Talk:Mormonism/Archive 1

message: I've twice posted an external link to www.allaboutmormons.com, a site with facts about Mormonism that seems relevant to this site. It has twice been deleted as "spam." Just wanted to better understand what you guys consider "spam," seeing as how the site is well researched.
Thanks.
:I think the problem is that that link is specific to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and this article is about Mormonism in a more general sense, i.e., all the sects that are derived from Joseph Smith's original organization. If not already there, add the link to the CoJCoLDS article. --andersonpd 18:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also please read the comments on your User talk page and the Talk page for the Mormon article. --Kmsiever 19:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question re. External links

message: Someone keeps inserting a section regarding an alleged false prophecy by Joseph Smith and others keep reverting it. Is there something we can do to end this childish behavior?
To the writer of the information -- you have every right to include pertinent, documented information. I don't think, however, that this is the correct Wikipedia article for the information you present. Can you discuss this with us to find a more appropriate location? andersonpd 19:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Joseph Smith's False Prophecy

message: Looking for participants in the the discussion of List of religions once classed as cults 
cairoi 14:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is anyone interested in the following article nominated for deletion?

message: There are so many articles, now, with the word "Mormonism" in their title (see, e.g., Restoration (Mormonism), Priesthood (Mormonism), etc.), that we have to have an actual Mormonism article!  This usage would be in conformance with the widespread usage of the word "Mormonism" in such publications as the oft-cited Encyclopedia of Mormonism.  It would also put this article in conformance with Wikipedia standards, which prefer such titles as Catholicism, Protestantism, and Methodism to "Catholic", "Protestant", and "Methodist".COGDEN 20:50, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments on Talk:Latter Day Saint movement. There is a subtle but (I think) important difference between Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement. One is a thing that "happened" and the other is a thing that "is". Mormonism isn't properly a movement, but a set of beliefs, practices, and cultures independent of time and place. It's like the difference between "feminism" and the "feminist movement". COGDEN 04:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Clarification: Mormonism is one Brighamite church and its descendant churches. Tom 16:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough, but it really is a matter of personal opinion. From the Writer's Style Guide, it seems that the CoJCoLDS would like to reserve the term Mormonsim for themselves (though I do wish they would indicate some reasons). Would FLDS, for example, classify themselves as a sect of Mormonism - being Brighamite - or just part of the more broad Latter Day Saint movement? When was the term "Mormonism" coined? Was it within the church? Obviously, from D&C 135, we see that it was used from early on. Bccomm 18:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mormonism]] vs [[Latter Day Saint movement]]

message: Umm, Is this the right page to list all the sub-sects of Mormonism?  This gets confusing to me, and the entropy never ends.  If it is, why should we give Strangites honorable mention, but not FLDS.  Isn't FLDS at 20,000 bigger? Hawstom 02:34, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sects of Mormonism

message: I removed the Mormon Israelites.  I am going to try to find a better home for it.  Excellent contribution. Tom (hawstom) 21:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormon Israelites

message: I pulled the list page out of the "see also" and made it explicit in the article that this listing exists. The listing is the main point of this page, or should be. ChessPlayer 20:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing made explicit 

message: Moving Mormonism and Mormonism and Judaism were mistakes and you need to change them back. Next time please propose and discuss making such drastic changes in the talk pages before doing so. For example, please review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism) and the Church's media guide here stating: "The term “Mormonism” is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine [i.e. "theology"], culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." —B|Talk 17:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I've moved the page back pending a discussion.  However, I can't possibly agree that the term "Mormonism" is acceptable — I find it very derrogatory and I won't accept it.  It may be easy for Latter-day Saints who live in the Wasatch Front who don't deal with as much persecution.  But it's still used pejoratively out there, even as a slur.  We do not politely call the Roma "Gypsies", nor the Sami "Lapps", nor Catholics "Papies", nor Muslims "Saracens" nor "Mohammedans".  And we do not correctly call Latter-day Saints "Mormons", because it's very belittling, especially for those who had to grow up from childhood dealing with the hurtful words, name-calling and inquisitions.  No.  It's vulgar, it's hurtful, it's ignorant, and it has no place in civilized (let alone academic) discussion.  As far as I am concerned, "Mormon" is a body of water and a prophet. - Gilgamesh 01:55, 5 July 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to forget "Moonies" either. —B|Talk 13:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry your POV differs from the Church's on this point, but you are not the only LDS to share this POV, I respect your feelings on this point and it is well worth discussing. After all it is not the Church's or your POV which controls here; NPOV is king.  The Church and its members have generally been ambiguous toward the term "Mormon" and "Mormonism" often embracing it and avoiding it.  As to is pejorativeness, it is a matter of context. In its use here in wikipedia, it does not come across in a derogatory way. The conclusion that should be reached is that "Mormon" and "Mormonism" are acceptable (depending on the context) but that "Latter-day Saint" is preferrable. I hope that other LDS and non-LDS wikipedians who have participated in the past will put in their 2 cents here. If it's decided that Mormonism should be struck, then this has far-reaching effect on the Naming convention for Mormonism on which much work has been done. I just don't think that is going to happen though. —B|Talk 13:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: My thoughts here run roughly parallel to B's.  I agree that it is good to run across your POV, Gilgamesh.  To tell the truth it is mind expanding for me, because I had not in recent memory come across such a strong reaction to the term mormonism.  To honor NPOV, I guess it would be appropriate to note that there are locales or contexts in which Mormonism is a vulgar slur.  Maybe Gilgamesh could find a high-quality way to add that understanding somewhere in the Wikipedia.  And as B says, a name change isn't totally out of the question--only unlikely and immensely inconvenient.  As for myself, I routinely refer to myself as a Mormon; probably due to my love for the Book of Mormon. Tom 17:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to realize.  It's not that I don't love the Book of Mormon.  I do.  And I admire people like Hugh Nibley for standing up for it.  But the name "Mormon" has been badly abused in my living memory.  I currently live in the Wasatch Front where such abuse if far less common, but I was born and grew up elsewhere.  Mostly I just remember scorn and discrimination from children and adults.  Often I didn't understand it at first, but then my parents would explain it to me, and gradually they didn't have to explain anything anymore, and I could see more and more of the hurtfulness.  It felt like every month that I heard that one of my peers in primary class had been told that one of their non-LDS friends' parents forbade them to play with each other anymore because "Mormons" disgusted them.  When I moved to North America at 13, things became quieter, and I almost never heard "Mormon" anymore but instead neutral or endearing uses of "LDS", "Latter-day Saint", "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", etc.  Then came Internet access in 1996.  Since I'm not of Wasatch Front culture and always have had trouble assimilating (it can be very hard for a non-Utah-LDS), I found myself associating with the kinds of friends I had before; more diverse, more different ranging opinions.  Much of the time it was all fine, and people had no trouble with my affiliation that I was never about to hide.  But often I would be subject to hateful slurs and "Godmakers"-style attacks from seemingly ordinary people, and it brought back all the same contempt as before.  Pioneer-stock LDS from the Wasatch Front in my observation tend to be far more insular, and often don't associate with people not like them; not out of any bad feelings necessarily, but more out of subconscious xenophobia and traditional distrust of outsiders.  I am an outsider, though of the same religious conviction, though I've always been able to reach out better to people whoever they are, since they are all my neighbors.  From all I've seen, my conclusion is:  Hate, prejudice and slurs are all out there, for anyone to receive, as part of the nature of the world, but it's far too easy for insular people to rarely receive them when they are too hesitant to try.  I don't regret my openness, since I try to live in the world (though not of the world), since ultimately it's far better than neither living in the world nor of the world.  But my skin is only so thick, and it's not fair for a culturally insular person to completely disregard all the abuse others have to take by association. - Gilgamesh 18:12, 5 July 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm not surprised that some people find the word Mormonism offensive. However, that cannot be a reason to rename the Mormonism page or to replace all references to Mormonism with something else. Even if the word Mormonism is taken by some as pejorative, that doesn't change the fact that it's standard. Some people (you'll find them on AM radio or Fox News) use the words feminism or liberal pejoratively, but that doesn't make those words un-politically correct, because they are standard and widely accepted. The word Mormonism has been around forever, and there really isn't a word or phrase in common use that captures the precise meaning of the word Mormonism. The phrase Latter Day Saint theology doesn't count, because Mormonism is more than mere theology, and there is great theological disagreement among different Latter Day Saint sects. COGDEN 19:32, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike "liberals" and "feminists",  I admit that the name "Mormons" was coined by vulgar and pejorative people, not by "Mormons" themselves.  I admit that some probably delight in jabbing the sensitive by refusing to say "LDS".  But in all candor, I am afraid that "LDS" actually sounds more "cultish" in today's society than "Mormon".  Quakers, Amish, Mormons, etc. all sound more like quaint old religions to the average secular Joe.  I think that because "Mormons" and "Mormonism" are derived from the Book of Mormon, and they thus call attention to an importantly unique part of us, we should do whatever it takes to adjust our own thinking and hijack the terms for our own use.  That, I think, is part of why the Mormon editors (long before I ever got involved) had little heartburn with the terms.  We should be able to separate the issues of our own strangeness and our real conflicts with society from the issue of which name we agree to be called.  We have real issues.  Parents refuse to let their kids play with ours.  But all of that is much, much deeper than the simple choice of a name.  My solution when I see a non-Mormon vacillating over terms is to simply show him by example that "Mormon" is not offensive.  He can't offend me with it if I don't let him. I am a Mormon, yes I am.  Now, about polygamy and the Mountain Meadows Massacre, sigh.  Tom 23:51, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Hoping to contribute more light than heat, a quote: "The nickname Mormon is associated with the Church and its members because we accept as scripture a book titled the Book of Mormon.....Members of the Church do not resent being referred to as Mormons, nor does the Church resent being referred to as the Mormon church. As we have said, however, it is not the correct name of the Church. Its correct name is, as we have already explained, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. Marion G. Romney, 2nd Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, General Conference address, April 1, 1979 Dan 20:09 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, Dan, I think that about does it.  I will remove the NPOV dispute after adding a note that to some the term Mormonism is very offensive. Tom 02:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. I'm removing it from the NPOV notice from naming conventions as well. Like many Saints, my position mirrors Dallin H. Oaks': only the term "Mormon Church" bothers me. As an adjective, I embrace the term. Cool Hand Luke
Most people recognize offhand the term "Mormon" or "Mormonism" than than "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints".  I think that's the best arguement for keeping the term.The Scurvy Eye 20:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Mormonism articles in error 

