Talk:Mormonism/Archive 2

message: I archived this talk page, as it had become massive and most current conversations seemed to have drifted uncomfortably close to personal attacks. Please feel free to continue relevant, civil discussions below; remember that proposed changes should include proper sources. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 20:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being the most recent poster to the (now) archived discussion, I agree with why you archived the discussion. The discussion wasn't advancing, even with my posting.  Thanks for archiving the discussions. Val42 02:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it was 170KB long. :) --Kmsiever 03:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rearchived the stuff to Talk:Mormonism/Archive 2 - with all the new unsourced allegations. Trödel 21:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now at Talk:Mormonism/Archived coverup allegations Trödel 02:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I am ok with the deletion (and the deletion of these two comments - I was just trying to give the anon a place to vent - and it seemed to make it worse - you never can tell Trödel 21:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've blocked User:213.237.21.242 for 48 hours due to trolling, personal attacks, and general incivility, as it's been clear for some time now that she has not shown a willingness to reach consensus on proposed changes in a reasonable, calm manner. I'll try to keep an eye on things from here on out. On a related note, I'm erasing the second archive, as its contents were either an exact repeat of material from the first, or trolling on the same user's part. However, if editors involved in these discussions feel that it should be restored, please notify me and I'll do so — just trying to keep things relevant and to the point. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 20:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI - prior to the ban above - I also posted a notice on the Administrator Arbcom enforcement noticeboard - am going to leave it there but would not object if any users feel that it is not necessary. Trödel 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a quick note that  extended the block on  to a week. Trödel 13:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In this situation I would also vote on the side of caution.  An editor has accused others of a cover-up, a serious allegation.  I do not disagree with archiving the whole diatribe, but it should be there for all to see.  Prior to it being deleted, I had renamed it "Archive 2 - Alledged cover-up".  I thought that was sufficient, but I also felt for the next week or so I would keep the headline at the top of the page.  It ensures that no one will accuse any editor on this page of anything remotely similar to a cover up.  The edits speak for themselves and there is nothing to hide.  Please bring both back and after a week, delete the headline and keep the archive.  Edits to discussion pages are very seldom appropriate for deletion; I am not sure this is one of them.  Storm Rider (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with restoring the diatribe with a clear link in the Archive section at the top of the page.  I believe that the best way to expose severe bias is to let it speak and have its opinion become obvious to those who read it.  Personally, I think that Sophie is a troll who should be ignored.  Val42 02:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored it for the purposes of the investigation. I agree with SR that a coverup accusation can be serious, but this case is textbook trolling. We'll see what turns up. Thanks for keeping on top of things; feel free to correct my restoration as y'all see fit. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 23:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see the cover-up allegations at Talk:Mormonism/Archive 2 or Talk:Mormonism/Archived coverup allegations.  