Talk:Mormonism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Edit request from 67.2.34.14, 11 September 2011

In the introductory paragraph the sentence "The term Mormon, derived from the Book of Mormon..." is incomplete. Insert "is" as follows: "The term Mormon is derived from the Book of Mormon..."

67.2.34.14 (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing that out. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"Theological foundations" section (some ideas)

I think this article has a couple of structural problems, one of them being in the current section on Theological foundations. Currently, the section is made up of two subsections: "Relation to Christianity," and "Relation to Judaism." While these two subsections are informative and helpful, I think that the Foundations section as a whole needs to be expanded with more subsections outlining the basic beliefs in Mormonism. If you look at other Wikipedia religion articles (i.e. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Methodism, Anglicanism even Jehovah's Witnesses) they all have well-developed Belief sections, outlining the basic doctrines, beliefs, creeds, articles of faith, 5 pillars, you name it.

Specific changes I recommend within the Theological Foundations section:

1. Multiple subsections or paragraphs before the "Relation to" subsections (with those two coming at the end)
2. A subsection or paragraph on "Scriptures" containing the 6th paragraph of the "Relation to Christianity" section. This would probably be more work than a simple cut/paste, but hopefully wouldn't require too much more writing.
3. A subsection or paragraph(s) on "Restoration" containing all but the last sentence of the 1st paragraph, and the entire 5th paragraph in "Relation to Christianity."
4. A subsection or paragraph on Mormon cosmology (spirit world, plan of salvation, heaven and hell type stuff)
5. A paragraph on ordinances that talks about baptisms, sacrament, marriage and sealings, etc. as well as baptism for the dead (which is referred to but not explained in the Judaism section).
6. A subsection or paragraph on Revelation. This could talk about both "modern revelation" from prophets, as well as the "personal revelation" that is so central to Mormonism. (This might do well if it were placed immediately after the bit on scripture)
7. Somewhere in all this, I think the Articles of Faith should be mentioned explicitly.
8. Possibly changing the title "Theological foundations" to something more simple, like "Beliefs." (I'm ambivalent on this one, but I think it would make the article more accessible to your average reader.)

If these changes were made, then instead of trying to haphazardly explain Mormon theology in relation to Christianity and Judaism, we can outline the main beliefs in an organized fashion, and then refer to them in the Christianity and Judaism sections. Thoughts? -- Adjwilley (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections, I am beginning a draft that will implement the suggested changes here. If anybody would like to help, I would certainly welcome their assistance. I plan to work on it slowly over a few weeks, and then ask for more input when it gets past the rough draft stages. Please feel free to leave comments here with suggested changes, or edit the draft directly. -- Adjwilley (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to add another section on "Relation to Islam" after the Relation to Christianity and Judaism sections. I have a draft here that I made mainly by copying and pasting from the article Mormonism and Islam. I think as long as we're comparing Mormonism to Christianity and Judaism, we might as well do Islam. I personally found the article quite interesting, and think a snippet of it would do well in an article on Mormonism. -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been working on this project for a while now, and I'm getting to a point where I could use some help. The new section is found here in my user space. Some parts I wrote myself, others I copied and pasted from other WP articles. (The latter part is pretty short on citations.) Anyway, if anybody would like to read it over, I would really appreciate your comments. Also, if you would like to make edits, please feel free to do that as well. Just pretend like it's an article. -- Adjwilley (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I made the changes that I had proposed. As described above, I cut pieces out of the "Relation to Christianity" subsection, and pasted them into new subsections, modifying, expanding, and adding references where I could. There are new sections on Restoration (copied and pasted from Christianity section and other sources, edited by me), Cosmology (wrote that one myself), Ordinances (copied from ordinances article, but heavily edited by me), Scripture (moved from Christianity section, edited by me), Revelation (lots from other sources), and M. vs. Islam (copied from main article, heavily edited by me, with StormRider's input.

The new sections are not as polished as I would like them, but I plan to continue working on them, and I hope that now they're in the article, others will be able to fix my errors, and build off the general structure. There are still some scriptural sources, but I've tried to cut them down where I could, or at least expand them with secondary sources. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 602Michelle, 27 August 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

"It differs from other Latter Day Saint movement traditions in that it also accepts the Pearl of Great Price as part of its canon, and it has a history of teaching eternal marriage, eternal progression, and plural marriage (although the LDS Church had abandoned the practice by the early 20th century)."

It is unclear as to what "It" is refering. But the statement seems to make a distiction based on the LDS movement not including the Pearl of Great Price in their canon of scripture. You can find that the predominent LDS movement, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does indeed include this book in their online scripture set here: http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng And you will find it included in their distrbution center scriptures for purchase here: http://store.lds.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category3_715839595_10557_23501_-1_N_image_0

602Michelle (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"It" is referring to the Theological Mormonism, specifically the word 'theology' in the previous sentence. It is an odd way to look at what most people generally see as only a religion, but can be a cultural or social thing as well. Some time ago, the lead sentences were changed a little and this broke the connection with this paragraph. The lead probably needs to be re-written to accomodate all this again. Looking through the history, the lead was changed several times in 2009, 2010, and 2011. So, good job on pointing this out. At this moment, I'm not able to take the time to fully rework the lead, but I hope this helps you understand why this situation developed. -- Avanu (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps stating which traditions it differs from would make the sentence more clear. For example, we could write: "It differs from other Latter Day Saint movement traditions (such as the Community of Christ) in that it also accepts the Pearl of Great Price as part of its canon, and it has a history of teaching eternal marriage, eternal progression, and plural marriage (although the LDS Church had abandoned the practice by the early 20th century)." Another option might be to take the sentence out altogether, since explaining in the lead how the 98% (Mormonism) differs from the 2% (CoC) might be slightly undue. I'm not advocating this, but it's something to consider. -- Adjwilley (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, it might be nice to have a link to the CoC somewhere in the article, though not necessarily in the lead. (I'm pretty sure there isn't one anywhere currently). I just visited their page, and they have their theology listed as Trinitarian and Mormonism in the infobox. -- Adjwilley (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

_{Marking as answered for discussion. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)}

Reopening the request. Doesn't this whole paragraph (boldface added)--

Theological Mormonism is a form of Christian primitivism ... It differs from other Latter Day Saint movement traditions ... Cultural Mormonism includes a lifestyle promoted by the Mormon institutions, and includes cultural Mormons who identify with the culture, but not necessarily the theology.

-- belong further down, in Theological divisions within Mormonism? Certainly the first one seems to belong there. Is the second term the name of a theological group, or is it just a descriptive term for some, we might say, "secular Mormons"? The reader cannot tell whether "Theological" and "Cultural" are capitalized here as parts of names, like "Orthodox Judaism", or just because they happen to come at the beginning of a sentence, as could happen with the term "secular Judaism". --Thnidu (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I did a Google search for "theological Mormonism" (with quotes) and the top page was, of course, this article. Over half of the other 9 pages were almost direct quotes of the paragraph in this article, the main difference being that they said "Restorationism" instead of "Christian Primitivism." I've been confused by the term myself, and I put a good deal of thought into it before my Google search. One idea I had is that Theological Mormonism is being contrasted with Cultural Mormonism (i.e. Theological Mormonism is for Mormons who believe in the theology, Cultural Mormonism is for those who live the culture but don't believe the theology.) Either way, the term is confusing, and I think it would be much clearer if we just called it Mormonism. Thoughts? -- Adjwilley (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Your "idea ... that Theological Mormonism is being contrasted with Cultural Mormonism (i.e. Theological Mormonism is for Mormons who believe in the theology, Cultural Mormonism ...)" doesn't stand up under comparison with the two sentences about the former:

Theological Mormonism is a form of Christian primitivism that shares a common set of beliefs with the rest of the Latter Day Saint movement, including use of, and belief in, the Bible, as well as other religious texts including the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. It differs from other Latter Day Saint movement traditions in that...

