Talk:Exaltation (Mormonism)

message: Can someone decipher this article and write something that isn't verbatim from Mormon canon?  Such language doesn't really have a place in Wikipedia, anyways (unless it were to be clearly quoted). Praetorian42 18:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was the original destination for the word "exaltation" in Wiki.  But the word "exaltation" has other (non-theological) meanings and the word needed to be disambiguated.  If it's not Mormon, then by all means move it to a re-titled page.  That's the only reason I re-titled this material.  If you have another solution, please try it.  It was never my intention to offend anyone or muddy any other pages.  But we need "exaltation" in other contexts. NaySay 05:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Older

message: Although we aren't relating fiction, as we're talking about a belief, I think this applies. It's very interesting and gives many examples we can possibly apply to our text. --euyyn 16:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This could help 

message: Article uses the first-person plural inappropriately--thus all readers are in LDS church and are male. For example, the section on ordinances states, "We are taught to become kings and queens in God's kingdom through performing the ordinances of exaltation such as the endowment. Celestial Marriage is also part of the requirements of being exalted. It means we are married for eternity with our wives."
There are significant non-LDS and non-male populations who may find such language offensive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnalsin (talk • contribs) 03:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that "We are married for eternity with our wives" necessarily means that each individual has multiple wives. Or were you referring to the "we" and "our" meaning that only LDS will be married for eternity? If that is the LDS belief, then it is irrelevant if it's offensive to those of other faiths. Just like the Jehovah Witnesses believing only 144,000 will be saved. Is that offensive to others? Does it matter in an encyclopedia? Useight (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Useight has a great point. Many of the isses that have come up, that some ahve called sensational....are just facts.
Stormrider's point that we dont disagree on doctrine as we disagree on what the church emphasises, might be true. He mayu also be right that some of the points ive tried to make seem sensational - but when it boils down to it, regardless of theemphasis of the church, or regardless of how offfensive or sensational a doctrine is, The church DOES teach certain things. Stormrider's point about what the LDS refer to as the WOrd of WIsdom is a good point. In recent years they;ve empasized it more than they did in the early days of the church - but it was still ateaching of the church regardless of how important the leaders made it at any given time. I think the same applyes to some of the issues Stormrider and i have butted heads on - LDS teachings about the nature of God may seem sensational and offensive to outsiders, but the LDS prophets HAVE taught them, and as best as I can tell, still do. I've got references to Bruce McConkie making statments about the unusual nature of the LDS beleif about god that parallel J. Smith;'s teachings (smith being lds prophet #1, and McConkie being the prophet right before the current one). I would say that qualifies it enough to make it a fact, a doctrine, regardless of how much it is emphasized currently.Nother example - word of wisdom talks about takingit easy on meat except during winter, few follow that though because the church doesn't emphasis it - i'ld still say since its part of LDS Scripture its still a teaching of the church. Perhaps it might be wise to comment about the fact the church doesnt currently emphasis a specific aspect very much currently, while actually mentioning that particualr aspect. Stormrider? 03:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First-Person Plural (We) and Sexist Language 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alienburrito/Exaltation_%28LDS_Church%29
This is my attempt to make this article sound like its NOT from an official LDS church publication.
There's an occasional turn of a phrase in there i'm not satisfied with, like comparing the ordaninces of the LDS 
church to the Catholic idea of the sacrements...
give me some suggestions  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienburrito (talk • contribs) 23:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am blanking this old abandoned draft as WP:COPYARTICLE, but Alienburrito's version can still be retrieved from its page history. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion for a rewrite 

message: There are several verbatim or nearly verbatim phrases from Millet & Reynolds. They are:
*believe that human beings can grow and progress spiritually until, through the mercy and grace of Christ, they can inherit and possess "all that the Father has
*a couplet written by Lorenzo Snow, [...] fifth president of the LDS Church
*This doctrine is generally referred to [...] as deification [...] the LDS expression of this doctrine is often misrepresented and misunderstood
*do not believe that human beings will ever be independent of God, or that they will ever cease
*as God means to overcome the world through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Thus, the faithful become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, and will inherit all things just as Christ inherited all things.
*they are received into the "church of the firstborn"
*there are no limitations on these biblical passages and declarations; those who become as God shall inherit all things.
*will receive his glory and be one with him and with the Father.
*In the second century, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons
*insisted that in the beginning men
*the above writers were not just
*the period of the apostles and
These should be re-written per WP:CLOP to not run afoul of WP:CV.
Deaddebate (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Nice catch! It looks like a single editor (one registered and a couple IPs which I'm guessing are the same person) back in the summer 2012 is responsible for the verbatim copy and paste from the Millet chapter and the article evolved from there. I think this might be the last clean, non-copyvio version of the article. Again, nice catch. I'm sorry I didn't catch it earlier when I was checking the list of scriptures. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

text: I've copy/pasted the last clean version I mentioned above to Talk:Exaltation (Mormonism)/Temp. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright concerns with Millet & Reynolds citation 

message: The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints decided years ago to not refer to themselves as Mormons because they do not worship the previous prophet named Mormon who compiled the Book of Mormon. Because they do not worship Mormon and do not refer to themselves as Mormons, the title of this article is incorrect because Mormonism is not a thing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warlord25 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Mormonism is a thing. We have the article Mormonism. It is the set of beliefs adhered to by members of the LDS Church and some other Mormon churches. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Named Incorrectly