Given that the first person to revert Sophie in the Mormonism article (on the 10th of June) was User:Mike Rosoft ("A hard-core atheist, with a bit of an agnostic"), Sophie's primary allegation doesn't hold water.  I'm going to restore Sophie's unfounded allegations against me that are in the Archive 1.  The more light that is shown on Sophie, the more he/she/it will appear as a troll. Val42 03:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: I have posted an alert on the WP:WQA as a step toward resolving this problem. -- andersonpd 17:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've blocked User:213.237.21.242 for 48 hours due to trolling, personal attacks, and general incivility, as it's been clear for some time now that she has not shown a willingness to reach consensus on proposed changes in a reasonable, calm manner. I'll try to keep an eye on things from here on out. On a related note, I'm erasing the second archive, as its contents were either an exact repeat of material from the first, or trolling on the same user's part. However, if editors involved in these discussions feel that it should be restored, please notify me and I'll do so — just trying to keep things relevant and to the point. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 20:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI - prior to the ban above - I also posted a notice on the Administrator Arbcom enforcement noticeboard - am going to leave it there but would not object if any users feel that it is not necessary. Trödel 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a quick note that  extended the block on  to a week. Trödel 13:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In this situation I would also vote on the side of caution.  An editor has accused others of a cover-up, a serious allegation.  I do not disagree with archiving the whole diatribe, but it should be there for all to see.  Prior to it being deleted, I had renamed it "Archive 2 - Alledged cover-up".  I thought that was sufficient, but I also felt for the next week or so I would keep the headline at the top of the page.  It ensures that no one will accuse any editor on this page of anything remotely similar to a cover up.  The edits speak for themselves and there is nothing to hide.  Please bring both back and after a week, delete the headline and keep the archive.  Edits to discussion pages are very seldom appropriate for deletion; I am not sure this is one of them.  Storm Rider (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with restoring the diatribe with a clear link in the Archive section at the top of the page.  I believe that the best way to expose severe bias is to let it speak and have its opinion become obvious to those who read it.  Personally, I think that Sophie is a troll who should be ignored.  Val42 02:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored it for the purposes of the investigation. I agree with SR that a coverup accusation can be serious, but this case is textbook trolling. We'll see what turns up. Thanks for keeping on top of things; feel free to correct my restoration as y'all see fit. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 23:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see the cover-up allegations at Talk:Mormonism/Archive 2 or Talk:Mormonism/Archived coverup allegations.  Given that the first person to revert Sophie in the Mormonism article (on the 10th of June) was User:Mike Rosoft ("A hard-core atheist, with a bit of an agnostic"), Sophie's primary allegation doesn't hold water.  I'm going to restore Sophie's unfounded allegations against me that are in the Archive 1.  The more light that is shown on Sophie, the more he/she/it will appear as a troll. Val42 03:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquette Alert

