Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 5

message: I went and formatted the links again. I originally unformatted them so the complete URL could be seen. But, apparently, the Wiki standard has changed and now all extern links should be "beautfied" since the printer-friendly versions now show the complete URL. So, sorry for changing them originally, but I wasn't aware of the new standard. —Frecklefoot 20:23, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatted extern links again

message: I edited the final paragraph of the Godhead section, which discusses the fact that the cross is not displayed by most LDS people.  I removed a sentence that indicated that the cross was used on top of temples in the early days of the Church, because I could find no evidence to support that statement and there was evidence to the contrary. (The "cross" was a weather vane with an angel flying horizontally; a Google image search for the Kirtland and Nauvoo temples bears this out.)
Alanyst 16:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: LDS and the symbol of the cross

message: Something doesn't sit well with me regarding this text from the article:
:Analogies circulated within the Church in regards to the differing roles of Heavenly Mother and Father correlate directly with mortal husbands and wives, not to mention analogous to notions of "Father Sun, Mother Earth." In the latter, the Father role is seen correlative with the Sun, protector, spokesman, orchestrator and provider of warmth, whereas the Mother role correlates with the Earth, from the body of which mankind was born, then continues as nurturer and sustainer of life.
I'm trying to pin down why it seems wrong.  Clearly it's not backed up by citations, so that's one point against it.  It was written by an anonymous user whose other contributions were largely reversed by later edits, apparently by poor or unfocused writing.  The user's IP address has hundreds of attributed edits, so I suspect it might be a proxy address, making it impossible to communicate with the user on the user's Talk page.  (I'm not philosophically opposed to anonymous edits, in case anyone thinks otherwise.  I just have no way to assess the credibility of material contributed by anonymous and inaccessible users.)  Now that I've organized my thoughts, I think the lack of citations for these anonymous ideas merits removing the material from the article.  If the original contributor (or anyone else) objects, I suggest replacing it with material supported by references, and adding an explanation on this page.  Alanyst 19:10, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agree. —B|Talk 21:43, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, as a rule I try not to edit solely on the basis of "but I've never heard of that."  For this particular case I think the cut was justified based on both the unfamiliarity of the material and the lack of supporting sources.  Anyhow, thanks for the sanity check, everyone.  Alanyst 21:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Roles of heavenly parents

message: I've always thought it interesting how thoroughly the Mormons managed to re-enact the Old Testament. The parallels are so obvious it's a wonder no one has bothered to mention them. 
Begin with a prophet (Joseph Smith = Moses) who proclaims divine revelation of a holy land. His successor, (Brigham Young = Joshua) leads his followers into this region, which just happens to be located in a desert near a large, inland sea with high salinity (Great Salt Lake = Dead Sea). The religion emphasizes outward conformity and discipline and is centered around a large temple in a capital city (Salt Lake City = Jerusalem) 
Perhaps this is why the fundamentalists don't consider Mormons to be Christians. Their religion and culture are modeled much more on the Old Testament than the New Testament. There seems to be a much greater similarity to Judaism than to Christianity.
::Brigham Young is often called "The American Moses", even by non-LDS scholars, due to the "exodus" of the Mormons from Illinois to Utah (which was part of Mexico at the time).  The entrance into Salt Lake Valley is called Emmigration Canyon (not Immigration...note that the Mormon Pioneers were deliberately leaving the USA at the time) even today.  There is even a large fresh water lake (Utah Lake) drained by the Jordan River that flows into the Great Salt Lake.  The comparisons are not completely lost, and indeed there tends to be a few problems with modern Jews going to Salt Lake City where Mormons think they have a closer relationship than the Jews think they have with Mormons.  The Star of David is also a prominent symbol on many buildings built in the 19th Century around Utah, with the LDS Assembly Hall (on Temple Square) having that symbol right on the front of the building as a stained glass window.  If that isn't enough, there is an LDS prophecy that the LDS church will get a claim to the temple mount in Jerusalem (like the Christians, Jews, or Moslems will ever give up or even think about letting Mormons there in the first place :))
:::I am unaware of such a prophecy. I am aware that a temple will be built by the Jews in Jerusalem. and they will flee the city and the Savior will come and then they will understand and worship him. And that water will heal the dead sea from the temple. But not that an LDS temple will be built on temple mount. If it indeed exists, can you point me to that prophesy? -Visorstuff 15:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As to why Fundimentalist Christians don't consider Mormons to be Christian, I can totally understand that vantage as well.  When Ecumenical Councils form in some communities, typically LDS congregations don't participate, although that is changing in some areas.  There is also traditional bias that goes back several generations, as well as popular media culture that particularly in the past wasn't all that friendly towards LDS beliefs.  From a traditional Protestant Christian viewpoint, I don't support the orthodoxy of traditional Chritianity by being of the LDS religion.  I don't recognize the sacraments that are performed in other Christian churches as valid before God, and even accept that there are other gods besides Jesus Christ (a total blasphmy in the view of most mainstream Christians).  There is more, but that is a typical difference of opinion.  BTW, just because there may be other gods besides Jesus doesn't mean that I don't accept him as my Savior and Redeemer, or the Supreme God of the Universe, which is why LDS people claim to be Christian.  --Robert Horning 10:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: LDS Church as an Old Testament re-enactment

message: shouldn't there be a mention in the article about the adoptation of masonic symbols and litourgy(sp?) into the eary forms of LDS? -- Project2501a 13:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There are references to this in the appropriate articles - Temples_of_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints, Temple_garment and Joseph_Smith_Jr.. Other than that, I'm not sure of any other relevance to this particular article. -Visorstuff 18:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS && Masonry lytourgy/symbols 

message: It is important to note that in the history of the LDS Church, that extreme persecution was the cause of the moving of the Saints from its original founding in that state of New York to the final home in Salt Lake, Utah. While there are many sides to the argument on how much early Mormons where persecuted, considering that the United States garranties freedom of religion, any level of persecution is alarming.
Adding to this that fact that the Govoner of the State of Missouri (Gov. Lilburn W. Boggs) in 1838 signed a military Extermination Order, which states "The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State."  This order was the direct cause of the arrest and murder of the Church's first Prophet, Joseph Smith. The order was also responsible for the death of 17 Church Members and one mormon supporter, at Haun's Mill in Caldwell County, Missouri on October 30, 1838. A Militia of 200-250 men attacked a settlement of  30-40 mormon familys. While the women and childeren where able to flee to safety, the men sought defence in a mill, which proved a poor defensive position. The death of the men in the mill where grousome. One man, when trying to surender was shot and hacked witha knife. A 10 year old boy, who was hiding was shot in the head at close enough range to cause the top of his head to be shot off.
This and many other issues in other states is what caused the Mormon people to flee there homes to travel for months to find refuge in Utah. There hope was to go so far way that they would be left alone.
Reference for the above can be viewed at http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/view.asp?t=194
:Not sure I understand your point. Of course the history is important. Although some of your referenced research is a bit outdated, point taken. However, the history or the Church may be found at History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Additional content of that sort, would make this page seem un-navigatable and large, which is why it was spun out into its own page. With that in mind, what exactly are you trying to say? Is it that we should include more of the history of the Church here, or that the history is important to understand. Please clarify so we can address your concerns. -Visorstuff 15:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add to history of church 

message: As you might have noticed, the page got trashed. It looks like somebody started to make some edits (most of them good - although I don't know where they got half of the people following Brigham Young), but then the last part of the page got deleted. It ends in mid-sentence.
I know the theory behind reverting, but would feel better if somebody more experienced did it. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 13:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicene Council 

message: This needs to be moved to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And also, why was the "Response to Critics" section of External links removed? I'm adding that back. :) Cookiecaper 10:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE 

message: It was a common misbelief that blacks were not allowed to receive the priesthood.  The restriction was limited to African descent.  The example I always heard was the Maori, who were black but able to receive the priesthood.  I don't think the current section explains this well, and the last parenthetical phrase doesn't seem to make sense if you don't know that Maori's have black skin.  I tried to fix it, but "people of color" was changed to "other ethnicities", which doesn't seem to explain it.  I would recommend taking out the closing parenthetical sentence.  Any ideas?  wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  - Talk 22:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tinkered with it somewhat, and added a link to the substantiative article on the topic.  Does that read any better now?  Alai 22:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Blacks and the Priesthood

message: The article makes no mention of the Mormon's extensive collection of Genealogy, and more importantly, why they have such a detailed record in the first place.  Since they believe that one can achieve salvation for dead relatives, it is important to track their ancestors to assure they make it to heaven.  This is a very strong selling point for the religion - it makes it very appealing if someone feels they hold the fate of their ancestors after-life within their control.
Also, the article should contain information about the Mormon Youth, and the 2 year "mission" (indoctrination) they are submitted to when they become a teenager.  During this time they are allowed only a couple contacts with their family.  Although certainly too biased and inflammatory for inclusion in the article, the term brainwashing certainly seems appropriate.
While the article contains a lot of technical, theological information, it does not address the fundamental question - why is the mormon religion growing so fast?
There are several reasons for that, including the church's great wealth, allowing them to build seed churches, as well as pay for a constant stream of expensive TV commercials.  Their basic tenets sell well - they believe in strong family values, and that mormons can achieve salvation for family that have already died.  Their youth is also employed aggressively in door-to-door ministry to evangelize the religion.
Finally, some information in the article, such as their belief that anyone can eventually achieve god-hood status, should be promoted to introductory section.  Such cult-like beliefs set mormonism far apart from all other fundamental Christain religions, and would serve to illustrate to the casual reader the (never publicized) theological foundations on which mormanism is truly based.  Dan East 03:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those concerns would I think, be best addressed in some of the more specific articles (ensuring, obviously, that links to those are in all appropriate places with suitable prominence).  There's already a large (indeed, somewhat unruly-looking) list at Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, perhaps that's a suitable jumping-off point?  (What that doesn't cover, what needs expansion, what needs to be structured differently...)  Alai 04:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: That sounds like an excellent idea.  (I wonder why I didn't think of that? ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  - Talk 19:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genealogy, Mormon Youth, Reason for popularity 

message: What's the preferred capitalisation of: Bishop; Apostle; Prophet; Sacrament Meeting?  Alai 04:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - also church manuals use this standard - all lower case unless refering to a specific person and used as a title. Trödel|talk 01:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalised terms?

message: I couldn't find any information about paid postions (see above) in the Arizona Republic stories (dated June 30-July 3,1991). I tried to clean up the section (formerly titled wealth). Would welcome comments on my edits. There are some things still missing - for example, I think it may be notable that the church has centralized management of assets compared to other churches which generally hold assets locally. Trödel|talk 12:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Flying J was established in 1968 by O. Jay Call (who died in a plane crash in 2002 or 2003) as a petroleum marketing company and later opened travel plazas - other than being located in Utah and being privately held (79th largest according to Forbes) there is no connection to the LDS Church (I would guess that Call was a member since Call is a common LDS surname, although it is Ogden - the murder capital of Utah - JK -Trödel|talk 02:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finances 

message: I am going to object to the wholesale reversion of anon's edits.  Can we appease anon a little to win an ally?  Tom Haws 22:42, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
::I just didn't have time to incorporate it when it was put in and the extent of the addition was too much for me to feel comfortable leaving it in the article for 10-12 hours - see also the revert I did 2 later in the history. I have copied the text over to a text file for modification. Trödel|talk 02:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree with the editor's accuracy but one comment has merit to stay and another has merit to be investigated further. As far as accuracty - the editors statement about "legal" versus "illegal" in Mexico and Canada is simply not correct (it is now, but wasn't then). I also think that the attack on the project was expected from the editor who obvisouly is strongly objected to the LDS church and needs to be removed. Again, polygamy is still not illegal in the united states, although it is illegal in many states. The law only made it illegal in U.S. territories, not universally federally illegal. This was a hugh emphasis during the Smoot hearings. His facts are wrong and I bet I could guess where he got his mis-information from in about three sources - I agree that people lived in plural relationships until the 1950-70s. No suprize. people live until they are old - don't care if it is included or not - but seems like a no-brainer - maybe we should say, people who were married multiple times did not divorce or cease their relationships, therefore people lived well into the 1970s and beyond that were married in plural arrangements. The point about Heber J. Grant is valid and may be left in - it is interesteing and relevant to the topic of polygamy - but is it appropriate in this article? Probably so. I'm unsure of the accuracy of his JFS claim of an 18 year old wife. Will ahve to double check, but doesn't seem accurate, as JFS jr was one of his youngest sons, I thought, but may have been youngest from that particular marriage. I also disagree that the churhc "sanctioned" plural marriage utnil 1906 - rather they "allowed" it, letting people live it if they "obeyed" the laws of the land - remember it was not to be preached after the second manifesto by any church leader. I can dig up a list of people who did preach about it and were excomm. or disfellowshipped if needed. for "allowing" passages may want to see external links and referenced material from other wiki entries including "A Mormon Mother." However, aside from these small details, I'm sure this editor has done a lot of primary research and probably was alive at the time, so he/she knows exactly all the ins and outs. A simple reading of the smoot hearings would clear most of his claims up. Will try to check on JFS marriages tonight. As an aside, I'm proud of my polygamy roots. I have nothing to hide or try to explain away to anyone, as I've frequently discussed this int eh past on talk pages. It is sad to see such misunderstanding still being promoted by people who know nothing aside from the documents they are reading. reminds me of people who believe that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a valid document. there are many who do. SAD! -Visorstuff 01:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No disagreement at all.  Anon needs to clean up his act and come learn how to add content in accordance with policy.  I just hope he/she will.  Tom Haws 19:19, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
I don't get teh 1906 date this person is fixated with (similar changes at Polygamy) that was the date that the twelve released Apostles John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley for continuing to teach and practice, and when JFS was convicted of unlawful co-habitation (although he was granted amnesty from U.S. President Benjamin Harrison in September 1891). Teh second manifesto was 1904 but at the october conference in 1910, the Church sustained an initiative for stake presidents to ecommunicate those who performed plural marriages after 1904 (and husbands). Even Quinn who is rather naturalistic agrees with this. Upon further research, the church did not saction or authorize any plural marriages under the administration of Lorenzo Snow, but did authorize them in mexico under JFS during 1901-2, but that then ceased. The claims about Smith marriage is slanted and not complete or accurate. Anyone want to revert the other page?? -Visorstuff 20:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon added content that was reverted wholesale

message: Addition:
:The crowning event recorded in the Book of Mormon is the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ among the Nephites soon after his resurrection. It puts forth the doctrines of the gospel, outlines the plan of salvation, and tells men what they must do to gain peace in this life and eternal salvation in the life to com. After Mormon completed his writings, he delivered the account to his osn Moroni, who added a few words of his won and hid up the plates in the hill Cumorah. On September 12,1823, the same Mormoni, then a glorified, resurrected being, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith and instructed him relative to the ancient record and its destined translation into the English language.In due course the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God. The record is now published in many languages as a new and additional witness and Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that all who will come unto him and obey the laws and ordinances of his gospel may be saved. Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." IN addition to Joseph Smith, the Lord provided for eleven others to see the gold plates for themselves and to be spcial witnesses of the truth and divinity of the Book of Mormon. Their written testimonies are included herewith as "The Testimony of Three Witnesses" and "The Testimony of Eight Witnesses." We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, int he name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gian a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghoustsee Moroni10:3-5. Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is his revelator and prophet in these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's kingdom once again established on this earth, preparatory to the second coming of the Messiah."
Numerous structual, POV and copy-edit issues with this, so I'm punting it to here, in case it's fixable...  Alai 07:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert du jour... 

