Talk:Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about Mormonism, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Archives

Archive 1

[edit] Name of the Church

Repeating from above responding to most recent edit: In accordance with both accepted grammatical usage and usage in official LDS scriptures, used a lower-case t on the leading article in the name of the LDS church. See identical usage in in D&C 20:1, D&C 115:3, D&C 127:12, D&C 128:21, D&C 136:2, Official Declaration 1, JS-H 1:1. AuntieMormom 02:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Get the facts

If you want the actual truth about anything to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, please visit

www.mormon.org This is a website designed by The Church specifically to answer questions on basic beleifs and facts about the church.

www.lds.org This is the official site for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints -- 199.243.201.203, 18:35, 14 June 2006

Or more accurately, part of the truth. --Kmsiever 04:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, 199.243.201.203, From what I hear, the golden plates arent that golden(60 lbs plates,yea thats logical), but thanks for lds.org and mormon.org, we all can trust that it is the full truth of Mormisnism.--SACP 6:24, 11 November 2006(UTC)


I cannot understand how you guys can be so ignorant, so naive. You don't understand anything about the world, the evolution(s), you just try to live with some stupid 'certainties' guiding your life and making you feel better about your ignorance. I really do feel sorryfor you. You'll never live a real life, but you're allways be guided by others. 204.124.196.29 00:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion page is used to discuss ideas and concepts about the article. We appreciate your personal beliefs and feelings, but they are more appropriately shared on your talk page. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There. Are we happy?

Can everyone live with this change to the intro paragraph? Yes? Say, yes, please? Woo-hoo! AuntieMormom 23:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for asking. Overall, this article avoids indicating whether Mormons are Christians, unlike for example Christianity. If the majority of wiki articles consider Mormons as Christians this article possibly should as well. But I am happy. And thanks again for asking. Addhoc 12:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link w/o consensus

The link doesn't further the definition of the article. It's neither scholarly nor notable, and therefore no more valuable than any of the other 14.1 million sites (Google search: "Mormon", 22 Jun 06) on the captioned topic. --AuntieMormom 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who broke away?

I have just a question to the experts here. In the lead section, it is said that the term "Mormon" refers to members of the LDS Church as well as "...in some contexts to members of smaller denominations that broke away from the Latter Day Saint movement." What are these smaller denominations that broke away from the Latter Day Saint movement? If one looks at the Latter Day Saint movement article, it includes many of the well-known small denominations like the RLDS, Strangites, FLDS, etc.. So what denominations broke away from the movement and are still referred to as Mormons? RelHistBuff 12:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that is poorly worded and stating that there were denominations that broke away from the Latter Day Saint movement incorrect. I believe the way the statement should read that the groups/sects broke away from the church set up Joseph Smith. As the movement article states there were many new congregations that were created after the death of Joseph Smith. This was followed by many more groups that have broken away from both the LDS church and the CofC.
While many groups reject the term "Mormon", still others seem to want the affiliation to the name. Individual LDS will express frustration when groups outside of the LDS church use the term or when the media will refer to the smaller groups as Mormons.
Let's still wait for other comments from editors. Storm Rider (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It is poorly worded. after all, how can you break away from a movement and still be a part of it? In addition, such a statement takes a CoJCoLDS-centric view. From the point of view of some of the older sects, the CoJCoLDS broke away from them. --Kmsiever 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claims Of Exclusivity?

It's not clear as a long-time member what this "Claim of exclusivity" is referring to. I do not believe that the Church has ever "asked" the media (I'm also a member of "the media") to refer to it in one way or another. If it has, then I'd like to see a reference. The Church's press releases make it clear how it should be referred to and that is as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." I am sure that it has not asked to be referred to as anything else (especially as a second reference) as this part of the article claims. Who wrote this?

Finally what does the quote of President Hinckley's re: polygamy and excommunication have to do with the subject of "Claims of Exclusivity?"

