Talk:All About Mormons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the All About Mormons article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	All About Mormons is part of WikiProject South Park, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to South Park. If you wish to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Orgazmo 2 Polemic 3 ha! 4 Reverted Quotes and corrections on Mormonism 5 NPOV? 6 Rice Krispies Squares? 7 Mormon defense 8 Rename page? 9 Added a Goof

[edit] Orgazmo

Wasn't the main character a Jehovah's Witness, not a Mormon?

• Nope. He was supposed to be a Mormon. Although they don't really know all that much about that religion, so they got a lot of the details wrong. EG: the whole premise for the movie (him needing money to get married in a Mormon temple) was flawed, since marriage in Mormon temples is free. --Awakeandalive1 27, May 2006

[edit] Polemic

Oy vey! Will everyone just stop using this page as a place to attack Mormons? People keep making claims and assertions that are either completely unverifiable or are demonstrably false; they're usually little more than misunderstandings, opinions, or thinly-veiled, emotional criticisms of the religion itself. E.G.: People who have not actually read the Book of Mormon and are not actually familiar with the narrative it contains, should refrain from inserting their own interpretations of what they may at one point have heard someone else say they think they heard about the book. They have no more place airing their grievances here than they do attempting to insert a rant against the finer points of halakhic law in the page for "Jewbilee," or a tirade against the Umayyad dynasty in the page about "Cartoon Wars." From what I can see, the single most biased (and usually antagonistic) pages on Wikipedia are the ones dedicated to religious traditions...It's even bleeding over into the cartoon sections! This page is dedicated to an episode of South Park, not a formal critique of (or, what is more, an apology for) Mormonism! --Awakeandalive1, May 11, 2006

• As a point of interest, I would argue that (given the historical data available) it is fair to characterize the mob that killed Joseph Smith as "anti-Mormon," since Joseph Smith was the effective head of his church, and the mob also killed his brother and shot at the two friends who were present; furthermore, anti-Mormon sentiment was particularly strong in the region at the time (cf. the Extermination Order of 1838) and such mobs had been involved in clear anti-Mormon action prior to his death. But since reverting to the former version would probably just start an edit/revert war, I'll bow out on this one.

• Not necessarily. The mob could've simply been anti-polygamy, since Smith was into that sorta thing. In fact, the Mormon church only disavowed that practice after it was made a condition of giving them statehood (Utah). Warren Jeffs also calls himelf a prophet and likes to shag with multiple "wives." 24.19.255.254 10:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem being polygamy was also a part of Mormon practice in those days. --Awakeandalive1 27 May, 2006

"The mob could've simply been anti-polygamy, since Smith was into that sorta thing." <-------- This is the sort of moronic statement that I hear all of the time. I don't believe the mob killed Smith solely because of a disagreement on Polygamy, which is absurd because Biblical evidence abounds of ancient patriarchs participating in plural marriage with divine favor when commanded. They were apparently also disagreeing with the Mormon doctrinal principles of NOT MURDERING and FOLLOWING THE LAWS OF THE LAND. Absurd absurd absurd.203.131.167.26 09:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ha!

Did a Mormon work on this page? Do I really have to ask....

Yep, one did. Aranhamo 15:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't you know? The Mormons created Wikipedia.

-G

Mormons have far too much interest in this page. Let's make a "no mormon" rule on this page. Kritish5951 05:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted Quotes and corrections on Mormonism

I don't know why the section with Quotes added by 24.87.117.209 was removed. What was wrong with the quotes? Aranhamo 05:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If the quotes belong in wikiquotes, that's fine, but I've seen lots of other articles on wikipedia that have a quotes section like the one that was here before. Aranhamo 05:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The episode contains some claims about Mormonism that are blatantly and demonstrably false, so this statement is inacurrate:

"All the Mormon history explained in this episode is largely true, although some may feel it is slightly opinionated."

Although parts of Mormon history presented in the episode are correct, major portions, particularly those noted, are completely untrue. It's no big deal for people to make fun of Mormons for things that they actually believe, but it's another thing to just make things up out of whole cloth. I haven't edited the episode description in any way, nor removed anything critical of Mormons, I've just corrected the phrase that claims that the Mormon history as presented in the episode is true. Aranhamo 02:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the line that said that Joseph Smith never translated by means of a seer stone in a hat. He did in fact translate this way. Russel M. Nelson, a Mormon Apostle cited the following quote in a July 1993 Ensign article which was adapted from a speech he gave at the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah June 25 1992:

"The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote: “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)"

It seems the episode in question was very accurate compared to nearly any other non LDS produced account of Joseph Smith's claims.--bigjarom 01:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that there was a single quote above the Trivia section, so I moved the other quotes up together with that one and tried to format the others like the first one. Aranhamo 02:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I added links to relevant Wikipedia articles. Also, I found the hat idea comes from a statement made by Emma Smith, so I removed that one. As presented in the episode it's a little misleading, but critical satire doesn't have to be totally accurate. Aranhamo 03:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

In the trivia section, it says:

"This episode's falsified descriptions of Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a whole, was very controversial and caused a lot of upset from Mormons and non-Mormons alike"

I'm wondering if there might be a more neutral way of putting this. Perhaps:

"This episode's descriptions of Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was disputed by many, causing controversy and emotional upset to Mormons and non-Mormons alike."

Joe 17:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Corrected for grammar:

"This episode's description of Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was disputed by many, causing controversy and emotional upset to Mormons and non-Mormons alike."

However, I'd say just take out the whole thing. It seems like stating the obvious. Obviously an anti-Mormon parody is going to upset some people. Aranhamo 17:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with taking out the whole thing. Anyone have a problem with that...? Joe 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rice Krispies Squares?

Rice Krispies squares are a popular dessert in Mormon culture? That's news to this Mormon. I grew up in LA (not exactly a Mormon-dominated town), and you could buy Rice Krispies Treats in the grocery store. Also, it was big news here in Utah several years ago when Hawaii surpassed Utah in Jello consumption. Aranhamo 21:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Jello molds, with random fruit in it, right (ooh, lime jello with carrot shavings! How daring!)? :-D For the rice krispies, I think it sort of fits with the general themes of the socials, full-family meals, and LDS diet, where most treats are super-high in sugars (jello, rice crispies, ice cream), super low in nutritional value (jello, rice crispies, ice cream), and super cheap (jello, rice crispies, ice cream)... but maybe that's just a UT/AZ/CO thing (I grew up in AZ). WRT refs, no, I don't have/know of citations yet either, but I do remember an amusing article about LDS sugar consumption being unusually high, countering unusually low caffiene intake).. I'll look for ref's, or at least some explanation of *why* the crispies are in the show. Ronabop 07:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mormon defense

I've trimmed this section. I understand that some people may be offended by the episode, but taking up a third of the article to refute the charges is unnecessary, and some portions of this defense are either subjective or irrelevant. I took out the paragraph about the proper name of the Church (which shouldn't be an issue) and the satire of Smith's acceptance by the community (yes, he was rejected, but South Park is doing a satire and doesn't show the town embracing Smith either).--Idols of Mud 23:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm responsible for a large portion of that, and it wasn't intended as a "defense" of Mormons. I study and teach about religions and, while my particular focus is on Second Temple Judaism, I like to keep abreast of the various religious traditions operating in the world. Most of that was intended to correct frequent edits which asserted that South Park's portrayal of Mormonism was accurate, and also to support the view that the writers have only a superficial familiarity with actual Mormon beliefs and practices. Oh, and the episode does appear to show the townsfolk accepting Smith. They repeatedly assert that his claims must be true, arguing "Why would he lie?" Also, I would argue that the name of the Church is relevant, as the family is clearly intended to represent members of the LDS denomination, and there are other sects of Mormonism. Sorry if it rubbed some of you the wrong way. I made some similar edits for the summary of the episode "Jewbilee" that you might want to edit as well. --Awakeandalive1

It didn't rub me the wrong way -- it's just a very, very, very long digression in an article about an episode of South Park, to the point where it overwhelms the plot summary. The Smith segments of the episodes are meant to be satirical -- an in-depth discussion of LDS belief is clearly not what the producers are attemping to do. The segments on Smith wear their irony on their sleeve. I find it highly unlikely that anyone would take its depiction of Smith and his surrounding community seriously. The point of the show is that even those with unusual religious beliefs can still be good and caring people -- and while the creators of South Park don't show any respect for their beliefs, they're not particularly keen on Catholicism or Scientology, either.--Idols of Mud 13:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the Smith part largely because A) the Smith parts of the episode are clearly meant to imply that Mormons have little to no understanding of their own religion's history, and B) many people, having seen nothing but the episode, believe Mormons are unaware of Smith's subsequent troubles and eventual murder because the Mormons in the episode speak as though everyone accepted him and he lived a relatively happy, uneventful life. Frankly I think more of the summaries for religious episodes of South Park need similar "corrective" sections, although few of the episodes are as intentionally polemical as the "All About Mormons", "Red Hot Catholic Love" and the Scientology episode. --Awakeandalive1

[edit] Rename page?

I think this page should be renamed to "All About Mormons (South Park)". Having never done this before, the warnings were enough to scare me out of it (I'm thinking unintended consequences). Any one up to it? Thanks. Leon7 19:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that it's necessary. Is there another article with the title "All About Mormons"? If not, there's really no point in changing the designation unless we're going to alter the other episode articles as well (which might not be that bad an idea but would take a long time). --Awakeandalive1, 15 June 2006

I don't know about the other episode titles, but "All About Mormons" probable has little to do about Mormonism and a great deal more to do with the show. Unless one is familiar with South Park, I can see how most others (the great majority, including myself), would never even think that it was connected with the show. Well, thanks for considering the change anyway. I still think it should change.--Leon7 06:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this article's title gives the impression it is "all about mormons", rather than an episode of South Park. Is anyone opposed to the move? --Lethargy 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Support but only because of the potential confuseion --Trödel 03:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think there is any possibility of confusion, if the article starts out with ""All About Mormons" is episode 712 of the Comedy Central series South Park". Everyone who takes the time to read the first sentence will not be confused.

I am not sure, maybe we should look this up in the WP-Guidelines, but it has been my experience that articles only get clarifying additions to their title to set them apart from another article. If there is no more basic article without the remark, that will confuse those who are familiar with Wikipedia not using remarks in the title for a purpose other than disambiguation.

Long story short: Oppose. If there is an article called "All about Mormons" that deals with a different subject, we can add this. Right now: No reaseon.

Oh, and by the way: It is alse set apart from a hypothetical article about Mormons, because all three words are capitalised, indicating it is the title of something called that way, not in fact all about Mormons. — Mütze 04:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My point was not that people will be confused about the information contained in the article itself, I was saying people will come to the article expecting it to be something else. --Lethargy 21:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would they? I can imagine two ways anybody is going to see this article: He has clicked a link in another article (one of these), in which case the context should have made it clear beforehand, what the article was about; or he has typed in "All About Mormons" in the article search, which he has done either to find the South Park episode, or to learn about mormons. And frankly, if somebody types "All About Mormons" in the article search, because he wants to learn about mormons, he has not understood the workings of an encyclopedia. Articles are Identified somply by the main subject, but by the way in which they present it, or the amount of information they imagine themselves to present about it.

There are many, many cases, in which a title of something has another meaning, and in all those cases it does not get a remark added to its title, escept to differentiate it from another article with the same title. And this article immediately clarifies what it is about. It even links to important LDS articles during its course, so I can imagine no way in which it could be misleading to anybody who has any understanding of an encyclopedia. — Mütze 21:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd totally agree with you Mütze but someone has been linkspamming this page to Mormon articles on sporadic but consistent basis - with a different title it would be clear that it was a tv episode and not a quick guide to mormons --Trödel 22:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not percieve this as me trying to push my point, I am honestly just asking: If I understood you correctly, this simply constitutes as vandalism. In that case, shouldn't the person in question simply be dealt with directly instead of several users going to great lengths in order to accomodate him? – Mütze 22:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added a Goof

I guarantee that it is 100% accurate. - mikecucuk 10:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)