This very clearly describes (T/t)heological Mormonism as a distinct subtype of Mormonism, not part of the Mormon mainstream. This theology cannot accurately be called simply "Mormon theology", any more than the theology of the Baptist or Anglican or Coptic or Lutheran churches can be equated to "Christian theology". --Thnidu (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it describes Theological Mormonism as a distinct subgroup of the larger Latter Day Saint movement, which includes the non-Mormon Community of Christ. My idea was that Theological Mormonism is just a fancy way of saying mainstream or "believing" Mormonism. -- Adjwilley (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My best guess is that the author said Theological instead of Mainstream to avoid implying a value judgement against Cultural Mormonism. -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Procedural note; I'm removing the "edit semi-protected" template for now, pending consensus here  Chzz  ►  01:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 15 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as an official church name was first given by revelation in 26 April 1838 to Joseph Smith (see Doctrine & Covenants 115:4) six years before his death.

24.22.245.193 (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That information is covered in the linked article The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; I don't see a compelling need for it anywhere in this article, and you have not provided a reliable source to support the addition, nor said where it should be added.  Chzz  ►  06:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done

Edit request from , 17 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

There is a grammar error in the section on Restoration, the first paragraph, the last sentence. The word lead should be spelled led.

An explanation is probably not needed, but just in case: When the word spelled "lead" is pronounced to rhyme with "red" it is a noun that means the heavy metal or the substance used in pencils. If it's pronounced to rhyme with "seed" it is a verb that means to go ahead (lead the group) or bring into being (action A will lead to result B).

In the article the word means the past tense of the verb and should be spelled "led" so needs to be changed from "lead" to "led."

Examples: 1. Eating too much might lead to weight gain. The sentence meaning tells the reader it rhymes with "seed." 2. My overeating led to my weight gain. Rhymes with "red." 3. It has led to my brother's weight gain as well. 4. My mechanical pencil ran out of lead. The sentence meaning tells the reader it rhymes with "red." Thanks for maintaining this informative article. I certainly hope I've not made any grammar errors myself!

The section on Cosmology has the same error - ..."lead" by Lucifer... should be "...led by Lucifer..." 76.6.130.45 (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Both changed.  Chzz  ►  00:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Edit request from , 9 November 2011

In the paragraph dealing with ordinances, there is a rough comparison to sacraments that would be incorrect. Ordinances and sacraments are very different from one another and in a way oppose one another. There is no citation to this sentence either. With quick glances at any descriptions of ordinance and sacrament it is easy to distinguish the acute difference. I request completely deleting the sentence because of its inaccuracy, lack of citation, and irrelevance. May I also suggest that if this comparison is not removed to add links to the word sacrament and ordinance so there may be clarity to what those to things really are. Thanks.

SodakScallywag (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all clear on why you are suggesting that ordinances in Mormonism are not similar to sacraments in other Christian groups. They really are quite similar. For instance, in Catholicism, baptism (christening); holy eucharist; anointing the sick; and matrimony are all sacraments. In Mormonism, the blessing of children; baptism; "the" sacrament (of the Lord's Supper); anointing the sick; and celestial marriage sealing are all parallel ordinances with similarities to the Catholic ones. There are some differences, as discussed at Sacrament#Latter Day Saints, but the comparison is valid, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please change multiple statements, as currently they are unclear, and seem (unintentionaly) biased.

This article may have been written with the intention of not being biased, but is, in the form of unclarity or incorrect information. I would like it to be clearer on the fact that Mormonism is not a religion. It is a derivative of the term 'Mormon,' which is a nickname given to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The article needs to be clearer on the views of polygamy in the modern LDS Church. I think this article has little relevancy, and that links to this page should be replaced with links to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints article. Thanks!

--Carson (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here. The way I understand it, Mormonism is a religion, with several churches who claim they practice it. Granted, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the largest of those churches (making up over 99% of Mormonism) but the smaller ones still exist. Would you mind specifying which parts exactly are unclear, incorrect, or biased? I'm all for increasing clarity, but it would help if you pointed out the specific problems you see. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2012

The following paragraph is incorrect:

'''Mormonism is the religion practiced by Mormons, and is the predominant religious tradition of the Latter Day Saint movement. This movement was founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. beginning in the 1820s as a form of Christian primitivism. During the 1830s and 1840s, Mormonism gradually distinguished itself from traditional Protestantism. Mormonism today represents the new, non-Protestant faith taught by Smith in the 1840s. After Smith's death, most Mormons followed Brigham Young to the Rocky Mountains as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Other branches of Mormonism include Mormon fundamentalism, which seeks to maintain practices and doctrines such as polygamy that were discontinued by the LDS Church, and various other small independent denominations.

The above paragraph is fundamentally incorrect and should be corrected with the following information: The term "Mormon" and "Mormonism" is, and always has been, a nickname of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. Joseph Smith, Jr, never founded a church, or a "movement," called the Mormon Church. He founded a Church called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." That name is, and always has been, the official name of the church.

To say the term, or nickname "Mormon," came from the book, "The Book of Mormon," is a fact. It really originated from persecuters of the Church in the early days, and the name sort of stuck. Many who are not familiar with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints think that this is a new official name of the Church, due to the fact that many members often refer to The Church as the Mormon Church, or refer to themselves as Mormons. Recent efforts have been undertaken by the leaders of the church to refer to it by its official name, and discourage to use of the terms "Mormon, Mormonism, and The Mormon Church." Many mistakingly believe that this effort was a move to a new official name.

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. My desire in having this page edited is to ensure whomever reads this is reading factual information, and not information by someone's opinion.

198.98.83.235 (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. This article is not solely about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the main paragraph contains references to other forms of Mormonism, which you suggest to change in order to eliminate these other forms. Your information is considered original research because it is not backed up by reliable, third party sources as per Wikipedia's verifiability policy. — Jonadin 05:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Theology of CoC

I have a concern with the recent good faith additions to the Lead. While I think the Lead should have a mention of other Latter Day Saint denominations (most notably the Community of Christ and Mormon Fundamentalism) I don't think it should have in-depth discussions of their theology, particularly since the CoC isn't considered part of Mormonism and has rejected the title Mormon. Before the recent additions, the Lead had a single link to the CoC in the 3rd paragraph. It now links in the 1st and 3rd paragraphs, with both paragraphs mentioning that the CoC's theology is Trinitarian. While I think such information is both interesting, accurate, and useful, I don't think it belongs in the Lead of Mormonism, epsecially since the Lead is supposed to summarize the article, and this information is not contained in the article body.