message: I liked your October 8 expansion, COGDEN, it made is clear for me that the CJCLDS church that I had been fully equating with Mormonism is actually just a subset sect of it. Could we slso throw in a few references to some example entities or sects other than the CJCLDS church that are also within Mormonism? --Gary D 19:40, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
"While Mormonism as a whole covers a broad range of beliefs, the belief in prophecy tends to limit the scope of theology available to zealous followers within each individual sect."  I'd like to see you explain this a little better, COGDEN.  Even I had a really hard time seeing through to what it really meant, and I only Think I understand.  Tom - Talk 22:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: October 8 edit

message: See Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.#Propose we make a Mormonism WikiProject
:I went ahead and made the WikiProject under Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. I hope the project will be useful to editors looking for work to do. To this end I've compiled a list of red links and short Latter Day Saint articles not listed as LDS stubs. Cool Hand Luke 18:56, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I propose we make a Mormonism WikiProject

message: Great edits, Storm Rider! Tom - Talk 05:47, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I'll second that. Good Job!! Bruce 06:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Storm Rider

message: User:206.158.2.80, you added some beliefs that are not common to all Latter Day Saints.  You may wish to find a more appropriate article, such as Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Or perhaps we need to have (or do have) a means of separating the Latter Day Saint movement branches into two theological groups.  
* Trinitarian (CofC) vs. non-trinitarian (LDS)
* Radical (LDS) vs. non-radical (CofC)
* Ecumenical (CofC) vs. non-ecumenical (LDS)
* Fundamentalist (LDS) vs. non-fundamentalist (CofC)
I think User:Visorstuff may help on this issue.  Is there a place where we attempt to look at various classifications and groupings within the Latter Day Saint movement?  It might be said that the term Mormonism (as I wrote recently in the thrid paragraph of Latter Day Saint) has become most descriptive of the LDS brand of LDS Restorationism, and that therefore it is more appropriate that this article neglect the CofC theology in favor of the more Non-trinitarian/radical/non-ecumenical/fundmentalist theology of the LDS Church.  Thoughts? Tom - Talk 16:41, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
:We don't have that anywhere I know of, however, it belongs on the Latter Day Saint page, after or before the list of denominations. Although I agree that Mormonism is typically associated with the LDS Church, it is much broader - it covers the history, culture and branches of the Latter Day Saint movement. Anyone who adheres to the teachings of the Book of Mormon, whether or not they accept Smith, Young, or even the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (ie think it teaches good things, adheres to it as scripture), would be an adherent of Mormonism. Let's not dilute that meaning. -Visorstuff 00:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You would certainly think.  I see things that way too.  Mormonism=The Book of Mormon.  But what about if you have largely disclaimed its fundamentals? Are we willing to stake our reputation on saying the CofC adherents are Mormons?  Is that NPOV policy compliant?  Should I ask my correspondent? Tom - Talk 20:12, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
It does not matter if they disclaim it's truthfulness. What matters is if they adhere to its teachings. There are some within the Church, sadly, who do not believe the Book of Mormon to be true - rather they believe it is inspired, non-historical scripture, or that it contains good teachings. Some of these would say the Book of Mormon is the word of God, others may not. However, they adhere to its teachings and would thus be classified as adherents to Mormonism. 
I agree that CoC are moving farther and farther away from "Mormonism," but until they completely turn away from the history, culture and teachings they are still a part of Mormonism. Please note I didn't say they were Mormons, but rather adherents to Mormonism. The term Mormon in its connotation is narrow enough now to refer to members of the LDS Church and its 20th century offshoots, not most of the pre-1900 offshoots. It is NPOV to say they adhere to Mormonism. But not to say they are Mormons. I am willing to stand by that unless convinced otherwise - feel free to ask your friend. -Visorstuff 20:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theology 

message: I just have a question about something in the article. It talks about "embarrassing prophetic misteps." What is that talking about?
--Parlod 21:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I over-corrected. Blacks being able to hold the priesthood again was expected and promised since the policy went into place in the 1845, so that is not a big deal. Most of the BoM revisions were to bring the text into conformity with pre-publication manuscripts (yes, even some of the white and delightsome and pure and delightsome edits and black/dark edits), to modernize text because word usage/connotation changed (same as changes made to the KJV in the past 50 years - for example, closet and chambers have very different meanings than they did 200 years ago) and to encourage correct doctrine to be taught (if smith had used the word dark/pure in pre-publication mss in half of the entries and black/white in the other half, and you want to make sure that Mormons are not using the BoM as a tool for preaching against civil rights, you correct all entries to be consistent). Plural Marriage is the difficult one, but doesn't show "embarrassment" by most Latter-day Saints. While it is not an "official" doctrine of the church, per se (since the manifesto prohibits it being taught), celestial marriage is, and that hasn't changed, but rather Saints are encouraged to obey one commandment (to obey the laws of the land), and the other one is not in force. This is consistent with other scripture, including one that prohibits pluraly marriage unless God specifically commands it (jacob 2:27-30) and another saying that if God commands something and you cannot complete it, because of man, but you've tried everything to obey, you are justified in not fulfilling it at the time (D&C). Mormons generally believe that the Prophet alone can change doctrines/policies and set forth doctrines/policies for the Church (overgeneralized statement but culturally true) - in this way, if the Prophet stood up and said, LDS are now trinitarian, that would meet with some uncomfortability at first, but then would be accepted by the membership of the Church. So I don't think those doctrine/pollicy changes fit into the same category as the author's intent - embarrasing situations or things taught that are proven untrue. The topics you mentioined are easily explainable within a Latter-day Saint's mind, but strange quotes from people recording in their journal that a Church leader said that men live on the moon and they dress like quakers, whether or not they really said it or not, is another thing completely and seems odd, inconsistent and results in the description that was included in the article prior to my edit. -Visorstuff 17:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I removed the following from the Theology section:
While the modern prophet is traditionally considered (for all practical purposes) infallible, critics of the faith claim there is a growing tendency towards discounting prophetic pronouncements as personal opinions or beliefs of those leaders. Defenders of Mormonism argue that church leaders have always asserted a separation between prophetic prouncements and personal opinion. 
This basically is not true, members of the CJCLDS believe that prophetic pronouncements of a prophet are "true" or invallible, but they don't believe that the prophet is infallible - the only infallible person on earth has been Jesus Christ. This misrepresentation of the understanding that a prophet can be called of God and receive revelation (i.e. be the mouthpiece of god) but not be "perfect" should not be on wikipedia as "infallible". Trödel|talk 17:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think that is the definition of infallible - that the work or person is perfect, when operating in the scope of what it was designed - for example, the Bible has mistakes, but on doctrine, most Christians believe it is infallible. The pope is infallible, but will still share his personal opinions that are not. When he does his blesssings or pronounces doctrine, etc (officiateing in his office) he is infallible. May want to add back in and clarify what is meant to the casual reader. -Visorstuff 18:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right of course (see webster definition of infallible; however, I think that as the third definition most people don't make the distinction between being infallible in doctrine and being "incapable of error". I put it in here because I do think the concept should be included on the main page, however the crticis/defenders approach does not avoid weasel terms. Trödel|talk 19:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infalliblity 

