For example, I would say that the LDS Church teaches that there is only one God for all humankind - God the Father, who together with the God Jesus, and the Holy Ghost make up the godhead - but is a "po'tato" "pota'to" kind of thing in my mind - different ways to describe the same thing (or concept); however, that makes describing it here that much more difficult and results in descriptions that are less specefic than we (at least I) would like --Trödel 14:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't mind working at it until I get it right. The identification of Jesus (and not God the Father) with Jehovah is a salient feature of Mormonism, distinct both from trinitarian views and other nontrinitarian views (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses). How about this: "Jehovah of the Old Testament is identified as Jesus Christ (and not as God the Father)." I understand that Mormonism isn't homgeneous, but this section is only about "typical" views, not universal views. If there's documentation that this view isn't "typical," I'd like to see it. Jonathan Tweet 03:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with your statement, but I don't have a handle on how the Community of Christ feels about it. The CofC (RLDS) during the past 30 years has really undergone many major changes in their doctrine. I know that they are, as a church, Trinitarian. I suspect they might have problems with it, but I am not sure. I looked at their official site, but did not find an answer to their belief in the identify of Jehovah. I will contact a good friend who is a memeber and ask him this weekend.

I think there is some wisdom in stating the typical views. It is one of the reasons that I support the Christianity article and its focus on the Orthodox beliefs. However, I also believe we should echo as the Christianity articles does, the beliefs of minority viewpoints. Does that make sense? Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I look at the section about God again, I see that this article makes some distinctions among Mormon sects. In parallel to that section, how about I write: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that Jehovah of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ (and not God the Father)." I'd add that to item between #1 and #2 (since it's chronologically before his life as a man on earth).

I see no problem with the statement. It is accurate. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing false statements, and omissions on the Mormonism page...

In deference to my earlier comments (entitled "soapbox[ing]" by some) I will re-submit the following in the Wiki proper format.

There are two specific problems on the Mormon page; both are false statements concerning the salvation of man. There is also a serious need to distinguish between being “saved” and attaining “salvation”. Here is the first of the false statements in need of editing or re-writing:

"1. Mormons believe that Jesus Christ, through his innate divinity and the Atonement, is solely responsible for the salvation of man."

Referencing (read:CITING) Mormon scripture, the following statement from Doctrines of Salvation (vol 1) shows the above statement to be wholly false and misleading and in dire need of editing for the integrity of the Wiki community.

Doctrines of Salvation v1 (J. Smith) > Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration

NO SALVATION WITHOUT ACCEPTING JOSEPH SMITH. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth when he said that he stood in the presence of angels sent from the Lord, and obtained keys of authority, and the commandment to organize the Church of Jesus Christ once again on the earth, then this knowledge is of the most vital importance to the entire world. No man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of god. It is, therefore, the duty of every man to investigate that he may weigh this matter carefully and know the truth. Had Joseph Smith been a fraud, the work he established would have been destroyed many years ago. The fact is, it would not have survived him. At his death, if it had been possible for him to hold his followers until that time, they would have fallen away, the fraud would have been exposed to the face of the whole world, bringing about its destruction. Some one might say, "If what you say is true, would it not also be true of any other religious sect founded in error?" In time, yes. All man-made creeds and doctrines shall perish when the fulness of truth is come, when Christ reigns in power upon the earth, and when those who abide the day of his coming have all been converted to the one true Church.

Since it is clear that there is NO SALVATION WITHOUT ACCEPTING JOSEPH SMITH, the statement that Christ is "...solely responsible for the salvation of man" is a false statement. One of two edits needs to occur on the page, either the statement itself needs to be erased or edited or there needs to be a qualification added to the statement and the addition of a disclaimer containing the above information that accepting the testimony of Joseph Smith is ALSO a condition of salvation. Jesus Christ cannot be solely responsible for the salvation of man if one must ALSO accept the testimony of Joseph Smith; it is therefore a false statement. A more correct statement would be:

"...Jesus Christ, through... is in part responsible for the salvation of man and that salvation is brought to fruition through the acceptance of the testimony of Joseph Smith." Or possibly it could be worded: "...Jesus Christ, through... is solely responsible for the remission of sin, but in addition the acceptance of the testimony of Joseph Smith is necessary for the salvation of man". Whatever edit is deemed appropriate by the admins of Wiki should be made as Wiki is no longer a community of mutual contribution but the arbitrary discretion of the admins of Wiki.
The second false statement is indicative of the many, many confusing statements on the page concerning the difference between salvation and exaltation. The statement occurs under the heading: "Mormonisms' beliefs about other Christian and non-Christian religions" and is item number three (3) "3. Only the church restored by Joseph Smith has divine priesthood authority to perform ordinances necessary for salvation. Nevertheless, many other sects and faiths (even non-Christian religions) are valuable and teach some good morals." Earlier on the page the following statement is made under "Salvation": "10. Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins by one who holds priesthood authority from God is, among other things, necessary for individual exaltation." Clearly there is a discrepancy here, in the statement under "Salvation" (item # 10) it is stated that "Baptism by immersion... [is] necessary for individual EXALTATION (my emphasis)", while the later statement under "Mormonisms' beliefs about other Christian and non-Christian religions" states that water baptism is among the "...ordinances necessary for salvation". Either water baptism is an "...ordinance[s] necessary for salvation" or it is "...necessary for individual exaltation." As one can see it is not only confusing, but somewhere there is a false statement because if Christ's atonement is "solely" responsible for the salvation of man then no temple ordinances can be necessary ALSO or the statement is false (both ordinances AND Christ's atonement are necessary for salvation). If water baptism is necessary ONLY for exaltation, then the statement concerning the Mormon priesthood is true, however if it is also necessary for salvation then the statement needs to be edited both in item # 10 AND in the doctrinal statement concerning salvation. Is water baptism necessary for exaltation, salvation or both? If it is both, then the statement concerning Christ's atonement being "solely responsible for the salvation of man" is FALSE. If water baptism is only necessary for exaltation then item # 10 is false and needs to be edited. Addressing yet another set of confusing statements under the doctrinal statements concerning Jesus: 2. Because of Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection, all mankind is saved from death and will rise again and receive a perfected physical body. 3. Furthermore, the Atonement satisfies the demands of justice; grace, forgiveness, and mercy (i.e. salvation) are extended to all who accept Christ as their personal Savior and become His life-long disciples. Is ALL mankind "saved" or is "...(i.e. salvation) ...extended to all who accept Christ as their personal Savior and become His life-long disciples"? Which is it? Is ALL mankind saved or are only those who accept Christ AND follow his commandments? Both statements CANNOT be true. If there is a difference between being "saved" and having "salvation" in the Mormon religion, as there are differences between "salvation" and "exaltation" then this needs to be included as a doctrinal statement. If water baptism is necessary for salvation, then this needs to be added as a doctrinal statement, AND the statement(s) concerning Christ being "...solely responsible for the salvation of man" also need to be edited. If there are indeed TWO separate "states" of being saved, and having salvation then a prudent and accurate statement needs to be offered to this effect. The following is a possible addition: In Mormonism there is a distinction between one being "saved" and one attaining "salvation". All mankind is "saved" from "death" ("death" being the equivalent of annihilation. Only those who do ALL of the following can attain "salvation": 1. Accept Christ as their savior 2. Accept the testimony of Joseph Smith 3. Complete a water baptism (or have a baptism done for them after they are dead by a Mormon) 4. Become His life-long disciples. 5. Be in the process of continually accepting Christ's grace, known as "repentance" Note As to number five (5) above, the justification of this inclusion is necessitated by the following statement on the current Mormonism page: [Under number five [5] of "Salvation" on the Mormonism page, the following statement is made: "5. The process of continually accepting Christ's grace is known as repentance. This involves correcting one's mistakes and changing one's behavior, and it is an essential element of salvation." Therefore the following would need to be added to number four (4) and five (5) listed above in my addition to the distinction between being "saved" and attaining "salvation": 4. Become His life-long disciples. This means that one must be following the commandments of Jesus up until the very moment of death, because to sin is to reject Christ and be in a state of non-repentance. Therefore if someone follows the commandments of Jesus, but then sins and does not repent by beginning to follow the commandments again (and asking for forgiveness for said sin) a person cannot be said to be a "lifelong disciple of Christ". Repentance is "choosing to follow the commandments of Christ" *continually*, it is not a "one time" act. Therefore, if someone begins to NOT follow the commandments of Christ one is then NOT in a state of repentance and also NOT a "disciple of Christ" (at the time they stop following the commandments up until they begin to follow the commandments again). Simply stated, if one is not following the commandments of Christ they are not a disciple of Christ and not in repentance. Therefore, if a person sins and does not STOP sinning when they physically die, they cannot be called "lifelong disciples of Christ", they cannot be in repentance, and they cannot attain "salvation". Please make the appropriate edits and additions to the Mormonism page as the admins see fit. A minor grammatical correction is necessary throughout the page including the usage of “Mormonism’s” beliefs. For example the heading, “Mormonisms' beliefs about other Christian and non-Christian religions" should be “"Mormonism’s beliefs about other Christian and non-Christian religions". There are other incidences of the incorrect usage and I would make the edit, but all edits on this page are erased so an admin needs to address this problem. --Supertheman 21:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Hey, you spelled "citing" wrong. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Hey thanks. --Supertheman 21:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a soapbox --Trödel 02:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC) My contribution to the Talk:Mormonism page is NOT soapboxing. Please re-read the definition (I have twice) what I contributed does not fall under that category. However, your continued harping about Soapbox IS, and it is very telling given the circumstances and the haphazard non-editing that is (not) happening on said page. Do us all a favor and stop using Wiki to trumpet your religious views and censor real, constructive contributions. Also, I would like to see some of the suggestions for alterations to the Mormonism page addressed by erasure happy admin(s). I would make the changes myself, but they keep getting erased by individuals who seemingly wish to hide the simple truth about his religion. The distinctions I have noted are valid and apropos. When will the completely germane changes be made, or is Wiki a soapbox for Mormonism sophistry? --Supertheman 15:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC) I believe that the reason some view this as soapboxing is that these are your interpretation and view of LDS doctrine. But ignoring what they, you or I may think on that subject, if I may address some of your points based on my understanding of LDS theology. The first point, concerning the involvement of Joseph Smith in one's salvation. In the first (and least important) place, Doctrines of Salvation is not Mormon "scripture", though it is much more likely to contain LDS doctrine than most non-canon sources. Also, as I understand it Smith's relationship to humanity's salvation is seen as similar to that of previous prophets and apostles. The fact that one must accept Smith as a prophet does not mean to the LDS that he is responsible for one's salvation, but is more along the lines of scriptures such as John 13:20, Matthew 10:40, Luke 10:16 - in other words, it is impossible to accept Jesus without accepting those that He sent. A condition for salvation is not necessarily itself a source of salvation in LDS theology. To your second point: salvation vs. exaltation. IMHO this is a valid concern. There are about six different ways, maybe more, in which the LDS use the term "saved"/"salvation" (see Dallin H. Oaks, "Have You Been Saved?" Ensign, May 1998). There are certainly some edits which can be applied to clarify which is meant in those lines that you have pointed out. And finally c: your addition to the point on on repentance is overly wordy and certainly one interpretation of what it means to be a life-long disciple of Christ. It would be better to back any comments up with words/interpretations from LDS leaders on this topic. Our goal is not to interpret and/or debate and/or provide lines of reasoning but to report about such things. --FyzixFighter 18:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. Concerning your first contention that "Doctrines of Salvation" is not "Mormon 'scripture'". From the LDS website on the author of this quote: Where on lds website "Doctrines of Salvation" "doctrinal authority" search on google 0 hits --Trödel 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC) "Joseph Fielding Smith, a prophet and an apostle of Jesus Christ and the tenth President of the Church, is honored throughout the whole Church for his unbending devotion to the revealed word of God. In the councils of his brethren, his counsel has long been sought and respected. His teachings are the Doctrines of Salvation, as they have been made known by revelation. He is universally esteemed as the chief doctrinal authority of the Church." Secondly, we'll just take it from what you refer to real scripture: D&C 135: 3 Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents; has sent the fullness of the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth; has brought forth the revelations and commandments which compose this book of Doctrine and Covenants, and many other wise documents and instructions for the benefit of the children of men; gathered many thousands of the Latter-day Saints, founded a great city, and left a fame and name that cannot be slain. He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient times, has sealed his mission and his works with his own blood; and so has his brother Hyrum. In life they were not divided, and in death they were not separated!" Here it is very clear that Joseph Smith is co-responsible for the "salvation of men". so "'save Jesus only" = "co-responsible ??? --Trödel 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Here again in D&C 135:6 we read: Hyrum Smith was forty-four years old in February, 1844, and Joseph Smith was thirty-eight in December, 1843; and henceforward their names will be classed among the amartyrs of religion; and the reader in every nation will be reminded that the Book of Mormon, and this book of Doctrine and Covenants of the church, cost the best blood of the nineteenth century to bring them forth for the salvation of a ruined world... Here again we see Smith being responsible for "...the salvation of a ruined world..." So, here we have two "scripture" references AND the word of a PROPHET and PRESIDENT of LDS and (in the words of the LDS church: "He is universally esteemed as the chief doctrinal authority of the Church". Lastly, this is (again) from the LDS official website: "The calling of a prophet has always been made, and his messages have been written or spoken, through the power of the Holy Ghost, sometimes called the Spirit of the Lord (Acts 2:1-4, 37-42). Ananias put his hands on Paul that he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. "And straightway he preached Christ…that he is the Son of God" (Acts 9:17-20). So, too, did the prophets before Paul, and so have all of them since. In close conjunction with the gift of the Holy Ghost is the priesthood power that has been exercised by God's representatives throughout all dispensations." Note there: "...his messages have been written or spoken, through the power of the Holy Ghost", which means that Joseph F. Smith wrote Doctrines of Salvation under "...the power of the Holy Ghost...” Clearly what JFS wrote was (supposedly) inspired by God. Therefore, despite the fact that Doctrines of Salvation is not officially "scripture" it is still considered the inspired word of God and therefore is "true". So, it still stands that the LDS asserts and believes that there is NO salvation apart from acceptance of Joseph Smith. This is Original Research - we need to properly describe the doctrine - not introduce our conclusions. --Trödel 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC) As to your references concerning rejecting others besides Christ... Your scripture references are: John 13:20, Matthew 10:40, Luke 10:16... John 13:20 states: "20 I tell you the truth, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me.” I won't do exegesis here, but there is no mention of losing ones salvation by rejecting anyone Jesus sends. Matthew 10:40 (and subsequent verses) state: 40"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. 41Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. 42And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward." This speaks of reward (NOT salvation) and again, there is nothing about rejection. Luke 10:16 states: 16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." Jesus was sending out "the seventy-two" on an evangelism trip to reveal that Jesus was the Messiah, only. Therefore, if someone rejected one of the missionaries they *specifically* rejected that Jesus was the Messiah. This is different from what JFS wrote concerning the necessity of accepting Joseph Smith, read: "If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth when he said that he stood in the presence of angels sent from the Lord, and obtained keys of authority, and the commandment to organize the Church of Jesus Christ once again on the earth, then this knowledge is of the most vital importance to the entire world. No man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of god." He is NOT talking about rejecting the *GOSPEL*, JFS is speaking of rejecting *specifically* Joseph Smith "testimony" that what happened to him was true (that he stood in the presence of angels, obtained keys of authority and was told to reorganize the church) there is NOTHING about rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the ONLY way one may not be saved. There is NOTHING in the New Testament about being unable to enter the Kingdom of God (funny how that is not capitalized in DoS by JFS) simply by rejecting whether a prophet did meet with God. Lastly, consider the following: Romans 3:21-31 Righteousness Through Faith 21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. Is a person saved by "...observing the law..."