As a solution I propose either moving the recent additions to a footnote somewhere, or perhaps to a new subsection under Theological foundations near the "Relation to Christianity" subsection. (It might have a title like "Relation to other Latter Day Saint denominations" or something like that.) It could also be worked in as a paragraph under "Relation to Christianity" or "Theological divisions". Thoughts? ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I had almost the same argument months ago about why the lead SHOULDN'T have "form of Christian primitivism", emphasis on the word 'Christian', and that was thoroughly shot down. Has the Community of Christ differentiated itself enough to no longer be considered a part of Mormonism, or does it stay a part of the broader definition of that word? .... -- Avanu (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, Are you referring to the discussion from last July at the LDS Church page that we both participated in? If so, I've since regretted taking a side in that argument. Anyway, to answer your question, as far as I understand the Community of Christ is generally not considered part of Mormonism. It was formed in 1850, I think, from a number of smaller groups that had splintered after the death of Joseph Smith. They rejected many of Smith's later teachings, particularly his doctrines about "many Gods" and plural marriage. They rejected the title "Mormon", I believe, because they didn't want to be associated with the Mormons in Utah, many of whom were then practicing polygamy. To this day, they reject that title, and I've not found a source calling them Mormons. In books about Mormonism they generally get a brief mention (basically noting that they exist) but I don't remember seeing many discussions about their theology. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if they don't consider themselves Mormon, and if the rest of Mormonism doesn't consider them to be Mormon, then it falls more in line with what you said, and might even be appropriate just in a "History of Mormonism" section. -- Avanu (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I moved the first bit to a footnote with a little more explanation and a citation about "Mormon" not applying to denominations like the CoC. I moved the second bit to the paragraph in "Relation to Christianity" that was already talking about Mormonism rejecting Trinitarian doctrines. I also ended up essentially reverting the change to the 3rd paragraph about the First Manifesto being included in the Doctrine and Covenants. It's true, but I don't see it as being one of those essential facts that needs to be in the Lead. I also added a citation tag to the claim about Mormonism being Henotheistic. I didn't recall having ever read a print source specifically calling Mormonism henotheistic, though I'd seen some online ones saying it's closer to henotheism than polytheism. After searching all the usual places (Bushman, O'Dea, Shipps) I finally found one source (Ostlings) saying that Mormons dislike the term polytheism and that some like to use the term henotheism instead. It also described Mormon theology as "tritheistic", in contrast to Bushman who characterizes it as Social trinitarianism. Anyway, that's way too much detail for a minor definition, but I'm interested to see if there are other sources out there calling it henotheistic. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the phrase "sequential monotheism" for Mormons might be better. The definition at the Henotheism page implies that it is the same god all the time in different forms. -- Avanu (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction - is the Community of Christ Mormon?

The introduction states "[Mormonism] differs from other Latter Day Saint movement traditions (such as the Community of Christ) in that it also accepts the Pearl of Great Price as part of its scriptural canon..." This implies that the Community of Christ is not Mormon, but the introduction there calls them so. Can someone resolve the contradiction? --KnightMove (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

New section needed

1. As a former LDS, I think the article reads, on the whole, like a brochure a missionary would leave in one's door. It's mighty "glowy" in a lot of places.

2. I think a section comparing the Church to Scientology would be interesting and fruitful. From what I've read of Scientology, they have some very similar aspects that I'd like to read more about, outer space being a springboard.

Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As a current LDS member I will throw out my thoughts on the Scientology aspect:

Scientology and Mormonism have some vary basic similarities. They both believe the soul to be eternal. They both believe in eternal progression in one way or another. For each similarity there are a dozens of differences. In Mormon theology the spirit was created by God intentionally. In Scientology the spirit was created because the original spiritual being conceived that there may be other beings, and so it happened. In Mormon theology, one can progress to become like their Father in Heaven through the atonement of Christ. In Scientology one progresses through reincarnation. The Mormons church claims to be a restored gospel through Joseph Smith Jr. Scientology claims to be created by L. Ron Hubbard in a search for the soul. Mormons believe that God is the architect of all things including space. Often the term Kolob is used to identify the name of a star near the throne of God in Mormon theology, which allows for interpretation of God within our own time and space. Mormons believe that they will retain their physical bodies after death. In Scientology, Thetans exist outside of the physical realm in their own universe. After death a Thetan no longer needs the physical body.

Thus, in my opinion, a section on similarities is not accurate use for Wikipedia. In the same process of logic a Mormon church has similarities with an ice cream shop. Both have sinks and both have refrigerators. Both are made out of standard building materials. These similarities do not necessarily mean that they should be compared against one another in an encyclopedia. This is something that is better left to those who have a bone to pick and have their own web space for linking such minor threads. Dromidaon (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Mormonism could be compared with any number of things. Not all comparisons are useful. Comparisons with Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are useful because they are major world religions, and, like Mormonism, all Abrahamic religions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Dromidaon (talk). I appreciate your Scientology comments; they're very interesting. Wordreader (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Core Mormonism beliefs

Hi. So as you are an LDS member, please clarify/correct what is incorrect in the edit:

Mormon beliefs include the claim that the God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three separate beings not united under one monotheistic deity. In addition, Mormons believe that God the Father needed a physical body and is not made of spiritual substance in his own inherent divine nature. Furthermore, Mormon beliefs cite that souls who enter Heaven someday become deity-like, immortal and divine in equal footing with the Holy Trinity. Regarding soteriology, Mormon beliefs claim that the passion of Jesus Christ's crucifixion was not enough to merit redemption and salvation for humankind.

From what I understand from my teenage years, these beliefs were true and in-line accurate with my own Mormon Fellowship Group. Because the Patheos website is an impartial website on religious beliefs, and Mr. Ben Wotherington has spent a great deal of time researching and comparing Mormon beliefs along with other Abrahamic religions. Whatever is inaccurate, please point out so it can be fact-checked and revised as such. QvisDevs (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Jumping in here and hoping I don't offend anyone. 1) In Mormonism they are three separate beings but the Father is the monotheistic deity. Other two are subjected to the Fathers authority although they too already have 'All that the Father has' as per Revelations 3 2)The Father doesn't 'need' a physical body but rather is a Spirit which resides in an immortal body of flesh and bones not blood, very different to our mortal physical self. The chapter in John which says 'God is a Spirit' is absolutely true but its subject matter was prayer and John tries to convince us that it is our Spirit which communicates with the Spirit of God the Father ie the body has no part in that prayer per se. So God is made of spiritual substance in his own inherent divine nature which is protected or resides in an immortal body. 3) Although one can receive all that the Father has and sit next to him on the throne as Jesus has done as Rev 3 and St.John especially says, we will always be subject to God as our Father (ie "I go unto my Father and your Father" etc) and presiding authority in eternity. We can become like God in the same sense that a child here eventually can become like his mortal Father when an adult. The crucifixion, in Mormonism, grants us saving us from Adam's sin, which brought mortality to us, so thanks to the passion of Jesus we will be saved as in resurrecting and living for ever however in what conditions we spend eternity depends on us and our behaviour here as well as the Grace of God seeing that we are sure to die with some sins still unresolved. Now sources for all this are all in LDS.org or the mormon wiki (separate to english wiki) which you are welcomed to read up on seeing that my input here is very opinionated. Only if absolutely necessary will I chase up sources although I hope this helps understand what mormons believe in. By the way I personally don't consider Mormonism as the fourth Abrahamic religion since it holds Jesus as Saviour and Redeemer as do all Christians. However Mormonism certainly isn't a part of historical Christianity but still under the Christian umbrella. Wombat24 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I recently reverted this recent addition to the Lead section of the article. It was sourced mainly to blog-like websites. (Note, one website was patheos.com, but the article being cited was from the blogs side of the website.) CARM was also cited, which is problematic, especially when trying to nail down Mormon beliefs. There also seemed to be a fair amount of unintentional misrepresentation. For instance, a website that said, "[Mormons] believe that they are one in purpose and mission and that they are three separate divine beings." was supporting a sentence here that said "Mormon beliefs include the claim that the God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three separate beings not united under one monotheistic deity". (The website said nothing of monotheism, and to say that Mormons believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit aren't united is a large overstatement.)

There are a lot of issues mixed into this one edit, so it's probably not a good idea to try to address them altogether. The precise details of where the inaccuracies were is a little complicated, but I can explain what they are if you would like. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also, to clarify, I'm not calling Patheos, or Mr. Wotherington biased. What I am saying is that Mr. Wotheringon's blog post hasn't gone through the rigorous peer-review process that it takes to publish a book or scholarly paper, and he's probably made unintentional mistakes. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

NO he hasn't. What are you talking about? Even Mormon believers who commented on his article admit to the accuracy of what he wrote. But they find it unpleasant and attacking their religion. Regardless they even admit that those informations are correct. I was into Mormonism in my High School years and I learned the same thing TOO during my Fellowship meetings. Like I said, if you have nothing to hide, be open with your beliefs. Nobody is trying to nail it down, you just don't want this belief system exposed to its full entirety... what is worse, you're not even willing to meet in the middle to edit what is necessary so that it reflects the full value and vision of Mormon beliefs rather than being a cop out. Enjoy your article. QvisDevs (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Now you're just too chicken. I understand that you are this faith which I respect. But you should be proud of what you believe in, and cite them as such rather than disbanding my entire edit. I'm not going to force another edit on this, but its just FUNNY how you see it as trying to "nail Mormonism down"... because its not. If you're really PRO-Mormonism then be proud to state what those beliefs are, and correct them when they are problematic. I'm Catholic and many people disagree with the core beliefs of our faith, but we're not chicken about it... and they are laid out IN DETAIL on Wikipedia, and yes some of those Catholic sources come from Patheos website. You can have your article. QvisDevs (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):In my experience wearing one's beliefs on one's sleeve isn't always helpful, and making assumptions about others' beliefs is almost never helpful. I am perfectly willing to discuss this with you. There were multiple problems with the edit, and reverting was easier than trying to pick out all the pieces that were wrong, trying to find better sources for everything, and then getting the balance right for the Lead section. Nobody owns this article; I know I don't. Cheers, ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Horseshit. Then explain what is wrong with the edit. You already said it is an "overstatement" to say that the three beings are separate, but according to Mormon beliefs. THEY ARE, according to them. Why do you make the case against them if that is what they believe? If that is not exactly what they believe then add a sentence to make it CLEAR. but do Explain? otherwise you're just reverting edits because you think its "trying to nail Mormonism down". seriously. Sure, its "easier" to just revert the edit rather than correct them. What does Wikipedia need you for then? WOW. QvisDevs (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

QvisDevs, please remain civil, focus on the issues instead of the editors, and absolutely stop making personal attacks. tedder (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I'm Italian. It's just the way things are, but I seriously find it displeasing when people cop out on religious beliefs, rather than get on an open-system platform and just state their beliefs and LET PEOPLE decide for themselves like a democratic way. QvisDevs (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Non c'e' un problema. Capisco che nelle discussioni gli Italiani sono piu' animati rispetto agli Americani.

I'll point out some of the problems, if you like.

• "Regarding soteriology, Mormon beliefs claim that the passion of Jesus Christ's crucifixion was not enough to merit redemption and salvation for humankind". This is misleading. Early Mormonism had to define itself against Calvinistic views of humans utter incapacity and complete dependence on grace. In reaction, Mormon preachers emphasized good works and moral obligation (i.e. the gospel of James over the gospel of Paul). There are "grace" passages in the Book of Mormon, just like the Bible, but historically these haven't been emphasized as much as the "works" passages. The Mormon view is that part of "accepting" God's grace is to do your best to do good works. The stuff about Christ's passion not being sufficient is incorrect. (I'm liberally paraphrasing Richard Bushman's Mormonism: a very short introduction page 76. This is what I mean by a peer-reviewed, published source.)
• Calling Mormons polytheistic is an oversimplification. Mormons would claim they're monotheistic. Scholars disagree amongst themselves, and many of the best scholars don't even bother categorizing it, though some have called them monolatrists. (This is partly where I was talking about undue emphasis for the Lead section.)
• I already pointed out the problems with saying that Mormons believe in separate Gods. It would be more accurate to simply say that Mormons reject Trinitarianism. (BTW, some scholars have categorized Mormons as believing in a Social trinity, which, I believe, was accepted at some point by some Catholic thinkers.)
• "Furthermore, Mormon beliefs cite that souls who enter Heaven someday become deity-like, immortal and divine in equal footing with the Holy Trinity." The problem with this, again, is overstatement. Some Mormons do believe this, but not all. If you cropped off the "equal in footing with the Holy Trinity" part, you'd have a pretty accurate sentence. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter what "a" LDS believes, what is important is what the LDS Church teaches. "...three separate beings not united under one monotheistic deity", what does one monotheistic deity mean? Are we talking abaout one essence or substance? Are we talking about one Godhead? The LDS Church teaches there is one Godhead consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which are three distinct persons or beings. The LDS Churches has no teaching or philosophical construct to explain an essence or substance that magically makes them one God. They are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; three that make one Godhead.

The LDS Church teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone. "...is not made of spiritual substance in his own inherent divine nature." I have no idea what he is trying to say. The LDS Church teaches that God was always God; that he is Spirit with no beginning and no end. That his Spirit is housed in a body of flesh and bone. There was never a time when God was not God. It is the same with Jesus; there was never a time when Jesus was not a member of the Godhead. Jesus also has a body of flesh and bone. The entire purpose of the resurrection was to unite the body with the Spirit in a glorified, perfected state. It would seem if having a body was not important there would be no need for Jesus to have been resurrected or to make it so that each human being could be resurrected.

"Furthermore, Mormon beliefs cite that souls who enter Heaven someday become deity-like, immortal and divine in equal footing with the Holy Trinity." This is not accurate or correct and misses entirely the concept of Exaltation as taught by the LDS Church. Let's first look at some orthodox, Christian teaching on becoming gods, called deification, or theosis:

• In the second century, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (about 130—200), arguably the most important Christian theologian of his time, said that God "became what we are in order to make us what he is himself." Irenaeus further stated as follows, "If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods."
• At about the same time, St. Clement of Alexandria (about 150—215), wrote: "Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god." Clement further stated that "if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God. . . . His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes a god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, 'Men are gods, and gods are men.'" St. Clement of Alexandria further stated that "he who obeys the Lord and follows the prophecy given through him . . . becomes a god while still moving about in the flesh." Athanasius also observed:"He became man that men might be made gods."
• St. Cyril of Alexandria says that we "are called 'temples of God' and indeed 'gods', and so we are."
• St. Gregory of Nazianzus implores us to "become gods for (God's) sake, since (God) became man for our sake."
• St. Basil the Great stated that "becoming a god" is the highest goal of all.
• Finally, St. Augustine of Hippo (354—430), arguably the greatest of the early Christian Fathers, said: "But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. 'For he has given them power to become the sons of God' [John 1:12]. If then we have been made sons of god, we have also been made gods.

All of the above writers were not just important theologans in Christian orthodoxy, but all (in due time) became revered as saints as a result of the early Church councils. As noted, three (3) of the above Christian Fathers wrote within a time span of less than one hundred years from the period of the apostles. It is blatantly obvious that orthdox Christian teaching is that man may become gods.

The LDS Church teaches what the Bible teches: that man, through Jesus Christ's atonement and sacrifice, might become joint-heirs with Christ. What is a joint-heir? Through Christ Grace we are gifted what he inherits. As Christ prayed, we become one as he and the Father are one, full of grace, righteousness, holiness, and purity.

In being made like Christ, the LDS Church teaches that God will always be our God. We will never become God and we will be able to dwell in his presence.

The article is neither accurate or correct. He has taken great leaps of logic while minimizing the teachings of the LDS Church. His objective was to find difference and he has forced a great deal of difference without looking at the actual teachings of the LDS Church. -^StormRider 08:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

racial views

Why doesn't the article mention the racial views of Mormonism. --41.151.213.189 (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You may want to check out Black people and Mormonism. -^StormRider 12:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

And it's a part of mormon history now. Maybe one could add a brief section and have it link back to the main wiki article Black people and Mormonism? Wombat24 (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment

The following was mistakenly added to Talk:Mormonism/Comments instead of to this talk page, so moving it here.-- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

While I frequently use Wikipedia, I have not done any editing or commenting before, so I apologize if this comment is in the wrong place.

I understand the concern that you do not want the topic of "Mormonism" to overlap other areas, but I do not see how a topic that is supposed to cover the beliefs of the LDS movement can not cover things such as the nature of man and God and the relationship between them. Leaving this to the "Mormonism vs Christianity" is not appropriate since this leads to a limited and disjointed presentation where items are discussed only in relation to Christianity. It would seem most appropriate for the "Mormonism" section to start with a brief overview of the LDS believes with pointers to more in depth sections. Then the "Mormonism vs Christianity" can contrast these with "traditional" or "unrestored" Christianity.

The bottom line is the I came to the article looking for a clear and concise overview of the beliefs of the LDS church and did not find much of real use to me.

Thank you for your efforts.

Joe Hendrickson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.167 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2007‎

"Part of a Series on Christianity"

This is not intended to be a debate on Are Mormons Christians? However, there seems to be a consensus to refer to Mormonism as a form of Restorationist Christianity or Nontrinitarian Christianity as opposed to Mainstream or Traditional Christianity. Therefore, for consistency, I recommend adding the Christianity series box to the page. Thoughts? If there are no disagreements (excepting unrelated "Mormons aren't Christians" claims), I will make the recommended change. Piguy (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, templates are only supposed to be applied to pages that the template links to. This is a suggestion that is widely disregarded, of course, but there is some wisdom to it, I think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks! That's exactly the type of response I was looking for. Pi-Guy (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Gold Plates?

What happened to the gold plates?? How could something so fundamental be forgotten about?

baden 41.74.221.96 (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

There has been some chatter about the plates. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=gold+plate&prefix=Talk%3AMormonism%2F&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search If you have good Sources, you can enter the missing information yourself. You are welcome to do so. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

How about summarizing the plates and linking to the Wikipedia article on "Golden Plates" as the source? Rjmail (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, Rjmail. There should be some mention of the plates in this article.Dustinlull (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a brief mention to the article's history section. Rjmail (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Combined Titles

I'm really confused why there are two articles. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS for short) is the name of this church. There is no church called "Mormonism". That is a formerly derogatory term given to the LDS people that eventually became slang terminology for the church. Nowadays it is not insulting to be called a mormon. However, having two different articles causes confusion for non-members (apparently a lot of the population believe the churches are different). I know it says in the article that it is the LDS church, but still having a separate article all on its own seems redundant and aids in the general confusion already abound.

Thank you for your consideration. D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.18.70 (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi; the main reason is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) is not the only church that considers itself "Mormon". There are Mormon fundamentalists who call themselves "Mormons" and consider their doctrine to be the true or original Mormonism. So even though the LDS Church is the dominant organization within Mormonism, Mormonism is slightly larger than just the LDS Church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Mormonism is a historical fact

Now before you remove this comment; allow me to explain this. Mormonism is a historical fact, you can't argue that Christ died for our sins, or that Joseph Smith restored the gospel. It is historical fact, now people have freedom of agency and they have the choice to be ignorant and deny the true fact that Jesus was the Christ and that Joseph Smith was the first prophet since Jesus Christ.

You may ask "How do I know for a fact that Jesus was the Christ?" Answer- You have to pray to Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus Christ amen, with a sincere heart and a desire to feel the holy spirit and you will receive an answer.

Mormonism is regarded as an opinion by most people; when it is a historical fact. Example- Tectonic Plates ( Pangea theory) is technically a theory, but there is nothing wrong with it. This is a good example of Mormonism. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the faith, church, or the doctrine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkb4uwreck (talk • contribs) 22:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, nobody's going to remove the comment. The purpose of a "talk" or "discussion" page is for editors to try to work through their differences, so as long as that's happening we're good.

Personal beliefs on Wikipedia are a little tricky. You are convinced that Mormonism is true, while the next person is convinced that it's false and another religion is true, while the next person is convinced that all religions are a joke. Rather than having editors duke it out and whoever has the strongest opinoin wins, Wikipedia deals with the problem in two ways. First, we have a strict policy that articles should have a neutral point of view. In the case of religions, this means that it won't say that they are either true or false. (This goes for all religions, not just Mormonism.) Using your example above, it is unacceptable for Wikipedia to say "Jesus is the Christ." It's just not neutral. Wikipedia, however, can say "Christians believe that Jesus is the Christ, or Messiah."

Second, instead of relying on personal opinions, Wikipedia demands that any controversial claim be backed by a WP:reliable source, preferably a secondary, peer reviewed source written by someone who is an expert on the subject. For something like Mormonism, this means you'd have to back up your changes with citations to people like Richard Bushman, Jan Shipps, Arnold Mauss, or Matthew Bowman, who have spent years studying Mormonism and have written books on the subject.

Lastly, if you would like to be making changes to the article, or believe that something is inaccurate, it would be very helpful if you could say what precisely is the problem. Instead of "The article is wrong and biased" something like "The article is incorrect when it says '...'." ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read up on what a theory is before you throw around the phrase, "Only a theory." In the scientific sense it is an explanation for credible facts and evidence. You're using it the sense of a hypothesis (which is valid in our culture but misleading). Tectonic Plate Theory is an explanation for a huge amount of credible evidence and observable facts; moreover it is falsifiable. The strength of any theory is that it must be falsifiable, meaning there is a scenario in which, if certain facts and evidence are found to be true, the theory can indisputably be proven wrong. That may not sound impressive but a concept that is falsifiable is much more important than one that is only verifiable. The concept of God is verifiable; if he came down and showed himself and his power there would be little to disprove him. Conversely it is not falsifiable; according to the hypothesis or "belief" that God is real, one must simply have faith and believe with or without credible evidence. The lack of falsifiability is what makes God a hypothesis and Plate Tectonics a theory: If Plate Tectonics was wrong, it can be proven, it's validity is based on observable facts and evidence; if it is correct then a scenario in which facts and evidence prove it wrong simply will not ever happen. In science we do have to accept that any fact is only true while it's not being proven wrong, and that's okay; the quest for truth, insight and knowledge is more important than validating one's beliefs and hypotheses. 172.248.150.231 (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Difference between Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism

I'm having trouble understanding what the purpose is in having distinct articles for Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement. I had taken "Mormonism" to be a name for the religion of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I'm finding that it's also applied to other Latter Day Saint denominations. Is that usage correct? If so, what need is there for two separate articles? If not, wouldn't the Mormonism article be merged with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints one? Slb1900 (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I add that the religious beliefs of the different denominations appear to me to be so divergent that to call them all one uniform "Mormonism" seems like an omission of detail. That's why it seems strange to me to have a single article presenting all denominations under one "Mormonism" umbrella. At the same time, a short delve into the Mormonism article brings repeated mentions of what Mormons do, to the apparent exclusion of the other denominations. Slb1900 (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"Mormonism" generally refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and any church which has diverged from that church since it settled in Utah. So primarily, it's the LDS Church and the Mormon fundamentalist churches that make up modern "Mormonism". The term can also correctly be applied to the early days of the Latter Day Saint movement, before the schisms when Joseph Smith was the leader, though doing so can cause confusion sometimes.

The Latter Day Saint movement is broader, and generally includes all of the churches that trace their "lineage" back to the original Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) that Joseph Smith started. It includes the Latter Day Saint groups that resulted from the members who did not follow Brigham Young to Utah, including the Community of Christ (old RLDS Church) and the other "Prairie Saint" denominations. These groups generally do not accept the label "Mormon", though there are some exceptions to this. (As an example, older writings from leaders of the RLDS Church routinely refer to the LDS Church as "the Mormon Church", implying that the RLDS Church itself was not "Mormon".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think what I wrote above is generally supported by the approach taken by the AP Stylebook, which says that the name "Mormon" should not be applied to the "other churches" that resulted from the split after Joseph Smith's death. I take this to mean it is appropriately applied to the larger Brigham Young faction (LDS Church) and any church that derived from it (Mormon fundamentalists), but not to the smaller factions which remained in Illinois or the other midwestern states after Smith's death. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter, James, and John - possible typo?

The section titled "Restoration" describes Peter, James, John, and John the Baptist as angels. I know virtually nothing about Mormonism, but those figures are usually identified as apostles and so I have edited the article to read "apostles" under the assumption that "angels" is a typo. If "angels" is actually the intended reading, feel free to revert.163.11.145.139 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Both are correct. They were the three apostles, appearing as angels. Technically, John was said to have been a "translated being", but that gets a bit into the weeds. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

April conference (world annual broadcast)

For editing purposes (especially for statistics and social issues) you may be interested to know that I am keeping brief notes and putting them on my personal TALK page: User_talk:Charles_Edwin_Shipp#LDS_April_Conference.2C_world_broadcast.2C_April_4-5.2C_2015_.28Sat.2FSun.2C_10am.2F2pm_MT.29 -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) -- PS: I'll add official references later.

---

"Mormons are NOT Christians"

Mormans believe that the Book of Morman (written by a MAN) is on the same level as the Bible (written by GOD), whereas Christians believe the Bible is on its own pedastool, alone in power. Therefore, since these two beliefs contradict, Mormans are, in fact, NOT Christians. Unlike the Part of a Series on Christianity, I do intend for this to be a debate on Are Mormons Christians?" <ref>The Holy Bible by God</ref> <ref>The Book of Morman by SRD (Some Random Dude)</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.252.244 (talk • contribs)

This issue has been discussed a number of times in the past. The problem is that there are a variety of definitions of what constitutes a "Christian". Mormons adopt a definition of it that is different than the one that is adopted by some Christians. So, in matters of religion, the consensus has been that it's best to generally conform to (1) the classification system used by academics, and (2) the self-identification of the adherents themselves. Using both (1) and (2), Mormons can be classified as Christians: Academics generally place Mormonism within the Restoration movement of Christianity, and Mormons clearly self-identify as Christians. (If you are interested, the issue is discussed in the WP article Mormonism and Christianity.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

And just for clarification, Mormons believe both the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be written by man under the inspiration of God.([1], [2]) For example, Mormons believe the Epistle of Paul to the Romans to actually be written by Paul through the inspiration of God, and not by the hand of God himself.([3]) This seems to be inline with Wikipedia's article as well. Dromidaon (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If your intent is to debate if Mormons are Christians, you're in the wrong place. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a forum for unregulated free speech. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to be a debating society. Additionally if you think you have anything new to add to the actual text of related articles, I'd suggest that you first look over the exhaustive discussions at Talk:Mormonism and Christianity (with 22 talk page archives, we need an archive index just to keep track of it all), as this has been talked to death. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You may also wish to read up on the development of the Christian biblical canon (including the development of the Old Testament canon, the development of the New Testament canon, authorship of the Bible, biblical inspiration/verbal dictation, Christian biblical canons/Bible version debate, etc...), as the wording of your comments doesn't display any real grasp on the actual history of the collection of individual texts currently found in the biblical canon; the word "Bible" literally means "the books", as in plural - it is not a singular work with a single author. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are Christians, FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks for noticing.

Actually, no, Mormons are not Christian. They are Mormons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C021:1B50:75C3:C982:2DCB:346B (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This debate doesn't need to continue here. Nothing productive is coming from a back-and-of forth "is/is-not" discussion. It's obvious that Mormons self-identify as Christians and also that many Christians reject this use of the term in reference to Mormons. But no good toward building the encyclopedia comes from debating the foundational issue for which there is no easy resolution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Mormonism should be in the Christianity category. No Christian church other than Mormonism considers Mormons Christians. Its not only nutcases like Bill Keller who say Mormonism is not Christian, Pope Benedict XVI has said that, so did my friend Tim Callow, who is currently a Methodist pastor. Sigmund Freud used to be included in the psychologist and psychiatrist categories because people call him that, but Polisher of Cobwebs pointed out this was factually wrong, putting Mormonism in the Christianity category is a similar fallacy. It would be like changing the definition of giraffe to include elephants. Mormonism is more different from Christianity than Judaism and Islam are. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity worship one God, and believe God has eternally been God, and that God is the creator of all things. They believe that God created man, God does not beget man, and man is not of the same species as God. Mormonism is the most polytheistic religion in the world, believes that man is of the same species as god, and believes that humans can become gods. They also believe God was once not god but man. So it would be more accurate to consider Judaism and Islam forms of Christianity than to consider Mormonism a form of Christianity.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think my previous comment could just be reposted here. Continuing this debate is pointless for purposes of improving this article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Mormonism link to US millitary

Some mention of EMS should be given in this article about mind control techniques https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vOgHqE_P4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

External references about the 2007 poll

The external link http://www.religionnewsblog.com/maintenance.php (about the 2007 poll) is not working at the moment (web site is in maintenance) . But I've found http://www.pewforum.org/2007/09/26/public-expresses-mixed-views-of-islam-mormonism/ , and also http://www.pewforum.org/2012/01/12/mormons-in-america-mormon-moment/ about a newer 2011 poll. --5.170.60.170 (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent revert of dictionary ref edits and self-identifying numbers

Since this topic can get heated fast, let me quickly give a more detailed explanation than what could fit in the the edit summary. My reading of the Pew survey puts the number of Mormons who self-identify as Christian much higher than 66%. Specifically in the cited source, sixth paragraph: "Mormons are nearly unanimous in describing Mormonism as a Christian religion, with 97% expressing this point of view." Maybe the other editor is looking at something else and I'm missing where the 1-in-3 not self-identifying as Christian shows up.

