Talk:Mormon (word)/Archive 1

message: The churches of the Stone-Campbell Movement are not normally referred to as "Restoration Churches", but sometimes collectively as the "Restoration Movement".   
--Texastwister
:The RLDS/Restoration Branches, when put together with closely-related church members, such as the Restoration Seventy, who are not members of any one branch, also call themselves the "Restoration Movement". --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  17:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration Movement

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 that explains what Mormonism is!  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 (as well as other encyclopedias), which prefer titles for religions such as Catholicism, Protestantism, and Methodism, rather than "Catholic", "Protestant", and "Methodist".COGDEN 20:58, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: ... But why separate Mormon and Mormonism articles?  They seem at first wink redundant, and mergeable... Alai 04:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Mormonism)Visorstuff 16:51, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Mormon'' vs. ''Mormonism''

message: Ok, someone (I think Hawstom) edited out my rather admittedly long winded chat about how the various denominations of Mormonism (or restorationist whatever) view the cannonical set of scripture. While I like the first paragraph better for purposes of this article, I'd still like to see the compare and contrast between the various schisms (I think that's a politically correct term nobody would disagree with) somewhere. I just can't think of the right name for the article... Perhaps something like 'Schisms of Mormonism'??? There is a lot of interesting information that should be somewhere, even if not in the main article. Someone suggest a different name if you can think of one. KellyCoinGuy Jan 4, 2004
: How about Branches of Mormonism? Q
:Kelly, for what purpose? To compare/contrast just the various Mormon sects POV on scriptural cannon? A broad article comparing/contrasting the sameness/difference between the various Mormon sects would be useful. Baptist churchs have split up quite a bit into various denominations...it might be informative to see what has been done on that if anything. B 17:54, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
The first paragraph as it stands today looks pretty good, though I am still out of the loop on this LDS movement business.  I am withholding judgement.  Hawstom 04:21, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm doing it. COGDEN 18:31, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work! Tom 06:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article for comparing/contrasting various Mormon sects

message: Thanks for the nice picture, but what is a temple picture doing in the Mormon article?  Can this be moved to an LDS article? Hawstom 19:22, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Temple picture

message: Hawstom, the Israelite doctrine in Mormonism needs to be in the Mormonism and Judaism article. Please move it. B 03:30, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
Me?  :o  I wouldn't know where to start.  Are you thinking of somebody else, or is my memory just going early?  Tom (hawstom) 05:06, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You had already (re)moved the material just before I made the comment. So ignore my comment. —B|Talk 16:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Israelite doctrine in Mormonism

message: http://www.comparative-religion.com/ Comparative Religion seems like a nice enough site.  But the link has nothing to do with Mormonism.  I'm inclined to view it as spam.  If it goes here, I don't understand why it's in the Opposiong Views section.  Any thoughts?
Let's remove - Tom - your honors? -Visorstuff 20:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any thoughts on the comparative religion external link? 

message: This was merely a title used to identify those baptised into the church that Joseph Smith, Jr. founded, which was called the 'Church of Christ' from its organization in April 1830, until December 1834, when it was subsequently called the 'Church of Latter Day Saints'. It wasn't until December 1838 that through revelation the church was given the name it has today (See Doctrine and Covenants, section 115, verse 4). Joseph Smith, Jr., on Saturday 20 May 1843, sent a letter to the editor of the Times and Seasons with the statement that the word Mormon means, literally, 'more good' (See History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, vol. 5, p. 400).
I don't see that this adds anything other than information repeated elsewhere, a bit of POV, and a contradiction of the previous assertion that the original connotation was derogatory.  Can anyone resolve this, and would anyone care to otherwise salvage from the above?  Alai 22:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted contribution 

message: why is there no information regarding the accountability of the church? most not for profits have public information so why doesn't the LDS church publish this information? Why cant I find out tithing revenues? TIME magazined estimated the church tithing revenues @ something like net USD5 billlion/year. There is  also no public information on membership on the LDS church-- why I cant find out how many members drop out each year and the number of inactive members? It would be interesting to see the REAL numbers on the LDS church as they boast there numbers in each general conference but provide little other information.
:These are great questions.  You may want to ask them at WP:LDS talk page and at the LDS Church article's talk page.  Sorry the encyclopedia is so voluminous.  Tom Haws 14:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
::Every few weeks we seem to get someone who has a metonymic association for the church that he or she thinks should be the metaphor for discussion of the church.  Mormonism, as it is defined here, is not a polygamy movement, not a blacks-and-the-priesthood movement, not a garments church, and does not refer to anything that only applies to its subgroup The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Your definition of Mormon is not reflected in the definition this article is describing.--Mrcolj 17:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  not enough info! 

