Talk:Mormon cosmology

message: The information on the City of Enoch in no way explains what this has to do with extraterrestrial life. The City of Enoch was taken to heaven. This doesn't imply extraterrestrial life, unless you would also say that the belief that Jesus went to heaven alive means all Christians believe in extra-terrestrial life; or that the assumption of the Virgin Mary means all Catholics believe in extra-terrestrial life; or that the belief that Muhammad was taken to heaven alive means all Muslims believe in extra-terrestrial life; and ... well, you get the idea.
Please don't add he information back in unless you add to the article and explain how this relates directly to the topic. -SESmith 08:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: City of Enoch

message: The changes I made were reverted wholesale without explanation. Why? Things as non-controversial as adding an original document PDF-link for one of the references and adding a wikilink for Joseph Fielding Smith were included in the revert. This type of wholesale reversion is unacceptable and shouldn't be done without some sort of reasons provided. -SESmith 08:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wholesale reversions

message: The orphan tag was removed with the explanation that the article is not an orphan article. The orphan tag indicates that no or few other articles link to it. This is true, and as of this writing NO articles (apart from Talk pages and redirects) link to this article. It qualifies as an orphan and until articles are linked up the tag should remain. Pls don't remove as it adds the article to a category where people can see the articles that need to be linked to. Some Wikipedians work with this list and just enjoy adding links to orphaned articles. -SESmith 08:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation.  Next time, explain before reverting.   It looked odd, that's all. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Next time, explain before reverting." My thoughts exactly—it was you who reverted my initial placement of the orphan tag without explanation or justification. -SESmith 02:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is still linked from only two Wikipedia articles.  (i.e.: Actual articles and not User, Talk, Project, etc.)  Val42 06:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Orphan tag

message: The tone of the article needs some work.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you gotta hate that NPOV. (rolls eyes).... -SESmith 08:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone

message: A tag has been placed disputing the factual accuracy of the statement that the church has not officially adopted a doctrine on the existence or absence of extraterrestrials. Is there evidence of official adoption of a doctrine that anyone has? If not, it's hard to dispute the factual accuracy of stating that a doctrine doesn't exist one way or the other. -SESmith 03:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you an official spokesperson for the church?  No.  How do I know what the Churches official doctrine on this topic when we have historical documents from LDS prophets making proclamations people live on the sun and moon?   I question that these statements you placed in this section on LDS Doctrine  are official church doctrine. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I placed no statements of official church doctrine; I said one did not exist one way or the other on the issue. You cannot prove a negative. The onus is on the person claiming that a doctrine exists as an official doctrine to prove it by pointing to specific material in current church printed materials or lesson manuals or on the lds.org website, for example. As far as I know, there's no indication one way or the other whether the church currently accepts or teaches the statements or concepts set out in the article. Everything printed in Journal of Discourses is not currently official church doctrine. I've presented a NPOV because there is no evidence one way or the other. Let's try to remain WP:CIVIL, I am not attacking you. -SESmith 03:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not feel like I am being attacked.  I am just passionate about honesty and quality, that's all.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected the section and removed the tags.  This seems more accurate of the sources and balanced and does not assess that we mere editors are spokepersons for the Church.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with entitling the section "Official LDS doctrine"? It is simply a title--the section then discusses whether or not there is official church doctrine on the matter. Just calling it "modern lds views" or something like that is pointless unless we just want to scrap the section and merge it with the previous one since they too express some modern viewpoints. -SESmith 04:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You are not a spokesperson for the church.  Please show me a citation "official church doctrine on extraterrestrial life". Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Tags placed to reflect view of new edits. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not claiming to assert  the church's official doctrine. (That's the nice way of saying "no shit".) The title of the section indicates that "this section will be about the LDS Church's doctrine on the subject." Then, the text of the section states clearly and unambiguously that there is no official doctrine on the issue one way or the other. You don't need to be a church spokesman to figure out the church hasn't said anything on this on its website, publications, lesson manuals, etc. It sounds more like you are misunderstanding the purpose of a section heading and its relation to the text of the article. Focus on the text and what it says and I think it will become clear that my edits are not claiming any position as the official LDS position. -SESmith 05:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You dispute my edits that state there is no official doctrine one way or the other. So—you tell me—what is the church's official doctrine? How do you know it is the church's official doctrine? What sources are you citing, and how do you know this source reflects the current official doctrine of the church? Unless you can answer these questions, the section as it stands reflects the best we can do on this topic—i.e. it is not clear that there is any doctine one way or the other. -SESmith 05:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The section is titled Official Church Doctrine than is immediately followed by there is no official church doctrine, so which is it?  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. That's the whole point of the section. Someone looking for the official church doctrine of the church on the matter will locate the section, read it, and find out that there is no official doctrine. The header is an organizational tool used for persons looking for information on the topic written in the heading. It sets out the general subtopic within the article that is discussed in the section. -SESmith 07:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No.  If there is no doctrine, then change the heading to "Modern Views" or something else.  The current heading by your own admission is inaccurate and misleading.  The tags stay in until you change it.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. I made no such admission. You obviously don't get it. I won't waste any more of my time on you; it is pointless because as your behavior on this page and others amply demonstrates, you appear to be dedicated to a POV way-of-life on WP. See ya. -SESmith 07:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy of section on official LDS doctrine

message: This should be included in a wikiquotes collection rather than as its own article - a collection of quotes is original research, not an article. Or perhaps you pull a bunch of these strange quote collections together and start a real article called, "Obscure teachings by Mormon leaders." I'm undecided at what to do at this point, but as an admin I must say this article could easily go up for deletion. -Visorstuff 15:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be POV pushing.  The mormon prophets have taught there was extraterrestrial life.  It is a notable doctrine as evidence by the massive effort to tag the article and insert voluminous sources.  If anything, you have made the case the article is exceptionally notable. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from using denigrating racial and social slurs to refer to sources or groups with the term anti-mormon, this term is a pejorative of hate and a secret signal word used by LDS Church members to brand a group, idea, or individual as "satan's messenger." As for the POV, its obvious to me and other editors.  Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I took it that way and it sounded that way, but WP is about forgive and forget -- so forgiven and forgotten.  Outside of articles on this topic of anti-mormonisn please advise other LDS editors to cease using this term in discussions.  We do not allow people call each other any other racial or social slur so this word also needs to be off limits when editors are in discussions about sources, ideas, or people.  An article about the mormon concept of anti-mormonism is certainly ok, but it needs to end there.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get that "information" about "anti-mormonism"?  As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have never heard of this "information" about "anti-mormonism" before your postings.  But as an expert on the meaning of "anti-mormonism", I guess that you're the ultimate arbitrator of the subject. Val42 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The references on anti-mormonisn in your own teachings verify its usage.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you give me specific references, because being a life-long member, I have never heard them. Val42 20:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: article or wiki quotes?

message: Just a thought (I don't want to join this edit war currently in progress), but it would be interesting to add a little bit about Kolob into this article, as certainly this is an aspect to teachings about E.T. in Mormon theology.  I've seen people speculate about which star in the night sky might actually be Kolob, and the whole aspect that we, being human and offspring of God are in fact extra-terrestrials that have come here to this planet somehow.
I'm not suggesting a full treatment of this subject, but a single paragraph with a reference to the more extensive article about this topic would certainly be reasonable to include here.  --Robert Horning 20:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kolob]] 

message: I'm sorry if anyone felt like I was pre-empting the discussion here by proposing deletion. That was not my intent, nor was it even really to get it deleted (unless that was the consensus). I did it more as a way of flushing out the issues being discussed here and to get some input from those who haven't been involved in editing. I don't think the result will be delete, but hopefully the process will help provide some ideas of what's best for this article. In all liklihood, that's some sort of abuse of the WP proposed deletion process, but what the hey.... -SESmith 06:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is an abuse, I've seen it done quite often, and it has produced respectable articles in the past.  I see some positive contributions here as a result of the AfD.  daveh4h 14:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that the discussion has become more reasoned since the deletion proposal.  Val42 07:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I enjoyed writing it.  It was somewhat advanced and forward looking for Mormon pioneers in the wild wild west to have debates about extraterrestrial life.  I fail to understand the almost rabid opposition to the article, as it is an excellent example and window into early LDS thinking about the topic of life in the stars.  The Mormon Church did advance some revolutionary concepts in the mid-1800s about life scattered accross the cosmos.  I originally had a section about the City of Enoch, but other editors removed it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the City of Enoch information for the reason indicated in the talk section above. No one else has replied to this so I assumed the consensus was that it did not belong. I haven't seen any "rabid opposition" to the article itself—hardly anyone is voting for deletion on the proposed deltion page—all disputes seem to be more towards the structure, title, format, tone, POV, etc. of the article and those choosing to edit it. -SESmith 23:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion proposal 

message: The Pre-Mortal Life section needs some major cleanup. -- 159.182.1.4 01:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. –SESmith 01:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Mortal Life section 

message: I've performed some major revisions in an attempt to make the article better reflective of what it claims to be. Religious cosmologies are supposed to be about the origin, destiny, evolution etc. of the universe, so I've tried to make the article reflect that. Some of the previous edits were not well-sourced at all, so I pretty much just scrapped it and tried to start afresh using good citation to LDS scriptures and publications. I hope I haven't stepped on any toes here. Ubi Terrarum 02:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: Hey, the atonment is teh most important thing to teh mormon religion. So if you must mention it then at least give a nice paragraph about it. or direct them to another site.Lobre 01:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the atonement 

message: I realise the name of this article has evolved over time, but should this article be Latter Day Saint cosmology, or is the current title more accurate because it only deals with the LDS Church beliefs? Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it should. Bytebear (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to WP:LDSMOS, "Mormon" is correctly used when we're just dealing with the LDS Church. "Latter Day Saint cosmology" to me would suggest that we're talking about all Latter Day Saint churches' cosmologies, but right now there is no discussion of any other churches' cosmology in this article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I've restored the deleted information that identifies Jesus and Lucifer as spirit children of God the Father, and Jesus being the eldest spirit child of God the Father. These facts are fairly basic to Mormon cosmology and should remain. It does little good just to suddenly bring up Jesus as "the Messiah" without referring to who he is or what his relationship with the Father is. Similarly with Lucifer, his status and origin need to be explained, rather than just saying something like "Lucifer also proposed a plan", because the reader will be asking "and who the hang is he?" Since the article is about Mormon cosmology, and not the plan of salvation in the abstract, the origin and identity of these figures is key and must be explained. The more general explanations an editor inserted would be appropriate for an article on the plan of salvation, but this goes above and beyond that—here we're talking about ultimate origins, so it needs to be explicit. All the changed information was amply cited to LDS Church materials that are available on the web for all to see, so it's not exactly controversial or hidden information. Ubi Terrarum 23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In LDS doctrine Jesus was more than teh eldest spirit child of God; there is no comparison between Jesus Christ and all other children of God. In fact, he is recognized as God, he is a member of the Godhead. The terminology that you are using seems to completely obviate these facts. The facts you are focusing on are not basic, but inconsequential is LDS doctrine. Lucifer is looked upon as a creation of God not only by LDS, but by virtually all of Christainity. Do you know of any Christian group that believes that Lucifer is a creature unto himself? Stating the obvious has always seemed to be something to be avoided and not encouraged; of course asking the obvious is even worse. Ubi, you might want to READ the references. All the edits I made did not change one supporting fact of the references. Everything I changed was a previous editor's opinion and not supported by references. If you can prove otherwise, please do so. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You should not give undue weight to the concept of Jesus and Satan being brothers.  It is equally true that Ghandi and Jesus were brothers, and Hitler and Bob Barker were brothers.  Bytebear (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus and Lucifer as spirit children of God

message: This page is a bit long and the conversations are stale; does it make sense to archive this talk page? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That was more than three years ago. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: I'm just a reader and don't want to step on any toes here as you all seem passionate about the page, but, upon reading it, I immediately noticed an error: "As prerequisites for this 'greatest gift of God', adherents believe that either in this life or the afterlife, they must become 'perfect', they must participate in all the required ceremonies, and their exaltation must be 'sealed upon them' by the Holy Ghost via the Second Anointing." The second anointing is a way to receive an assurance of exaltation, but by no means is it necessary and the number of people that receive this ordinance is very small. --174.19.122.137 (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: good catch. Did you correct it? -StormRider 11:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:   it seems, although you have to 'read between the lines' and you won't find documentation. --  Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Anointing not Requisite for Exaltation 

message: A non-editor improved the article with, "The pre-existent godhood of Adam/Michael is and has always been repudiated by the LDS Church..." and this is a germane point of "Mormon cosmology" discussion here. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the statement is that it is not necessarily true, depending on how one interprets some statements of church leaders in the 19th century. It's therefore a POV statement. Many people interpret Brigham Young and other leaders' comments relating to the Adam–God doctrine as equating Adam with Elohim and therefore stating that Adam was God before he came to earth as a mortal. This concept is today rejected by the LDS Church, but past teachings are not as clear-cut as "is and has always been repudiated". There was a period of years where this very issue was vigorously debated among leaders and members of the church, with some of the highest leaders of the church supporting the Adam=God position. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A current edit to improve the article