? NO "...but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." Therefore, if a person cannot even be saved by observing the LAW, how could they lose (or not be able to attain) salvation by rejecting Joseph Smith? For it is written: Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." God warns against adding unnecessary "yoke" to one's salvation: Acts 15:9-11 "...he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." So, the Wiki Mormon page should be changed to reflect that Mormons believe that one *must* accept the testimony of Joseph Smith to attain salvation. This is a unique and important tenet of their faith and leaving that out is fostering ignorance about Mormonism and does injustice to the integrity of the page. Again, thanks for your comments FyzixFighter, I agree that some of the proposed changes I made are too lengthy, do you have any suggestions concerning an added headline delineating the difference between being "saved" and attaining "salvation"? Also needed is a clear contrast between being "saved", "attaining salvation" and "exaltation". What do you propose? --Supertheman 00:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Again this is all a soapbox and original research - trying to persuade us what things actually mean - thus we should include that instead - instead of just reporting what mormons say they believe. --Trödel 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC) This hurts my head. There is so much verbage that it makes my head spin. Worse, the logic and S-T-R-E-C-H-I-N-G of what is said that it makes one want to argue every point or just forget about it. Case it point: "Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it." How in the earth does one come up with Joseph Smith being coequal to Christ for the salvation of mankind? READ the dang statement and quit trying to make meet you personal POV. Joseph Smith, as a man, has done more than any other man to promote salvation. Who has done more? JESUS CHRIST. How does Jesus Christ>Joseph Smith become Jesus Christ=Joseph Smith? This kind of blatant twisting of text drives me nuts. Also, what is the context of the statment? To whom is it speaking? Do you think it just might be the living? Does Joseph Smith mean anything to the deceased? NO! Do you think Jesus means something to the deceased? He is the very basis of salvation. What you do is the worst form of research...Form an opinion, find research that supports your personal opinion, when you can't find enough, rip items completely out of context so that it fits, when that fails just flat out lie about what it says, and then demand that you are right and that those stupied Mormons don't understand their own doctrine and must admit that your personal opinion is the absolute truth....it is all unmitigated balderdash! Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Hahaha, funny you said "Does Joseph Smith mean anything to the deceased? NO!" which shows your complete lack of understanding of LDS. Of COURSE he means something to the deceased, or why would LDS be doing baptisms for the dead? If my verbiage hurts your head, may I suggest you get someone more capable than yourself to translate? By the by, what are "stupied Mormons"? From Mormon literature (my paraphrase) “…people who have died can be baptized by proxy, thus allowing them the opportunity to become Mormons after their death. The idea behind baptism for the dead is this: God wants each of us to be with him in glory. To effect this, he allows us to accept the Mormon gospel here on earth. If we do not, he sends us to a "spirit prison" until the Mormon gospel has been preached to us there and we convert.” From the Wiki Baptism of the Dead page: “Baptism for the Dead allows this saving ordinance to be offered to those who have died without accepting the Gospel of Jesus Christ from authorised representatives of God during their mortal lives.” Note: “…from authorised representatives of God…” which means MORMON individuals. Thus you must accept NOT ONLY the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but you must accept it from “authorised representatives of God”. Again, from the Wiki Baptism page: “The Church holds that deceased persons who have not accepted or had the opportunity to accept the gospel of Christ in this life will have the opportunity to accept the gospel in the afterlife. But in order to do so they must receive all the ordinances that a living person is expected to receive, including baptism.” Who can give them the “all the ordinances that a living person is expected to receive” ? Hmmm, a Catholic? How about a Buddhist? NO, it must be done by “…from authorised representatives of God…” who are Mormons. Now, who started the Mormon Church? Now, what was that you said about Joseph Smith not being important to deceased people? Something about “unmitigated balderdash”? Yea. Once again, might I be as bold to suggest that you LEARN then speak. As to your second point about Joseph Smith being equal to Jesus Christ, I never said that. I said that he was “CO-RESPONSIBLE with Jesus for the salvation of men”! Are you able to read and comprehend, or do you just copy and paste? From LDS literature: "If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 670.)" Again, the difference NEEDS to be made ON THE MORMONISM PAGE concerning the difference between being SAVED and attaining SALVATION and EXALTATION which is what all this verbage that is causing your head to spin is about. Please reference what I WROTE, not what you want me to have written Storm Rider. The problem is you “*don’t* understand [your] own doctrine”. Might I suggest a subscription to the online LDS library, some studying and less “balderdash”?--Supertheman 18:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC) You're still stretching and/or interpreting Mormon theology. If your points were the only interpretation of those quotes and scriptures, then yes, by all means, changes need to be made. However, the LDS interpret those words very differently. The D&C verses state that he did "stuff" for the salvation of the world (v3) and that the words which he brought forth (v6) were for the salvation. To say that he is responsible for the salvation of the world is one interpretation - though, it is usually used only with the end goal of showing that the LDS aren't christian since from that they don't believe that Jesus is the true source of salvation and so on and so forth. The LDS interpret (and I'm pretty sure they teach it) those verses to say that Joseph Smith facilitated the salvation of the world, much like Peter, Paul, John, and the other apostles facilitated the conversion and salvation of those to whom they preached. But never do they interpret those verses to be that Joseph Smith is responsible for salvation in the same way that Jesus is responsible. Hence it is disingenuous to say that they believe JS is co-responsible with Jesus. The JFS quote is also interpreted differently, because to the LDS JFS is talking about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In LDS theology, the true Gospel was lost during the Apostacy (yes, I know, other christians criticize this - but remember, this is in LDS theology) but was restored through Joseph Smith. In the LDS view he is exactly like those evangelists that Christ sent out to declare that the "Kingdom of God is nigh." Again in LDS theology, if one rejects Joseph Smith's testimony that he was a prophet of God, then it is impossible to accept the true Gospel of Christ and hence be saved. In my experience this is similar to some Protestant's view of the need to accept the Bible as the Word of