message: Just as a side note, I took a recent vacation to Utah on a rafting trip, visiting Arches NP, etc.
"LDS" is commonly used to refer to whether or not one is Mormon; as in "I'm not LDS" or "Oh, she's LDS, so she doesn't drink."  So nowadays it's not just a Mormon guideline, but kind of a regional dialect. I leave it to experienced Wiki-ers what to make of that.  I hadn't heard anyone use "LDS" as shorthand before I visited Utah.
:Being LDS, I can say that we use the term regularly outside of Utah too, and so far I have lived in Canada, Michigan, Texas, California, Colorado, and Oklahoma.
:: I am LDS as well and have lived my entire life in Canada (specifically BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan). LDS is in very common use here. -- Kmsiever 18:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Vacation to Utah 

message: Great, NPOV, fun content!  If not belong here, let's be sure to put it somewhere.  However, I can see how it might belong here.  After all, it is about Mormon (though we LDS know the stereotypes are really from the LDS Church).  Tom Haws 16:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I removed " Another refernce is the film Orgazmo."
* Let's take care to make high-quality edits.
* Let's organize our contributions well.
* There is not currently a list of popular literature that portrays Mormons.  Orgazmo (I guess) could go in such a list, but not where it was placed.
* Let's do this right by stubbing a section or finding the right article.
-Tom Haws 14:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
the reference doesnt insult  the culture, and it makes  them more fullcharctors then the usual moronnc people ive noticed, so why is it offensive? (regrading ograzmo)
Gabrielsimon 15:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Initially, it was a few short sentences on extremely prominent Mormons and their impact/contributions to their fields.  I think it's growing to be more of a list of famous Mormons, however.  I wouldn't mind if it were shortened.  The Jade Knight 05:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have little against such references; you'll notice that I've added the part about authors, and I left the references to Gladys Knight and Donny Osmond.  However, I feel that the purpose of the article is not to list prominent Mormons (that is what the List of Latter-day Saints is for).  I do not particularly feel that businessmen or politicians need to be mentioned, though I will certainly defer if there is consensus otherwise.  However, I do not think we should mention Latter-day Saints who have not warranted their own Wikipedia entry (such as Jenny Oaks Baker).  The Jade Knight 07:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that this article does not need to list all Mormons, but the ones that are well-known and influencers in society ought to be part of the article. For instance, Mitt Romney was the President of the Winter Olympics of 2002, the current governor of Massachusetts, and very likely Presidential candidate. I think that qualifies him to at least be in a list of notable Mormons, don't you. The others I listed are also well-known in society. Perhaps politics and business doesn't seem as important in your sphere, but it certainly is for many others, while entertainers are far less important. In an encyclopedia article, it makes sense to include the names of those who are influencing society and are prominent enough to be well known. My inclusion of Jenny Oaks Baker was to give some variety to the list of musically-talented LDS that are listed. I was actually going to create a Wikipedia entry for her because she is well known within the professional orchestral musician circuit, after all being first violinist in the National Symphony Orchestra is no small feat, and very well known in LDS circles as a talented musician and daughter of LDS General Authority and Member of the Quorum of the Twelve, Dallin H. Oaks. DavidBailey 18:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormons in Popular Culture 

message: Jade Knight, is there some reason why you feel this article can't contain references to prominent businesspeople and politicans in addition to producers, actors, directors, and authors? DavidBailey 05:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have little against such references; you'll notice that I've added the part about authors, and I left the references to Gladys Knight and Donny Osmond.  However, I feel that the purpose of the article is not to list prominent Mormons (that is what the List of Latter-day Saints is for).  I do not particularly feel that businessmen or politicians need to be mentioned, though I will certainly defer if there is consensus otherwise.  However, I do not think we should mention Latter-day Saints who have not warranted their own Wikipedia entry (such as Jenny Oaks Baker).  The Jade Knight 07:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that this article does not need to list all Mormons, but the ones that are well-known and influencers in society ought to be part of the article. For instance, Mitt Romney was the President of the Winter Olympics of 2002, the current governor of Massachusetts, and very likely Presidential candidate. I think that qualifies him to at least be in a list of notable Mormons, don't you. The others I listed are also well-known in society. Perhaps politics and business doesn't seem as important in your sphere, but it certainly is for many others, while entertainers are far less important. In an encyclopedia article, it makes sense to include the names of those who are influencing society and are prominent enough to be well known. My inclusion of Jenny Oaks Baker was to give some variety to the list of musically-talented LDS that are listed. I was actually going to create a Wikipedia entry for her because she is well known within the professional orchestral musician circuit, after all being first violinist in the National Symphony Orchestra is no small feat, and very well known in LDS circles as a talented musician and daughter of LDS General Authority and Member of the Quorum of the Twelve, Dallin H. Oaks. DavidBailey 18:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Prominent Figures

message: An anonymous user just changed "... is a colloquial ..." to "... is an colloquial ..." in the first paragraph.  This seems incorrect to me.  This may be some correct usage of which I am not aware.  Can someone confirm or deny this?  Meanwhile, I'm going to change it back. Val42 04:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "a" vs. "an"

message: This article, as well as the Wikipedia article for "Latter Day Saint" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_Day_Saint) are lacking basic information concerning the infamous history of polygyny/polygamy within the group.  It is possible that the article's authors omitted much of this information because it no longer agrees with the church's beliefs.  To emphasize the importance of polygyny in the early church, consider that Mormon founder Joseph Smith was martyred for this belief, as well as leader Brigham Young declaring that: "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy."  The practice of polygyny was such a core value for the church that change did not happen until the US federal government threatened to repossess the church's land.
Although the church no longer tolerates the activity, polygyny is commonly a main association that non-Mormons have with the LDS Church.  A Google search for "Mormon Polygamy" results in over 250,000 hits.  A non-secular basic encyclopedia article about the Mormon Church needs to include more factual historical information regarding polygyny for this church.
More information can be found here:  http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_poly.htm 216.222.31.203 08:45, October 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Thank you for your inquiry. That is a good point, but irrelevant for this article. Such an edit would be appropriate for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and it is actually in the intro summary of that article) or the hyphenated Latter-day Saint, but not Mormon or (unhyphenated) Latter Day Saint as those encorporate a much broader group called the Latter Day Saint movement most of which did not accept Smith's polygamy teachings even at the time. The entire Latter Day Saint movement consists of about 20 million adherents, 12.5 million of which belong to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the others to different Latter Day Saint or Mormon sects. There are dozens if not hundreds of splinter groups claiming that certain teachings were wrong - either by Smith or Young or others. You may want to read Succession crisis. Please note that all Latter-day Saints are Mormons, but not all Mormons are Latter-day Saints. Both are Latter Day Saints. I know this may seem confusing, but this is the historial scholarship standard or convention that we've adopted on the Wikipedia. Think of it this way: Latter-day Saint=a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Mormon=believer in the book of Mormon and/or the culture and history of the church Smith organized; Latter Day Saint=anyone who believes that Smith was at one time a prophet of God or was inspired to organize/restore a church; Latter Day Saint movement= the big group of people who claim some type of succession through Joseph Smith, Jr whether Strangite, FLDS, Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite) or otherwise. Oversimplified but adequate for this discussion. Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 19:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is lacking serious mention of Mormon polygyny 