message: Recent edits have gone back to the anonymous "Some Critics" state or believe.  Whoever introduced this language that presents these mysterious and unamed poeple who believes the LDS is sexist, homophobic, etc. should state who these people are.  Without attribution the statements are of little value.  The reader is left not knowing who has formerly come out against the chruch.  Is some bloke in the backwoods or is it a actual organization.  If it is not attributed, I will delete the language. Storm Rider 30 June 2005 02:55 (UTC)
I removed the following language today from the article:
:some outspoken critics believe that change within the LDS Church is almost certain to occur, whether by acceptance of the new evidence or through a rift amongst the membership. This is not a common belief among Latter-day Saints
I don't really see where this has a place in the article.  I suspect that "some" outspoken critcis also believe that the whole church is not worth a sop buckets worth of muck, but I don't see how that has anything to do with the price of tea in China or in what the Church or its members continues to believe.  If one feels that we can't do without such comments in the article, source/reference it so that readers will understand the value of such statements.  Storm Rider 04:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The anonymous "Some Critics" 

message: Not to split hairs, but the link section includes a link to " - A website for those questioning Mormonism.". However, doesn't this site more appropriately belong on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page, as it is for those who question The Church's teachings, not Mormonism in General. I don't see many Community of Christ or Strangite or Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints former adherents on Exmormon.org. Seems like the wrong page. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 1 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)
We have made a conscientious effort to define Mormonism as the that gospel/organization which came from Joseph Smith.  I think the numerous links that refer strictly to the LDS side of things should be removed to the LDS site.  However, for those with a limited understanding of the definition of Mormonism, such an action may appear to be too restrictive.  Storm Rider 4 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)
You people have got it all backwards. The Latter Day Saint movement is the all-inclusive term for Joseph Smith Jr. followers in general. Modern Mormonism refers to Brigham Young/Utah followers in particular. I myself am an RLDS member in a Restoration Branch - RLDS refers to Joseph Smith Jr. and Joseph Smith III/Independence followers. The other groups not covered by those terms are still Latter Day Saints and may or may not be Mormons based on what they call themselves. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  01:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Exmormon.org

message: I've removed teh following links - as they are not relevant to this particular page. 
This page is about Mormonism - not the LDS Church - big difference in teh bigger Latter Day Saint movement - that said, I'm moving the links to the following locations:
*Joseph Smith's Polygamy - Documentation of Joseph Smith's seduction of other men's wives - would have moved to Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, Jr., but the link is a dead link. 
NOTE: Article has been moved to Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy
*BYU Shock treatments - A history of homosexuals at BYU - not quite sure where to put this - there is no Homosexuality and BYU or LDS Church - so it has not moved to another page.	 
*African Americans and Mormonism - Blacks and the Priesthood in the Mormon Church	- Moved to Blacks and Mormonism 
*A View from the Foyer, a forum for ex-Mormons, Cultural Mormons, Jack Mormons, and New Order Mormons to discuss their issues and experiences with Mormonism. - this is not an educational site - has no "educational value" - it is like linking to a dating site - see Talk:Polygamy. it is a bulletin board. It's not even as good as exmormon.org. That said, I've placed it at Opposition to Mormonism
Questions? Concerns? This is proper use of terminology. -Visorstuff 8 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)
:Admirable effort.  Thanks.  Tom Haws July 8, 2005 16:03 (UTC)
I, COGDEN, also moved some links, as follows:
*BYU Speeches - given by Latter-day Saints at Brigham Young University, Provo, addressed to BYU students --- moved to Brigham Young University
*BYU Television - Church affiliated TV-Channel operated by Brigham Young University, Provo --- moved to Brigham Young University
* BYU Studies  (historical and academic articles, sermons) some past issues online --- moved to Brigham Young University
*Provident Living - addresses lifestyles for spiritual and temporal welfare --- deleted, because it is already on the CoJCoLDS article
*Forever Families - addresses provides practical, scholarly and sacred information for strengthening individuals, marriages and families of all faiths --- moved to CoJCoLDS article
*FamilySearch.org - used for family history and genealogical research --- deleted, because it is already on the CoJCoLDS article
*Gospel Library - contains official publications and texts --- deleted, because it is already on the CoJCoLDS article
*LDSresource.net - an online listing for aspects of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints --- deleted, because it is already at the CoJCoLDS site
*LDS General Conference Scriptural Index - links from scriptures to the general conference talks that cite those scriptures (created at BYU) --- moved to CoJCoLDS article
*Mormon Answers - frequently asked questions about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints --- moved to CoJCoLDS article
*LDS Today - news related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. --- deleted, because already at CoJCoLDS article
*Meridian Magazine - online publication for Latter-day Saints. --- ditto
*New Order Mormons - A website for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who no longer believe some (or many) of the doctrines of the LDS church, but who want to maintain membership for cultural and social reasons. Includes a forum for discussions or support. --- ditto
--COGDEN July 8, 2005 23:20 (UTC)
I have removed the following links because they specifically relate to the LDS Church; as we have agreed Mormonism is much broader than that.  If links are to be re-added to the site; please discuss why they belong and how they apply to Mormonism and not just the LDS church.  Those links that are specific should be moved to the respective sites. 
===Additional Websites===
*The Scriptures - Internet Edition published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
*  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought  1965 to present, essays, academic articles, fiction, poetry. Searchable archive of past issues.  
* Journal of Mormon History (academic journal) 
*Sunstone  (monthly magazine, conferences) 1975 to present, past issues on-online
*FAIR - the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research 
*Master's theses on Mormonism - online collection of master's theses on Mormonism hosted at Brigham Young University.
===Opposing Views===	 
*Exmormon.org - A website for those questioning Mormonism.
*Refuting Mormonism - Biblical arguments and scripture to refute the claims of Mormonism.	 
*Zarahemla City Limits - Essays on Mormonism.
It seems like we have been moving in this direction and I agree with that direction. Storm Rider 04:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Link removal - again

message: *Exmormon.org - A website for those questioning Mormonism.
*Refuting Mormonism - Biblical arguments and scripture to refute the claims of Mormonism.	 
*Zarahemla City Limits - Essays on Mormonism.
It seems like we have been moving in this direction and I agree with that direction. Storm Rider 04:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposing Views

message: I removed the huge addition to the article today regarding Blacks and the Priesthood.  The following is what is deleted:
::"====Racism and subsequent reversals====
::Mormonism has taught that Black people and other people of dark complexion exist as such due to a curse or the result of God's displeasure. According to the Mormon scriptures, Blacks were the descendants of Cain.  In the book of Mormon, the changing of the skin color of the presumed white Cain into a Black man was linked to the mark of Cain, a popular White American Christian extrabiblical theory of the 19th century (note this theory was not present in Christian circles outside of Europe and America like Ethipia or India for example). In the case of Blacks, Cain's curse had been accompanied by a mark, which Mormons consider to be an actual change of complexion, flat nose, and full lips. And this 'mark' is the explanation of how Black people came to exist as visually distinct from whites. Although this mark is not considered a curse in itself, the association of God's displeasure, cursing, and dark skin is very clearly made in the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price. The offensive nature of these interpretations and scriptures have been jusfied by the Mormon belief that in the end everyone is given a fair chance to be with God . Despite the fact that the Mormon curse has been lifted in 1977 that allows Blacks to enter the priesthood, the main issue of Mormonism interpreting black skin being the result of a mark on Cain (whereas in the Bible a mark can just be a small tattoo on the body)lingers strongly in the scriptures and subconscious of the Mormon religious structure. Ironically this curse had never been recognized by anyone until the 18th century
::"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, ad seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be and the Lord put a mark on him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then other curse is pronounced upon the same race - that they would be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree." Journal of Discourses, Volume 7, pages 290 291
::"In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them." Journal of Discourses, Volume 2, page 172.
::"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.
::"Though he was a rebel and an associate of Lucifer in the preexistence, and though he was a liar from the beginning whose name was Perdition, Cain managed to attain the privilege of mortal birth....As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage. He became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition." Mormon Doctrine, page 109.
::Regardless of the 1978 change in practice which allowed black members of the Church to receive the priesthood, the current Official Position of the LDS Church is that the policy of racial exclusion was instituted by God."
This belongs in the article on the Blacks and Mormonism.  I will attached the actual article later (I did not seek it out before making this edit.).  What this article attempts to briefly explain or summarize is the general beliefs of Mormonism as a whole, i.e. all groups that have evolved from the religion started by Joseph Smith.  Although this editor put in a great deal of work and it was edited a few times, it is such a huge add-on that it changes the purpose of the article.  This might also be appropriate for the article on the LDS church, but most certainly it belongs on the Priesthood. Storm Rider 18:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Storm Rider...I may agree with this edit, but I think that there are doctrines that surround lineage and race that are taught within the canonized scriptures of Mormonism, and I think it would be entirely appropriate to have a discussion of these issues on this page. For example, there are many teachings within the Book of Mormon that deal with race and lineage; one could argue that most of the book is organized around such principles. In summary, I believe that contained within "Mormonism" are some distinct teachings regarding race and lineage, and I think these should be commented upon. --Timothy 21:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Timothy, I see a distintion between Mormonism and the Book of Mormon.  Further, I see differences between how the various groups (particularly the CofC and LDS churches) have dealt with this issue.  Also, the article has long since been divided given the importance of the history of Blacks and the Mormonism.  The article can be improved by linking to that article.  
Given the subject matter of this article, I think that should be adequate. Storm Rider 15:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormonism, Blacks and the Priesthood 

message: I just reverted the deleted sentence, "; although Smith himself married several women who were already wedded to other men."  The source is , In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith.
http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/insacred.htm
The book isn't online, but this is from the publisher:
"Finally, Compton is to be commended for candidly trying to come to terms with some of the most knotty and controversial aspects of early Mormon polygamy, including the evidence that Joseph Smith took as plural wives in a full physical sense women who were already married to other men. Compton argues, for example, that "fully one-third of his [Joseph Smith's] plural wives, eleven of them, were married civilly to other men when he married them. ... Polyandry might be easier to understand if one viewed these marriages to Smith as a sort of de facto divorce with the first husband. However, none of these women divorced their 'first husbands' while Smith was alive and all of them continued to live with their civil spouses while married to Smith" (15-16). Compton further points out that "there is evidence that he did have [sexual] relations with at least some of these women, including one polyandrous wife, Sylvia Sessions Lyon, who bore the only polygamous offspring of Smith for whom we have affidavit evidence"
--Quasipalm 22:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted sentence reverted

message: The Mormonism article contains a section on the "Nature of God" and a section on "Jesus." Shouldn't there also be a section on God the Father and Holy Spirit in order to preserve parallelism?
Also, if the article is going to specifically refer to Mormon theology there should be a certain amount of clarification as to what most "mormons" believe. Perhaps there should be a breakdown of the various denominations within the religion with accompanying numerical statistics. For example, when one refers to "Christianity" he draws upon his own presupposition of a Christian within his culture. One cannot say that Christianity cannot be accurately described because there are "too many denominations" and widespread beliefs such as Protestant (in general), Roman Catholic, and Greek Orthodox. On the contrary, each of the largest Christian denominations should be accurately described in detail. However, this article seems to take the position that every mormon denomination can be described accurately through a quick breakdown of what is considered "mormon" theology. I think this is where most of the confusion is coming from and results in a watered down version of their faith.
Perhaps the "theology" section should be allowed to rest within each individual mormon denomination page so that there would be less disagreement concerning exactly what each denomination believes. If this were to occur, the current Mormonism page could be better used to describe the history of the movement and the encompassing vocabulary of the term rather than messily describing what mormons generally tend to believe. Even the Christianity page doesn't go into as much detail concerning "beliefs" as this article tries to do. I think the theology/beliefs section has become entirely too specific and has therefore disregarded describing "general beliefs" and has rather begun to delve into mormon theology which is obviously going to be controversial when listed on the main page.
Tarentinos 18:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very good point.  This article is full of doctrine when it should be talking about the term.  History should be referred to the Latter Day Saint movement.  Doctrine should be referred to the individual denominations, keeping the distinction between Mormons and Latter Day Saints. Val42 18:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  If the article contains a Jesus section... 

message: "those who died without the opportunity to accept the restored Gospel in life will be taught by those who did accept the gospel in life". I suppose it means the mormons will teach the non-mormons? Before this line, nothing is said about the restored Gospel. The same wording should be used throughout the article or at least new words should be explained. Piet 09:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not that limited.  It will also include all those who have accepted the Gospel, not just the restored Gospel but those from the church that Christ established circa his death and resurrection.  And according to D&C 138, "... the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality; And who had offered sacrifice in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of God, and had suffered tribulation in their Redeemer’s name."  This would include the faithful all of the way back to Adam.  This includes a lot of people who would not be considered Mormons. Val42 03:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored Gospel 

message: Moved off-topic post and reply to the anon user's talk page also added my response. Trödeltalk 19:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What are [[Roman Catholic]] views on Mormonism?

message: The external link section I removed consisted entirely of links relating to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is too narrowly focused for this more broadly-reaching article. For more, scroll up and check on Visorstuff's reasoning for removing similar links about 8 months back. Tijuana Brass 00:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link removal (again!) 

message: I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and we do not mind being called mormons. But we do not refer to our religion as Mormonism. We do not have sects, we have wards, branches, and stakes. Our book, The Book of Mormon, is Another Testemant of Jesus Christ, just to let you know, because a lot of people get mixed up with that. We have a Bishop and a Prophet. we are christians. check out the links below and you will find some more info. on us. we also have other standards than other religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormongirl262 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 21 March 2006
(following the above were a number of links to pages branching from [www.mormon.org], which I've removed for brevity... check the page history if you're interested) Tijuana Brass 00:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that most Latter-day Saints do not refer to their religion as Mormonism, and that Mormonism properly applies to the culture at least as much as the religion, there are indeed multiple Latter Day Saint sects.  The Jade Knight 03:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the mormonism article 

message: This article is horribly written. Even though I've read it, I haven't the faintest idea what Mormons believe. This article is written for people who have an understanding of the major themes of Christianity and speaks only to people with that knowledge. Who is Jesus? What is the relationship between believers and their deity? How did the Book of Mormon come about? What information does it contain? The bullet point list of typical doctrines just doesn't make any sense.. it refers to other Christian concepts to explain Mormonism and in doing so fails to communicate any whole understanding of Mormonism itself. Beyond that inadequate description, the article focuses on the politics of Mormonism. I don't care about the detractors of Mormonism except as a side-bar - the most important issue is the religion itself.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.85.28 (talk • contribs) 
:Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!  I'm sorry that you didn't find the article helpful.  Do you have any suggestions for how we could improve the article?  Mormonism here on Wikipedia is a very complicated subject.  If you notice the sidebar next to the top of the article, there's a link to "Major Beliefs", which might be better for discovering what you desire.  The article on the Book of Mormon might help answer your questions about it.
:What is it about the "typical doctrines" that doesn't make any sense?  Is it just the references to other Christian concepts that makes it difficult to understand?
:We really appreciate you comments, and I'd love to improve the article.  Other than your complaints, do you have any specific suggestions we could use to improve the article?  Really, I think the artilce should be as helpful as possible, and if it's not effective at all, it may need to be seriously altered to help users (such as yourself) looking for information.  The Jade Knight 06:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment (by an anonymous user) has pointed out a problem with the Mormonism article that I've brought up before.  I'm going to rewrite the article, keeping only the information that I think is relevant to a pared down article with links to those denominations that are considered Mormon.  If someone thinks that there should be an article about beliefs held by the church founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. before his death (and many permanent schisms), then feel free to create such an article.  I've also put a like comment on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement page. Val42 20:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Val.  Mind proposing an outline before you rewrite the whole thing?  The Jade Knight 23:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After writing my comment above, I reviewed the content for the article looking for where to make improvements.  This article doesn't go in to enough depth to be generally informative.  That's why I made the redirect to the Mormon article then made some structural improvements to that article.  I can't think of any way to improve this article that would be much beyond "Joseph Smith, Jr. started a church that split after he was murdered.  See their individual pages for what they believe."  If you'd like to attempt to fix what is broken, please do. Val42 02:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess the first question really is:  Should there be any difference between an article on "Mormonism" and one on "Mormon"?  If not, let's put this through AfD (or a Merge procedure) so it's taken care of properly.  Just give everyone a chance to discuss the matter first, though.  Personally, I don't necessarily see a need for a separate article on "Mormon" and "Mormonism".  The Jade Knight 02:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  IF you don't disagree with the change then why did you revert it. Val42 was being bold and one should only revert such a change if one disagrees with it. If no one disagrees then it then we have unanimous concensus - and we don't have to go through the disaster that is AfD and voting Trödel 11:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we agree, then go ahead, but I think we should give everyone a chance to speak up before tunrning the page into a redirect.  The Jade Knight 23:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, I have to agree a bit on what was said before - not that its horribly written, no, but my problem is, i do see mostly historical backgrounds and believes (which is cool) but i am lacking information on any rules they have to follow when it comes to everyday living. I dont belong to the church myself, but i kinda met someone who does and i wanted to inform myself on stuff like that too before acting...wrong ;)
cheers! 141.20.121.7 09:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Horribly Written