God. Many will say that if I don't accept the Bible as the Word of God, I can't be saved - does this mean that the Bible is co-responsible with Jesus for my salvation? No, but rather the Bible helps to reveal to me the true Gospel of Christ, and it is responsible only through Jesus since it contains His words. But look, we're not here to debate theology and interpretations of theology and I've already indulged this too much. This debate of theology more appropriately belongs on a discussion board, not on a talk page. If you still want to put that information somewhere, go put it on the Criticism of Mormonism or any one of the its numerous clone articles. The LDS do not interpret those quotes as such, and though you may disagree with that interpretation and say that they are being hypocritical or untrue, that is what they teach and believe. Also, this is the Mormonism article, not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, there is a difference, which difference means that some of these statements have to necessarily be broad and nebulous to encompass the majority of the denomination that fall under Mormonism's umbrella. As such (regarding your only point imho that is a valid concern of clarity for the talk page), it might be better to insert "fulness of salvation" instead of "exaltation" since I'm not sure how the idea of exaltation is treated outside the CJCLDS. --FyzixFighter 20:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC) I concur, no more feeding the troll. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Religious significance of England "a place of religious significance... as the Anglicans had done in England". Is this true? If so, it's news to me, and I was brought up an Anglican. Cripipper 04:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Jesus Walking Down By Avalon The lines "Did you ever hear about Jesus walkin', Jesus walkin' down by Avalon?" from "Summertime in England" refer to an ancient legend that Jesus once visited England. References to this legend include a poem by William Blake and the inspirational song "Jerusalem." Blake's text (from Milton) is as follows: And did those feet in ancient time Walk upon England's mountains green? And was the Holy Lamb of God On England's pleasant pastures seen? And did the Countenance Divine Shine forth upon our clouded hills? And was Jerusalem builded here Among those dark Satanic mills? Bring me my bow of burning gold! Bring me my arrows of desire! Bring me my spear! O clouds unfold! Bring me my Chariot of Fire! I will not cease from mental fight; Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand Till we have built Jerusalem In England's green and pleasant land. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Degrees of Salvation There has been some confusion about the Mormon definition of "salvation." "Salvation" as a doctrine can be interpreted as being short for "saving from death." Mormons believe in two kinds of death: physical and spiritual. Salvation from physical death means a literal ressurection of the body. This is garunteed to all mortals by the grace of God and nothing can be done to prevent it. Salvation from spiritual death means returning to the presence of God. It is offered freely, but may be rejected as God will not violate man's right of free will (or as the Mormons call it, moral agency) Merge with Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Someone explain to me why this article should not be merged with Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? --Splitpeasoup 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Have you read through the archives of this Talk page (see near the table of contents for a link)? --Kmsiever 04:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Short answer is the Mormonism is a broader term than just the LDS church. Although Mormon is a term most often used for members of the LDS church, Mormonism is appropriately used for all churches/sects that evolved from the church founded by Joseph Smith. To combine the article into the LDS article would not be appropriate. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Ah. I see. Thanks! --Splitpeasoup 19:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Recent edits Recently User:153.26.176.34 added in these [2] bits to the article; I wasn't sure what to make of them, and a few people on IRC weren't, either. We did find this page [3], which seems to be the source, but the page itself doesn't seem to have a neutral tone, and I'm not sure how much I trust them as an authoritative source, when they seem to have it out for the Mormons; possible NPOV concerns, at all? Ultimately, my curiosity is piqued, but I'm looking for opinions and/or advice from people who know what they're talking about a little better, before and if I take any action. Thanks in advance. Luna Santin 10:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC) I removed them. The first section is about the nature of God, not about anything having to do with God. The edit in the second section is a deviation from the other points in the section. Considering these are the only edits the person has made to any of the Mormon-related pages, I do not see the value in the contribution. In fact, I see it as nothing more that agenda-based editing. --Kmsiever 14:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Typical Mormon Beliefs It says: "Mormonism is based on belief in Jesus as the Messiah, in the Israelites as a covenant people, and in additional scripture such as the Book of Mormon." If it mentions the Book of Mormon, it should mention the Bible, too. After all, the Bible is comparable to the BoM in terms of importance to Mormons, yes? Also, an uninformed reader is going to take reference to "Israelites" to mean people that Jews and secular historians take to be Israelites, while for Mormons the term includes (among others) northern Europeans. Here's my suggestion: "Mormonism is based on belief in Jesus as the Messiah, in the Israelites (including northern Europeans) as a covenant people, and in scriptures such as the Bible and the Book of Mormon." Jonathan Tweet 14:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC) The Bible should also be mentioned. I think the earlier statement was attempting to show what else Mormons believe in, but your statement is better. You have me a bit stumped on northern Europeans and Israel. When LDS speak of Israel, they are speaking of the full house of Israel; the twelve tribes. The people we know as Jews today are a remnant of the House of Israel. LDS believe today that all can enter of the covenant of Israel by agreeing to follow Christ, receive baptism, etc. Thus, Israel is where those who believe are gathered. I am not aware of any specific teaching that alludes to one of the ancient tribes having settled northern Europe. It is taught that the lost tribes will return/be recognized in the future. Sorry, but I think that is an erroneous statement. Ancient Israel was the covenant people, but today the covenant people is still Israel, but also includes those who follow Christ. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Whatever happened to all that new covenant stuff in Hebrews 7 and 8, eh? (It's an honest question, im a bit curious.) Homestarmy 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC) As I understand it, northern Europeans are descended from the Lost Tribes (according to LDS, etc.). See [4]. This tenet was one of the exciting revelations in the 19th century, that "we northern Europeans" are the same chosen people that the OT is talking about. It's true that others can be accepted into Israel through "adoption" (baptism), but one of the empowering messages of J Smith was that "you" (the northern Europeans in his audience) are God's chosen. Storm Rider, I'm surprised that you haven't run across this idea. Anyway, I have references showing that this view is legitmate LDS teaching. See my link, above, and this one [5]. Jonathan Tweet 22:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC) I just have not run across it as focus on northern Europeans. How does this differ from the teaching that residents of Central and South American, the islands of the Pacific, etc. are members of the House of Israel? For the statement to read accurately one would have to include these other peoples, no? Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Your reference above was to a 1910 article in a church publication. The point is makes is as follows: The Ten Tribes, so-called, that were taken captive into Assyria, are destined, according to Biblical prophecy, to be gathered in the latter-days and become a great power in the earth. The Hebrew prophets—notably Isaiah, 11th chapter, Jeremiah, chapters 30 and 31, Ezekiel, chapter 37, and Zechariah, chapters 12 and 13—graphically describe the gathering of both Judah and Israel, the former to Jerusalem, the latter to a land chosen for them as specially bestowed upon Joseph, (Gen. 49:26; Deut. 33:15-17) who held the birthright in place of Reuben, who forfeited it through transgression. These predictions are to be fulfiled as literally as those concerning the dispersion. The scattering of the tribes of Israel is mentioned in the Old Testament repeatedly, but the course taken by them after their captivity is not definitely given in the books counted as canonical. However, it is clearly stated that they were taken into the "north country," and that in the latter-days they will be brought from the north country, as well as from other places where they were to be scattered. As the quote states, from a biblical perspective no one knows where the lost tribes have gone, except the statement the "north country". Recently, prior to 1910, it has been argued that the prophecies concerning the gathering of Israel in the latter days are being fulfiled by the coming in of descendants of the house of Israel in northern Europe, through the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, as restored by the angel of the Most High. It is evident from the blessings bestowed by the patriarchs of the Church upon the heads of Saints from those lands, that they are of the house of Israel, belonging to different tribes, but particularly of Ephraim. There is no doubt in the minds of those who have investigated this subject, that when traveling northward, as described by Esdras, the tribes of Israel mingled on the way with Gentile nations, and that numbers of their posterity are to be found in the various provinces of Germany, in Switzerland, in Holland, in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and the numerous islands in the far north. Northern Europe may have many descendants from Israel, but mainly from the House of Ephraim are known to exist. This does not mean they are the only tribe to be known or the only location. As the article states, the Americas are also the home of the trives of Joseph. After further consideration, I would still think your statement too narrowly interprets LSD beliefs. Further, I would re-emphsize that this teaching is not a common focus. The Bible teaches us they went to the north country and we believe they have yet to return. When they do return we expect them to bring futher revelations and teachings of Christ with them. I hope this helps. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) I'm happy to broaden the reference to Israelites. Personally, I see the identification of northern Europeans as Israelites to be the most important "Israelite" revelation because it applied to Smith's audience, but here's a broader treatment: "Mormonism is based on belief in Jesus as the Messiah, in the Israelites (including the Ten Lost Tribes) as a covenant people, and in scriptures such as the Bible and the Book of Mormon." Jonathan Tweet 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) That statement is the most accurate of those proposed. LDS continue to believe in the literal restoration of the House of Israel. All people, regardless of blood lineage, will become members of the Israel. I believe when you refer to Europeans as being Israelites, it is more appropriately ascribed to the Bible; the lost tribes went into the north country. Mormons believe it was confirmed by the success of missionary labor that this was so or believed to be so. In that LDS believe in the restoration of Israel, it is not surprising that LDS believe the covenant people would not recognize the truth of the gospel restoration. Thus the initial success of converts in Europe. I hope my comments are a source of clarification. I appreciate your willingness to listen. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) "Mormonism", Theology, History and other Issues Not being an expert on LDS or "Mormonism", yet a student of religion, I hope you will take these suggestions seriously without thinking that I claim such an expertise. In line with earlier discussion about moving the Mormon Theology section, I would like to suggest that in the present entry it seems too dominant, especially given the lack of attention paid to other aspects such as practice, history and the possible diversity of beliefs. This might be even more problematic given the fact that a conscious effort has been made to distinguish between LDS and Mormonism. I'm assuming that, and not without warrant, the Mormon Theology presented here is mostly that of LDS. I say "not without warrant" because even I know that LDS members comprise a vast majority of those identifying as "Mormon". That fact aside, however, if Mormonism isn't strictly LDS then Mormon Theology should perhaps include competing beliefs and differences in theology. For instance theological justifications of polygamy by "Fundementalist Mormons" are alternative theologies and not simply fringe beliefs. Though there is some mention about the differences between RLDS and LDS. The most unfortunate side effect of the current structure of the entry, may be that some readers see it as partly appologetic of the LDS church--that is as being close to an ingroup or official stance. This brings me to another matter. As a student of religion, and not simply Theology, I look for among other things a good historical understanding of a current relgious group. This HISTORY would make more sense of when, where and why groups like the RLDS broke with what has become the current LDS. It can also provide the reader with insight into the current differences between mainline Mormonism (LDS) and the various smaller groups. Furthermore, information about Mormon PRACTICE may also do so. What is Mormon ritual like? How does it relate to theology and popular belief? What about mission? The last question seems to me very imporant given the fact that one of the few things the layman or laywoman thinks they know is that Mormons are all about mission--and clearly mission is important in not only the Church but also in the Mormon "subculture", to use the phrasing of the entry. Even though the entry identifies Mormonism as a religion, a subculture, an ideology, and a movement only the ideological aspects are well covered as Theology (despite the criticisms above). Mormonisn's aspect as a MOVEMENT would hypothetically be covered in a history of that movement. What about the subculture? We do not at present learn much of anything about Mormonism as a subculture. Again I will reiterate, not because I believe so but because I can see the possibilities, that the current presentation may seem to some like the official LDS stance. This is heightened by the lack of attention to culture, history and practice in favor of Theology. It is also not helped by the fact that the discussion of polygamy, for instance, is explicitly appologetic of Joseph Smith instead of historically complex--and I am not suggesting that it is innacurrate but there is more to the way one presents something than the accuracy of well chosen statements. I have made these suggestions, not to attack the writers and editors here, who as far as I can tell have done a great job in their presentation of what is actually on the page. I only hope that they consider addressing some of these issues. My suggestion also is that in addressing them the page will seem more balanced and less likely to be interpreted as stemming from a POV perspective to many readers. Thanks for considering.PelleSmith 14:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Notes Is it really necessary to have hundreds of scripture references in the notes section? I don't think they qualify as reliable sources, seeing as they are open to individual interpretation. Of course it may be useful to include one or two in the main body of text, but the notes section looks ridiculously bloated. --Lethargy 02:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Providing references We generally do not use WIKI as a reference, however we do link to other others. References are to specific statements by reputable sources; an entire web site is not a reference. Look for an expert that has published a book or article and has stated what you are tring to prove. Does this make sense? Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I disagree that an entire website cannot be a reference. It depends on the assertion you are trying to support, the nature of the issue and the specificity of the url that's provided. I agree that it's preferable to support an assertion by linking to as specific an external page as possible and that has now been done with the passage at issue in the article. I also believe, however, that it's preferable not to delete someone's content wholesale because you believe it is insufficiently referenced. Rather, one should add a "citation needed" or something along those lines. 75.33.203.190 16:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC) As the remover, I claim it is completely appropriate - "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain... Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references..."(source) Granted - better Wikilove would have been to use {{fact}} but, as expected, the source is completely unreliable. First it is self published - thus not to be used: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."(source) Finally, even if you argue that it is a self published about the topic it does not meet the criteria because 1) there is doubt about who wrote it, 2) it is self-serving, 3) it is contentious.(source) --Trödel 20:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC) IMHO, the issue is not about referncing a web site - it is about providing reputable sources of issues that are being discussed. If there is a web site that says mormons eat green cheese only or live on the moon or have one eye in the back of their head doesn't mean we should reference it. Personal experiences, such as "why i left" series on exmormon may provide good ancedotal examples, but don't really do much more than provide hearsay. Scholarly journals - even those who are about why mormonism is harsh or wrong, such as sunstone or even the tanner's web site/publications would be more reputable and useful. Try getting something from them. In my own research, some of these supposed "major issues" are not really "major" for a majority, but affects less than 3 percent of all involved with the latter day saint movement (meaning the 18-20 million who touch the latter-day saint movment, whether lds, coc or antis/ex's). it is that this minority is vocal. Same with the online exmormon movement. i'm doing a study, and i'm estimating that there are way, way less than 10k exmormons online (my guess is around 5k, or about a half of a half percent) but need more research to be done first to prove it) but they are very vocal and visit multiple exmormon sites, making the group seem much larger. that said, womans issues are important in mormonism, but we need to find reputable sources on this - both pro and con. Also, remember that mormonism is bigger than solely the LDS church at least how we on wikipedia define it. -Visorstuff 16:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I don't have a problem with the information being included, but it needs to be NPOV, the source used is not reliable and reputable, it needs to be more specific about what the complaints are (gender roles is somewhat vague), and there were the weasel words "some feel". Also, it needs to be made explicit which group the comments are targeted at (e.g. FLDS, LDS, CoC). Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Words to avoid, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, and especially Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states: This page in a nutshell: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Also note that this problem is not solely with the content you have added, it happens all over Wikipedia, and unfortunately it seems to happen more so with religious articles as people post information from either a believer's point of view or from a critic's, rather than a neutral one. --Lethargy 20:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I like Trodel's previous edit - placing the burden on the specific person making the claim - I'm going to change back the section to that - as it is completely appropriate. Also, unless the exmormon site takes responsiblity for the opinions of all posters, then it shoudln't reference exmormon.org, but a poster on exmormon.org. -Visorstuff 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I've just made the change - I think we should still at least reference a reputable anti-mormon publication or notable church critic if there is one that discusses this, but I'm not familiar enough with it being discussed other than a few online examples and not-neccessarily-negative works such as Maxine Hank's compilation Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism. and Corwall's The Institutional Role of Mormon Women. For example, it doesn't come up in a review of the Tanner's topics (http://www.utlm.org/navtopicalindex.htm). In addition Packham's discussion about prozac and mormon women is outdated - as more recent studies show that prozac use in higher among educated people, and Utah (which has a high, but not the highest prozac usage rate) has one of the top two education levels per adult in the US. In other words, you'd expect to find high prozac use in utah based on education, not religion. Simply said, women and mormonism is an issue that needs to be addressed, and is not fully addressed in critical material (or at Women and Mormonism), and doesn't seem to exist in published works available in my personal research. Perhaps there is a feminist out there that has more details and can help? In the mean time, let's leave the section as is until reputable data can be added in. -Visorstuff 21:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I suspect that there are reputable sources - but exmormon.org is not one of them. I suspect Dialogue has some - as I have a vague memory of reading something like this - but it would be less polemic than the original poster wants. And since I don't have the time to find sources for things all the things I think should be included, why should we waste our time discussing this, or searching for them - the duty is on the person who wants to add the info. --Trödel 00:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Incidentally (and timely) is a blog about gender imbalance in who submits articles in Mormon studies journals [6]. A review of Dialogue doesn't have much on the topic aside from those already mentioned here and in women and the Church page [7]. Sunstone's entries on Women and Feminism mostly deal with feministic theology (ie mother in heaven, women and priesthood blessings, etc), Sonia Johnson and other mormon feminists being censured for teaching false doctrine, and ERA-related items. [8], although I did find two interesting articles - one from the march 1907 (a bit out of date) called "Gerda Lerner's 'The Creation of Patriarchy'," and the other from March-April 1981 titled "The Psychological Needs of Mormon Women" (also out of date). Slim pickings for published work on this topic. The scholarly side of me is left to conclude that this is an over-exaggerated topic based on the lack of written scholarship on the topic. However, the other side of me knows that this is something that is discussed in the grassroots. But apparently it is not taken seriously in Mormon studies (either critical or supportive) and other academics. -Visorstuff 18:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Weasel words I mentioned Wikipedia:Words to avoid and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words above, but I figure this merits its own section. We should avoid phrases such as "Most modern members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that, although each individual may receive personal revelation to guide himself in his personal life, only certain people have been divinely appointed as prophets to authoritatively speak the mind and will of God, as in Biblical times." Are we citing a survey of "most modern members"? We could clean this up by quoting a General Authority or actual church doctrine, rather than attributing it to "most" members. "although members of some sects (including a few of those belonging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) prefer not to be identified as Mormons." We can never verify that "a few" Latter-day Saints don't like to be called Mormons, and even if we found a handful of individuals who don't like to be called that, it wouldn't be from a reputable source. Also, which sects are we talking about? --Lethargy 23:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Also, the first footnote in the article states "Mormons also point to Numbers 11: 26-29 and Revelation 19: 10 in the Bible in support of this teaching." Avoid using this generalization, please name a specific person who points to Numbers 11: 26-29 and Revelation 19: 10. Was it from a church manual? --Lethargy 23:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Deletion This text was deleted: The establishment of the Mormon Church, along with the Great Awakenings that occurred in the nineteenth century, marked the movement towards the notion of North America as a place of religious significance, as the Anglicans had done in England, as the Catholics had done in Rome, and as all Christians do in the Holy Land. Mormonism is arguably the culmination of a distinctive impact by the American people on Christianity.^{[original research?]} I don't believe it is original research, but rather simply uncited - leaving here in hopes someone knows a reference --Trödel 14:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Impossiblilty If Joseph Smith saw God hed be dead. And God and Jesus are one person so... -Crion Naxx "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." — Hamlet (I, v, p. 166 - 167) Val42 01:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Oh heck no dont quote hamlet to me he was a nerd and besides if anything contradicts the bible its incorrect.-Crion Naxx You seem to be well read; impressive grasp of the Bard. I am not sure what this question has to do with the article or if you are suggesting an edit for the article. Are you making a comment? If you are making a proposal, you will need to be more clear in what you want to do. Regarless, how do you interpret the following two scriptures? Ex. 33:11 and Ex. 33:20 11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. 20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. There would seem to be an obvious conflict. You seem to be familiar with verse 20, but yet Moses spoke as a friend, face to face, with God. How do you make both statements true? Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC) You bring up an interesting point but i believe what its saying is that He didnt talk to Moses as a servant but as an equal. As a friend. And Moses doesnt neccesarily have to see Him to talk to him face to face.-Crion Naxx Merge This page and all LDS pages should be merged under the title Mormonism. All LDS pages are talking about Joseph Smith's teachings, the page is about his teachings anyway, so that goes to reason they read the book of Mormon therfore Mormons.You may want to seperate your modern church from its past however its past can't be changed. The current "big" branch is still preaching about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and they were part of the Latter Day Saint movement, Church and Mormonism. This is not the main reason I suggest the change however. They should be merged because all the other religions I've read about on Wikipedia include the movements or beginings, middles and currents on their main (only) page. As in Buddist getting only a Buddism page, Hindus getting only a Hindism page and so on. If they are not merged then I feel that all of the other religions should have similar adjustment to the Mormons. As Mormonism has three (3) different listings as of today, Sept. 26 2006, Latter day Saint Movement,Latter day saints and Mormons. They should all be listed under Mormanism. Anarcism, Capitalism, Communism have many forms but only one (1) page each. lol: I was wrong there are nine (9) pages on Momonism as of today (maybe more are hiding) Latter day Saint Movement,Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ,History of the Latter Day Saint movement,Jesus in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Missions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon, Mormonism, and there are lists with (small) pages of even more sects. I'd be willing to wager that all of the different branches not only follow the book of Mormon, but also all but one originated in Utah. Joeseph Smith's MORMONISM and the book of Mormon is what all the above pages are all refering to. And a quote from Latter Day Saint movement page shows the connection."The Latter Day Saint movement spawned many religious denominations, some of which include a set of doctrines, practices, and cultures collectively known as Mormonism, although some do not accept the designation Mormon." There is a link to this article from the Exmormonism article, backed up in the discussion section of Exmormonism. It seems only logical that there should be a link back. greenw47

Addressing yet another set of confusing statements under the doctrinal statements concerning Jesus:

Religious significance of England

NPOV

Archive

Wikiquette Alert

Theology a separate article?

Community of Christ-ers Ain't Mormon

Criticism

Criticism

Jesus

Addressing false statements, and omissions on the Mormonism page...

The second false statement is indicative of the many, many confusing statements on the page concerning the difference between salvation and exaltation. The statement occurs under the heading:

"Mormonisms' beliefs about other Christian and non-Christian religions"

Addressing yet another set of confusing statements under the doctrinal statements concerning Jesus:

Religious significance of England

Degrees of Salvation

Merge with Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Recent edits

Typical Mormon Beliefs

"Mormonism", Theology, History and other Issues

Notes

Providing references

Weasel words

Deletion

Impossiblilty

Merge