Talk:Animals and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

message: What in the world is this article about? It comes across as someone pushing a pet agenda, not as an encyclopedic article. --216.195.220.34 20:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this article about? 

message: I propose renaming this article, although right now I can't think of what it should be, maybe Animals and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and animals?  Maybe something short if it can be managed. Peyna 01:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Mormon animal philosophy? Peyna 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest minimizing the official use of the word "Mormon," as it is a name that indicates innacurate data. although most members of the LDS church refer to themselves as Mormons, I think it would be wise to use the full name of the church or the abbreviation LDS in article titles. --Master Runner 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Suggested Targets:
*Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
*Plan of salvation
*Mormonism
* others??
:Should we consider this as the beginning of an article on Mormonism and Environmental Stewardship?  Lots of doctrinal tie ins and statements by church leaders.  Could be controversial, however.  Anyone know of a modern work covering the topic?  WBardwin 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm undecided on whether a merge is appropriate, I think that it needs to be agreed upon what doctrine presented here is unique to the CoJCoLDS, and what is accepted by Mormon denominations in general. The links provided here are all CoJCoLDS biased, and most of the statements are from leaders of the Brighamite church. To me, that suggests that if a merge should happen, it needs to happen on an article pertaining to their denomination, rather than the more general Plan of Salvation or Mormonism articles. Make sense? Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tijuana. Until some source tying in the Animals article to another of the larger, denominations of the Latter Day Saint Movement, this article should be part of a CoJCoLDS based article. Clearly, these options are more general to all of the LDS denominations. Which is why I propose keeping this article exactly as it is. It doesn't fit into the main CoJCoLDS article, doesn't belong in any of the more general articles, but certainly is an important enough topic to warrant its own discussion. The current "see also" link on the bottom of the main article is presently adequate enough for the needs of those who wish to read about animals in the Church, and we shouldn't subject any reader to an even longer version of an article that is clearly too long. --Pahoran513 17:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which statements are from leaders of the Brighamite church? I am suddenly curious. I know some of the references go various places, but the content looks fine doctrinally. I'm undecided on the merge thing, too. I'm leaning towards keeping the article as is (linkability, that is, not that the article shouldn't evolve...it should). Piewalker 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brighamites = CoJCoLDS = Rocky Mountain Saints = faction which followed Brigham Young West.  During the schism -- almost all the leaders names were used with "-ites" (i.e. BOM) in general reference, as in "Rigdonites", "Brighamites", etc.  But this has fallen out of general usage today.  Was that your question?  WBardwin 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't my question, but thanks. You sort of screwed up the page. It's choosing the right...right...right Piewalker 00:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There are still several comments being added within 24 hours of when you signed this — this discussion is still ongoing. Why the rush? Give it a few days, the merge tag isn't hurting anything. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 11:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree - I don't think we have concensus to merge to a Mormonism and Environmental Stewardship article yet. Additionally, I know of no references/quotes from other Latter Day Saint movement denominations, so it may not be accurate to include the information in an article that is about the movement as a group. --Trödel 13:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge targets 

message: I plan to move the merge notice from the article page to this talk page until some concrete proposal emerges from the discussion above, unless someone besides you opposes it here --Trödel 04:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't do this. Merge notices are placed on article pages partially because editors don't always think to look at the talk page. This is the same reason I asked above to let the discussion play out; removing a merge tag from the article means that less editors will become aware that the discussion is actually taking place. I don't consider this any question of you claiming ownership of the article, as you've always been active in LDS topics, so if I made the implication, forgive me. I do feel strongly about keeping the tag up, though. It's not doing any harm to do so. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 23:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving merge notice to talk page 

message: That bit about "meaningless" names is bigotry and ignorance. LDS scholars have shown that every name in the Book of Mormon is meaningful - though not all are Hebrew. 
Zarahemla = Zara Hemla = "Seed of Mercy" in Hebrew. 
Paanchi= "The living one" - name of a king of Nubia and Egypt.
Shiblon= From the Arabic shibl, "lion cub." Related to the jaguar cub imagery of the ancient Olmec people.
Mormon= From the ancient Egyptian Mor ("Love") and Mon ("Firmly established").
We could, and should, fill up several Wikipedia articles about Book of Mormon names, but you will not find a single meaningless one. Das Baz 16:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating; I did not know that. It'd be more than interesting to see an article on the etymology of LDS nomenclature. Piewalker 17:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I think an article concerning this would go over well — although care should be taken to avoid questions of cruft, WP:OR, and WP:V. It may also fit in well at Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 18:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon

message: Trees are very important in Shinto and in the religions of ancient Greece, Germany and Scandinavia. Articles in trees in those religions would certainly be relevant and interesting. Das Baz 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point that was being made I believe, is that although there is some doctrinal philosophy regarding the souls of animals, it is such a minor topic that it does nto warrent it's own article. I suggest merging it with Word of Wisdom in the section about 'meat sparingly'. As for trees, since Mormons don't worship trees (or animals for that matter), it seems this topic is moot.  I see this article a prime candidate for deletion.  In the realm of Mormonism, the souls of trees and animals are interesting on a speculative level, but not more than a bit of trivia, at best.  When have you ever heard a talk at a General Conference on the nature of the soul of anything other than man? 66.151.81.244 18:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The point is that there are clear and distinct writtings on this subject.  The Encyclopedia of Mormonism included an article on animals.  Possibly we could move the article to the subject title hunting, but I think that would be narrower.Johnpacklambert (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trees

message: The article on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is already long enough as it is, so it would not be a good idea to merge more articles with it. I propose removing the "merge" tag from all related articles. Das Baz 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, reluctantly. Let's get a vote to remove the merge tag. This article will have to stand on its own, but I think it's substantial enough as a stub for now. Piewalker 18:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: After thinking about this for a time and doing some research, I have a new proposal for target article to merge Animals into: Spirit influence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or something like that(not satisfied with the name). Reasons:
# All the information I have seen about Animals stems from a discussion that Animals have spirits and that their spirits were, like human spirits, organized from intelligences. 
# Such an article could cover a broad range of topics of which this one could be part
# It would provide context for the concept that man should be kind to animals, as they have spirits also, etc. 
See New article proposal. Comments, suggestions?? --Trödel 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New merge target 

message: Here's another merge possibility: Why not merge this article with the Curelom article, and have it discuss the following:
#Latter Day Saint theology regarding animals having souls and animal salvation.
#Smith's interpretation that the many-eyed/winged, etc. beings in the Book of Revelations were intelligent animals.
#The strange-named animals discussed in the Book of Mormon like cureloms and cumoms.
#References to horses and elephants in the Book of Mormon.
#LDS view that it was not actually a serpent that tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden, etc.
Also, why not call the article either Animals and Mormonism or Animals and Latter Day Saint theology. COGDEN 17:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like the best idea yet.  I would support Animals and Latter Day Saint theology as we would include JSmith's views and BofM issues.  WBardwin 22:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been having these merge discussions for months now. Merging efforts are stalled. For this article's credit, it has survived on its own as a stand-alone thus far! It was not accepted at the main LDS Church page, nor anywhere else. Nonetheless, in its present form, work still needs to be done on it, including revising the title. On the title: Animals and _______ ? It should instead be something like "Theological perspectives of animal life and death," or "Mormon/LDS Beliefs of Animal Life." Let me tell you why. A titl phrased "Animals in ______" could potentially be misunderstood by the casual reader that Mormon's themselves are the animals...or that Animals are in the LDS church as members, or something crazy like that. The title is very important to communicating LDS beliefs, or the beliefs of any other theology regarding the significance of animal life. We should just rename this page to be something a little more apropos. Piewalker 19:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So that you know where I'm coming from, I think that this article should be merged with some other article.  But since it has survived this long (as pointed out above), I would suggest that you find some other such article and use a similar name. Val42 04:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with WBardwin in favoring the name Animals and Latter Day Saint theology. Any other comments on merger with Curelom? COGDEN 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well, move this to Animals and Latter Day Saint theology or perhaps Animals in Latter Day Saint theology. --Lethargy 03:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Note that the comments you refer to were made 18 months ago --Trödel 01:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Just a side note - Animals in the Book of Mormon are given considerable treatment in the Archaeology and the Book of Mormon and Linguistics and the Book of Mormon articles.  Lets be honest here - isn't this topic nothing more than a footnote in Mormon theology as a whole?  I see about two sentences that might be worthy of mention.  Again, just want to reiterate that this page should really be deleted and those two sentences put in an appropriate article.  I think this article is a serious waste of space and time.  --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with [[Curelom]]? 

message: Why was this article moved recently (to Theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints relating to animals) without any discussion or proposal being put forward? I see there's a very old discussion above, but it seems that it would have to be reopened again to gain a consensus. It's not exactly an uncontroversial move, and I think the previous name was better as it was less wordy. I've moved it back, not to suggest that a move could not be done, but rather that I just think it would be appropriate for someone to propose it and open it for discussion before it's performed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't do the move, and don't care much one way or the other on the name, but just want to point out that consensus is not always needed, especially for uncontroversial edits.  Remember the Wikipedia guidance of ignore all the rules and being bold.  Besides, I suspect the only reason this page is getting any traffic at all is because of the merge tag at the top of the main LDS article.  Once that discussion is closed, this page will fade back into obscurity... --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent move

message: I went back and looked at the deletion vote - and I am a little puzzled - there was only one person who wanted to keep the article, everyone else wanted delete, merge, or merge/keep.  Should the conclusion really have been no consensus?  I also noted that someone tried to close it unilaterally as no delete despite the overwhelming trend away from keep.  I wonder if it would be a good idea to open the vote again for a real and balanced discussion. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Delete Vote