This article is a nominee for the Mormon collaboration of the month.
If you wish to vote for or comment on this nomination, please do so at MormonCOTM:Mormon


[edit] Distinction from other Religious groups section

This whole paragraphs looks like it was written by an angry mormon. Why is the "not" in bold? What does "but is based on beliefs that go as far back as Adam and Eve" mean? This does not belong in an encyclopedia in my oppinion. On a normal page I might just edit this out, but this is a religious page and some cautiousness might be a good idea.

User:Hichamvanborm:Hichamvanborm

[edit] Popular Culture and Encyclopedic articles

This topic is appropriate for an encyclopedia; however, popular culture references are the equivalent of reading the National Enquirer and other rags of its ilk. These pop culture references in serious articles should be removed everywhere - see the recent discussion starting here on the mailing list -- Storm Rider (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are we in denial

If this is a TRUE AND FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA then why are we polishing turds. For this entry to be true we must examine the truth that is engraved underneath the surface. A church that claims to be Christian display no crosses on it buildings around the world. You'll be lucky to see a cross on the front lawn. A star instead is visible on all the buildings. And No mention about Mormons being a financial empire within America. The church is one of the most profitable in the world.

Then again "the community" is exactly that. People that think they know everything.

The topic is Mormon. I think you are addressing complaints about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Also, WIKI is a public encyclopedia. It is certainly free; note that you were able to make an edit. True is a interesting term, which we do not claim. We seek to ensure that WIKI is correct and unbiased in the information it provides. Identifying the truth of an issue is beyond our scope and/or ability. Storm Rider (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, your complaints seem aimed at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Here is the official response about the cross. Other than that, I think you need to bring your complaints to that article. --Lethargy 23:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This really isn't an appropriate place for people to get their backs up. It is necessary to realise that religion is not objective and never will be, and we need to come to terms with that. This from a jack-mormon to the rest of the world.Legars 06:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

Somebody should put a list of LDS terminology on here sort of like the list on the Quaker page. It could define terms like "sacrament", "fast and testimony meeting", and "seminary" for those who aren't in the know.

[edit] Vandalism

I just removed some vandalism from this page (I assume that's ok). Perhaps the page should be locked down?

Unfortunately I have just had to remove some more in the section about the origin of the term "mormon". It says some things which are offensive and untrue (to cut it short it says Mormons are gay, although there are probably some gay ones (this is debatable, since some people think its impossible to be gay, people just think they are) just like any other religion, you can't generalize like that.

In short, I think this article should have protection to an extent.

There is further vandalism that needs addressing: references to "the great liar" in the first paragraph and other attacks are hardly unbiased.

[edit] Merge with Mormonism

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

[edit] The word mormon

The word mormon comes from a prophet in the book of mormon, mormon is a prophet historian who abridged the book of mormon and so for short thats what people calls us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.80.75.2 (talkcontribs) 17:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

no it didnt happen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.184.202.13 (talkcontribs) 16:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You were there? Man, you must be an old one! Zarahemlite

[edit] Allegedly

Hey, I just made a very short, simple addition to the page, and I can't help but feel that it may strike some questions, perhaps controversy. I merely added the word "allegedly" (although I admit that a better word could probably be found) into the intro concerning Smith's translation from the "ancient plates". Please know that I did this with no malicious intent towards the religion, or to cast any doubt upon their beliefs, but I believe that the only definite, or factually proven truths should be stated as definite articles. To be truthful, and to abide by Wikipedia's rules, we have to acknowledge that that may not be the truth. Thanks. FinalDeity

Said would be more appropriate, see Wikipedia:Words to avoid. --Lethargy 19:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. FinalDeity

EVERYTHING SAID HERE IS NOT TRUE. THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION,THAT TEACHES THE WRITE THINGS; ARE THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS.

WRITE THINGS? Do you mean RIGHT THINGS? I believe that is called intellectualism. :) Zidel333 05:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to review how to use punctuation as well.Legars 06:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Allegedly the pope is Catholic, allegedly Baptist are Christians, allegedly Christ turned water into wine and healed the sick. If you start adding the word allegedly to things that you do not believe then it will never end. Athiests will argue that things contained in any book of scripture only "allegedly" happened. Even if you add that many do not believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God, it would give the athiests the right to claim the same about the bible, Jewish people to say the same of the New Testament and so forth.

[edit] Scholarly usage

The Scholarly Usage section contains the following:- 'Additionally, "Utah Mormon" is often used as a derisive term among the LDS themselves. A "Utah Mormon" is one who outwardly lives every tenet of the faith without maintaining a deep spiritual conviction.' I would like to see a valid citation for this claim or have it removed as mere heresay and not factual.SerialCoyote 10:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I have heard the term used in reference to a "Utah Mormon" being someone who has always lived in Utah and might be a little naive about the church outside Utah...maybe arrogant about being superior because of being from Utah. So, it isn't really a precise definition given here.

Utah Mormon or Utah Turkey Farmer Mormon is from what I hear is a common term out here in California. My wife (who is LDS) and her friends use it sometimes, as they consider themselves "progressive" Mormons (I'm sure this has alot to do simply with being on the west coast). This defintely isn't a citation but just letting you know it does exist and could be researched and verified probaly. --Sodium N4 21:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Utah Mormon" is a term you are going to hear almost everywhere there is a population. We have it up here in Canada, and I'm sure it occurs everywhere else too.Legars 06:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VANDALISM - URGENT

Hello people - we have some serious first paragraph vandalism. I came to this page to learn about Mormonism, and I get this!! --Gautam3 04:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and keep an eye on it, and if the vandalism continues I'll request this article for semi-protection.
Kothar 04:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mormon population in the US

I like to find out what's the total population of Mormons...or members of the LDS church in the US. According to the Wikipedia Utah article, over 70 percent (or close to three/fourths) of the state's population are Mormon, despite the US census don't collect any demographic data on religious denomination. The highest number of Mormons of any state goes to California at one million. I appreciate anyone to include demographic data on how many Mormons in the US. 63.3.14.129 04:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protestantism

Regarding recent change in wording, I think it's important to realize that the LDS church (and other Mormon churches as well) are not protestant, and identifying them as such is incorrect. They were not a break off of the Catholic church (like many other protestant churches). Instead, they are correctly identified as Restorationist churches.gdavies

I agree with this, it is wrong to label them as protestant, because that also implies that they are christians, or accepted as thus by other christian protestant churches. As they do not adher to the same basic christian fundamentals, and have created a lot of their own theology and scriptures, and as they consider themselves the sole and only true church, most other christian churches consider them as a cult. Despite this and that I agree with them, I respect much of mormon accomplisments and how their church is organised and many of their values.

Haha, I don't think anyone wants to get into an "are Mormon's Christian" debate here, but I have to say its offensive (and rather humorous) to Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) when people say they aren't Christian (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/25/26#26).gdavies 19:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The LDS church has been labeled Protestant by several groups; however, I view this as a stretch. It evolves from Mormonism being labeled part of the Restorationist movement, which is also labeled Protestant.
The conversation of who is and isn't appropriately labeled Christian is a fun conversation. First, attempt to prove your position, either pro or con, by using just the New Testament. Afterwords, attempt to prove your position by what men have said about who is Christian and who is not. The difference between the two definitions and positions is appropriate labeled the teachings of men and has nothing to do with God's definition of Christian. It does not matter whether you think Mormons are or are not Christian, the exercise works well for both.
You might also consider studying the history of Christainity. Literally millions of people have been persecuted or killed in the name of religion. I conclude that the same spirit that motivates people to kill others in the name of relgion is also the same spirit that motivated people to crucify Jesus Christ. We are challenged to prove the truthfulness of teachings, never to kill those who do not believe as we do. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles of Faith?

I really liked this article because it went in to the correct subject. The term "Mormon" and what it means historically. But I don't like the Beliefs section because it just encourages the addition to any and every doctrine to be put here. I think there are plenty of links to get people started on their quest for doctrinal belief and practices without the Articles of Faith presented here. Not to mention there is already an articls about the Articles of Faith. If no one objects, I would like the section removed. I will check back later. Bytebear 01:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This happens on a lot of church related articles. Editors seem compelled to add excess information when they should just stick to the exact subject and link or "See also" all the related articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Storm Rider (talkcontribs) 02:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC).