Talk:Deseret (Book of Mormon)

message: From the article:
"A prominent example is the Deseret Morning News, Utah's second-largest daily newspaper. An anachronistic name, the newspaper was established when the area was called Deseret Territory."
Isn't it more accurate to call it an archaiac name? It made sense when originally adopted but now no longer applies. It would have been anachronistic if it had been called the Utah Morning News when the area was called Deseret. Lisiate 19:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you're right that "archaic" is more specific, but it has the connotation of being obsolete which doesn't quite apply, I think. Either way, I would not be opposed so long as it's clear that the News traces its name back to Deseret Territory while things like Deseret Book don't exactly. Cool Hand Luke 20:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussion

message: I made an edit that may have to be revisited.  When the LDS settled in Utah, it was not yet a part of the US.  They, in a relatively short time, carved out a large area they called Deseret.  The original idea was to claim this as a seperate country.  However, when much of the territory was ceded to the US from Spain, they decided to apply for territorial/state status.  The original proposal was much larger than Utah, but was wittled down over time, until the state was finally admitted with its present boundaries.  I don't have much on hand to document, via dates and boundaries, but will work on it.  As it is, I think my edit made it more confusing.  I will copy to my work page and then revert back until later.  Comments welcome.  WBardwin 05:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deseret vs the State of Deseret 

message: There is a sentence fragment on the page: "Though later it was discovered to mean "Top of the Mountains." Jim 17:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence fragment

message: I've added reference sources for most of the info on this page.  There is one statement that might be true, but I can't find any support for it:  "The name 'Deseret' was rejected because of its religious significance and its resemblance to the English word 'desert.'"  I have heard this before, but it doesn't seem to be documented anywhere – if you know of a source, add it back to the article.  I've also removed references to Deseret Forwarding International – although this is a real company, I don't think it is significant enough to merit mention in an encyclopedia. Jaksmata 01:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statements and obscure references 

message: An editor recently contributed Nation of Deseret, which looks like a school report. It's referenced and more in-depth than this article, although I didn't read it through for POV. Unknown if it's a copyvio from a dead tree source, but not apparently from the web (Google and I checked). --Ginkgo100talk 03:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definately a paper of some kind, about the concept of something that might be termed Deseret Nationialism, I suppose. Original research, whther by the contributer or a prior source. Most of the material is about other aspects of LDS/Utah history, although there's a good chunk about the Deseret alphabet. "Nation of Deseret" is not a proper subject though. Assuming it's not a copyright vio, it should probably redirect to State of Deseret with relevent material copied here and to Deseret alphabet. Cool Hand Luke 05:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: some sections would go best into State of Deseret, I think.  Notice has gone out on the LDS project board.  WBardwin 04:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Several editors have added an argument to the effect that honey bees were not introduced into the Americas until after Europeans arrived (thus disproving the Book of Mormon). While this may be the case for "true honey bees" of tribe: apini, genus: apis, there are other species of "honey bees"; for example, tribe meliponini, known as Mayan stingless bees. These bees both pollinate and produce honey, and they were domesticated before European arrival in the Americas. Since the Book of Mormon only says the words "honey bees" and does not specify genus, it is a logical fallacy (converse accident) to argue that there were no bees in the Americas before Europeans arrived.
Besides, they could have brought true European honey bees which later died. Colony Collapse Disorder is a relatively new term, but extinctions do happen. – jaksmata 13:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone would dispute that Apis mellifera L. were brought to North America in 1622, but that fact alone does not does not demonstrate an anachronism in the Book of Mormon. See my previous comments above. The source given in this edit only recounts the history of one specific species, not the broad spectrum of flying, honey-producing insects known as "honey bees". Taking one fact from that source and using it to disprove something not shown to be related is original research (synthesis of published material that advances a position). – jaksmata 20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Honey bees" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Deseret (Book of Mormon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101131036/http://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/s/STATEHOOD.html to http://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/s/STATEHOOD.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Has recently added a lot of content that isn't about the article's subject to the article. The article is about a word that is derived from the the book of mormon. He added content about the potential state. We already have a different article and a disambiguation page. Wii, please explain why this belongs here. 12.75.41.81 (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: please use the talk page instead of just edit warring. 12.75.41.81 (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I did not add that information, I reverted it. See Rollback.  The person who wrote about it added it to give context to the ideas that spawned from it, see Bible and the section of the Torah, which includes the Main Article portion. It is not about the bible but is something related and gives a small piece to the reader about the ideas related to said article. Wiiformii (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You reverted it, so you own the content now. It isn't related to the topic of the article. Why did you add WP:COATRACK material here? Add it to the page for the state, not the page about the book of mormon. 12.75.41.81 (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: And you may be a non-Christian... But the Bible mentions the Torah a lot! The book of mormon doesn't mention this state. These sources you added don't mention the book of mormon having a state. You are performing WP:SYNTH now. 12.75.41.81 (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an example, I could not find the idea about WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE and was trying to use examples. Wiiformii (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Also see  Donald Trump's case and Latter Day Saint movement's History for other articles with parts of other articles in it. Wiiformii (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to leave this article broken. 12.75.41.81 (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but they are examples of WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE. Also I am a bit confused how the article was broken by the addition of the State of Deseret? The state is relevant as it is derived from the idea of Deseret and adds detail and real world ideas created from the article that the reader may want to read later. Wiiformii (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the book of mormon mention a potential state?