message: This new insertion 
"Through recent DNA, archeological, and linguistic studies, much criticism has arisen both inside and outside the Mormon church in regard to the historical validity of the Book of Mormon. (The DNA Challenge to the Book of Mormon DNA vs. The Book of Mormon"
seems to duplicate the paragraphs above re Historicity of the BoM - maybe we could use the links as references up there - but I don't see what it adds. --Trödel 20:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Someone explain to me why this article should not be merged with Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? --Splitpeasoup 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read through the archives of this Talk page (see near the table of contents for a link)? --Kmsiever 04:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer is the Mormonism is a broader term than just the LDS church.  Although Mormon is a term most often used for members of the LDS church, Mormonism is appropriately used for all churches/sects that evolved from the church founded by Joseph Smith.  To combine the article into the LDS article would not be appropriate.  Cheers.  Storm Rider (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I see. Thanks! --Splitpeasoup 19:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 

message: Recently User:153.26.176.34 added in these  bits to the article; I wasn't sure what to make of them, and a few people on IRC weren't, either. We did find this page , which seems to be the source, but the page itself doesn't seem to have a neutral tone, and I'm not sure how much I trust them as an authoritative source, when they seem to have it out for the Mormons; possible NPOV concerns, at all? Ultimately, my curiosity is piqued, but I'm looking for opinions and/or advice from people who know what they're talking about a little better, before and if I take any action. Thanks in advance. Luna Santin 10:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them. The first section is about the nature of God, not about anything having to do with God. The edit in the second section is a deviation from the other points in the section. Considering these are the only edits the person has made to any of the Mormon-related pages, I do not see the value in the contribution. In fact, I see it as nothing more that agenda-based editing. --Kmsiever 14:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Not being an expert on LDS or "Mormonism", yet a student of religion, I hope you will take these suggestions seriously without thinking that I claim such an expertise.
:: In line with earlier discussion about moving the Mormon Theology section, I would like to suggest that in the present entry it seems too dominant, especially given the lack of attention paid to other aspects such as practice, history and the possible diversity of beliefs.  This might be even more problematic given the fact that a conscious effort has been made to distinguish between LDS and Mormonism.  I'm assuming that, and not without warrant, the Mormon Theology presented here is mostly that of LDS.  I say "not without warrant" because even I know that LDS members comprise a vast majority of those identifying as "Mormon".  That fact aside, however, if Mormonism isn't strictly LDS then Mormon Theology should perhaps include competing beliefs and differences in theology.  For instance theological justifications of polygamy by "Fundementalist Mormons" are alternative theologies and not simply fringe beliefs.  Though there is some mention about the differences between RLDS and LDS.  The most unfortunate side effect of the current structure of the entry, may be that some readers see it as partly appologetic of the LDS church--that is as being close to an ingroup or official stance.  This brings me to another matter.
:: As a student of religion, and not simply Theology, I look for among other things a good historical understanding of a current relgious group. This HISTORY would make more sense of when, where and why groups like the RLDS broke with what has become the current LDS.  It can also provide the reader with insight into the current differences between mainline Mormonism (LDS) and the various smaller groups.  Furthermore, information about Mormon PRACTICE may also do so.  What is Mormon ritual like?  How does it relate to theology and popular belief?  What about mission?  The last question seems to me very imporant given the fact that one of the few things the layman or laywoman thinks they know is that Mormons are all about mission--and clearly mission is important in not only the Church but also in the Mormon "subculture", to use the phrasing of the entry.  Even though the entry identifies Mormonism as a religion, a subculture, an ideology, and a movement only the ideological aspects are well covered as Theology (despite the criticisms above).  Mormonisn's aspect as a MOVEMENT would hypothetically be covered in a history of that movement.  What about the subculture?  We do not at present learn much of anything about Mormonism as a subculture.  Again I will reiterate, not because I believe so but because I can see the possibilities, that the current presentation may seem to some like the official LDS stance.  This is heightened by the lack of attention to culture, history and practice in favor of Theology.  It is also not helped by the fact that the discussion of polygamy, for instance, is explicitly appologetic of Joseph Smith instead of historically complex--and I am not suggesting that it is innacurrate but there is more to the way one presents something than the accuracy of well chosen statements.   
I have made these suggestions, not to attack the writers and editors here, who as far as I can tell have done a great job in their presentation of what is actually on the page.  I only hope that they consider addressing some of these issues.  My suggestion also is that in addressing them the page will seem more balanced and less likely to be interpreted as stemming from a POV perspective to many readers.  Thanks for considering.PelleSmith 14:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mormonism", Theology, History and other Issues 

message: Is it really necessary to have hundreds of scripture references in the notes section? I don't think they qualify as reliable sources, seeing as they are open to individual interpretation. Of course it may be useful to include one or two in the main body of text, but the notes section looks ridiculously bloated. --Lethargy 02:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: I mentioned Wikipedia:Words to avoid and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words above, but I figure this merits its own section.
We should avoid phrases such as "Most modern members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that, although each individual may receive personal revelation to guide himself in his personal life, only certain people have been divinely appointed as prophets to authoritatively speak the mind and will of God, as in Biblical times." Are we citing a survey of "most modern members"? We could clean this up by quoting a General Authority or actual church doctrine, rather than attributing it to "most" members.
"although members of some sects (including a few of those belonging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) prefer not to be identified as Mormons."
We can never verify that "a few" Latter-day Saints don't like to be called Mormons, and even if we found a handful of individuals who don't like to be called that, it wouldn't be from a reputable source. Also, which sects are we talking about? --Lethargy 23:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the first footnote in the article states "Mormons also point to Numbers 11: 26-29 and Revelation 19: 10 in the Bible in support of this teaching." Avoid using this generalization, please name a specific person who points to Numbers 11: 26-29 and Revelation 19: 10. Was it from a church manual? --Lethargy 23:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: This text was deleted:
:The establishment of the Mormon Church, along with the Great Awakenings that occurred in the nineteenth century, marked the movement towards the notion of North America as a place of religious significance, as the Anglicans had done in England, as the Catholics had done in Rome, and as all Christians do in the Holy Land. Mormonism is arguably the culmination of a distinctive impact by the American people on Christianity.
I don't believe it is original research, but rather simply uncited - leaving here in hopes someone knows a reference --Trödel 14:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: :::This page and all LDS pages should be merged under the title Mormonism. All LDS pages are talking  about Joseph Smith's teachings, the page is about his teachings anyway, so that goes to reason they read the book of Mormon therfore Mormons.You may want to seperate your modern church from its past however its past can't be changed. The current "big" branch is still preaching about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and they were part of the Latter Day Saint movement, Church and Mormonism.
:This is not the main reason I suggest the change however. They should be merged because all the other religions I've read about on Wikipedia include the movements or beginings, middles and currents on their main (only) page. As in Buddist getting only a Buddism page, Hindus getting only a Hindism page and so on. If they are not merged then I feel that all of the other religions should have similar adjustment to the Mormons. As Mormonism has three (3) different listings as of today, Sept. 26 2006, Latter day Saint Movement,Latter day saints and Mormons. They should all be listed under Mormanism. Anarcism, Capitalism, Communism have many forms but only one (1) page each.
:::lol: I was wrong there are nine (9) pages on Momonism as of today (maybe more are hiding) Latter day Saint Movement,Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ,History of the Latter Day Saint movement,Jesus in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Missions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon, Mormonism, and there are lists with (small) pages of even more sects. I'd be willing to wager that all of the different branches not only follow the book of Mormon, but also all but one originated in Utah.
:::Joeseph Smith's MORMONISM and the book of Mormon is what all the above pages are all refering to.
:::And a quote from Latter Day Saint movement page shows the connection."The Latter Day Saint movement spawned many religious denominations, some of which include a set of doctrines, practices, and cultures collectively known as Mormonism, although some do not accept the designation Mormon."
There is a link to this article from the Exmormonism article, backed up in the discussion section of Exmormonism. It seems only logical that there should be a link back. greenw47
:I'm not sure you understand how this and other encyclopedias work.  You are not correct at all about how other religions are dealt with here in Wikipedia.  Please go have a look before you make those types of statements.  If there is an umbrella term, like Mormonism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, then there should be one page for this generalized descriptor.  However, there should and are also seperate pages for denominations, movements, specific practices, sacred texts, etc. etc.  There are plenty of pages about Hinduism and Buddism to use your examples, and a heck of alot more dealing with Christianity and/or within its denominations (e.g. Catholicism).  There are Mormons who are not LDS members so simply merging the two would not be appropriate.  Also the "Book of Mormom", while it should clearly be mentioned in the Mormonism entry and the LDS entry, deserves its own page just as much as, for instance the "Vedas" do.  It is possible that some merging would benefit the entries, however you need to be specific and clear on what should be merged.  The suggestion of merging all things "Mormon" is not desirable at all.PelleSmith 17:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: This article is tagged as needing citations.  The problem with providing the citations brings up a topic that I've brought up before, the direction of this article.  If this article remains as it is, an umbrella covering all of the Joseph Smith, Jr.-descended sects that claim the title Mormon, then we'll have to provide a citation from each of them to support each statement made in this article.  So, first of all, we have to define which sects belong under this umbrella.  Then we need to provide the citations from each of them to support each statement.  This article will look <sarcasm>good</sarcasm> with five or more references after EACH AND EVERY PERIOD in the article. Val42 14:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed

message: Technically Mormonism is filed under being a cult, so I am changing all terms of religion to cult. 
(The above unsigned message was left by Kris Classic.)
:Thanks for taking this to the Talk page. Once you get a consensus here on the Talk page that these changes should be made, then by all means make them. In the mean time, I've reverted your change. Also, please sign comments by typing 4 tildes "~~~~" And new comments usually got at the bottom of the Talk page. And, no, I'm not a Mormon defending my home turf. Jonathan Tweet 15:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, if you were to change the word religion to cult here, you'd have to change it in a lot of other articles, and i don't think we want to get into that one here.Legars 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion?

message: In the "Are Mormons Christians?" section there is no argument against their inclusion in the Christian brotherhood. The only statements made in it are that of a Mormon! The balance in this section is where? I find it insulting, if anything, to have Mormons referring to themselves as "Christians," on many grounds. Namely, that they have rejected the Word of G-D for a book written by a man named Joseph Smith in the 1800s, a book which contradicts itself numerous times (D&C 121:32; PoGP:Abraham 4:Heading; and PoGP:Abraham 4:1 all contradict its premise of one G-D in favor of many; D&C 130:22 says that G-D the Father and Son is fleshy, not Spirit; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46 says that G-D was once a man, but was MADE a deity, thus compromising the eternity of the true G-D). 
It also seems to me that just about all of the articles pertaining to things of the LDS "Church" are biased, as if a team of Mormons just sit around the computer all day, editing this site and others to ensure it looks favorably upon them. So much so that truth is lost in Mormon dreams and fantasies, except, of course, to those brave enough to actually seek it out. 76.18.133.235 1:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your points may well be valid, but they also constitute original research.  Find some good sources from Christians who reject Mormonism's claim, which I believe the article Mormonism and Christianity has many.  Be aware of two issues, however. First this article is not specifically about the LDS Church, and you would get some opposition from the Community of Christ who are a part of the greater Christianity movement.  Also, there are appologists in the Christian camp who have spoken in defence of the Mormons claims.  (see Ravi Zacharias, .  Bytebear 03:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir, I've found that bias begats bias, so to speak. Those who have an agenda with an article often have the feeling that any article worded differently than they would like is evidence of a massive conspiracy.Primalscreamtherapy 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in Article

message: Contrary to the above post, Mormons do accept the Bible as scripture (and they accept the Bible's Jesus).  Due to this fact, I changed a few sentences in the main article.  Actual facts about why some Christians do not regard Mormons as Christian would be welcome, but please stick to the facts, especially when stating what Mormons believe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.179.69 (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For most of the denominations the 13 Articles should be enough. I'm not so sure about some of the smaller ones (and it definitely doesn't apply to those fringe Fundamentalist polygamist sects).Primalscreamtherapy 23:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  As such it reports facts; in religion articles it reports beliefs.  We do not take a stand on which beliefs are true or which are false.  If we did, all the religion articles would be presented as mere fantasies of humanity.  In addition, wikipedia is not a soapbox for those with personal issues that are seeking a bullhorn for their personal message; those issues are best handled on personal blogs.  You may want to spend some time reviewing the purpose of wikipedia.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible as scripture 

message: I took the following POV section:
"It should be noted at this point that if one were to closely examine the Mormon faith with the Christian faith of the Bible that there are differences, some striking while others are subtle. Gordon B. Hinkley may believe that he is a Christian in the same sense as people who are Protestants and Catholics, but to this it should be asked, "If the result of the Mormon faith is to come to the same faith in Christ which brings salvation as is found in Protestantism , then why would Joseph Smith have had the 'revalation' that all of Protestantism was absolutely wrong?"
And replaced it with a section showing the same argument but without the bias:
"However, many other Christians including Protestants assert that Mormon theology is incompatible with the teaching of Christ as found in the Bible. Those who take this view refuse to accept Mormons as Christians."
I also replaced the loaded phrase "no evidence of these plates remain" with "after the translation, according to Mormon theology, Moroni returned to collect the plates".Primalscreamtherapy 23:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed POV 

message: For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of a new article, Religious views on masturbation, at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft, especially the section User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Other_sects! After it looks good on user space, it can be posted on to article space. CyberAnth 08:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormon views on masturbation