message: We need to be careful about Mormonism and polygamy.  Not all groups under the Mormonism umbrella accept or support polygamy within Mormon history.  THe LDS church and its sects have been or are polygamists, but the same can not be said for other groups.  The article must address Mormonism as a whole and then refer to other links that precisely address the issue and the right groups.  Storm Rider (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Is there an article on "Polygamy and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"?  The Jade Knight 06:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormonism & Polygamy

message: So, I am directed to get concensus here by posting here first I am told.  Giving that a go!
I see this statement as ridiculous:
As a theology, Mormonism as a whole includes a highly diverse and eclectic cluster of religious beliefs. There is much in common with the Campbellite, Restorationist, and Universalist beliefs prevalent in the area where Joseph Smith was raised and where he began his ministry.
Seems dumb to me.  How is Mormonism particularly more highly diverse than Catholicism or Animisim or any other reasonably important religion?  Are most religions not eclectic?   There is "much in common"?  What is "much"?  How is it measured?  Is there also much in common with religions that teach not to steal, kill or desicrate the holy?  Or is there not much?  This is simply a nonsensical throw away statement that could be randomly applied to many religions.  A waste of space.
Perhaps the author meant to say something like:  Mormonism appears to be invented out of the mind of Joseph Smith and the circumstances in which he grew up.  (That may also not be different from other religions, but at least it is concise) If that is what is meant, why not just say that instead of this obscure nonsense above?
Comments and responses are encouraged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.145.150 (talk • contribs) 
:Sorry, can't say that I agree with you. For starters, common perception of Mormonism is limited to the Brighamite church; many people are unaware of the diversity of Latter Day Saint denominations. But more important is the bias suggested by statements like "invented out of the mind of Joseph Smith." You may want to review the guidelines at WP:NPOV to better understand the standard of neutrality. Tijuana BrassE@ 06:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical and Unsubstantiated Opinion 

message: For your knowledge I have used wikipedia for more than a year and know very well how it function.
:What I am stating here, far from being a personal opinion, are actual facts, and I do not need some scholars to tell me whats true or not, I do trust my own analitycal abilities as well as my perception sens to understand what I see, hear, and read, and consider myself as being able to make my own conclusions based on facts.
:Personal opinions are what can be read on more than 50% of wikipedia so this remarque is rather biased and a bad attempt to try to dicredit me.
:If you had read and understood what I wrote and was sincere enough, you will certainly know that I am stating facts.
:The contain of the articles here and in all wikipedias articles about the subject are only a reflection of the officialy recognised opinion on the subject. By officialy I mean officials inside the mormons church.
:On the other hand: just proove me wrong, I am waiting.
:I also found necessary to adjust some of the critics binoculars by telling you that I started my contribution here only this morning, after having constated that many of the contributions deleeted before, were written by people who were not members of the church, and who had presented some "controversial", or just factual informations about this church.
By controversial I mean information non aprouved by presidents of the church.
:Those seemingly innocent informations were removed as "Vandalism", (!) which I founded incredible, and saw the same thing repeating itself in the historic page of all the articles and discussion pages about mormon and related.
:I so runned a test, by stating a few facts that I know about and who are very common to this church as they teach about them every sunday morning from 9 to 10 and from 10 to 11, and who, from an objectiv point of view should be only consider as a contribution to the subject.
:Instead of it, they were ALL simultaneously removed from all sites at almost the same time from the same administrator, which email adress cannot be reached. How convenient...
:All that was done less than 30 minutes after I had inserted my informations, making it impossible to this person to have read it.
:So or this person is mormon and have the job to watch the articles for the church, or he has been contacted by those watchers from the mormon church who called my contributions for vandalism.
:I found very strange and interesting to constate that all there is to read in those articles is nothing more nor less than what can be read in all the official materials given by the church.
:So why make an article with a discussion page and not directly copy paste the essentials from the mormons official web site?
:It will spare time, energy and lies for everybody.
:About your suggestion of making my own site about the subject, yes, on the condition that it will be forbidden to any mormon to participate into it, as it is forbidden to any non officially stampled mormon to contribute to those pages and have anything inside the article.
:You say thanks for my writings here and not in the article, know that I did also wrote in the discussion page, and that it was also removed with the rest.
:I never spammed any articles and you calling that is your personal opinion as a mormon scholastic who have to proove how mormonic he can be at the cost of others, and who only wish to show how deep a believer he is and a true defender of the mormon value system as stampled by the elites of his church. 
:Congratulations. 
:I hope one day you will stop stopping and calling spam richer and deeper contributions than your own, and will look into it instead. Who knows? You might learn a thing or two.
:I am not the alone one confronted to this censorship conducted by full members of the mormon church with various status inside wikipedia, that they consciously abuse in order to protect their own interests, and this must stop.
:You spoke of mormon and anti mormon and having strong feelings, talk for yourself.
:I am nor a mormon nor an anti mormon, which you deliberately choose to oversee from what I have written aboves, and my feelings are such not because of the mormons but because of the unfounded censorship and pro mormonic discrimination I have experimented there.
:Concerning the scientifical proove og gods non existens, it is very simple, and the theory of the point zero of the univers together with the recent data brought by the sonds send into space 15 years ago and who came back in february and marsh, we have the proove of this theory compleeted, and thereby the proove that god does not exist.
:Concerning the details of this theory you know perfectly well that this is not the place to discuss that topic, and I do not think you can be able to understand its details, to judge from your poor ability to make a conscious argumentation and analysis of the subject here at hand. 
:And this is my own opinion, so now you have a model to distinguish between a personnal opinion, and analysis based on facts, like my contribution was about.
:For your knowledge too I am still in contact with this church and its members, and can ask them anytime for confirmation or negation of the facts that I advanced.
:And believe me, I do have asked for confirmation, and in several occasions, as it was for me a reason to live this church, as I disagree with those change of theory and basis set of believes, as ones come further in rang inside the church.
:I hope you are now both satisfied, and if you need any more real informations and contributions, or some petitesses to try to knock the bull down, be my guest.
:Finally, neutrality can be discussed, and being 100% pro mormonic and 100% in total agreement with the church officials is NOT BEING NEUTRAL but its opposit!
:It is call subjectivism.
:My analyse of the church is based on concrete facts and direct first hand observations through years, and my knowledge of religions and mythologies at large.
:Even if the objectivity of any can always be discussed, I believe to be objective here, and the article in its essence and foundations to be very subjectiv.
:I do not call it propaganda platform of the churchs ideologies without having a solid ground for what i advance.
:I base this judgement on what I know of the official version, and that can be reread in all those articles.
:I had them test proof by mormon missionaries, who completely agreed with its contains... if this isnt a proove that what I say is true, and that those articles are too pro mormon and leave no place for other facts than what mormons church call facts,and agreed to be told to outsiders, so what is a proove for what I say?
:Very Kind Regards,
Sophie 
--213.237.21.242 17:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are indeed stating facts, Sophie, then you should have no problems providing citations for all the staments you have made. In addition, using first-person pronouns is certianly no way to convice other contributors that you have a neutral point of view in your writing. If you are familiar with how Wikipedia works, you would also know that large blocks of text such as what you included should be wikified. We welcome contributions, but let's keep it professional. --Kmsiever 19:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''ANSWER TO Paul D. Anderson and Storm Rider'''

message: As you are a mormon too, your own contribution here is a statement for what I say, and I do not wish to comment anymore of those meaningsless remarks made by mormons adepts as they all summon up to the same.
:You have no argumentations nor contra argumentions about things unknown to you as all you can do is repeat things you were tought up to say.
:I do not see what you mean with providing statement for citations, please try to be more specific as it give no sense in the actual context, but nice try, I hope it gives you point in your religious system, so not all of us did waist their time.
:I am wikified and know more about wiki than you do.
:About professionalism, maybe you need a dictionary to know what it mean. Can you professionaly possibly mean that archiving furnitures makes you a professional in the subject at hand, do you?
:I do not see at all what you mean by pronouns and neutral point of view, please eleborate, I didnt stated anything like that in my text so where do you have it from except your own pocket?
:I am less anonymous than you are and more honest.
:I tell truth and state the facts I know to be truth and who can contribute to the knowledge and encyclopedic definition of the topic.
:And you, what do you do?
:Protect something and yourself, in the name of the same thing that you protect...but you shouldnt, you know that it isnt necessery, if also you do believe in what you state to believe in.
:But lets keep it professional, of course, what ever this does mean..Unless...
:And á propos professionalism, why dont you anywhere in the discussion named anything that i adressed to begin with and any of the topics I have described?
:Why do you try, you being all 3, to concentrate yourself  in attempts to discreditate me?
:Is it because you cannot argue against or because you know all of it as a fact, or because you are afraid to adress the subject? 
:In which case you shouldn't adress me personnally on this discussion page, but do so in your own, and advanced more appropriated questions. 
This is an encyclopedia not an LSD meeting board nor a forum for beligerents view points.
:I would like to see some serious participation here, and not those frivolus ones.
:What is the difference between my statements and yours?
:I speak from relevent data and facts known at first hand, you speak from things you heard that a prophete or evangelist, or apostle or president has say about some other earlier prophete sayed before him.
:And this made you more trustworthy and your statement more elaborate than mine?
:Where are your scholars here and your citations? (How typically mormon!!) You are not going to tell me that the citations of scholars you do have, and the only one, are those made by....apostles and prophetes and so on, all of them members of this church or cult or sect, well?
:Tell me, dont you think that you are having a serious credibility problem here?...
:So to turn the table, I will ask you the same question as you asked me, where are your credentials?
:Where are your prooves?
:There is none, we all know that, but whos teaching do you follow?
:Can you name One known scholars as I was asked to on private page by one of your brother?
:Instead to concentrate yourself on the facts at hand, you have choosen to agress me personnally, to discreditate me.
:Dont you think you should pray for your souls tonight as doing so is so very against all your teaching, but so very mormonic as well, you see?
:I hope you see.
Clean your front door instead to spit at your neighbourgs face. It will do some good for both.
--213.237.21.242 20:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''ANSWER TO Kmsiever'''

message: :That is not meant to offend, but rather a way of saying that your writing is at times difficult to comprehend.  Let us all just try to more clearly communicate with one another.:By references what is meant that we, as editors, do not state:
::Regarding polygamism with early mormons, Joseph Smith and his first group of 12 mens were using it all the time but hidding it from their wifes... Joseph Smith was married to more than 20 womens
:Rather we would state something like:
::Joseph Smith practiced polygamy in the early Mormon church.  Fawan Brodie writes...insert whatever you want that proves the point(insert reference, book name, page #, etc.).  Other leaders of the church also practiced polygamy...I hope you get the drift now.
:Of course what might be easier is to refer readers to the Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy article.  You will also find it mentioned in the Joseph Smith, Jr. article among others.  You might also want to read Criticism of Mormonism, Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Anti-Mormonism, Opposition to Mormonism, Polygamous Mormon fundamentalists, and Mormonism and Christianity.  You might also find the article Exmormonismto be helpful because of your past relationship with Mormonism.  
:There is no shortage of articles regarding Mormonism.  In reading them you will come to understand that Joseph is alledged to have more than 30 wives; it just depends on which scholar is quoted.  You will find examples in each article of how "facts" are cited and referenced.  Yes, everyone does have opinions and everything you have stated above is your personal opinion and none of it is acceptable on WIKI.  However, everything you have stated may be put, if it is not already there, with a referenced to a reputable scholar.  
:There is a big difference in what we think and what we edit.  For example, you have stated what you think is true.  If we use your principle of editing the next person that comes along that "knows" the truth about the matter just reverts your statements because they know them to be false.  I hope you see the problem that could result.  To counter this we require reputable references for controversial statements.  In this way your edits will not be reverted and become acceptable.  I hope this helps.  
:Also, if you are serious about being an editor please register.  I am afraid there is already a registered User that goes by Sophie, but I am sure you will find a another name acceptable to you.  Good luck and I do sincerely hope this has helped you become a more successful editor.  Storm Rider (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''I suspect that English is not your first language; it is also not one you have mastered'''(Storm Rider) 

message: There is nothing that I stated above who is to be found in any of the articles.
:No critic of the church or no documentations or witnesses made by people who counter the official opinion of the church, have gained access to the article, which is comprehensible when I see how ferocely those articles are defended by members of this church.
:To your knowledge I am not an ex member but an actual member, and I do not refer to my past contacts with the church but my previous and actual contacts with it.
:As to registration I am the registrated Sophie, so you know it.
:My statements are in no way controversial and if it is your opinion that they are, please make your point about it as I cant see it.
:As for references I have given them all: all what I have stated are part of the official teaching inside the church itself as it is teach about every sunday, and those topics have come again and again and been repeated the same way as I have discribed.
:It is not an opinionated and personal view of the official scriptures, nor my moron way to interpretated it all, but facts as they occur in the church.
:I do not have to citate people in regard to their personal identity, nor do I have to justify that I can clearly hear and understand the teaching, for so will you have too!
:To corroborate with citations is superfluent when I am the central witness of those facts, and I will have to ask the other members to sign in and do the same to proove it, but in the end what would I have prooven????
:What I mention are facts, and I dont see why you are having problems with it. You know very well how teaching is done inside the church so it must be why you insist for citations as you know there is none, except the mormon book itself and the book of covenents.
:About editing and deleeting, it isnt my way to act, like in retaliation against others as you do.
:I have never ever edited nor deleeted any contributions what so ever, but I know that you do not spare yourself in doing so to anyone who do not have the 100% same meaning as yourself.
:This article and discussion is not a contest of opinion, nor a contest of whom has most power in wiki, and know most about it to can bannish the other, in spite of founding better to say and of being able to argument against, but is a, hopefully, serious place for mature persons to present clear and most richly documentated facts about different matters, with little regard to their divergence of opinion.
:So please be a good wikipedian and stop threatening me just because you dont know what to say nor ask, and stop grabing at rules like last salvation to hide behind, as you dont have to be so scared.
:Learn instead.
:Does it ever occured to you that you might not know it all, and that you have to learn each and every day of your life? If indeed you set yourself to do so.
:I do not have stated things that I believe to be true but that I know as a fact to be true.
There is nothing that I have stated who are second hands or stuff I have read somewhere, but all together things I was told at first hand by priest of the church, and by sisters of the church, missionaries, and members teaching at sunday schools, and priesthood teachings.
:If what say priests from the church about the church, about Joseph Smith, about God, about his wife, about the construction of the church, and the way the different degrees of hell and heaven are articulated, and the different degrees of each of those, and the place of mormon members in it, and the place of other religions, and of non religious people in it, is to be untrue, or to be suspected of not being a part of mormonism and cannot be accepted in the article nor in this discussion page as a result of this, so you are all having the same problem as I, as You have all been teached at the same church by priest formed in that church, and are yourself priest, and thereby nothing that you have stated until now in any of the articles about the subject, made by any full member of the church, can be taken into account, as they will be all potentially caduque/ non relevant or untrue or non provable.
:If I am wrong you are all wrong.
:If my witness is not to be trusted or if you refuse to aloud me to voice my witness of the church, its set of believes, of those facts, so you denigrate all existing witnesses about the same church and set of believe, and facts, inclusiv you own.
:As we all base those witnesses and references about this church on the same set of conduct and the same lineage of teachings.
:You can shut your hears and eyes but you can't kill the truth. 
:And what is it about those facts that disturb you so much? 
:Please tell me what cause such a commotion, as all I see here to be strange is your reactions patterns and your very assertiv attempts to nail me as a person.
For what crimes?
:Not being a very good and nice and neat wikipedian, or disagreeing with something you are yet unable to point out?
Have nice sacrements tommorrow, and for those in Utah, hils Mr and Mrs Browns for me.
Peirani --213.237.21.242 21:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''ANSWER TO STORM RIDER'''

message: :I am not sure we are communicating very well.  
:I am not sure if I understand the point you are trying to make or you are not understanding any of my responses.  
:What we do not do on WIKI is work or edit from a point of view of Original Research.  This means we do not edit from a first hand position; our personal experience.  Since you have used WIKI for so long you must be aware of this.  
::Some points that are incorrect.  Mormons believe in three degrees of glory as described in 1 Corinthians 15:40-41.  As you must know, LDS believe that baptism for the dead and other temple work will be done for every person that will have ever lived.  If we do not do this work now it will be accomplished in the millenium.  If that is so, every person that has ever lived will have these saving ordinances done for them.  If that is the case, the Celestial Kingdom is not and will not be a degree only inhabited by LDS.  If you have been instructed otherwise, then you taught incorrectly.  I tell you now that the doctrine of the church is that the Celestial Kingdom is open to all those who receive the ordinances and everyone will receive those ordinances.  They will be judged on the degree of truth they had in their lives and how well they lived those truths.  
::There is no such thing as a Knight of Mormon or anything remotely similar to this.  If you have any reference for this, please come forth with it.  Your allegations about "hidden" or "secret" knowledge has long been an allegation by Anti-Mormons.  No once have they ever proven that anything like that exists.  If you are talking about temple ordinances, you would be wrong.  Just google Mormon temple and you will find a plethora of sites that provide exact quotes of everything that goes on in a Mormon temple.  It is hardly secret, but it is sacred to LDS and we do not talk about it...even with other LDS.
::Regarding polygamy.  Your information is incorrect; Joseph had more than 20 wives sealed to him.  To this day there were no known progeny from any of those relationships.  Did he live with them as man and wife?  No hard evidence exits to substantiate any of their marital realtionships.  Many believe that he was sealed only, but did not live as man and wife.  Others believe that he did have sexual relationships with some of his wives, but that is only supposition.  All of this information is found in the article about polygamy.  None of your information adds to what is already there and corrects many of your errors.
::Joseph Smith did not join a Masonic Lodge until he lived in Nauvoo.  Your information about a much earlier period is simply incorrect.  This also is covered in several of the articles.
::Your allegations regarding the Book of Mormon are simply wrong.  There are several quotes that appear to come directly from the Book of Isaiah, but I have no idea what other books you are referring to.  I have never heard an allegation that the Masons had "books" that Joseph Smith copied into the Book of Mormon.  If you have evidence that proves this, please reference it in the appropriate article.  I would suggest Book of Mormon.
::Your allegations about Peter are absured and patently false.  Peter was an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ fully empowered to baptize.  What you are attempting to say is that Mormons believe in an apostasy.  After the time of Christ and shortly after the initial apostles died out, certainly prior to 300 AD the priesthood and the simple truths of the Gospel had been lost and the doctrines of men took the fore.
::There is no first degree or second degree of the Priesthood.  There is an Aaronic priesthood that follows after the Levitical priesthood.  You will also find the Melchizedek priesthood named after the priest mentioned in the Old Testament.  The term degree is not used in the church.  I suspect it is pure fabrication by you or some faulty information that you have been reading.  Check out Priesthood (Mormonism) for further clarification.
::At no point in time has the LDS church ever taught that a Heavenly Mother, greater than God the Father, exists.  However, it is logical based upon other doctrine to assume we have Heavenly Parents.  We know nothing more than that and anything stated beyond that is supposition.  The information you provided above is complete fabrication.
::It is not worth going further.  Your information has very little basis in doctrines taught by the LDS church.  If you would like precise references for any of the information I have provided above, just ask and I would be happy to provide it. I am really not sure how to improve upon this situation.  You need to do some more reading, because you don't yet have a grasp on the teachings of the Mormon church or its history.  Storm Rider (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You are nothing if not verbose.(Storm Rider)

message: I am not going to comment on Sophie's usage of English.  I speak a foreign language well enough, and English is one of the most difficult to learn (as a non-native speaker). Some editors who otherwise do good work also have trouble with English grammar and spelling.  I'm also not addressing the doctrinal mistakes in what Sophie has said; on Wikipedia, if challenged, it is up to the editors to provide citations for their information.  Nor am I going to directly address Sophie's ignorance of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.  I am dealing with Sophie's own "What I am stating here, far from being a personal opinion, are actual facts" with Sophie's own words, wikipedia records, common knowledge, and (for #6) personal opinion (mine is as good as Sophie's).
Quoting from Sophie:
:What I am stating here, far from being a personal opinion, are actual facts, and I do not need some scholars to tell me whats true or not, I do trust my own analitycal abilities as well as my perception sens to understand what I see, hear, and read, and consider myself as being able to make my own conclusions based on facts. Personal opinions are what can be read on more than 50% of wikipedia so this remarque is rather biased and a bad attempt to try to dicredit me. If you had read and understood what I wrote and was sincere enough, you will certainly know that I am stating facts. On the other hand: just proove me wrong, I am waiting.
:*Proof #1: There is not ONE word of critic or attempting critic in any of the articles and even discussions related to the articles about mormonism, and not even one exemple is given of true problems actual or ancient related to this cult.  (See Mormonism Criticism, on the page you says contains no such information. This information existed before you started editing this article.)
:*Proof #2: About your suggestion of making my own site about the subject, yes, on the condition that it will be forbidden to any mormon to participate into it, as it is forbidden to any non officially stampled mormon to contribute to those pages and have anything inside the article.      You say thanks for my writings here and not in the article, know that I did also wrote in the discussion page, and that it was also removed with the rest. I never spammed any articles and you calling that is your personal opinion as a mormon scholastic who have to proove how mormonic he can be at the cost of others, and who only wish to show how deep a believer he is and a true defender of the mormon value system as stampled by the elites of his church. (See your edit on the 10th that was reverted by Mike Rosoft who, according to his own user page, is a hard-core atheist.)
:*Proof #3: Concerning the scientifical proove og gods non existens, it is very simple, and the theory of the point zero of the univers together with the recent data brought by the sonds send into space 15 years ago and who came back in february and marsh, we have the proove of this theory compleeted, and thereby the proove that god does not exist.  Concerning the details of this theory you know perfectly well that this is not the place to discuss that topic, and I do not think you can be able to understand its details, to judge from your poor ability to make a conscious argumentation and analysis of the subject here at hand.  (See definition of 'simple' to see why you just contradicted yourself.)
:*Proof #4: No critic of the church or no documentations or witnesses made by people who counter the official opinion of the church, have gained access to the article, which is comprehensible when I see how ferocely those articles are defended by members of this church.  (See #2 above.)
:*Proof #5: There is nothing that I have stated who are second hands or stuff I have read somewhere, but all together things I was told at first hand by priest of the church, and by sisters of the church, missionaries, and members teaching at sunday schools, and priesthood teachings. [But from earlier in your soliloquy:] I speak from relevent data and facts known at first hand, you speak from things you heard that a prophete or evangelist, or apostle or president has say about some other earlier prophete sayed before him.  (So, you're "first-hand experience" derives from second or third-hand experience.  That, in fact, makes Sophie's experience third-hand, at best.)
:*Proof #6: If I am wrong you are all wrong. (Translation: "Listen very carfully Norman: Sophie is lying.")
And some advice to Sophie which comes from Sophie:
: So please be a good wikipedian and stop threatening me just because you dont know what to say nor ask, and stop grabing at rules like last salvation to hide behind, as you dont have to be so scared. Learn instead. Does it ever occured to you that you might not know it all, and that you have to learn each and every day of your life? If indeed you set yourself to do so. [...] But of course it will never fall you in to actually consider the possible veracity of my witnesses so imbued you are of your selfrighteousness! [...] I do not have to apologize for what I know and am so friendly to teach you about, but you do have to do some attonement for your behaviour and your undeserved criticism of me because of the true statements that I bring here to you. I hope that you do not consider yourself as being superior to for exemple me and having a superior intelligence or wisdom and an all clear eyed who permit you to see what others cannot grasp, because you are out for some disappointments.
On the other hand, we may all just be feeding a troll. [Hint: If real, Sophie will understand his own words.  If a troll, this soliloquy will continue.] Val42 06:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logic of Sophie

message: :I found very strange that each time I am answering to one wikipedian/mormons question, it is another who react to it instead of the one to whom it is adress to.
:I do not see why you are defending stand point who are not at all being made by you, nor why you feel the urge to respond for another one than you.
:I think that the person concern, Storm Rider, is grown up enough to do so on its own.
:Unless next time I am under attack, you take the relay and answer that one for me as well. It could be interesting.
:If you have something to say, say it so, but use your own words idea and language instead of making a copy paste of my entire edit, as you have nothing at all to add to it and in fact seems clearly to don't know what to say.
:So do the wisest, just shut up!
:It is in fact evident that you do not have understood one word of what has been sayed, and as you can see, repeating it indefinitely like rot speach, is not going to give you the ability to understand.
:All you do is agressing agressing personal attacks and agressing.
:Try to use half as much of your energy to understand what this is about and I am sure that you might see some light.
:I do not think that my statements can be make clearer than they already are and that your reaction, more than a physical unhability to comprehend, expose your reticence at accepting things you just dont want to accept.
:You cannot accuse me of talking in circle when you are the one doing so as it can be very clearly seen in your edit.
:As for you stupid accusation of me not being >sophie, what about you? Are you VAL? or are you rama? or are you DGL626, there is a lot of nick name on wiki, and all of them cover up a real name. 
:They are all a pseudonym, meaning they are anonymous.
So if I take the name "anonymous" as a pseudo, I will be as hiding and as showing as you are, because at the end, in both case it is a pseudonym with nothing to do with the person real name and identity.
:So what are you trying to proove, except the fact that you were unable to figure what I just told you on your own?
:I had a name, this name seems now to be unavailable, and I dont feel to make it again or take another.
:Following wiki rules all are equal on wiki, old rats as well as newbees (hahaha) and even arb com and board members and admi are as equal as usual wikipedian, thought they have much more power than them and abuse of this power constantly without bad conscience, and have learn to twist and bend all wiki rules behond recognition, so who are you trying to fool with your wiki neutrality and wiki equality, who is wikis first rule?
:It is all a lie.
:How can you claim equality with another if you have more power than this other and power on this person and can exclude this person from the group?
:It isnt equality it is power struggle.
:It is adversity, and supremacy and group pressure as here.
WIKI is oppression and extinction of the freedom of expression, it is so corrupt that not one admi found it disturbing nor strange to banish or revert a user edit to impose his own point of view, on the sacro sankt name of wikis neutrality and equality!
:HA HA!
:Make me laught, but dont think you can trick me at believing such lies.
:Please, in the future, avoid using words that you do not fully understand, as "logic".
:For your knowledge english is one of the easiest language to learn so stop affirming stuff like that gratuitiously, do some research first.
:I speak 9 languages:
English, danish, french, german, norvegian, swedish, occitan, latin, greek, and geek!
:5 of them fluently, the others as pocket use. Like german I can read a book but I dont have spoken it for some years so it might take me 2 3 weeks to get back the rythm.
:As a nativ american your knowledge of foreign languages is zero, maybe hightened if you are a mormon who have been on mission outside the US, but you have absolutely no experience of the process of learning new languages. In europe from age 11 we choose between 3 languages: english german and spanish, at age 13, we have to chose another one, and choose between english german, spanish italian russian, from age 15, when we begin graduate school, we have to take another one, and chose between those named before and also chineese and modern american, and a dialect or local language, and can also take hebrew.
:2 to 3 languages are part of the compulsory pensum.
:I also took extra english dialect as the one spoken by semi natives in australia, and english dialect spoken in India.
:That was for learning a foreign language, sister.
:Oh! I forgot, you are a man, difficult to know with a pseudo!
:I found it superfluent but will mention it nonetheless, cant you see on your own that you are so used at repeating what was once teached to you, and at avoiding thinking on your own, that when comes the moment when you have to do so and cant jump over it with one of your prelearned group-of-sentences, you are lost, and come back as an automatism to repeating...what the other has already say!
:Like a parrots!
:Thats a problem with religious believes you see, when injected in the brain from a very young age, they block the developping process of the brain and the ability to emit independant and original thoughts. At the adult age those individ are unable to think on their own and have never experienced it, but mix it up with memory of a thought.
:Several research have been done on the subject, and it exist a lot of document and books about it. Look under psychiatry to found it.
:The problem is even worse as it stop the logical process of the mind.
:The subject learn not to ask nor think objectively, but to accept very illogical thoughts, which has a very destructive effect on the brain, and end up in some cases in very serious misconduct who endanger the person and the people around him/her.
:Like the sects who poisonned their members, or the islamic suicidal bombers, or mormons jumping out of the window, or people killing themselves because "judgement days has now come".
:All those abnormity are the result of a life who set aside logic and learn to accept illogical stuff as fact and even twist them into logical stuff, in a very sophistic way.
The brain cannot function with 2 types of logical sets and certainly not with one logic set applying to both logical and illogical stuff.
:It get confused and cant function normally.
:It also affect the emotional part of the brain, and give very disturbed people. Denying it of course, as they were tought to.
:All religions present this problem and that is the reason why they should be all forbidden, for the good of the kids and of future generations. The world will be a much better place without all those brain washer and brain washed people in it. 
:Being a religion or an ideology. 
:Many political or pseudo political ideologies present the same symptom as religions does when they are taught as universal truth who cannot be changed, like USA under Mc Carthy and like communism in USSR.
:There is a propanganda factor that the logical brain cannot comprehend, and who usualy is forbidden to be even discussed.
:All that make people creasy, act creasy, and do stuff who are completely illogical, destructiv, and absurd.
:There is too much contradictions, too many things who does not balance, nor compute in the brain, and even less at an emotional level, and too much restrictions asked to the individuals, too many sacrifice for the good of the all, and who are in contradiction both with the individs good and the good of the masses.
:In the mormon case both with each mormon and the church as a whole.
:Like ideologies are semi religious, are religion very political, there is in both a factor of economy involved, of power, and of duration. The theories/laws have to feet in and be adapted to feet with the rest.
:Typical of them they are all controlling, in all actions of the individ and every day and each part of its life, and each age.
:There is no way out.
:No real choice, no question asked nor answered.
:A real question is never accepted and to do so never directly answered.
:All is twisted, and in extreeme even forbidden: to ask or to mention.
:This is a very effectiv way to squize the mind, and press it dry from any originality at any level. The individ has no real personality, it is eaten by the "common goal". 
:None of them show sign of independancy, they are unable to do so and strickly trained to be always depending on at least another one and to be alone as seldom as possible.
:They are all conditioned in the same form, and agree with each other and convein of their commun enemies and friends, and what to say and how to treat them and what must be say in what situation.
:And of course this kind of proceeding lead to major failure in the system as there is no such as ONE enemy nor a black and white world. This is very weel illustrated by what is happening on this discussion page.
:They are all trained on the same code book, so their first reaction is the standard one, as teach in the standard book of standard reactions to standard attacks by standardised anti mormon.
:Here come the unexpected and not-to-be-found-in-the-standard-book: I do not feet the boxes.
:What can I do?
:They do as they are used to and just repeat what is told them. 
:In that case my own words, as they have nothing on their own to match what I say, there is no box feeting in their standard reaction shemes.
:They are sanded. 
:Far from getting aware of the illusion they live under, or getting aware that they do reply in a stereotype kind of way, they will just deny such idea, and maintain the opposit even if unable to proove the opposit.
:It is the fear factor who play here.
:The fear of the unknown. As more fear, as more agression.
:When believed to be under attack as my words do not correspond to their mormon codex of communication, they immediately presume that I am an enemy and begin to attack. 
:They go on defensiv right away, without analysing the text at hand, as analysis crave logical mind, and the logical mind is actualy being paralysed, as the preprogrammed automatic respons of "defense-under-anti-mormonic-attack" is automatically activated and blind all logic.
:And here troubles begins, as there was no reason for such and the person cannot come with a logical explaination for its actions afterward.
:It trigger another attack as each individual is trying to found what type of enemy they have in front of them and to force their own prejudices of such into it.
:They act like emotionally arroused robots.
:But the shit doesn't work!
:What to do?
:At no time any of them actually read nor comprehend what was written and subsequently none of them saw what was in front of their eyes. 
:They cant understand what is unauthorised stuff so conditioned they are.
:They are of course unaware of that.
:There is in fact no way to recall a preprogrammed individual. 
:In the '60 and '¨70 ees some study have shown how difficult it was to bring back individuals who had end up in a religious sect, with gurus in india or in the state. Even if they had first come in contact with those people at a comparativaly late age, around 20 - 23 years old, many were lost already after 2 years in this environment.
:It doesn't bodes good for children educated from their birth in that kind of stereotyp model of life and thought process.
:I didnt write anything wrong, and there is in fact something very important for you in it and for the church, but you cannot see it because you hide from it out of pure prejudices and fear.
:You want to see a dragon spyting flammes, it is a leave on a bark.
:Have a nice reprogrammation time, I mean pray,
Jolly Jumper and his asperge --213.237.21.242 18:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Dear Val, who is also a mormon [or a parrots, 'ain't sure''']. 

message: The fact that Sophie didn't even understand his own words (repeated back to him) means that he's not listening (even to himself) or that he is a troll.  Either way, it is in the interests of enlightenment to have all of his text available for perusal by those in doubt.  So I have restored his words of personal attack against me.  I don't mind his words because they are not true, except any allegations that I am a follower of Jesus Christ. Val42 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shedding full light on Sophie