As for the dictionary definitions, they are notoriously difficult because they're designed to be short so the effective bandwidth is severely limited. The second and third sources (sorry, got the order wrong in the edit summary - the dictionary.com and oxford dictionary sources) use wording that IMO is less restrictive of how they define Christianity. Specifically, dictionary.com states "the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches." and the oxford dictionary states "Christianity is ... mainly divided between the Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox Churches" (emphasis mine in both quotes). The emphasized phrasing I read to mean that the following list not exhaustive and leaves the definition open to Christian groups that don't fit nicely into that categorization. The Merriam Webster definition is less vague, not totally definitive IMO, but less vague. However, if you look at its entry for Mormon it states "a member of a Christian church that was founded by Joseph Smith...", which contradicts the strict interpretation of its Christianity entry. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: So much for WP:BRD I guess? --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

As for the McConkie reference, I cringe somewhat when when use his book to make generalized statement on LDS theology and belief. I feel that the edit has OR, POV, and UNDUE issues. It is a single LDS apostle making a statement in a book that the LDS Church never endorsed in the first place. It's also not a view that is unique to the LDS Church - many Protestant churches have taught the same thing about the Catholic Church. IMO the edit just doesn't fit at that location in a summary style subsection. Any third opinions out there? --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"Gold verses Golden"

This has been addressed in the past, but in defence of the church my edits long ago were reverted. The current type says "The faith drew its first converts while Smith was dictating the text of the Book of Mormon from golden plates"

The problem is that the church says differently "Gold Plates Plates made of gold upon which the ancient American prophet Mormon abridged the record of his people" LDS.org

Since the Utah LDS church refers to them as 'gold', it seems presumptuous of us to correct the church and use the term 'golden'. --Gunnerclark (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The underlying issue is that the Wikipedia article is at Golden plates. Gold plates redirects to that article. So if the terminology is to be changed on Wikipedia, the issue would need to be raised at Talk:Golden plates. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

(Posting at virtually same time as Good Ol’factory).... The linked article (Golden plates), notes that they are also known as the gold plates. It's not entirely relevant and certainly not presumptuous, to state things differently. Just because a "content owner" may address things in a certain way, doesn't mean it's required in the WP world. Also, for what it's worth, the church has a song that says "the golden plates lay hidden....". There are a number of ways to refer to the plates. ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. To me, "golden" is perhaps more accurate, given that—as many have pointed out—it was very unlikely that they were composed of 100% 24K gold. To me, "golden" suggests an overall color or appearance, whereas "gold" suggests what the actual content was. But anyway, from what I can see, Mormon and non-Mormon sources use both pretty much interchangeably. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

Please update references to "the LDS Church" to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" according to the official Style Guide of the Church (see https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide). Msheets1 (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Article appears to comply with MOS:LDS in this regard. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

Came here to see the number of Mormons in the world, did the same thing I do when I check a wiki article for similar information and took a quick look to the right and saw there was no infobox. WHAT IS THE DEAL WITH THIS? I know there's a number of editors who have an irrational hatred of infoboxes for some insane reason, but non-infobox articles are usually limited to articles most people don't care about, or a collection of articles of historical figures that these nutbag infobox-hating editors have gotten there claws on and clamp down on like a vice. There's no excuse for an article as big as this to have the same problem. FIX IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7178:C500:BDE8:E4A1:261D:189A (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind I just saw the article of "Mormons", which has the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7178:C500:BDE8:E4A1:261D:189A (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2020

Request that the authors meet the official style guide for using the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/style-guide). Carrollewis (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Hello Carrollewis, please see our guideline on this. If you see a particular instance in this article that violates this guideline, feel free to re-open this request. aboideau^talk 16:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2020

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not want to be identified as "Mormonism," a pejorative term that does not emphasize the name of Jesus Christ, an integral part of the faith. Although many people still identify the Church as "Mormonism," a minor but significant change should be made on the page "Category:Nontrinitarian denominations." In the section entitled "Subcategories," the Church is correctly listed as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," but in the section below that, "Pages in category "Nontrinitarian denominations," the name is confusingly still listed as "Mormonism." I suggest that the name should be changed from "Mormonism" to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)." Such a change may require changes to the page entitled "Mormonism," which is itself antiquated and should be edited. Ctblack (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. You seem to be referring to a category, which is an automatically generated page, not this article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Related Request for Move (Jan 16)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result: Moved

---

A Request for Move on a relate article is backlogged and needs more participation. The proposal is to move Mormonism and Christianity → Mormonism and Nicene Christianity.

Please consider joining the discussion to help build consensus for or against the proposed move. If you are an uninvolved admin, please consider closing the RM. Thanks. JaredHWood💬 06:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV: "Mystery cult" introduces negative bias

As a new reader of this article (who is not Mormon / LDS) the term "mystery cult" (in spite of the reliable source and the divergent meanings of the term "cult") appears to be an NPOV violation. Assuming the historian is using "cult" in the non-pejorative sense, the negative connotations among many other readers should still be taken into account. Negativity bias also shows that small negative associations can have outsized impact. Note that this WP article is the top result for "Mormonism" in Google for me, and likely other readers as well.

I think using the entire quote (that includes the words "mystery cult") is OK in context. It's not saying definitively that it is a mystery cult. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's important to take into account negativity bias. Even though it is a small part of the quote, the phrase can overwhelm this otherwise neutral information in the introduction. The quote itself is also quite indirect, vague and alludes to different forms Mormonism take (with a great deal of uncertainty).Zukisama (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

If nobody has any further discussion points on this, I will propose a NPOV alternative.

I have a lot of problems with that sentence. It looks like it was added by User:Ph03n1x77 in a bold rewrite of the Lead in January [4] along with a lot of other problematic changes that went unnoticed. For instance [5] seems to be deleting a lot of sourced material and scrubbing the article of the word "Mormon", introducing weird constructions like "The displaced Mormons fled to Illinois" --> "The displaced church fled to Illinois". (I'm imagining a church version of Baba Yaga's house.) But getting back to the "mystery cult" quote, I think it's problematic to have that extended quote by Sydney E. Ahlstrom taking up valuable real estate in the 2nd paragraph of the Lead. Especially when it's not in the body of the article. And especially because it's not adding a lot of value. You don't start writing an encyclopedia article with "Ho hum we're not really sure if [subject] is this or that or something else, maybe it's all of them." You say concisely what it is. I think some manual rollbacking is needed. ~Awilley (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The Baba Yaga church movement definitely paints an interesting picture. Thanks for the research. Agreed in full about the equivocating introduction. I looked over a bit of this diff and am still trying to decipher what value was added. I hope to do some more digging / research in the next few days. Thanks for weighing in. Zukisama (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Revising article name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Church has recently put out a statement asking to be referred to as its full name- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints- instead of the nickname "Mormons" or "Mormonism". In relation to this article, their style guide says: "The term "Mormonism" is inaccurate and should not be used. When describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" is accurate and preferred."[6] Would it be okay to proceed with a name change, or would an RfC be required? Audrey (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Audrey: Replied here ~Awilley (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS Church) has its own Wikipedia page. The LDS Church is actually one of many sects under the larger umbrella of Mormonism, so Mormonism isn’t a specific church, it’s a theology. Both topics are distinctive enough and notable enough in their own right to merit separate articles on Wikipedia. I hope this helps you understand. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I hope we change the name. This is not about not "understanding." IT has to do with using a slang term that is offensive to many people. I don't think there's any such thing as "Mormonism" outside of Wikipedia. As to the term applying to other churches besides the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you are right, but there is no church that falls under your category of "Mormonism" that does not believe in 3 Nephi 27:8 and D&C 115, which details the proper term. CsikosLo (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Churches such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can call themselves what they want, but the term Mormonism doesn't refer to any particular church, including that one. It's a widely-used term that refers to a broad religious tradition. Many who practice Mormonism aren't even members of any particular church. So regardless of the preference of that organization, I don't see the term Mormonism going out of use any time soon. Besides, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, on its website, recognizes that the word Mormonism is "a common term used to describe the teachings and doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." [7] COGDEN 19:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Mormonism in the above context is not substantially different from the Latter Day Saint Movement, is frankly archaic, and needs to be merged into it. DavidBailey (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Mormonism is a religious tradition and theology flowing from the Book of Mormon and should not be merged with the article on the LDS movement, which is about the various sects that follow it. Jonathunder (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the actual content of the page doesn't reflect that. The article uses the word Mormons frequently, which can be confusing. It talks about their (our, I'm a member) practices and history. The article states "The LDS church believes" on a number of occasions too, and confusingly uses the term "Mormon scripture". I do see this article as a useful place for summarizing the doctrine and then comparing doctrinal differences between different groups in the LDS Restorationalist movement. However, as it stands now the article is confusing and uses the term Mormon in ways that members of those churches would disagree with. Ph03n1x77 (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page move from Mormonism to Latter-day Saint belief

Not sure I support this page move. What's the justification/reasoning behind it? @Johnpacklambert. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 18:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• The term "Mormonism" is rejected as a descriptor by virtually all groups that make up the Latter-day Saint movement and these groups make up the vast majority of the movement. It is not only not liked, it is explicitly and proactively not liked. This [8] talk highlights how deep this dislike is. Clearly we should not be using a term to describe something that is rejected by those who affirm it. Groups has a right to describe themselves on their own terms, and the old term used for this article did not conform to current usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Here [9] as well as here [10]. Here [11] is another article on the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Regardless, this is not what previous consensuses about revising the article name have determined. There are very valid reasons why the page should be labeled Mormonism, primarily being that this article about Latter day sects at large, not just the Latter-day Saint religion. I think you should move the page back and open a page move proposal to make your points, and let the process play out with the input of other editors. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes valid reasons like hate mongering, disrespect for the views and desires of the people involved, and advancing the Orientalistic project of othering members of The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Johnpacklambert: I really don't see Mormon as a hateful term... it is, after all, derived from The Book of Mormon. It is a common name. I'd appreciate if you'd stop instilling your version of the article without discussion. This is absolutely a matter than needs consensus. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I think "Mormonism" or a merge with "Latter Day Saint movement" would be more accurate. This page contains beliefs outside of the Latter-day Saint religion. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You ignore that fact that at one point people argued to continue using the term because of its connection specifically to beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You also ignore the fact that a huge percentage of those who accept Joseph Smith as a propher belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This fact is little recognized in Wikipedia. The size differentials mean that we do not conflate the Catholic Church with various break away movements, but somehow it is ok and often encoraged to conflate The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with various break away movements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you think that is is perhaps possible that your personal affiliation with this topic is clouding your judgement? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where to best discuss this since JPL went and moved like 20 pages without consensus. In any case, I have reverted all of those moves as inappropriate. Maybe we should start (another) thread at MOS:LDS? Though nothing has changed since the last discussion there. ~Awilley (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm open to starting a thread at MOS:LDS, good idea. And thanks for taking the time to revert those moves. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: Can you please stop restoring your preferred version of LDS related articles without prior discussion or consensus? This is disruptive editing behavior and you clearly know better, given your experience. Start a new thread and make your arguments at MOS:LDS, please. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 23:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"Mormon" as a "depreciated" term

The word depreciated has two meanings:

1. diminish in value over a period of time.
2. disparage or belittle (something).

The first is accurate, the second is not. I suggest redoing this edit with a more accurate word like "relinquish" which means voluntarily cease to keep or claim; give up. I also do not think it's necessary to remove all the mentions of Mormon throughout this article. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• There is no justification for using the term in normal text. It is time that we started respecting the right of groups to not be refered to by terms that they have asked people to stop using.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • There is plenty of justification. Just because the LDS Church has relinquished the term, does not mean the term does not exist, or that it is not still the most common name, or that it is not based on historical usage. I'm all for respecting the rights of groups to not be referred to by disparaging terms, but "Mormon" is not disparaging. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 20:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes it is. Clear analysis has shown it is used almost commently in attack articles. It is also inherently disparaging to deny a people to right to be described by the terms they ask to be used for them, and to stubbornly insist on inflicting on them terms they have asked others to stop using.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
      • It's not disparaging to use a common and colloquial term. I don't know how I can get that through to you. Please revert your edit. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 20:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Is the word you're looking for here deprecated? One of the definitions, while noting it's used primarily with software, is "usable but regarded as obsolete and best avoided, typically due to having been superseded." It sounds like that's an apt description of the term Mormonism within the context of the CoJCoLdS and its style recommendations. —C.Fred (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd be fine with both deprecated and/or relinquished. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 21:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I did mean to say deprecated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • relinquished has many false connectations that do not play out here. The clear word is deprecated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I think I pinged everyone, but in case others are watching who haven't contributed: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_Ban_for_Johnpacklambert. I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if needed. Star Mississippi 16:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with those that have stated that the title and the word "Mormon" are inaccurate. The official name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Any personal opinions cannot change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.38.62.90 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is only one of the Mormon denominations, and is not particularly relevant in the article about the wider religious movement. Dimadick (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abby Crandall (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Abby Crandall (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"modifications"

It's known as "further revelation" from what I know 71.223.22.101 (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

D and C chapter 155 verse 4

Said something about this in the denominations page but could someone include some of the reasons why certain churches gave up some of the teachings that joseph smith wrote, or the doctrine and covenants? If there is any mention of a offshoot of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints in any way, before it was fully named it or not, we should include the reasons for holding on to the book of mormon but not all the Doctrines from the man who wrote it. 2600:8800:8B92:F600:1482:9D61:1826:ABB3 (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Capitolization change.

The `the` in `The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints` must be capitolized, per [12]https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/legal/terms-of-use under Trademarks. Minecraftchest1 (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

incorrect information

hi! Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints do not practice polygamy/plural marriage at all . :) 107.77.229.202 (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)