message: This wording has been bugging me for some time, so today I've removed it. The Three Witnesses said they say the plates, heard the voice of God bearing witness of its correctness, saw an angel, the liahona, the 24 ether plates, the brass plates, sword of laban, Urim and thummin and breastplate. The U&T and breastplate they had seen previously during the translation process, as Smith required two witnesses and a scribe in the translation room with him (hence a scribe was always the hold up, witnesses were much easier to come by) as he translated. Whitmer, cowdery and harris all claimed to see in vision, and only one stated that he had handled the plates as a witness. the others left it as seeing it. One of Whitmer's descriptions was that the angel showed them page by page the plates that SMith translated, and that God bore witness that the translation was correct at each page. The wording that whitmer used has been employed by antimormons and naturalist historians to claim that the three didn't physically see the plates, but saw them spritually or with their spiritual eyes. Which from one point of view is correct, but each said it was a very physical thing. Anyway, I've removed it here and hope this context is helpful. -Visorstuff 19:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - I had not heard of this spiritual sense until I read it on Wikipedia and could find no other reference to it other than some real die-hard anti-site with no attribution etc. thanks for removing Trödel|talk 19:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Has anyone seen the BYU "Classic LDS Films" with "The Fourth Witness"?  It claims to be the true story of Mary Whitmer getting to see the plates.  In the film, she even gets to touch them.  I had never heard the story, and was wondering how well known that was. wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  - Talk 04:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Spriritual Sense"

message: This article's already very long by WP standards;  is there a better place to put the "forms of address" material?  Perhaps the priesthood article?  Alai 04:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forms of address 

message: I notice we have a new lead section, via an anon contribution and some paring-down thereof.  Broadly speaking it seems rather more "LDS self-characterisations at face value", and rather less "controversies".  What's the feelings on the pros and cons?  Alai 06:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree that the language of the section is rather POV (persecution, expulsion, assassination, etc) but I'd find it hard to dispute the overall factual accuracy of the section.  If a self-characterization of the LDS church is included, it would certainly be worth inclusion in the intro paragraph.  I also agree, however, that a short intro to controversy/problems/criticism would be worth including in the main paragraph also, so as to not marginalize such information to a "controversy" section near the end of the article.  --ABQCat 08:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New lead section 

message: Although I have been very happy with Wikipedia generally (as it seems to bring about a great deal of objective viewpoints from the many), the LDS pages are a real disappointment.  They give such an obvious pro-Mormon bias, that it seems obvious that there is a group of Mormons out there that immediately edit and suppress any statement or article that appears to be not in their favour, or that hints at any of the very good questions about their religion (i.e. that elephants once roamed North America or that American Indians are descended from the Jewish race, not to mention the Book of Abraham that JS fabricated).  The page on Anti-Mormonism is weak and contrived as well.  If the Mormon page is to have any significance at all and is to live up to the Wikipedia ideals, it needs to show a more balanced viewpoint.  Thank you. User:Cmoser99
: You are right in your assumption that there is a group of Mormons who audit these pages.  However, the idea that we suppress critical points isn't quite true.  More precisely, we tend to edit out misconceptions about Mormon beliefs.  For example, I'm not sure where you got the idea that we believe that elephants once roamed North America or that American Indians were descended from the Jewish race.  The word elephant appears once in the english version of the Book of Mormon, but that may or may not refer to what we currently call elephants.  As for American Indians being a descendent of the Jews (Book of Mormon people), that is also not quite true.  We believe that some of the descendents of the Jews survived the Book of Mormon times, but that may or may not include the American Indians.  It may also include South America as well as various islands.  With all the intermarriage that has happened over the years, finding a "pure" blood line would most likely be difficult.  For my own part, I have tried to retain the negative comments, but modify them to be more accurate.  wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  - Talk 22:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a convert, and not from Utah, I don't know much about some of the "cultural" beliefs.  In fact, I would argue that, since Utah Mormons are a minority now (as are US Mormons, for that matter), that such cultural beliefs are less worth mentioning.  Personally, I would rather stick to the doctrinal points.  wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  - Talk 03:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may not feel you know much about cultural beliefs, but you probably know, adhere to, or believe many of them, just don't delineate as such as most of us don't spend time thinking about it. For example, what it means to be a god is a cultural belief. How you do home teaching is a cultural belief/training (it may change based on the culture). Same with teaching lessons in Church, beliefs about the BOM, and the place of the relief society. Some in the Church think that priesthood quorums and the relief society are auxilliaries, when in fact, the RS is an auxilliary and the priesthood is core - it is the Church. RS holds no keys to direct the church, but the bishop and EQP does (deacon's and teachers pres does too). What about giving blessings? Do you hold the inerrant right to give blessings? Not nessessarily, but because it is an unrecorded ordinance, you are authorized by those holding keys to exercise your priesthood in someone elses behalf. It may or may not always be that way, according to the doctrine, yet the practice, or the cultural interpretation of it is that this is the way things have always been done. Does the bishop direct the affairs of the EQP? He shouldn't - he doesn't hold keys over the Mel. Priesthood, but often teh EQP will treat him as he does. Then there are beliefs about the garden of gethsemane being where Christ suffered for our sins. True he did there, but he also continued suffered for them on the cross - a fact may members fo the Church may or may not believe. Plural Marriagae coming back? some culturally believe it will. No prophet has said. WE just don't teach it. Even the term plural marriage is a cultural thing. One of my recent favorites is that the youth are the best that have ever been as to combat such a wicked world, and that no other peopel could deal with the trials of the day - the "generals in the war in heaven" comments. No prophet has ever said they are the best and that others could not deal with the trials of today, or that they were generals (thank mr bytheway for that concept, which may or may not be true, no leader has ever clarified), but rather that we were "held back" or "reserved" for this time. Don't you think that Peter, James and John were "reserved" for their time? Noah and Enoch reserved for theirs? Martin Luther reserved for his? Even Pres Hinckley in his "be" book said that our trials are easier than in past generations as we don't worry about food (which gives bigger ethical decisions than the laciviousness and leisure time decisions we deal with). There are a lot of practices, cultural beliefs that are core to what we do in the Church that could change at any time and are not doctrinal. Sometimes they are policy-based, other times they are introduced by well-meaning individuals. I believe we need to address this cultural beleifs better adn stronger. -Visorstuff 23:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you said.  My comment was prompted by a suggestion that perhaps some of the "cultural" beliefs should be included.  Now, I've only been in Utah for less than 24 hours on a business trip, but I keep hearing about all these "cultural beliefs" that float around there.  The point I was trying to make was that such beliefs are a minority opinion at this point, and I question whether it makes sense to include those cultural beliefs that are local to Utah, but not to the church in general.  I often talk about the LDS "trinity" - the Gospel (always true and always unchanging), the Church (always true but often changing), and the Culture (maybe true, but maybe not, and usually changing).  It certainly makes sense to include beliefs that are not doctrinal but widely held and discussed throughout the church.  What doesn't make sense to me is including unofficial regional beliefs.  Of course, for all I know, there are no such beliefs in Utah, and their existence is an urban rumor that those of us in the "mission field" keep hearing. wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  - Talk 15:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I grew up in Utah, and I think the Church culture is the same everywhere you go - an urban myth. It is simply more concentrated in utah which leads to anomalies such as posing notices for enrichment night in your front yard, or welcome home elder so and so on school marquees. In short, aside from a few minor practices in Utah, I disbelieve (from a research perspective) the idea of regional beliefs or regional culture in Mormonism. I've met more people in Arizona, Idaho, Virginia and California who meet the "Utah Mormon" mold than people I know from Utah. This is simply a perception issue that is magnified as there is a higher concentrate of Mormons in Utah. I simply do not believe tehre are any "cultural beliefs that are local to Utah" that do not exist elsewhere in the church. If anyone can cite something I may be persuaded, but have seen no evidence for this idea. -Visorstuff 17:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that "cultural" beliefs should be treated separately from official teachings. I would want Eastern Orthodoxy (my own faith) or any other faith treated the same way. Personally, I find the official LDS teachings about God sufficiently outrageous that I really don't care about what they might or might not think about elephants. There's no reason not to present their actual teachings neutrally and let readers form their own conclusions, or better yet, encourage them to do more research for themselves. Wesley 04:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, Wesley. -Visorstuff 23:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappointed with Objectivity of LDS Pages 

message: This is a high quality, accurate presenation of the basics about the church.  Good job.  Reading the talk page (which maybe I should have done *before* editing, eh?), it appears things have been somewhat contentious.  I made a couple small changes: one for grammar, one for accuracy.  Hope no one minds.Novel-Technology 08:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Page 

message: There seems to be an ongoing push on all the articles dealing with Mormonism to include a diverse number of links.  The result is a lot of deleting, followed by re-adding the same links.  I detect some simply not understanding the definitions used on Wiki and others just not recognizing the titles of articles.
To clear up some problems, how about a few rules of thumb:  1)  if the links do not specifically apply to the subject of the article, it should not be included.  If you want to refer to other articles in Wiki that will have those links, do that instead of adding exterior links.  2)  Before adding a link ask the question does it really add something beneficial to WIKI.  If you are not certain, don't add it.  If you are promoting your own site, don't add it.  If you are certain, by all means add the link.  3)  WIKI is not a place for people to "grind their preferred axe of choice".  If the link is only marginally associated with the subject, it is probably best not to include it.  Let's use some common sense and move on. Storm Rider 22:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, but we had already decided twice before. How can we prevent this from coming up again. We obviously need to find a better solution. -Visorstuff 00:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: * Related websites, affiliated with the Church:
** Educational
*** byu.edu - Brigham Young University
*** byui.edu - BYU Idaho (formerly Ricks College)
*** ldsbc.edu - LDS Business College
*** byuh.edu - BYU-Hawaii
*** byucougars.com - BYU Cougar Sports
** Media
*** mormontabernaclechoir.org -Official website of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the Temple Square Chorale and the Orchestra at Temple Square 
*** deseretnews.com - Deseret Morning News
*** bonneville.com - Bonneville Communications
*** ksl.com - KSL TV and Radio
*** byubroadcasting.org - BYU Broadcasting
*** byutv.org - BYU Television
*** byuradio.org - BYU Radio
*** kbyutv.org - KBYU Television
*** kbyufm.org - KBYU FM Radio
*** BYU Speeches - given by Latter-day Saints at Brigham Young University, Provo, addressed to BYU students. Many of these can be listened to for free at http://www.byubroadcasting.org.
** Other
*** farmsresearch.com - Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies
*** byubookstore.com - BYU Bookstore
*** deseretbook.com - Deseret Bookstore
*** gospelink.com - GospeLink
*** LDS General Conference Scriptural Index - links from scriptures to the general conference talks that cite those scriptures (created at BYU)
Also, Mormonstories, as a new editor with a definite POV, I appreciate your interest in being bold.  Addiontally, from reviewing your edits I would guess that you have chaffed in the past at what you consider the heavy hand of the LDS leadership.  We got it.  But, attempt to see the middle road at Wiki.  We are an information source, but we are not a place for our individual soap box (We have all have one; you are not alone!).  To wit, I have deleted BYU links first.  After additional discussion I am sure we will be deleting more links.
Visor & Val, please forgive my deletion without discussion.  I think it was Visor that alluded to this need for action.  I took it, but will wait on further discussion before further action.  Storm Rider 01:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: My opinion is that we should have no more then 4 or 5 of each type of link. Rmisiak 18:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exterior Links 

message: Let's vote on which links should stay:
===Official websites of the Church===
Primary websites: 
*LDS.org - the official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — with links to Gospel Library, Church History, Family Home Evening programs, and more
# Keep -V
# Keep -Storm
*Mormon.org - information on basic beliefs, a meetinghouse locator, and a place to email questions
# Keep, although a mirror site, it does have church-related info-V
# Keep, agreed a very similar site, but worthwhile
*FamilySearch.org - Search for Ancestors
# delete - it is more appropriate for the Genealogy page-V
# delete - this site is off topic
===Additional websites===
Church-friendly websites, unaffiliated with the Church:
*LDS Today - news related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
# Keep gives news -V
# either way as an additionial site, it is a marginal keep. Storm
*Meridian Magazine - Webzine for Latter-day Saints; updated every weekday.
# Delete Not official. Not relevent. It is ancilliary to Mormon-related topics - in fact, the Ensign site would be more appropriate. -V
# Delete -Storm
*Nauvoo.com A gathering place for Latter-day Saints, including discussion forums, owned by LDS author Orson Scott Card.
# Delete Not relevant -V 
# Delete - Storm
*LDSFAQ at byu.edu - A comprehensive index answering many common questions. Uses large portions of The Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
# Keep Although not official, is good Q&A -V
# Keep Storm
*Mormon Answers - frequently asked questions about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
# Keep Although not official, is good Q&A -V
# Keep -Storm
Alternative and Opposing Points of View
*Exmormon.org - For those who have left the LDS Church, or for those considering leaving.
#Keep for same reason as jefflindsay site.  -V
#Keep -Storm
*Postmormon.org - An alternative to ex-Mormon, focused on moving beyond, not opposing, Mormonism. 
# Delete not an informative site, but rather a focum - delete for same reason as Nauvoo above. 
# Keep -Storm, it does have some interesting data for those wishing to "disprove" the church. Other sites do it better and it is mixed with "Beyond Mormonism", but it is well done.
*Zarahemla City Limits - Essays on Mormonism.
# Delete I know one of the guys who runs this - same reason as nauvoo and postmormon. -V
# Keep (or reinstate later on?) I'm the one who V is probably thinking of who runs it. If you want to delete the site for the time being, I could agree with that, however, we are currently implementing plans to add a number of truly informative articles to this site. So, could I ask that we get re-evaluated in a few months time? -Kevin
::Thou art the man! :^) - If the focus of the site changes, then yes. But for the time being it sounds like you agree in the short term. I think it would be great to have a site similar to Jeff Lindsay's that could intellectually counter his claims, but the closest I'm aware of is exmormon.org.
# Delete -Storm, nice chat site currently, but not germaine. 
*http://www.i4m.com/think/ Rethinking Mormonism] - A site that summarizes the critical information respecting some of the key questions questioning Mormons often wish to address
# Keep it is decent for now, but could be persuaded in other way -V
# Keep -Storm
*Refuting Mormonism - Biblical arguments and scripture to refute the claims of Mormonism.
# remove - see discussion above. -V
# Delete -Storm
[How about adding this additional category?] FreedomWorks! 20:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Justification of links

message: Church-friendly websites, unaffiliated with the Church:
*LDS Today - news related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
# Keep gives news -V
# either way as an additionial site, it is a marginal keep. Storm
*Meridian Magazine - Webzine for Latter-day Saints; updated every weekday.
# Delete Not official. Not relevent. It is ancilliary to Mormon-related topics - in fact, the Ensign site would be more appropriate. -V
# Delete -Storm
*Nauvoo.com A gathering place for Latter-day Saints, including discussion forums, owned by LDS author Orson Scott Card.
# Delete Not relevant -V 
# Delete - Storm
*LDSFAQ at byu.edu - A comprehensive index answering many common questions. Uses large portions of The Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
# Keep Although not official, is good Q&A -V
# Keep Storm
*Mormon Answers - frequently asked questions about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
# Keep Although not official, is good Q&A -V
# Keep -Storm
Alternative and Opposing Points of View
*Exmormon.org - For those who have left the LDS Church, or for those considering leaving.
#Keep for same reason as jefflindsay site.  -V
#Keep -Storm
*Postmormon.org - An alternative to ex-Mormon, focused on moving beyond, not opposing, Mormonism. 
# Delete not an informative site, but rather a focum - delete for same reason as Nauvoo above. 
# Keep -Storm, it does have some interesting data for those wishing to "disprove" the church. Other sites do it better and it is mixed with "Beyond Mormonism", but it is well done.
*Zarahemla City Limits - Essays on Mormonism.
# Delete I know one of the guys who runs this - same reason as nauvoo and postmormon. -V
# Keep (or reinstate later on?) I'm the one who V is probably thinking of who runs it. If you want to delete the site for the time being, I could agree with that, however, we are currently implementing plans to add a number of truly informative articles to this site. So, could I ask that we get re-evaluated in a few months time? -Kevin
::Thou art the man! :^) - If the focus of the site changes, then yes. But for the time being it sounds like you agree in the short term. I think it would be great to have a site similar to Jeff Lindsay's that could intellectually counter his claims, but the closest I'm aware of is exmormon.org.
# Delete -Storm, nice chat site currently, but not germaine. 
*http://www.i4m.com/think/ Rethinking Mormonism] - A site that summarizes the critical information respecting some of the key questions questioning Mormons often wish to address
# Keep it is decent for now, but could be persuaded in other way -V
# Keep -Storm
*Refuting Mormonism - Biblical arguments and scripture to refute the claims of Mormonism.
# remove - see discussion above. -V
# Delete -Storm
[How about adding this additional category?] FreedomWorks! 20:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional websites