message: I wonder if there is a way, considering that the history page consists primarily of vandalism and subsequent reverts, to tag the article so that it can only be edited by those with Wikipedia accounts?  I believe this might cut down significantly on the vandalism to this article, which seems to be a hot-spot for it.  The Jade Knight 08:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, there isn't a way to block anonymous editing, but an administrator can prevent all editing for a short time. It is hoped that in this time the vandal(s) will have moved on. In dealing with vandals, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress and Wikipedia:Vandalism#Dealing with vandalism. If you need an admin, see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. You may want to check out Wikipedia: Administrator's reading list for more information on how vandals are handled. Cookiecaper 08:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think there is a way to limit editing to only those who have been contributors to an article.  It seems like I recently saw such a situation, the first time ever, on either theJesus or Christianity articles.  I can't remember which one, but I remember seeing a notice indicating that the article had been limited to recent editors so as to prevent vandalism.  I am not an admin so the process is beyond me.  I would bring it up to some of our more senior admins for their input for a definitive answer. Storm Rider 09:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been working on the Michael Jackson article and it currently requires edits from only users with accounts that are non-new, I believe. So it can be done, although I don't know how it is done. DavidBailey 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I think that we need to take time to redefine the scope of this article.  I think that this article should:
# Provide a link to the disambiguation page
# Discuss the origin of the word
# Discuss the meaning of the word
## Historical
## Current
## Distinction from "Latter Day Saint"
### Which LDS denominations are "Mormon"
### Which LDS denominations are not "Mormon"
## Usage by CoJCoLDS
# Distinction from other religious groups
I don't think that (what is turning in to a list of) prominent LDS people should be here.  I think that this page should make it clear that this term does not identify any particular denomination and that beliefs of any denominations are not discussed here.  And this rewrite should be done in concert with the "Mormonism" article.  Both articles have attracted new readers/editors that think that these articles are about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I'll even do it, if there are no objections.  Val42 05:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with your proposal.  I mentioned that at most "this is not a place to put everything that one has heard about Mormons; specific characters, comments, etc., but rather it is a paragraph that should describe how generally Mormons are perceived in popular culture."  Though I have since recently begun to edit that section, I believe your outline would improve the article.  Thank you for taking a stand.  Storm Rider 08:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also agree.  However, I think something should be included about Mormon culture (apart from the religions).  The Jade Knight 08:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it needs to be removed entirely, except for the link to the list of prominent Mormons. --Kmsiever 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of this article

message: The reason why we refer to ourselves as "Mormons" when talking to those not of our faith is simply because many people don't know what we are talking about when we say The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Bisric 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calling us "Mormons"

message: There isnt much mention in this article about joseph smith translating the two plates with the seer stone, i thought that was quite an interesting part of it, yet seems to have been missed out. 84.9.209.110 03:30, 21 april 2006 (UTC)
:Again, look under the primary articles. This article describes only the use of the nickname "Mormon" AuntieMormom 20:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation Methods

message: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Mormon
Have a laugh, at your own expense :) 
My favorite: "When Mormons die they will be the only people in heaven because they wear the kind of underwear that God likes." Travb 06:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: uncyclopedia.org

message: The name "Mormon" primarily refers to a person - one of the writers (so the book claims) of the Book of Mormon. Therefore, I think this article should be moved to Mormons and Mormon should be about the person. ( [[Mormon_(Prophet}]] should be moved to here, and this article should be called Mormons) --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More people know "Mormon" to represent the church than the person.  The fact that the LDS church has a website www.mormon.org about the church instead of the person seems to weaken your point.  I would vote that the page remains as it currently is. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article answers to what most people think of when they hear "Mormon". There is a disambiguation page to deal with the prophet vs. the term. DavidBailey 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this isn't right - I suggest a move 

message: I wrote a blurb here about a paper written by Steven E Jones relating to Mormonism. I'm not a Mormon myself, so I  need an outside opinion in case I wrote something insulting or sacreligious.
Thanks--DCAnderson 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks fine. You might want to use "Latter Day Saint movement" per Wikipedia naming guidelines. DavidBailey 02:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.--DCAnderson 03:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a Mormon opinion 

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. --Jacob durrant 11:09, 29 May 2006
:It's spam because you are only editing to add your own site. Not only that, but the site deals with only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not Mormonism in general. --Kmsiever 19:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jacob, I moved the discussion to the bottom of this discussion page because, by tradition, new topics are added at the bottom of the discussion page.  I also added a signature to your latest comment; someone else signed your previous comment.  You'll find that people will take you more seriously once you've learned to sign your own comments on discussion pages.  (Use four tildes: ~~~~.) Other than these issues, I'm not involved in this particular discussion topic. Val42 00:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question re. External links

message: As a "Mormon" I'm impressed with this paper; it adequately spells out the usage of the term, and properly uses many other terms that are typically unweildy to "non-Mormons".  Good job!  The only flaw was at the end: "Rick Chaney, the dean of the Madrid, Spain campus of Saint Louis University is the head of the Mormon church in Madrid, Spain."  This sentence is totally out of whack with the rest of the article because "head of the Mormon church" is a confusing term and uncharacteristically off-note compared to the rest of the article.  I suggest changing it to "prominent church leader".  Just my 0.02 -- nice article.
:I noticed that a few days ago, but hesitated to edit it because I'm not sure what his actual position is. Is he a member of one of the Quorums of the Seventy or a mission president or something? In any event, it needs an edit for clarification.--Lethargy 07:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence