Talk:Mormonism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5

Question re. External links

I've twice posted an external link to, 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.


I think the problem is that that link is specific to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and this article is about Mormonism in a more general sense, i.e., all the sects that are derived from Joseph Smith's original organization. If not already there, add the link to the CoJCoLDS article. --andersonpd 18:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Also please read the comments on your User talk page and the Talk page for the Mormon article. --Kmsiever 19:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Smith's False Prophecy

Someone keeps inserting a section regarding an alleged false prophecy by Joseph Smith and others keep reverting it. Is there something we can do to end this childish behavior?

To the writer of the information -- you have every right to include pertinent, documented information. I don't think, however, that this is the correct Wikipedia article for the information you present. Can you discuss this with us to find a more appropriate location? andersonpd 19:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in the following article nominated for deletion?

Looking for participants in the the discussion of List of religions once classed as cults cairoi 14:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Mormon

Not meaning to step on toes here... If this page need return to a redirect to Mormon, so be it -- I notice the same has been done for Catholic/Catholicism and Protestant/Protestantism. I felt there was an important difference, but perhaps Wiki policy/practice dictates that the above information should be merged in under "Mormon" and this page reverted. LennyG

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! 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, which prefer such titles as Catholicism, Protestantism, and Methodism to "Catholic", "Protestant", and "Methodist".COGDEN 20:50, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This article is nearly verbatim identical to Latter Day Saint movement. Is that article needed at all? Is there a real difference between the two terms? If there is, should we not keep things clean and reduce the redundancy? Who realy uses that term? Hawstom 20:59, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Hawstom's comments. There is no need for Latter Day Saint movement...all of the material on that article should be merged with this article on Mormonism. B 22:42, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Do we have to go through Votes For Deletion? I've never done that before. I suggest a Redirection from that page to Mormonism. Or a short explanation of the term itself along with a pointer that what it really means is Mormonism Hawstom 02:05, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See my comments on Talk:Latter Day Saint movement. There is a subtle but (I think) important difference between Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement. One is a thing that "happened" and the other is a thing that "is". Mormonism isn't properly a movement, but a set of beliefs, practices, and cultures independent of time and place. It's like the difference between "feminism" and the "feminist movement". COGDEN 04:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As a Latter-day Saint myself, this is my perspective: Mormonism should be used to describe the theology and culture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only. On the other hand, the Latter Day Saint movement, as the [User:COGDEN|above Wikipedian]] pointed out, is more of historical value. In being so, the Latter Day Saint movement encapsulates all churches that accept the teachings of Joseph Smith and/or take the Book of Mormon as scripture. To illustrate, members of the Community of Christ absolutely hate being called "Mormons," but accept the term Latter Day Saint (note punctuation), even though they accept the Book of Mormon as scripture. By this, we can see that Mormonism is essentially limited to the practices of one church, whereas the Latter Day Saint movement is the common history of several churches. One word of caution, though: the Community of Christ seems to be a bit selective about it's history. For example, they use an older edition of the Doctrine and Covenants and question the fact that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy (sections pertaining to polygamy, regard for race in priesthood, etc. were added later in JS's life).Bccomm 17:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Clarification: Mormonism is one Brighamite church and its descendant churches. Tom 16:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
True enough, but it really is a matter of personal opinion. From the Writer's Style Guide, it seems that the CoJCoLDS would like to reserve the term Mormonsim for themselves (though I do wish they would indicate some reasons). Would FLDS, for example, classify themselves as a sect of Mormonism - being Brighamite - or just part of the more broad Latter Day Saint movement? When was the term "Mormonism" coined? Was it within the church? Obviously, from D&C 135, we see that it was used from early on. Bccomm 18:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

True. We need to clarify these issues. I am afraid we may not be accurately presenting all the points of views. I know of no FLDS editors or CofC editors, though I have good contacts who could provide guidance for both. One example of the need to clarify is the disputed between Mormonism and Christianity. Which branches are parties to this conflict? All in the same way? Tom 20:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sects of Mormonism

Umm, Is this the right page to list all the sub-sects of Mormonism? This gets confusing to me, and the entropy never ends. If it is, why should we give Strangites honorable mention, but not FLDS. Isn't FLDS at 20,000 bigger? Hawstom 02:34, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mormon Israelites

I removed the Mormon Israelites. I am going to try to find a better home for it. Excellent contribution. Tom (hawstom) 21:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Question of whether Mormonism is a branch of Christianity

I changed "Christian" to "Non-Mormon" to make it more inclusive. ChessPlayer 22:35, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Chess, I think that it is only Christians who gag at classifying Mormonism as a branch of Christianity. Non-Christians pretty much agree M is a branch of C. I think saying some C reject M as a C branch gives the more accurate understanding. Would you consider reverting? Tom (hawstom) 22:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it more accurate to say "Non-Mormons" rather than "Christians"? Saying the former is inclusive of any objecters in the world. Saying specifically Christians means that for some reason, people who are Christians, (but not Mormon) have a reason to object that non-Christians do not have. This makes the classification a religious dogma issue. I don't think that classification should be dependent on the classifiers religion. If you do, could you add some material to the article explaining why Christians object to the classification while no non-Christians object?
Let me state the last sentence in a concrete way. Imagine a Buddhist or other person from a religion far removed from Christianity, who was classifying religions, and was deciding where to put Mormonism, as a Christian sub-class like say Baptists or Catholics, or outside the broad category of Christian groups, which would mean its something so "Not-Christian" that it belongs in the group which has Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and now along those, Mormonism. Would the Buddhist without a doubt classify it as part of Christianity, where as some Christians, and only some Christians, would say that no, its no more Christian than is Islam, which also worships a supreme being, but is an entirely seperate religion? ChessPlayer 07:17, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think you are right on the trail. As you hint, it is 1) a religious dogma issue, and 2) the non-Christian apparently without a doubt classifies Mormonism as a part of Christianity. Do you think this is appropriately expressed in the article? Tom (hawstom) 05:14, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree with you. My Pentecostal grandmother thought Mormons were pagans. But then, she thought Catholics were pagans. RickK 05:21, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Rick. Evangelicals (and or? including Pentecostals) do think Catholics and Mormons are pagans. Only sheer tradition and size keeps them from labelling Catholicism a cult. But, Rick, do you agree that Non-Christians (secularists, Buddhists, etc.) universally classify Mormonism as Christianity? Tom (hawstom) 05:31, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I would think so, though I have no evidence to support the opinion. RickK 05:34, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't see why a person's religion determines whether they see M as a form of C. Consider an atheist who has studied the history of mormonism -- they could very well hold either opinion. Can we say "Mormons, and some non-Mormons, consider the religion to be a form or offshoot of Christianity"? Mbp 07:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps we can shorten the mention into a very brief reference to the Mormonism and Christianity article. Could the following work? "From its beginnings, Mormonism has had an uneasy relationship with traditional Christianity, as discussed in Mormonism and Christianity." Tom 02:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think that would be a good solution, especially as there is so much good content in that article. Perhaps I'd expand it to ".. a complex and uneasy relationship...". Mbp 04:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As an analogy, do atheists classify Christianity as a form of Judaism? I'm not sure what my opinion is on this, but that's a point we have to consider. 16:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think no. Christianity is a descendant of Judaism, grew out of Judaism, and is now a major world religion separate from Judaism. Mormonism may someday be similarly viewed. But not in 2004. Tom 22:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If anyone who claims to be a branch of Christianity is a branch of Christianity, then Latter Day Saints are a branch of Christianity. If anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ is a Christian, then any Latter Day Saints who claim to follow Christ are Christians. The question here is not whether Latter Day Saints are Christians, but "What is a Christian?" and who is qualified to answer that question. Too bad Christ Himself is currently unavailible for comment. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  01:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it a little disturbing watching people decide that someone who may be ignorant of the differences that do exist between Christian and Mormon doctrine is still qualified to categorize Mormonism as a part of Christianity. Going by some of the logic I see at work here, you could classify an atheist as a christian if enough people agree that this is a reasonable proposition. But is objective truth established by a consensus of public opinion ? Or by facts ? It really isn't that hard to weigh Mormon doctrine against the bible, with careful consideration given to the major doctrines that are accepted by all Christians, and see that there are serious differences... just my two cents. 21:42, 25 February, 2006 (UTC)

It isn't difficult to weigh the differences between the doctrines and practices of Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant and Latter Day Saints and see that there are vast differences. The basic doctrines (Christ is the one and only path to heaven; the Bible is the word of God; etc.) are shared, but not beyond that. If it were so easy, as you suggest, to see the difference between the Bible and the doctrines, then there wouldn't be the many differences in the Protestant branch of Christianity, let alone the other branches. Val42 22:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You might be surprised at the exact level of understanding of the Bible by many of the Mormon editors. The problem with your concern is whose interpretation of the Bible are we going to use to define Christian doctrine? Further, which definition of Christian should be used? Mormons certainly do not claim to be part of the historic Christian church and its sects. They believe their church is the restored church of Jesus Christ. If you wanted to claim that only historic Christian church members are entitled to the term, then I would agree with your definition. I don't think it is an accurate definiton, but it would be one way of excluding Mormons as well as many of groups identified as restorationist. This argument is also seen in, "If you are not a Trinitarian, then you can not be Christian!" I have always found that argument to be disingenuous. The Bible is very ambiguous about this specific subject and it was not doctrine of the historic Christian church until 325 AD. WIKI is simply not the place to argue what the Bible says; you would also not find a many here to argue with. Many of us would be more than happy to explain why Mormons believe what they believe based strictly on the Bible, but that also is not appropriate for WIKI. I appreciate your two cents, but I am reminded of J. Kenneth Grider comment,
"All theologians bring certain doctrinal presuppositions and biases to Scripture as they seek to construct from Scripture their theologies. The true Wesleyan admits this and does not make correct doctrine a condition for salvation. We understand that if our sins are forgiven at the time of our death, we will be taken to heaven, even if our theology is off base a thousand miles. We are Christians if God, for Christ's sake, forgives our sins. He is able to do this only because of the death and resurrection of the virgin-born God-man, Jesus Christ. But we do not need to believe in any given theory of the Incarnation or the Atonement in order to be forgiven through Christ."
If an individuals relationship with God is such that he is forgiven through Christ's atonement, do you think God would classify that person as Christian? I would. Do you think any of us are capable of identifying those individuals? Storm Rider 22:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think President Gordon Hinckley said something to the effect of whoever controls the definition of christian therefore decides who is in and who is out- but we are too busy for these kind of arguments- we believe in Jesus Christ as we understand him and that is that.Isaac Crumm 10:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Listing made explicit

I pulled the list page out of the "see also" and made it explicit in the article that this listing exists. The listing is the main point of this page, or should be. ChessPlayer 20:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

copied from User_talk:Gilgamesh 02:02, 5 July 2004 (UTC):

Moved Mormonism articles in error

Moving Mormonism and Mormonism and Judaism were mistakes and you need to change them back. Next time please propose and discuss making such drastic changes in the talk pages before doing so. For example, please review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism) and the Church's media guide here stating: "The term “Mormonism” is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine [i.e. "theology"], culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." B|Talk 17:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I've moved the page back pending a discussion. However, I can't possibly agree that the term "Mormonism" is acceptable — I find it very derrogatory and I won't accept it. It may be easy for Latter-day Saints who live in the Wasatch Front who don't deal with as much persecution. But it's still used pejoratively out there, even as a slur. We do not politely call the Roma "Gypsies", nor the Sami "Lapps", nor Catholics "Papies", nor Muslims "Saracens" nor "Mohammedans". And we do not correctly call Latter-day Saints "Mormons", because it's very belittling, especially for those who had to grow up from childhood dealing with the hurtful words, name-calling and inquisitions. No. It's vulgar, it's hurtful, it's ignorant, and it has no place in civilized (let alone academic) discussion. As far as I am concerned, "Mormon" is a body of water and a prophet. - Gilgamesh 01:55, 5 July 2004 (UTC)
Not to forget "Moonies" either. B|Talk 13:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry your POV differs from the Church's on this point, but you are not the only LDS to share this POV, I respect your feelings on this point and it is well worth discussing. After all it is not the Church's or your POV which controls here; NPOV is king. The Church and its members have generally been ambiguous toward the term "Mormon" and "Mormonism" often embracing it and avoiding it. As to is pejorativeness, it is a matter of context. In its use here in wikipedia, it does not come across in a derogatory way. The conclusion that should be reached is that "Mormon" and "Mormonism" are acceptable (depending on the context) but that "Latter-day Saint" is preferrable. I hope that other LDS and non-LDS wikipedians who have participated in the past will put in their 2 cents here. If it's decided that Mormonism should be struck, then this has far-reaching effect on the Naming convention for Mormonism on which much work has been done. I just don't think that is going to happen though. B|Talk 13:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My thoughts here run roughly parallel to B's. I agree that it is good to run across your POV, Gilgamesh. To tell the truth it is mind expanding for me, because I had not in recent memory come across such a strong reaction to the term mormonism. To honor NPOV, I guess it would be appropriate to note that there are locales or contexts in which Mormonism is a vulgar slur. Maybe Gilgamesh could find a high-quality way to add that understanding somewhere in the Wikipedia. And as B says, a name change isn't totally out of the question--only unlikely and immensely inconvenient. As for myself, I routinely refer to myself as a Mormon; probably due to my love for the Book of Mormon. Tom 17:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You have to realize. It's not that I don't love the Book of Mormon. I do. And I admire people like Hugh Nibley for standing up for it. But the name "Mormon" has been badly abused in my living memory. I currently live in the Wasatch Front where such abuse if far less common, but I was born and grew up elsewhere. Mostly I just remember scorn and discrimination from children and adults. Often I didn't understand it at first, but then my parents would explain it to me, and gradually they didn't have to explain anything anymore, and I could see more and more of the hurtfulness. It felt like every month that I heard that one of my peers in primary class had been told that one of their non-LDS friends' parents forbade them to play with each other anymore because "Mormons" disgusted them. When I moved to North America at 13, things became quieter, and I almost never heard "Mormon" anymore but instead neutral or endearing uses of "LDS", "Latter-day Saint", "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", etc. Then came Internet access in 1996. Since I'm not of Wasatch Front culture and always have had trouble assimilating (it can be very hard for a non-Utah-LDS), I found myself associating with the kinds of friends I had before; more diverse, more different ranging opinions. Much of the time it was all fine, and people had no trouble with my affiliation that I was never about to hide. But often I would be subject to hateful slurs and "Godmakers"-style attacks from seemingly ordinary people, and it brought back all the same contempt as before. Pioneer-stock LDS from the Wasatch Front in my observation tend to be far more insular, and often don't associate with people not like them; not out of any bad feelings necessarily, but more out of subconscious xenophobia and traditional distrust of outsiders. I am an outsider, though of the same religious conviction, though I've always been able to reach out better to people whoever they are, since they are all my neighbors. From all I've seen, my conclusion is: Hate, prejudice and slurs are all out there, for anyone to receive, as part of the nature of the world, but it's far too easy for insular people to rarely receive them when they are too hesitant to try. I don't regret my openness, since I try to live in the world (though not of the world), since ultimately it's far better than neither living in the world nor of the world. But my skin is only so thick, and it's not fair for a culturally insular person to completely disregard all the abuse others have to take by association. - Gilgamesh 18:12, 5 July 2004 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that some people find the word Mormonism offensive. However, that cannot be a reason to rename the Mormonism page or to replace all references to Mormonism with something else. Even if the word Mormonism is taken by some as pejorative, that doesn't change the fact that it's standard. Some people (you'll find them on AM radio or Fox News) use the words feminism or liberal pejoratively, but that doesn't make those words un-politically correct, because they are standard and widely accepted. The word Mormonism has been around forever, and there really isn't a word or phrase in common use that captures the precise meaning of the word Mormonism. The phrase Latter Day Saint theology doesn't count, because Mormonism is more than mere theology, and there is great theological disagreement among different Latter Day Saint sects. COGDEN 19:32, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Unlike "liberals" and "feminists", I admit that the name "Mormons" was coined by vulgar and pejorative people, not by "Mormons" themselves. I admit that some probably delight in jabbing the sensitive by refusing to say "LDS". But in all candor, I am afraid that "LDS" actually sounds more "cultish" in today's society than "Mormon". Quakers, Amish, Mormons, etc. all sound more like quaint old religions to the average secular Joe. I think that because "Mormons" and "Mormonism" are derived from the Book of Mormon, and they thus call attention to an importantly unique part of us, we should do whatever it takes to adjust our own thinking and hijack the terms for our own use. That, I think, is part of why the Mormon editors (long before I ever got involved) had little heartburn with the terms. We should be able to separate the issues of our own strangeness and our real conflicts with society from the issue of which name we agree to be called. We have real issues. Parents refuse to let their kids play with ours. But all of that is much, much deeper than the simple choice of a name. My solution when I see a non-Mormon vacillating over terms is to simply show him by example that "Mormon" is not offensive. He can't offend me with it if I don't let him. I am a Mormon, yes I am. Now, about polygamy and the Mountain Meadows Massacre, sigh. Tom 23:51, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hoping to contribute more light than heat, a quote: "The nickname Mormon is associated with the Church and its members because we accept as scripture a book titled the Book of Mormon.....Members of the Church do not resent being referred to as Mormons, nor does the Church resent being referred to as the Mormon church. As we have said, however, it is not the correct name of the Church. Its correct name is, as we have already explained, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. Marion G. Romney, 2nd Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, General Conference address, April 1, 1979 Dan 20:09 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, Dan, I think that about does it. I will remove the NPOV dispute after adding a note that to some the term Mormonism is very offensive. Tom 02:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm removing it from the NPOV notice from naming conventions as well. Like many Saints, my position mirrors Dallin H. Oaks': only the term "Mormon Church" bothers me. As an adjective, I embrace the term. Cool Hand Luke

Most people recognize offhand the term "Mormon" or "Mormonism" than than "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". I think that's the best arguement for keeping the term.The Scurvy Eye 20:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

October 8 edit

I liked your October 8 expansion, COGDEN, it made is clear for me that the CJCLDS church that I had been fully equating with Mormonism is actually just a subset sect of it. Could we slso throw in a few references to some example entities or sects other than the CJCLDS church that are also within Mormonism? --Gary D 19:40, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

"While Mormonism as a whole covers a broad range of beliefs, the belief in prophecy tends to limit the scope of theology available to zealous followers within each individual sect." I'd like to see you explain this a little better, COGDEN. Even I had a really hard time seeing through to what it really meant, and I only Think I understand. Tom - Talk 22:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I propose we make a Mormonism WikiProject

See Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.#Propose we make a Mormonism WikiProject

I went ahead and made the WikiProject under Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. I hope the project will be useful to editors looking for work to do. To this end I've compiled a list of red links and short Latter Day Saint articles not listed as LDS stubs. Cool Hand Luke 18:56, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Storm Rider

Great edits, Storm Rider! Tom - Talk 05:47, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'll second that. Good Job!! Bruce 06:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


User:, you added some beliefs that are not common to all Latter Day Saints. You may wish to find a more appropriate article, such as Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Or perhaps we need to have (or do have) a means of separating the Latter Day Saint movement branches into two theological groups.

  • Trinitarian (CofC) vs. non-trinitarian (LDS)
  • Radical (LDS) vs. non-radical (CofC)
  • Ecumenical (CofC) vs. non-ecumenical (LDS)
  • Fundamentalist (LDS) vs. non-fundamentalist (CofC)

I think User:Visorstuff may help on this issue. Is there a place where we attempt to look at various classifications and groupings within the Latter Day Saint movement? It might be said that the term Mormonism (as I wrote recently in the thrid paragraph of Latter Day Saint) has become most descriptive of the LDS brand of LDS Restorationism, and that therefore it is more appropriate that this article neglect the CofC theology in favor of the more Non-trinitarian/radical/non-ecumenical/fundmentalist theology of the LDS Church. Thoughts? Tom - Talk 16:41, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

We don't have that anywhere I know of, however, it belongs on the Latter Day Saint page, after or before the list of denominations. Although I agree that Mormonism is typically associated with the LDS Church, it is much broader - it covers the history, culture and branches of the Latter Day Saint movement. Anyone who adheres to the teachings of the Book of Mormon, whether or not they accept Smith, Young, or even the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (ie think it teaches good things, adheres to it as scripture), would be an adherent of Mormonism. Let's not dilute that meaning. -Visorstuff 00:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You would certainly think. I see things that way too. Mormonism=The Book of Mormon. But what about if you have largely disclaimed its fundamentals? Are we willing to stake our reputation on saying the CofC adherents are Mormons? Is that NPOV policy compliant? Should I ask my correspondent? Tom - Talk 20:12, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

It does not matter if they disclaim it's truthfulness. What matters is if they adhere to its teachings. There are some within the Church, sadly, who do not believe the Book of Mormon to be true - rather they believe it is inspired, non-historical scripture, or that it contains good teachings. Some of these would say the Book of Mormon is the word of God, others may not. However, they adhere to its teachings and would thus be classified as adherents to Mormonism.

I agree that CoC are moving farther and farther away from "Mormonism," but until they completely turn away from the history, culture and teachings they are still a part of Mormonism. Please note I didn't say they were Mormons, but rather adherents to Mormonism. The term Mormon in its connotation is narrow enough now to refer to members of the LDS Church and its 20th century offshoots, not most of the pre-1900 offshoots. It is NPOV to say they adhere to Mormonism. But not to say they are Mormons. I am willing to stand by that unless convinced otherwise - feel free to ask your friend. -Visorstuff 20:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we are going to discuss theology, which I agree we should, let's stick to theology based on the standard works. It is not appropriate in this medium to delve into those doctrines taught in the journal of discourses; were it so, we would still be endorsing the Adam-God theory. I will attempt to make some changes in this order, but would request to know how others feel in this regard? Storm Rider 18:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement that the doctrines of the LDS Church should be represented by the Standard Works. I attempted to modify the anonymous edits that were to me offensive, without removing them completely. In fact, I personally believe that if we're going to represent the teachings of the LDS Church they should be the Articles of Faith, which were written to that end. Billlund 21:23, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)


I read a poster the other day that said something to the effect of Mormons don't drink beverages with caffeine in them. Where is this noted in the Mormon Scriptures?

It isn't. There is a scripture, called the Word of Wisdom, that suggests a person should avoid "hot drinks". In the CoJCoLDS, this has been interpreted as "coffee and tea", and the church has made an administrative decision (not found in the church canon, but accepted by most members as authoritative) to interpret "hot drinks" as "coffee and tea", and to consider it to be a mandatory commandment. Some members of the church also avoid other caffeinated beverages, but that's considered a matter of personal choice. Personally, most Mormons in my generation (X-Gens), at least that I know, have no problem with cola drinks. COGDEN 06:46, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Alright. I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, just trying to get details--What about iced tea?
I've met Mormons who see no problem with iced tea, but that's rare. Most are probably okay with herbal tea. The Word of Wisdom isn't entirely a health issue. It's kind of like Kosher: it's related to health, more so in the past than today, but it's taken on a spiritual importance beyond mere physical health. COGDEN 21:06, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
And hot chocolate? That's easily classified as a "hot drink". What happens here?
Going back and expanding on COGDEN's statement above, nearly immediately after the revelation was received by Joseph Smith, he interpreted "hot drinks" to mean drinks that were brewed hot - and stated that he felt it meant coffee and tea. Members of the Church are left to interpret as they will, aside from the five no's stated by Church authorities (coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco and harmful drugs). One church leader said that we should interpret and use our common sense - just because it doesn't say not to dive into a swimming pool without any water in it, doesn't mean it won't hurt us. Again, aside from these five items, the individual is encouraged to choose for himself/make his own decisions. For a complete discussion on when the word of wisdom became a binding commandment, and standard for "worthiness" to enter the temple, see Word of Wisdom. Bottom line on your hot chocolate - if you are a Latter-day Saint, you choose for yourself if it's bad or good. No definitive statement has been made. -Visorstuff 18:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree. It's mainly a matter of personal choice, with a few bright lines: the LDS Word of Wisdom certainly covers alcoholic beverages, all tobacco products, caffeinated coffee (as a beverage), hot black (and probably, but I'm not sure, green or white) tea, or recreational narcotics. Regarding everything else (like iced tea, herbal tea, decaffeinated coffee, O'Doul's, alcohol or coffee used in cooking, caffeinated soft drinks, Red Bull, No-Doze, prescription narcotics, etc.), I've seen different people make different choices. Personally, for example, my standard is to avoid the non-medical use of all strong mood- or mind-altering substances, and I don't care if it's hot or what plant it originated from. But everybody wouldn't necessarily agree with me on that. COGDEN 20:05, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Attempting to be the smart-arse with the one (yes, one! -- though at least he's Notable enough to have his own WP entry) LDS I know well, I raised this very point while he was drinking a half-litre of half-cola, half-Fanta (you may correctly infer this incident occurred in Germany). His attitude was pretty much 'doesn't say "no cola", so you can have cola', if I might crudely paraphrase his sage and learned exegesis. Pardon my rambling addition to a zombie thread. :) Alai 02:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is from the Doctrine and Covenants chapter 89 verses 4,5,7,9 . . . ."I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation. "That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good," " . . . Strong drinks are not for the belly," . . . . . . "hot drinks are not for the body or belly." The Doctrine and Covenatnts are part of our sacred scriptures with the New and Old Testament, the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. David O. McKay the nineth president and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints had said this: "Stimulants are to the body what the lash is to the lagging horse-it causes a spurt forward but gives no permanent strength or natural nourishment. Frequent repetitions of the lash only make the horse more lazy; and the habitual use of strong drink, tobacco, tea, and coffee, only tends to make the body weaker and more dependent upon the stimulants to which it is addicted." In 1952 David O. McKay visited the Queen of the Netherlands, at tea time he told her . . . "our people do not believe in drinking stimulants and we think tea is a stimulant."

The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints does not believe in partaking of stimulants or intoxicants. What individules do are there own choises.

I myself am a Mormon and interpret the Word of Wisdom as such: Caffeine is ok, but iced tea, coffee, alcohol, and tea is not. The only exception to this is herbal teas. Please keep in mind these are only my personal beliefs. Yellowbuddy


I just have a question about something in the article. It talks about "embarrassing prophetic misteps." What is that talking about?

--Parlod 21:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great question. This statement was poorly worded. I believe the author meant some "Mormons well-aquainted" with opinions by church leaders that have been held up as prophetic pronouncements. In other words, there have been some things church leaders have said that have later been "proven" to be unfactual, unsupported, or later doctrinally denounced. These may include: the possiblity of life on the moon and mars, man not being able to travel to the moon, the adam-god theory and various theories about evolution, rain/water and the future of man, etc. -Visorstuff 22:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that was poorly worded, and rather POVish. But I wonder if V's edit somewhat overcorrects: aren't there some revelations (characterised as such at the time) that have been amended by later revelation? Plural marriage, black people, revisions to the text of the BoM all spring to mind. Alai

I don't think I over-corrected. Blacks being able to hold the priesthood again was expected and promised since the policy went into place in the 1845, so that is not a big deal. Most of the BoM revisions were to bring the text into conformity with pre-publication manuscripts (yes, even some of the white and delightsome and pure and delightsome edits and black/dark edits), to modernize text because word usage/connotation changed (same as changes made to the KJV in the past 50 years - for example, closet and chambers have very different meanings than they did 200 years ago) and to encourage correct doctrine to be taught (if smith had used the word dark/pure in pre-publication mss in half of the entries and black/white in the other half, and you want to make sure that Mormons are not using the BoM as a tool for preaching against civil rights, you correct all entries to be consistent). Plural Marriage is the difficult one, but doesn't show "embarrassment" by most Latter-day Saints. While it is not an "official" doctrine of the church, per se (since the manifesto prohibits it being taught), celestial marriage is, and that hasn't changed, but rather Saints are encouraged to obey one commandment (to obey the laws of the land), and the other one is not in force. This is consistent with other scripture, including one that prohibits pluraly marriage unless God specifically commands it (jacob 2:27-30) and another saying that if God commands something and you cannot complete it, because of man, but you've tried everything to obey, you are justified in not fulfilling it at the time (D&C). Mormons generally believe that the Prophet alone can change doctrines/policies and set forth doctrines/policies for the Church (overgeneralized statement but culturally true) - in this way, if the Prophet stood up and said, LDS are now trinitarian, that would meet with some uncomfortability at first, but then would be accepted by the membership of the Church. So I don't think those doctrine/pollicy changes fit into the same category as the author's intent - embarrasing situations or things taught that are proven untrue. The topics you mentioined are easily explainable within a Latter-day Saint's mind, but strange quotes from people recording in their journal that a Church leader said that men live on the moon and they dress like quakers, whether or not they really said it or not, is another thing completely and seems odd, inconsistent and results in the description that was included in the article prior to my edit. -Visorstuff 17:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- I also have another question. "It says "Smith compiled a theology that attempted to answer nearly all of the unresolved religious questions of his day." Is the word "compiled" being used saying that Smith created this theology based on his own study and understanding? I'm not saying it is, I just want to know if that's what the writer intended to say. I just want to make sure it stays NPOV. Sorry if it seems like a stupid question. :P --Parlod 23:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea on that one. Tom, do you have any insight? -Visorstuff 00:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think 'compiled' is OK (compiled /= authored), but I wonder about 'attempted'. Does that ascribe this as intent to Smith? Perhaps better to say that it "was believed" to address those issues, if what we're describing is the purported scope, etc, of the end product itself. Alai 01:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Alai with "compiled" and "attempted." And thanks, Visorstuff. --Parlod 01:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've made an edit to that general effect (#999!). Please feel free to edit away at my wording if it can be further improved (or is wandering in the wrong direction entirely). Alai 02:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good edit. -Visorstuff 17:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks Alai. --Parlod 18:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The 'influenced' bit was niggling at me too; I think Storm Rider's edit takes care of that nicely. (Some discussion of whether he was indeed "influenced" in a mundane sense is probably appropriate, but not in this exact spot.) Alai 19:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I removed the following from the Theology section:

While the modern prophet is traditionally considered (for all practical purposes) infallible, critics of the faith claim there is a growing tendency towards discounting prophetic pronouncements as personal opinions or beliefs of those leaders. Defenders of Mormonism argue that church leaders have always asserted a separation between prophetic prouncements and personal opinion.

This basically is not true, members of the CJCLDS believe that prophetic pronouncements of a prophet are "true" or invallible, but they don't believe that the prophet is infallible - the only infallible person on earth has been Jesus Christ. This misrepresentation of the understanding that a prophet can be called of God and receive revelation (i.e. be the mouthpiece of god) but not be "perfect" should not be on wikipedia as "infallible". Trödel|talk 17:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I actually think that is the definition of infallible - that the work or person is perfect, when operating in the scope of what it was designed - for example, the Bible has mistakes, but on doctrine, most Christians believe it is infallible. The pope is infallible, but will still share his personal opinions that are not. When he does his blesssings or pronounces doctrine, etc (officiateing in his office) he is infallible. May want to add back in and clarify what is meant to the casual reader. -Visorstuff 18:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are right of course (see webster definition of infallible; however, I think that as the third definition most people don't make the distinction between being infallible in doctrine and being "incapable of error". I put it in here because I do think the concept should be included on the main page, however the crticis/defenders approach does not avoid weasel terms. Trödel|talk 19:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fringe Mormon Beliefs

OK, rather than engaging in an on-again off-again battle regarding the Mormon Beliefs section, let's discuss where those beliefs are found. My specific concerns are listed below. I've not listed items where there is no concern. Billlund

Nature of God

  • God is an exalted, perfected man who was once a human being like us. I'd prefer to see this as mortal rather than human being.
  • There are many Gods in many universes. What is your reference for there being many gods? From our perspective there is only one God, Elohim.

Jesus Christ

  • Jesus Christ was the biological and spiritual son of Mary and God the Father conceived though sexual intercourse. What is your reference that Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse rather than as the scriptures state, that the Holy Ghost came over Mary and she conceived?
  • Christ atoned for the sins of humanity and allowed everyone to have eternal life. Also made it possible for some Mormons to gain access to the highest level of heaven. Even Pres. Hinckely agrees that Mormons are not the only people to receive exaltation. Further the term "Mormons" can only be applied to the followers of Christ in this dispensation. What of the followers of Christ (Jehovah) prior to the Meridian of Time? I think you are being excessively narrow.'


  • Grace, acceptance of Jesus, baptism into the Church of Christ and correct behaviour while alive are all essential for salvation. This statement contradicts your statement above since the Church of Christ is much larger than the LDS Church since it stretches across all dispensations.


  • People spend eternity in one of three Kingdoms of Glory.
  • Only the most worthy Mormons will live in the Celestial Kingdom with God and Jesus. Again, the term Mormon would exclude followers of Christ outside of this dispensation and those who are righteous in this dispensation.
  • Those who defy and deny God will be cast into outer darkness. References again. Your description is far too broad given that only a handful of people in all dispensations would qualify being cast into outer darkness.


  • The Bible if it has been properly translated is inspired by God, but may contain some human errors. Your reference is off here. The term is as it has been translated correctly meaning that there are many true portions to the Bible, but many precious parts of the Gospel have been removed over time due to error and design of evil men.

Mormon faith versus other faiths

  • The Mormon church is the 'restoration' of true Christianity, of the form it had at the time of the Apostles. All other "Christian" churches have drifted away from the original church set up by Christ. Why put the word Christian in quotes. I don't think that anyone, including Pres. Hinckley would argue that other Christian churches are not trying to follow Christ.
  • Only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has true divine authority, and correct teaching. Again I think you are being very narrow here. The LDS Church has the fullness of the Gospel, but does not deny that other churches have portions of the Gospel.
  • Nonetheless all other churches and faiths have much of value to teach people. OK, you do acknowledge the truth found in other religions.

I added signature for the above. There is need to discuss the beliefs section. At the moment, I am wondering how many "Mormons" would agree with this statement of belief (I am seeing it as a sincere attempt at apologetic ecumenical harmony): We are saved by grace and do not earn the atonement. However, as Jesus is the Lord of our life we are responsible to live as He teaches us. That sounds like US Evangelical theologian/teacher R.C. Sproul, not typical Mormonism. Are we trying to describe Mormonism in all its glorious color or harmonize it to a bland color of gray? Tom Haws 17:28, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Agree that there needs to be more disussion. Is the section supposed to be what Mormons as a whole believe? Mormonism meaning Latter-day Saints rather than Latter Day Saints? For example, the beliefe section states: God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one God (2 Nephi 31:21), though they are separate beings. The Commuinity of Christ would certainly not agree with this statement, nor would they with the idea that God was once mortal (nor would many LDS scholars). While these are cultural and specific to LDS theology, they may not fit under all who call themselves Mormons (strangites, FLDS, etc.) Let's stick to the articles of faith and keep it simple, not aplogetic. -Visorstuff 17:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Section was added by this anon [1] who may not have understood our difficulty with the nuances you summarize. I hate to be deletionist, but where should this info go, or is it already elswhere, or is there an identifiable beliefs of Mormonism? Is it pretty much the Brigham Young and Strang church heritage? Will the believers in Mormonism please stand up (besides us ortho-LDS). Tom Haws 18:11, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
The current belief section is closer to what I would consider "canon" than the original anon edit. However, I think this should be moved out of theology. Theology should probably discuss the lack of a formal theology, but instead statements of faith and descriptions. We should stick to actual official beliefs and not extrapolations of those beliefs by prominent members (not taught in General Conference or published CJC materials). Trödel|talk 01:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This section is really a problem. My edit was no good, and Storm Rider doesn't really like his either. Why not the Articles of Faith? Too indescriptive of the color of Mormonism? Tom Haws 16:32, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think the main problem here is that poor wording can result in changing the meaning of what was originally intended. Does anyone here think that "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie(a Mormon apostle) would be a good source?The Scurvy Eye 21:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Incommunicable attributes

Removed from article. I hope anon comes to discuss. Tom Haws 17:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

No divine being has incommunicable attributes.
It's me, anon (what a cool name, eh?). I think this line would help immensely in clarifying LDS teachings. This particular distinctive LDS belief about God helps folks understand a lot about views on eternal progression, possibilities about God's past, etc.
For those of you who don't understand the line I added (which was taken away), it basically means that, in LDS teachings, every attribute of God's deity is communicable to other beings. It also carries the traditional LDS teaching that no incommunicable attributes of deity exist (but communicable ones do). Hence the doctrine of eternal progression. Popular theism (especially in Judeo-Christian heritage) has, on the other hand, taught that God possesses incommunicable attributes like absolute (rational) omnipotence, eternal omniscience, self-existence, omnipresence, immutability, eternality (always with the full nature of comprehensive deity), etc. Non-LDS folks get flustered about the language of "becoming like God fully" because they assume God has attributes like these that can't be communicated. They think it means we can become omnipotent like God (but what is really being said is that we can have power like God). These same people internally use the language of "becoming like God / Jesus", but do so with an assumption that communicable attributes (like power and knowledge, not omnipotence and omniscience) are in view. Hopefully that was persuasive. I'd like to see the line re-added.

Can you add it back with an explanation for unlearned folks like me? Tom Haws 06:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The "vision thing" for this article

This article is becoming some kind of a monster, and I think we need to come to a consensus about what this article should contain, considering how important and central the topic is. Obviously, the article should be some kind of concise overview, as there are numerous other more specific articles. The article should also be very general, to include all the diverse kinds of Mormonism. The article should also not be too redundant of other articles. Apart from that framework, I'm not sure what to do with the outline of material that has been recently added to the article. Any comments? COGDEN June 29, 2005 00:25 (UTC)

The anonymous "Some Critics"

Recent edits have gone back to the anonymous "Some Critics" state or believe. Whoever introduced this language that presents these mysterious and unamed poeple who believes the LDS is sexist, homophobic, etc. should state who these people are. Without attribution the statements are of little value. The reader is left not knowing who has formerly come out against the chruch. Is some bloke in the backwoods or is it a actual organization. If it is not attributed, I will delete the language. Storm Rider 30 June 2005 02:55 (UTC)

I removed the following language today from the article:

some outspoken critics believe that change within the LDS Church is almost certain to occur, whether by acceptance of the new evidence or through a rift amongst the membership. This is not a common belief among Latter-day Saints

I don't really see where this has a place in the article. I suspect that "some" outspoken critcis also believe that the whole church is not worth a sop buckets worth of muck, but I don't see how that has anything to do with the price of tea in China or in what the Church or its members continues to believe. If one feels that we can't do without such comments in the article, source/reference it so that readers will understand the value of such statements. Storm Rider 04:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Good edit.The Scurvy Eye 21:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to split hairs, but the link section includes a link to "[] - A website for those questioning Mormonism.". However, doesn't this site more appropriately belong on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page, as it is for those who question The Church's teachings, not Mormonism in General. I don't see many Community of Christ or Strangite or Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints former adherents on Seems like the wrong page. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 1 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)

We have made a conscientious effort to define Mormonism as the that gospel/organization which came from Joseph Smith. I think the numerous links that refer strictly to the LDS side of things should be removed to the LDS site. However, for those with a limited understanding of the definition of Mormonism, such an action may appear to be too restrictive. Storm Rider 4 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

You people have got it all backwards. The Latter Day Saint movement is the all-inclusive term for Joseph Smith Jr. followers in general. Modern Mormonism refers to Brigham Young/Utah followers in particular. I myself am an RLDS member in a Restoration Branch - RLDS refers to Joseph Smith Jr. and Joseph Smith III/Independence followers. The other groups not covered by those terms are still Latter Day Saints and may or may not be Mormons based on what they call themselves. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  01:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Link removal - again

I've removed teh following links - as they are not relevant to this particular page. This page is about Mormonism - not the LDS Church - big difference in teh bigger Latter Day Saint movement - that said, I'm moving the links to the following locations:

NOTE: Article has been moved to Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy

Questions? Concerns? This is proper use of terminology. -Visorstuff 8 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)

Admirable effort. Thanks. Tom Haws July 8, 2005 16:03 (UTC)

I, COGDEN, also moved some links, as follows:

  • BYU Speeches - given by Latter-day Saints at Brigham Young University, Provo, addressed to BYU students --- moved to Brigham Young University
  • BYU Television - Church affiliated TV-Channel operated by Brigham Young University, Provo --- moved to Brigham Young University
  • BYU Studies (historical and academic articles, sermons) some past issues online --- moved to Brigham Young University
  • Provident Living - addresses lifestyles for spiritual and temporal welfare --- deleted, because it is already on the CoJCoLDS article
  • Forever Families - addresses provides practical, scholarly and sacred information for strengthening individuals, marriages and families of all faiths --- moved to CoJCoLDS article
  • - used for family history and genealogical research --- deleted, because it is already on the CoJCoLDS article
  • Gospel Library - contains official publications and texts --- deleted, because it is already on the CoJCoLDS article
  • - an online listing for aspects of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints --- deleted, because it is already at the CoJCoLDS site
  • LDS General Conference Scriptural Index - links from scriptures to the general conference talks that cite those scriptures (created at BYU) --- moved to CoJCoLDS article
  • Mormon Answers - frequently asked questions about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints --- moved to CoJCoLDS article
  • LDS Today - news related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. --- deleted, because already at CoJCoLDS article
  • Meridian Magazine - online publication for Latter-day Saints. --- ditto
  • New Order Mormons - A website for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who no longer believe some (or many) of the doctrines of the LDS church, but who want to maintain membership for cultural and social reasons. Includes a forum for discussions or support. --- ditto

--COGDEN July 8, 2005 23:20 (UTC)

I have removed the following links because they specifically relate to the LDS Church; as we have agreed Mormonism is much broader than that. If links are to be re-added to the site; please discuss why they belong and how they apply to Mormonism and not just the LDS church. Those links that are specific should be moved to the respective sites.

Additional Websites

Opposing Views

It seems like we have been moving in this direction and I agree with that direction. Storm Rider 04:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


Why is the Mormonism and Emma_Hale_Smith page disputed? Adding a disputed tag to the artilce, the disputor should tell on the talk page the reasons why. If no reason is given, the notice will be removed in 24 hours. Would love to address "factual" accuracies, but both pages are "factually" correct and are documented. Perhaps you were thinking of the NPOV tag? In either case, please explain. -Visorstuff 21:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC) I'll post this comment on User talk:Jobarts as well. -Visorstuff 21:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the {{Disputed}} tag probably wasn't the most appropriate for the Mormonism page. Perhaps the {{controversial3}} or {{Cleanup}} tag would be better. I'll switch it to {{controversial3}} for now. Anyway, here's what I don't agree with in the Sexism and Polygamy/Polygyny section:
"All faithful Mormon men... generally speak for God." Not true. In the context of the LDS church, only the prophet has the authority to speak for God to the whole church or world. Everyone can receive revelation for their stewardship. A bishop receives revelation for his ward, a father receives revelation for his family, everyone receives revelation for themselves. One never receives revelation for another's stewardship (unless counseling that person is part of their stewardship, e.g. a wife counsels her husband concerning the family) or receives revelation that contradicts revelation given to a higher authority. (God doesn't say "except you.") Revelation from an authority may say that it is meant generally, with exceptions, e.g. the Patriotic Order generally should be followed. There are cases when the father of a family is not fit to lead, so the mother does instead.
"The same authorities are not afforded to women." Relief Society leaders, Young Women leaders, etc. receive revelation for their stewardships and all women receive revelations for themselves.
See Doctrine and Covenants section 43 and Alma chapter 32, verse 23
Maybe we should just make this a disambiguation page for all the different sects. As it is, this page is a bit confusing. Jobarts-Talk 02:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
These issues don't really belong on the Mormonism page anyway, as they are specific to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They need to be moved there. This page is for generic Mormonism, which doesn't necessarily exclude women from the priesthood. COGDEN 04:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Timothy, this article is centered on Mormonism and not the Book of Mormon. Having said that I still there there is value to your statement. Do you feel there is a difference between the various churches descended from the church founded by Joseph Smith? Further, given that the article has long since been divided into different subjects, in this instance rightly so given the importance of the subject matter, is there another way you feel this can be handled justly? For example, I think we should at least refer and link to the article at the bottom. Storm Rider 15:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Mormonism, Blacks and the Priesthood

I removed the huge addition to the article today regarding Blacks and the Priesthood. The following is what is deleted:

"====Racism and subsequent reversals====
Mormonism has taught that Black people and other people of dark complexion exist as such due to a curse or the result of God's displeasure. According to the Mormon scriptures, Blacks were the descendants of Cain. In the book of Mormon, the changing of the skin color of the presumed white Cain into a Black man was linked to the mark of Cain, a popular White American Christian extrabiblical theory of the 19th century (note this theory was not present in Christian circles outside of Europe and America like Ethipia or India for example). In the case of Blacks, Cain's curse had been accompanied by a mark, which Mormons consider to be an actual change of complexion, flat nose, and full lips. And this 'mark' is the explanation of how Black people came to exist as visually distinct from whites. Although this mark is not considered a curse in itself, the association of God's displeasure, cursing, and dark skin is very clearly made in the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price. The offensive nature of these interpretations and scriptures have been jusfied by the Mormon belief that in the end everyone is given a fair chance to be with God . Despite the fact that the Mormon curse has been lifted in 1977 that allows Blacks to enter the priesthood, the main issue of Mormonism interpreting black skin being the result of a mark on Cain (whereas in the Bible a mark can just be a small tattoo on the body)lingers strongly in the scriptures and subconscious of the Mormon religious structure. Ironically this curse had never been recognized by anyone until the 18th century
"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, ad seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be and the Lord put a mark on him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then other curse is pronounced upon the same race - that they would be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree." Journal of Discourses, Volume 7, pages 290 291
"In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them." Journal of Discourses, Volume 2, page 172.
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.
"Though he was a rebel and an associate of Lucifer in the preexistence, and though he was a liar from the beginning whose name was Perdition, Cain managed to attain the privilege of mortal birth....As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage. He became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition." Mormon Doctrine, page 109.
Regardless of the 1978 change in practice which allowed black members of the Church to receive the priesthood, the current Official Position of the LDS Church is that the policy of racial exclusion was instituted by God."

This belongs in the article on the Blacks and Mormonism. I will attached the actual article later (I did not seek it out before making this edit.). What this article attempts to briefly explain or summarize is the general beliefs of Mormonism as a whole, i.e. all groups that have evolved from the religion started by Joseph Smith. Although this editor put in a great deal of work and it was edited a few times, it is such a huge add-on that it changes the purpose of the article. This might also be appropriate for the article on the LDS church, but most certainly it belongs on the Priesthood. Storm Rider 18:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Storm Rider...I may agree with this edit, but I think that there are doctrines that surround lineage and race that are taught within the canonized scriptures of Mormonism, and I think it would be entirely appropriate to have a discussion of these issues on this page. For example, there are many teachings within the Book of Mormon that deal with race and lineage; one could argue that most of the book is organized around such principles. In summary, I believe that contained within "Mormonism" are some distinct teachings regarding race and lineage, and I think these should be commented upon. --Timothy 21:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Timothy, I see a distintion between Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. Further, I see differences between how the various groups (particularly the CofC and LDS churches) have dealt with this issue. Also, the article has long since been divided given the importance of the history of Blacks and the Mormonism. The article can be improved by linking to that article.

Given the subject matter of this article, I think that should be adequate. Storm Rider 15:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This page is a joke

Those doctrinal summations are modified to be palatable, not succinct and clear. Doesn't anyone here have the guts to just tell it like it is? -Anonymous

Take for instance the following: "Jesus Christ was the only begotten son of God the Father." Without qualification, do you really think this is clear? This has historically been taken to mean something very different than the LDS meaning. This needs to be qualified, or it's just glib!

I think saying that is perfectly clear-anonymous

They may not be succinct, but they are accurate - across all Mormonism - not just LDS. How do you think the above statement needs to be qualified? Adherents to Mormonism believe that, and the various Mormonism denominations interpret it differently. LDS believe he is the only begotton Son in the flesh, whereas CoC believe that he is the bodily condesension of God the father, the strangites believe he was the only begotton son. Remember, this is not a LDS doctrine page, but a page outlining similarities of Mormonism doctrines. It's like saying the page on Christianity doesn't fully represent the Church of Christianity page, or the Catholics, or the Baptists, or the LDS Church. In order for us to address your concern, you will need to be more specific. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, and would like to address your concerns, but not sure I understand them all. Please expound. -Visorstuff 17:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"Jesus Christ was the only begotten son of God the Father" is just poetry until some substantive, meaningful content is given to it. That's like saying, "I believe in John Williams", when there are 20 different entries in the phonebook. Different phone numbers, different addresses, different people. If this article is going to be informative, and not just obscuring, the doctrinal summaries need to be more unequivocal and descriptive, instead of ambiguous and up for grabs. Language is supposed to carry distinct meaning, not obfuscate. -Anonymous
Yet scripture is purposely ambiguous, as to allow the reader to understand on his own level. Take Jesus' teaching about "take up your cross and follow me." That is taught througout all of christianity. Some - especially in the phillipines take that litterally, adn will be crucified for short periods of time to follow his example as an ordinance, while other Christians believe that means they should sacrifice themselves for the gospel, and other think it means that they should endure their challenges with a christ-like attitude. Mormonism, within Christianity is just as ambivilous - see the discussion at Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#Interesting_question - even the early events in Mormonism such as the First Vision are interpreted vastly differently by various Mormonism sects. This page - which is an overview of Mormonism - not the LDS Church - should be sufficiently vague about the specifics in order to give an overview of Mormonism's commonalities between sects, not interpret for the reader something that may change depending on the denomination, whether it be Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Community of Christ, Cutlerite, Strangite, True and Living Church of Jesus Christ, Saints of the Last Days, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or one of the dozens of other beliefs within Mormonism.

In fact, let's look at the statement "Jesus Christ was the only begotten son of God the Father" within the LDS Church -

  • Some members believe that Christ was the physical Son of Elohim
  • Some members believe that Christ was the only converted Son of Elohim (begotton also means converted)
  • Some memember believe that Christ was begotton of the Holy Ghost
  • Some members believe that Christ was the condensention of God (God himself)
  • Some members belive that Christ was begotton by Adam
  • Some members believe that Christ was physically concieved by God the Father through sexual intercourse or other natural means
  • Some members believe that Christ was the Firstborn son of God in the pre-mortal realms
  • Some believe that Although he was the only begotton, God had other children prior to this earth and that Jesus was the pre-eminent and firstborn of God, making him our elder brother
  • Some members believe that Christ was the only begotton some of God in the flesh or into mortality - contrasting with Adam and possibly others who may have also been "sons of God," but chose to become mortal by their own means - such as partaking of the fruit (see Luke and Matthew Geneaologies, other statements in the old testament).
  • Some members believe that this means that Christ has divine physical and spriritual attributes and strenghths that other mortals cannot possess in this life
  • Some members believe that this means that Christ was a man just like the rest of us, but had a special mission on this earth, and the man affect of being the only begotton was the title for accountability for those who rejected him as a prophet,
  • Some members believe that by being the only begotton this gave him power over death.
  • Some members believe that being the only begotton gave Jesus a certain level of Omniscience, etc.
  • Some believe that Jehovah and Christ are the same, some believe that Jehovah and the Father are the same
  • and the list goes on...and many don't believe all of the above. The doctrine is vague -

The doctrine of the Church is that Jesus was the only begotton Son of God in the flesh. Other Mormonism sects have differing beliefs than the LDS Church. Even you stated "This has historically been taken to mean something very different than the LDS meaning." I'd disagree - there are just less bounds on what it is limited to. I'd state that it is just as debated among other christian sects as it is between traditional Nicean Christianity and Mormonism.

So, back to your original question "Doesn't anyone here have the guts to just tell it like it is?" The answer is yes - and we did in the article - and you don't like it. But that is how it is. The doctrines laid forth are vague in teaching - in application and belief they become specific. Now if you want to get into the specifics about what the LDS Church believes (which is non-trinitarian, unlike some other Mormonism sects, such as the community of Christ which is trinitarian) that belongs on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page and article. Make sense? Are you getting Mormonism and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints confused becuase it is the largest sect in Mormonism? -Visorstuff 16:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This is like saying "All Americans believe in right and wrong" is an accurate, or even helpful statement. Why not just list out the overarching general beliefs that different "Mormons" have about the words "Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God." -Anonymous
Because they are so varied from denomination to denomination within Mormonism sects that we'd have to list out 20 churches and be specific about how each of them view the Godhead/trinity. Then the article would need to renamed "Latter Day Saint denomination views on Christ being the Only Begotton Son." Seems like a task that someone else can undertake, but is not appropriate for this article. -Visorstuff 18:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I find it interesting that an anonymous editor without the character to sign his own "name" has the temerity to assert that the article doesn't "tell it like it is" and that the true Mormon doctrine is being obfusacted. Exactly how does the statement that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God become unclear??? Some 325 years after the time of Christ the churches now known as orthodox came up with an incomprehensible creed to explain how they interpret that simple, clear statment. Then, all of a sudden, the son is the father!?!? Oh yeah, let's bend over backwards and become totally illogical so that Christians can somehow maintain the clarion call of One God. "Orthodox" Christianity has turned that simple statement, Jesus is the only begotten Son of God into complete mush and now you want to blame Mormons for just sticking to the simple meaning of the words. Storm Rider 19:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand the historic view of the Trinity. Its creeds explicitly deny that the Son is the Father! The fact is that most Christians wouldn't agree with the statement, "Mormons believe that Jesus Christ it the only begotten son." We need to respectfully pay attention to doctrinal content behind words, and use language as it was intended: not to obfuscate, but to elucidate. -Anonymous
Not to defend Storm Rider's comments (as he is perfectly capable of doing that himself), but in addition to saying that the son is not the father it also states that the father and son are the same. "This is the great mystery" according to one Christian church father. However, Trinitarianism is not the point of this article nor should be discussed here, aside from the fact that some Mormon denominations are trinitarianistic, and others are not. I think we are plenty familiar with Trinitarianism. However, not all of Mormonism is trinitarianistic.
You wrote: "We need to respectfully pay attention to doctrinal content behind words" and that "The fact is that most Christians wouldn't agree with the statement, 'Mormons believe that Jesus Christ it the only begotten son.'" Ummm, okay. We are paying attention to doctrinal content and context. That is why it is written how it is. But it is not supposed to be written from a Christian point of view. It is written from a Mormon point of view, just as Buddhism is written from a Buddhist point of view. AND, this article is not about what other Christians believe. This is about Mormonism and Mormonism beliefs. The simple statement in Mormonism beliefs that they believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotton son of God in the flesh. No other explanation required. Some Mormonism sects are trinitarian, some like the largest sect is not. Not all chrisian denominations are trinitarianistic, but they all believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I must be missing your point, as you seem to be arguing that we should write this from your point of view, rather than the stated beliefs of Mormonism.
How is the statement "Mormons believe that Jesus Christ it the only begotton son" incorrect?

-Visorstuff 18:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I must correct all of you people and i decided here was the best place, you say there are many churches of "mormonism" while most of these have different belief's from LDS, this is because all others are false and LDS is the only true church that believes in the prophet joseph smith, and i think that would classify them as "mormon" i know all this be cause i am LDS and what you will learn from most other christian churches about us "mormons" is not true, when you want to learn about a religion or a people then don't go to the people who despise them, go to the people you want to learn about.-LDS saint

The term "Mormon" is explained in the article. This article is not specific the LDS church. It specifically states that. If you want the article on the LDS church, go to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Read the article. Please. The Scurvy Eye 23:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wholesale revert of User:'s edits, my apologies for the wholesale revert - however, the vast majority of your edits were specific to the LDS Church - not the broader Mormonism movement or the Latter Day Saint movement (as compared to the hyphenated Latter-day Saint, who is an LDS church member). Please note the difference of sects and groups who do not subscribe to these beliefs who still claim they are Mormons or adhere to Mormonism culture and teachings and history. Latter-day Saint doctrines belong at Latter-day Saint -Visorstuff 18:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up, Visorstuff. I should have been more general when describing some of the doctrines, and should have used the term Latter Day Saint rather than Latter-day Saint. I will make the corrections to bring my edits in line w/ the broad theme of the page (though I do believe that the doctrines discussed in the Mormonism article must not disagree or misrepresent the views of the LDS Church, which is the church most definitely implied by the term "Mormonism." (unsigned by User:Westbrook348)
Westbrook348 Thanks for understanding, some of your edits were stylistic and are needed, but I felt the detraction outweighed the benefit of keeping. The history of your edits may be found here: [2], so you can re-create items that you feel you need to re-incorporate. Welcome aboard. You can sign your edits on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) that will automatically sign and date-stamp your edit. Also, you may want to check out (or join) WP:LDS or List of articles about Mormonism. We've found it easier in the Mormonism aricles to use as much of the original wording and then break out specific beliefs in specific pages. For example, FLDS don't believe in Elohim the same way that LDS belive in "the father." They believe "the Father" is Adam. Community of Christ believe that the godhead is trinitarian, and LDS believe they are three distinct personages, with at least two having bodies. Your edits were well-intentioned and are very appropriate - but in other articles. Happy editing and glad to have you around. Hope to work with you in the future. -Visorstuff 20:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only "mormon" church, I know this because I am "mormon" A.K.A. LDS and I have to correct you, "mormons" believe that the god head is three different beings, two of which are in the form of a man, but do not have bodies, one has to be a human on earth to have a body, and FLDS and Community of Christ are not "mormon" nomatter what they claim.- LDS saint

Excuse me, the LDS belive that one of the main reasons we even came to this earth was to gain a body like in the likeness of the Father's body. God the Father and Christ have physical bodies, but they are not mortal. Being an LDS does not immediatly qualify one to be an expert (I don't claim to be).The Scurvy Eye 23:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I sound mean in my above comment. I don't mean to.The Scurvy Eye 23:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely with scurvy. I also am lds. We also believe,
that the comforter dose not have a physical body, but is still a member of the god head Even though Christ, and God the Father do Pattyman 02:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
"LDS Saint," you can claim to be Mormon. I claim and aspire to be a Latter-day Saint. I know many who are not Latter-day Saints who claim to be Mormons (see Strangite and FLDS for example). The LDS Church, which I am a member of, does not "own" the term Mormon.
Scholars throughout the world distinguish between those in the Mormonism movement. Mormonism is defined by a belief in the Book of Mormon. As there are hundreds of churches who do, they are all part of Mormonism, and thus "Mormons." Latter-day Saints, are specifically the church you say you belong to. Both are part of the Latter Day Saint movement (unhypenated) which is defined by belonging to a church founded by or one that that claims succession to the church Joseph Smith founded. I'm unaware, LDS saint, of one scholar within or without Mormonism that would side with you. We've adopted the nomenclature of the academic world, not of the culture of the largest Mormon sect, which you have adopted.
Second, some within the Mormonism movement do not believe all that you claim about God. There are some that believe that Adam and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith rather than Elohim and Jesus. Some believe in the trinity, while others reject the idea that the Holy Ghost is a personage, but rather believe it is a spritiual fluid or something similar to your understanding and belief in the Light of Christ. In fact, there were heated disagreements on this in the LDS church hierarchy less than 150 years ago, and some within the church still believe it (although I believe falsely). Please don't be arrogant to claim that you are the only one who can claim to be a mormon, for that is what some of our "Christian" brothers claim about us. They believe they "own" the term "Christian" and that because we don't fit their mold of what a Christian is, we are not one. The mind-set you are projecting to others is exacly that, and quite discriminatory. No matter - and please do not take offense to these comments, but take them in the spirit in which they are intended. Hope this helps. AND, hope you register and join us in editing wikipedia. We need more Latter-day Saint, Latter Day Saint and Mormonism editors. -Visorstuff 00:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted sentence reverted

I just reverted the deleted sentence, "; although Smith himself married several women who were already wedded to other men." The source is ISBN 156085085X, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith.

The book isn't online, but this is from the publisher: "Finally, Compton is to be commended for candidly trying to come to terms with some of the most knotty and controversial aspects of early Mormon polygamy, including the evidence that Joseph Smith took as plural wives in a full physical sense women who were already married to other men. Compton argues, for example, that "fully one-third of his [Joseph Smith's] plural wives, eleven of them, were married civilly to other men when he married them. ... Polyandry might be easier to understand if one viewed these marriages to Smith as a sort of de facto divorce with the first husband. However, none of these women divorced their 'first husbands' while Smith was alive and all of them continued to live with their civil spouses while married to Smith" (15-16). Compton further points out that "there is evidence that he did have [sexual] relations with at least some of these women, including one polyandrous wife, Sylvia Sessions Lyon, who bore the only polygamous offspring of Smith for whom we have affidavit evidence"

--Quasipalm 22:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If the article contains a Jesus section...

The Mormonism article contains a section on the "Nature of God" and a section on "Jesus." Shouldn't there also be a section on God the Father and Holy Spirit in order to preserve parallelism?

Also, if the article is going to specifically refer to Mormon theology there should be a certain amount of clarification as to what most "mormons" believe. Perhaps there should be a breakdown of the various denominations within the religion with accompanying numerical statistics. For example, when one refers to "Christianity" he draws upon his own presupposition of a Christian within his culture. One cannot say that Christianity cannot be accurately described because there are "too many denominations" and widespread beliefs such as Protestant (in general), Roman Catholic, and Greek Orthodox. On the contrary, each of the largest Christian denominations should be accurately described in detail. However, this article seems to take the position that every mormon denomination can be described accurately through a quick breakdown of what is considered "mormon" theology. I think this is where most of the confusion is coming from and results in a watered down version of their faith.

Perhaps the "theology" section should be allowed to rest within each individual mormon denomination page so that there would be less disagreement concerning exactly what each denomination believes. If this were to occur, the current Mormonism page could be better used to describe the history of the movement and the encompassing vocabulary of the term rather than messily describing what mormons generally tend to believe. Even the Christianity page doesn't go into as much detail concerning "beliefs" as this article tries to do. I think the theology/beliefs section has become entirely too specific and has therefore disregarded describing "general beliefs" and has rather begun to delve into mormon theology which is obviously going to be controversial when listed on the main page.

Tarentinos 18:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a very good point. This article is full of doctrine when it should be talking about the term. History should be referred to the Latter Day Saint movement. Doctrine should be referred to the individual denominations, keeping the distinction between Mormons and Latter Day Saints. Val42 18:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Restored Gospel

"those who died without the opportunity to accept the restored Gospel in life will be taught by those who did accept the gospel in life". I suppose it means the mormons will teach the non-mormons? Before this line, nothing is said about the restored Gospel. The same wording should be used throughout the article or at least new words should be explained. Piet 09:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not that limited. It will also include all those who have accepted the Gospel, not just the restored Gospel but those from the church that Christ established circa his death and resurrection. And according to D&C 138, "... the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality; And who had offered sacrifice in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of God, and had suffered tribulation in their Redeemer’s name."[3] This would include the faithful all of the way back to Adam. This includes a lot of people who would not be considered Mormons. Val42 03:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What are Roman Catholic views on Mormonism?

Moved off-topic post and reply to the anon user's talk page also added my response. Trödel•talk 19:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

JubarPhd's edit/'mormonism' offensive

From your edit summery: "Refering to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a mormon is not offensive and is in fact a term which the LDS church uses to refer to its members. See also"

The bit that you clipped out states that some other than the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints may find it offensive, so your reasoning in removing this bit is flawed.

See also Moved Mormonism articles in error on this talk page for further discussion about mormons finding the term 'mormonism' offensive.

I'd suggest that, rather than us two keeping on reverting the passage, we leave it alone and allow others to comment here and reach a consensus. --DakAD 02:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why JubarPhd insist on deleting it. There are many groups that evolved out of the Latter Day Saint movement that do not use self-describe as Mormons. In fact, I think most prefer not to use the term. The phrase should stay in the article as it is correct. Storm Rider 06:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
To me, the term Mormon is similar to the term Nigger. That article states: "the word denotes, rendering it a powerful pejorative and abusive term when used by persons of other races." In a simlar way, many Mormons find it offensive when others call them that, and others do not. I am one that finds it a somewhat perjorative term when called it by non-"mormons" who know the name of the church, however, I'm not offended by it when its used by the Associated Press or other church members.
In addition, within the Latter Day Saint movement, some hate the term mormon, while others self-identify. Latter-day Saints, Strangites, FLDS, Apostolics all self-id as mormons. COC, Mongeleas, Bickertonites, Hedrickites do not. There are many cultural elements of "mormonism" that are acceptable. I think the original version is best, sorry User:DakAD. -Visorstuff 22:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, not all mormons are LDS, but all LDS are mormons. Mormonism may be offensive to you, but there is simply no other word for it. I'm curious why you save your offense for only non-members though.
Btw, the church itself says that calling a person a mormon or calling the entire church mormonism is fine. [4] Seems to be a none-issue. --Quasipalm 03:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Very true - I am aware of the official suggested wording for referring to the church in the media. You'll notice that the church and the AP style guide discourage the use of the term Mormon fundamentalist, although in an academic forum, it will be used. Rather than being "fine" it is considered "acceptable" - just as in some countries, Negro is still an acceptable term - but in the states it is not. Mormon to me still carries some connotation. I am a Latter-day Saint.

Having authored a number of these articles and been involved in the standardization of the nomenclature of Latter Day Saint movement terminology on wikipedia, I am well aware of the distinctions between mormons and Latter-day Saints. That said, I grew up in a time where mormon was either perjorative or celebratory - again, much like the word nigger. It was fine for us to call ourselved Mormon, but when someone else did, we wanted to be known as latter day saints. You'll find the same feeling in american black culture. Because Mormon is a culture as well as a religious movement, and in some cases an ethnicity, we have to be careful about labeling folks. Just my two cents. -Visorstuff 05:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I would also agree with Visor, it really depends on who is saying it. When non-Mormons use the term it depends on their understanding of the term. With some, you can sense that it is definitely being used pejoratively and yet others will use the term in an acceptable manner. As a matter of course, I always prefer the term Latter-day Saint to Mormon. Storm Rider 21:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
So, one can never say a negative thing about a mormon, only a later day saint? I fail to see the difference. -Quasipalm 22:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

External link removal (again!)

The external link section I removed consisted entirely of links relating to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is too narrowly focused for this more broadly-reaching article. For more, scroll up and check on Visorstuff's reasoning for removing similar links about 8 months back. Tijuana Brass 00:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

About the mormonism article

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and we do not mind being called mormons. But we do not refer to our religion as Mormonism. We do not have sects, we have wards, branches, and stakes. Our book, The Book of Mormon, is Another Testemant of Jesus Christ, just to let you know, because a lot of people get mixed up with that. We have a Bishop and a Prophet. we are christians. check out the links below and you will find some more info. on us. we also have other standards than other religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormongirl262 (talkcontribs) 23:28, 21 March 2006

(following the above were a number of links to pages branching from [], which I've removed for brevity... check the page history if you're interested) Tijuana Brass 00:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that most Latter-day Saints do not refer to their religion as Mormonism, and that Mormonism properly applies to the culture at least as much as the religion, there are indeed multiple Latter Day Saint sects. The Jade Knight 03:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


I have deleted the following, which I don't think is LDS doctrine: or those who have received a spiritual witness that Jesus is the Christ but later rejected it. (becoming Sons of perdition). The Jade Knight 17:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the reference, but it does take not just a spiritual witness but a much greater knowledge with a rejection to become a Son of Perdition. Cain is the only one that we've been told has so qualified. I don't know of a reference for these pieces of information though. Val42 20:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Joseph Smith taught, "What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against Him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 358)[5] See also Ensign April 1986 and True to the Faith. Trödel 23:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Bruce R. McConkie in Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966], 746 stated: Those in this life who gain a perfect knowledge of the divinity of the gospel cause, a knowledge that comes only by revelation from the Holy Ghost, and who then link themselves with Lucifer and come out in open rebellion, also become sons of perdition. Their destiny, following their resurrection, is to be cast out with the devil and his angels, to inherit the same kingdom in a state where "their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (D. & C. 76:32-49; 29:27-30; Heb. 6:4-8; 2 Pet. 2:20-22; 2 Ne. 9:14-16; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 47-49; vol. 2, pp. 218-225.)
Having said this it has been further clarified that a Son of Perdition does not live by faith, but by a sure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that God the Father lives; yet, they choose to follow Satan and reject all things having to do with the light. Hope this helps. Storm Rider (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it helps give a source for the misconception—it is important to note, however, that Mormon Doctrine doesn't necessarily reflect LDS doctrine. The Jade Knight 00:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Horribly Written

This article is horribly written. Even though I've read it, I haven't the faintest idea what Mormons believe. This article is written for people who have an understanding of the major themes of Christianity and speaks only to people with that knowledge. Who is Jesus? What is the relationship between believers and their deity? How did the Book of Mormon come about? What information does it contain? The bullet point list of typical doctrines just doesn't make any sense.. it refers to other Christian concepts to explain Mormonism and in doing so fails to communicate any whole understanding of Mormonism itself. Beyond that inadequate description, the article focuses on the politics of Mormonism. I don't care about the detractors of Mormonism except as a side-bar - the most important issue is the religion itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sorry that you didn't find the article helpful. Do you have any suggestions for how we could improve the article? Mormonism here on Wikipedia is a very complicated subject. If you notice the sidebar next to the top of the article, there's a link to "Major Beliefs", which might be better for discovering what you desire. The article on the Book of Mormon might help answer your questions about it.
What is it about the "typical doctrines" that doesn't make any sense? Is it just the references to other Christian concepts that makes it difficult to understand?
We really appreciate you comments, and I'd love to improve the article. Other than your complaints, do you have any specific suggestions we could use to improve the article? Really, I think the artilce should be as helpful as possible, and if it's not effective at all, it may need to be seriously altered to help users (such as yourself) looking for information. The Jade Knight 06:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
This comment (by an anonymous user) has pointed out a problem with the Mormonism article that I've brought up before. I'm going to rewrite the article, keeping only the information that I think is relevant to a pared down article with links to those denominations that are considered Mormon. If someone thinks that there should be an article about beliefs held by the church founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. before his death (and many permanent schisms), then feel free to create such an article. I've also put a like comment on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement page. Val42 20:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Val. Mind proposing an outline before you rewrite the whole thing? The Jade Knight 23:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
After writing my comment above, I reviewed the content for the article looking for where to make improvements. This article doesn't go in to enough depth to be generally informative. That's why I made the redirect to the Mormon article then made some structural improvements to that article. I can't think of any way to improve this article that would be much beyond "Joseph Smith, Jr. started a church that split after he was murdered. See their individual pages for what they believe." If you'd like to attempt to fix what is broken, please do. Val42 02:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess the first question really is: Should there be any difference between an article on "Mormonism" and one on "Mormon"? If not, let's put this through AfD (or a Merge procedure) so it's taken care of properly. Just give everyone a chance to discuss the matter first, though. Personally, I don't necessarily see a need for a separate article on "Mormon" and "Mormonism". The Jade Knight 02:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
IF you don't disagree with the change then why did you revert it. Val42 was being bold and one should only revert such a change if one disagrees with it. If no one disagrees then it then we have unanimous concensus - and we don't have to go through the disaster that is AfD and voting Trödel 11:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if we agree, then go ahead, but I think we should give everyone a chance to speak up before tunrning the page into a redirect. The Jade Knight 23:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I have to agree a bit on what was said before - not that its horribly written, no, but my problem is, i do see mostly historical backgrounds and believes (which is cool) but i am lacking information on any rules they have to follow when it comes to everyday living. I dont belong to the church myself, but i kinda met someone who does and i wanted to inform myself on stuff like that too before acting...wrong ;)

cheers! 09:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Mormonism & Polygamy

We need to be careful about Mormonism and polygamy. Not all groups under the Mormonism umbrella accept or support polygamy within Mormon history. THe LDS church and its sects have been or are polygamists, but the same can not be said for other groups. The article must address Mormonism as a whole and then refer to other links that precisely address the issue and the right groups. Storm Rider (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Is there an article on "Polygamy and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"? The Jade Knight 06:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more fair to put in the Criticism of Mormonism section that a lot of what is attributed to the mainstream church (by that, I mean the church led by Gordon B. Hinkley), actually happens in other sects? See FLDS, for example (not to pick on anybody, but there is already an article on the FLDS on wiki. Cheers! Greenw47 20:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsensical and Unsubstantiated Opinion

So, I am directed to get concensus here by posting here first I am told. Giving that a go!

I see this statement as ridiculous:

As a theology, Mormonism as a whole includes a highly diverse and eclectic cluster of religious beliefs. There is much in common with the Campbellite, Restorationist, and Universalist beliefs prevalent in the area where Joseph Smith was raised and where he began his ministry.

Seems dumb to me. How is Mormonism particularly more highly diverse than Catholicism or Animisim or any other reasonably important religion? Are most religions not eclectic? There is "much in common"? What is "much"? How is it measured? Is there also much in common with religions that teach not to steal, kill or desicrate the holy? Or is there not much? This is simply a nonsensical throw away statement that could be randomly applied to many religions. A waste of space.

Perhaps the author meant to say something like: Mormonism appears to be invented out of the mind of Joseph Smith and the circumstances in which he grew up. (That may also not be different from other religions, but at least it is concise) If that is what is meant, why not just say that instead of this obscure nonsense above?

Comments and responses are encouraged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Sorry, can't say that I agree with you. For starters, common perception of Mormonism is limited to the Brighamite church; many people are unaware of the diversity of Latter Day Saint denominations. But more important is the bias suggested by statements like "invented out of the mind of Joseph Smith." You may want to review the guidelines at WP:NPOV to better understand the standard of neutrality. Tijuana BrassE@ 06:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Evidently we are not reading the words the same way... so that makes a difference. I read the first sentence as being the Main Thought of the Paragraph while the rest of the Paragraph lent supporting ideas. I see nothing in the rest of the paragraph referring to the concept of multiple Mormon Denominations or sects but rather a comparision with other types of religious beliefs. In that context, I do not see anything about the Mormon thinking that is more diverse than the other religions -- generically. Furthermore, the comment that it has much in common with a few religions... is just lame. What constitutes "much"? and how is it "Much" more than with other religions? This is OPINION not fact and it is not universally shared, it has no objective standard for measurement. It does not belong in an encyclopedia. And this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right?

So... again, straight shooting would be best. If what is meant is "Mormonism comprises a number of sects and denominations"., that is what should be said and it should start a different paragraph. It is a separate thought. Of course the problem with the next sentence remains.... it is ambiguous and just thrown out there, without any justification. The next thought is the same regarding how Mormons thought it answered all the questions. An unsupported assertion. Seems I remember Brigham Young said something sort of LIKE that... but it was to the effect that if something true was discovered by anyone ... Mormons would believe it. If that is the idea behind "answering all questions" its a bit of a stretch.

I have read the guidelines about Neutrality several times now. It seems like a golden ideal that is held aloft like sipping ambrosia from a golden challace on Olympus but meanwhile in the real world its all muddy water. So many articles/editors defy that convention -- and do so in the name of neutrality. Everyone chants NPOV. Everyone pushes a POV. A game. Pathological. Perhaps unavoidable. We are human.

Incidentally, I own every Tijuana Brass album every done through 1980. 04:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am still looking for a response. This passage under discussion appears to be essentially meaningless drivel. It should be deleted. 02:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Some more detail about Mormonism and constructions fundaments

Regarding polygamism with early mormons, Joseph Smith and his first group of 12 mens were using it all the time but hidding it from their wifes... Joseph Smith was married to more than 20 womens, without the knowledge of his wife, and problems occured when this first group around him wished to make this polygamism as an official rule of their sect.

As the first wife of J. Smith was to know about her husbands several wifes, and made a scandal against it and asked for divorce, so angry she was against him, Joseph Smith changed his mind. It made J. Smith to think a little more about the problem and to make it a non legal part of their rules, which made the other male members angry at him. It end up as a polygamism rule, but first fully applied to all after Joseph Smith death. As many things in mormonism they first appeared after the foundators death, and are mostly made by its closest coworkers to assist them in gaining more power.

It is also very well known that previously to Smiths writings about the supposed contain of its golden books, he was contacted by various members of masonics loges, and many of this church rituals, both sacred and profane, are directly taken from classical freemasonry and masonic orders'rituals. Many of the believes enumerated in the mormons books are also directly taken from those traditions, therefor the mormons books looks more, for a religions and myhtologies and esoterisms specialist point of view, like an amalguame or milk shake of several religious and sectars theories, well known within other religious groups, than a religion in itself. Nothing in the mormon books is original, all is taken from somewhere else, often with quiet a unimaginativ mind.

The mormons researchs in latin america have given zero zero zero as prooves who could elaborate anything stated in the book of mormon as a source, or even ressembling source, for all the tribes described there.
Another correction to what some have earlier stated here: there is a hell in mormons theory.
Only true mormon, true knights of the later days saints, and else being it since as most generations as possible, have access to heaven,(the upper part, nearest to God). The downs part being reserved to just coming in members and half fallen members. And out of it is hell, for non mormon, who cannot access the other levels, and will never been able to be in the upper levels. It is clearly stated in the mormons teaching, and I heard it several times, by mormons priests, that there is no salvation for non mormon. Christian go to hell too, and none of the christian priests are recognized as such, nor are they aknowledge the power to baptise anyone, and they teach that even the first apostles, those walking around Jesus Christ, were not able to baptise others and that it is therefor their power was stopped there, until Jesus christ himself took to latin america, and baptised a bunch of by mistake-landed-there-hebrews, and later on this power was given by Christ and Moises itself to Joseph Smith.

And thats the way the story goes.

The foundator of the christian church is by definition unable to baptise others. Peter was spiritually impotent if we are to believe the mormonic song.
A way one can undoubtly see the influence of freemasonry in the mormon church is their attribution of 1st and second degree of priesthood, like a copy-paste of hebraic traditions, with some dubious change into it.
You are missing here also, the place of womens in the mormon church where political reasons, clearly prevail: It is for exemple today teached, that the upper god, is a goddess, the wife of God, and higher than him, and that she cant be named, and very little is known about her because she is OH! so high and special. It is also teached that the reason why women cannot be priest nor teach like priest, nor baptised, is that women are per birth closer to god than men, and that is therefor men only must try to come closer to god by manifesting their spirituality from an early age, all things a woman do not need to do as she has it all to begin with... It is also teach that men must fight harder to attain the same spiritual level as women have, and thats why women must do other things in the mean time: like give birth to more mormons members, do the cleaning and make food, and play missionary 1½ year of their life just before getting married, as soon as they return from mission time. All that good propaganda methods to secure the upcoming of new female members in that order, as well as keeping the youngsters in the old sheme of things, without risking having them asking certain questions, very up to date, very warms, and never answered by this church.
There is of course nowhere in the mormon books where anyone could actually read exactly the thing stated above, but they are very good at finding partial prooves of it when ever asked, and the teaching about it is very real. They also have it on print with draws, as regarding the different level of hell, with a special area for non mormon, and later on, it is directly sayed that no non mormon ever experience salvation. There is a big difference too between what is directly available as information source for non members, then for first members, and for members known in the church since some times, as well as there is a distinct grade of access ´to knowledge inside the church, not depending in how long you have been in the church nor for how many genereations. It is none the less, quiet accidental wether or not one gets to know certain things or not, making it rather diffuícult to make research. Some believers are kept beliving in one thing, and at the same time other have access to other scriptures, and prints who are often in direct contradiction with the first teaching and who touch very fundamentals part of the Churchs teachings.
Another interesting thing to noticed about this religious sect, is that nobody really agree about the deep meaning of it all, as a direct consequence of the facts stated aboves, and no one really know about its own religion, and most of the church members disagree completely about very basics and important parts of their religion, as the place of womens, and the existence of hell or not, and the place of non mormnon/other religions members after death, and the burning question of knowing if only mormons are saved, as all others are eternally doomed. All that even if those things are teached regularly every sunday there, inclusiv the fact I stated above, and special papers with draws and descriptions are passed, or distributed to all present in certain class.
To your knowledge I am not anti mormon, my standpoint is that there is scientifical proove that God does not exist, and am a warm adviser of a compleete interdiction of all religions on earth as they have a very negativ impact on humans psychology, and IQ, and EQ, as well as their ability to think on their own, and not only about their religion but on all matters.

that was for the personal, for all the facts listed above, I just wanted to state those things in a very clear way, giving a more balanced picture of the reality of this cult. Mormons can be very nice and helpfull people, nothing wrong about them nor that, but I am speaking here about the pendant and base of this pseudo religious cult, and being from Mircea Eliades classical school of myth and religious study, I can clearly see what is and what isn't from which and which religion or previous sect, or myth, as well as distinguish all borrowed elements from other cults.

I have known this church long enough to be familiarized with its custums and its teachings, or should I say various teaching?

I will also very much like to see on this discussion page as well as INSIDE the article, some writtings and facts who are not corresponding to the officialy aprouved official version of the church....

It will be specially nice to see real information and not mormon protectionism in an encyclopedia!
I found very disturbing the way some administrators have sustain that kind of behavior, and question wikipedia and the administrators in charge of the diverse mormonics article, on their honesty and religious believes.
Is the meaning of those article to inform about the subject at hand as wide and deep as possible, or are they a merely platforms for Mormonic propaganda, well orchestrated in various LSD conventions, and aprouved by presidents, well sitted in Utha?
Those questions need to be answered, as this mormons church protectionism and discriminatory deletion of kind-of-little-critical informations about this cult in wikipedia, has been going on for long enough.
It is about time to put an end to that.
I have make some research on it and founded very interesting exemples supporting my argumentation, and administrators name keep coming, identical, and....LDS members...
Surely a detail in contradiction with wikipedia rules about the democratical process of its system, non political as well, and of course, the importance of information, in front of private interests, inclusiv religious interests...
I have contacted the board of wikipedia about this matter and expect a clear answer on that matter any time.
I hope that this will end a hopeless battle between people coming with informations and people in charge of keeping their propaganda all clean.
There is not ONE word of critic or attempting critic in any of the articles and even discussions related to the articles about mormonism, and not even one exemple is given of true problems actual or ancient related to this cult.
It is worrying that such a control has been so effectiv for so long and unslep wikipedia central administration for so long.
I have watched for some times, and runed a test, on all articles and discussions pages on the subject: all, ALL contributions I wrote were deleeted, by the same administrator, who did the same to many before me, in less than 30 minutes!
No time to read the entire contain of my contribution in that time, no time too to any of the other contributers to see nor comment what I had written.
This controversial censorship must have an end.
Knowing important details, and very relevant information about even the basic set of mormonism believes non listed in the official site, cannot be a reason to be deleeted nor have its contribution called vandalism, without further explaination as to why and on the basis of what.
Doing so is making it impossible to anyone to ever hope to found real information about this cult, as anything being "against" the officialy approuved version is fought back by the mormon church, so that noone ever access anything about it.
Here is the opportunity to have both side presented in one place, with solid documentation, and first hand experience and informations.
Not something anybody can found in the documentations the church print every year in all languages, like it is the case with all that can be read about the subject in all wikipedia articles about mormon, but the reality of the church and what is really going on inside it, and what interpretation is made, concretely of the books they use, and what kind of other doctrines are in use, actually, in this church.
Wikipedia is being used as a advertising platform for this cult, completely clean slated from any real informations, and any adjonctions, who will go against the main stream of the church and what churchs officials wish outsiders to know about them, and even actual members...
I hope this will contribute sufficiently to this discussion and the article at large, to permit a real breakthrough in this area, and will ring the alarmclock for some members of the wikipedians board.

Kind Regards, Sophie, -- 16:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for using the discussion page rather than the spamming that you have done on multiple articles. We welcome you to Wikipedia and look forward to other edits. However, you might want to gain a greater understanding of WIKI and how it operates. This is not a place for personal soap boxes and the stating of personal opinion. However, if you wish to quote or reference reputable scholars, you are strongly encouraged to do so. The diatribe above is personal opinion and is not appropriate for any the of the article pages to which you inserted earlier today.
WIKI is a public encyclopedia and is used for a source of knowledge. It is not a place to state that which is true or false, but rather the opposite. As editors we seek to write balanced articles that provide all information, both pro and con, based on factual data. If you want to talk further, please contact me on my User talk page. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sophie, you obviously have strong feelings about the foundations and beliefs of Mormonism but the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide a forum for a particular point of view but simply to provide information about a topic. While the articles about Mormonism are not perfect, they have been thoroughly discussed and present a view that both pro- and anti-Mormon contributors have monitored for neutrality. Your (deleted) contributions were far from neutral. There are articles discussing criticism of Mormonism. I suggest you review them and add what you can -- but remember that an additional principle of Wikipedia is that this is not a place for original research. Maybe you should start a webpage of your own. Many of us would be interested in seeing your scientific proof that God does not exist. -- andersonpd 17:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

ANSWER TO Paul D. Anderson and Storm Rider

For your knowledge I have used wikipedia for more than a year and know very well how it function.

What I am stating here, far from being a personal opinion, are actual facts, and I do not need some scholars to tell me whats true or not, I do trust my own analitycal abilities as well as my perception sens to understand what I see, hear, and read, and consider myself as being able to make my own conclusions based on facts.
Personal opinions are what can be read on more than 50% of wikipedia so this remarque is rather biased and a bad attempt to try to dicredit me.
If you had read and understood what I wrote and was sincere enough, you will certainly know that I am stating facts.
The contain of the articles here and in all wikipedias articles about the subject are only a reflection of the officialy recognised opinion on the subject. By officialy I mean officials inside the mormons church.
On the other hand: just proove me wrong, I am waiting.
I also found necessary to adjust some of the critics binoculars by telling you that I started my contribution here only this morning, after having constated that many of the contributions deleeted before, were written by people who were not members of the church, and who had presented some "controversial", or just factual informations about this church.

By controversial I mean information non aprouved by presidents of the church.

Those seemingly innocent informations were removed as "Vandalism", (!) which I founded incredible, and saw the same thing repeating itself in the historic page of all the articles and discussion pages about mormon and related.
I so runned a test, by stating a few facts that I know about and who are very common to this church as they teach about them every sunday morning from 9 to 10 and from 10 to 11, and who, from an objectiv point of view should be only consider as a contribution to the subject.
Instead of it, they were ALL simultaneously removed from all sites at almost the same time from the same administrator, which email adress cannot be reached. How convenient...
All that was done less than 30 minutes after I had inserted my informations, making it impossible to this person to have read it.
So or this person is mormon and have the job to watch the articles for the church, or he has been contacted by those watchers from the mormon church who called my contributions for vandalism.
I found very strange and interesting to constate that all there is to read in those articles is nothing more nor less than what can be read in all the official materials given by the church.
So why make an article with a discussion page and not directly copy paste the essentials from the mormons official web site?
It will spare time, energy and lies for everybody.
About your suggestion of making my own site about the subject, yes, on the condition that it will be forbidden to any mormon to participate into it, as it is forbidden to any non officially stampled mormon to contribute to those pages and have anything inside the article.
You say thanks for my writings here and not in the article, know that I did also wrote in the discussion page, and that it was also removed with the rest.
I never spammed any articles and you calling that is your personal opinion as a mormon scholastic who have to proove how mormonic he can be at the cost of others, and who only wish to show how deep a believer he is and a true defender of the mormon value system as stampled by the elites of his church.
I hope one day you will stop stopping and calling spam richer and deeper contributions than your own, and will look into it instead. Who knows? You might learn a thing or two.
I am not the alone one confronted to this censorship conducted by full members of the mormon church with various status inside wikipedia, that they consciously abuse in order to protect their own interests, and this must stop.
You spoke of mormon and anti mormon and having strong feelings, talk for yourself.
I am nor a mormon nor an anti mormon, which you deliberately choose to oversee from what I have written aboves, and my feelings are such not because of the mormons but because of the unfounded censorship and pro mormonic discrimination I have experimented there.
Concerning the scientifical proove og gods non existens, it is very simple, and the theory of the point zero of the univers together with the recent data brought by the sonds send into space 15 years ago and who came back in february and marsh, we have the proove of this theory compleeted, and thereby the proove that god does not exist.
Concerning the details of this theory you know perfectly well that this is not the place to discuss that topic, and I do not think you can be able to understand its details, to judge from your poor ability to make a conscious argumentation and analysis of the subject here at hand.
And this is my own opinion, so now you have a model to distinguish between a personnal opinion, and analysis based on facts, like my contribution was about.
For your knowledge too I am still in contact with this church and its members, and can ask them anytime for confirmation or negation of the facts that I advanced.
And believe me, I do have asked for confirmation, and in several occasions, as it was for me a reason to live this church, as I disagree with those change of theory and basis set of believes, as ones come further in rang inside the church.
I hope you are now both satisfied, and if you need any more real informations and contributions, or some petitesses to try to knock the bull down, be my guest.
Finally, neutrality can be discussed, and being 100% pro mormonic and 100% in total agreement with the church officials is NOT BEING NEUTRAL but its opposit!
It is call subjectivism.
My analyse of the church is based on concrete facts and direct first hand observations through years, and my knowledge of religions and mythologies at large.
Even if the objectivity of any can always be discussed, I believe to be objective here, and the article in its essence and foundations to be very subjectiv.
I do not call it propaganda platform of the churchs ideologies without having a solid ground for what i advance.
I base this judgement on what I know of the official version, and that can be reread in all those articles.
I had them test proof by mormon missionaries, who completely agreed with its contains... if this isnt a proove that what I say is true, and that those articles are too pro mormon and leave no place for other facts than what mormons church call facts,and agreed to be told to outsiders, so what is a proove for what I say?
Very Kind Regards,

Sophie -- 17:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are indeed stating facts, Sophie, then you should have no problems providing citations for all the staments you have made. In addition, using first-person pronouns is certianly no way to convice other contributors that you have a neutral point of view in your writing. If you are familiar with how Wikipedia works, you would also know that large blocks of text such as what you included should be wikified. We welcome contributions, but let's keep it professional. --Kmsiever 19:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

ANSWER TO Kmsiever

As you are a mormon too, your own contribution here is a statement for what I say, and I do not wish to comment anymore of those meaningsless remarks made by mormons adepts as they all summon up to the same.

You have no argumentations nor contra argumentions about things unknown to you as all you can do is repeat things you were tought up to say.
I do not see what you mean with providing statement for citations, please try to be more specific as it give no sense in the actual context, but nice try, I hope it gives you point in your religious system, so not all of us did waist their time.
I am wikified and know more about wiki than you do.
About professionalism, maybe you need a dictionary to know what it mean. Can you professionaly possibly mean that archiving furnitures makes you a professional in the subject at hand, do you?
I do not see at all what you mean by pronouns and neutral point of view, please eleborate, I didnt stated anything like that in my text so where do you have it from except your own pocket?
I am less anonymous than you are and more honest.
I tell truth and state the facts I know to be truth and who can contribute to the knowledge and encyclopedic definition of the topic.
And you, what do you do?
Protect something and yourself, in the name of the same thing that you protect...but you shouldnt, you know that it isnt necessery, if also you do believe in what you state to believe in.
But lets keep it professional, of course, what ever this does mean..Unless...
And á propos professionalism, why dont you anywhere in the discussion named anything that i adressed to begin with and any of the topics I have described?
Why do you try, you being all 3, to concentrate yourself in attempts to discreditate me?
Is it because you cannot argue against or because you know all of it as a fact, or because you are afraid to adress the subject?
In which case you shouldn't adress me personnally on this discussion page, but do so in your own, and advanced more appropriated questions.

This is an encyclopedia not an LSD meeting board nor a forum for beligerents view points.

I would like to see some serious participation here, and not those frivolus ones.
What is the difference between my statements and yours?
I speak from relevent data and facts known at first hand, you speak from things you heard that a prophete or evangelist, or apostle or president has say about some other earlier prophete sayed before him.
And this made you more trustworthy and your statement more elaborate than mine?
Where are your scholars here and your citations? (How typically mormon!!) You are not going to tell me that the citations of scholars you do have, and the only one, are those made by....apostles and prophetes and so on, all of them members of this church or cult or sect, well?
Tell me, dont you think that you are having a serious credibility problem here?...
So to turn the table, I will ask you the same question as you asked me, where are your credentials?
Where are your prooves?
There is none, we all know that, but whos teaching do you follow?
Can you name One known scholars as I was asked to on private page by one of your brother?
Instead to concentrate yourself on the facts at hand, you have choosen to agress me personnally, to discreditate me.
Dont you think you should pray for your souls tonight as doing so is so very against all your teaching, but so very mormonic as well, you see?
I hope you see.

Clean your front door instead to spit at your neighbourgs face. It will do some good for both.

-- 20:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that English is not your first language; it is also not one you have mastered(Storm Rider)

That is not meant to offend, but rather a way of saying that your writing is at times difficult to comprehend. Let us all just try to more clearly communicate with one another.:By references what is meant that we, as editors, do not state:
Regarding polygamism with early mormons, Joseph Smith and his first group of 12 mens were using it all the time but hidding it from their wifes... Joseph Smith was married to more than 20 womens
Rather we would state something like:
Joseph Smith practiced polygamy in the early Mormon church. Fawan Brodie writes...insert whatever you want that proves the point(insert reference, book name, page #, etc.). Other leaders of the church also practiced polygamy...I hope you get the drift now.
Of course what might be easier is to refer readers to the Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy article. You will also find it mentioned in the Joseph Smith, Jr. article among others. You might also want to read Criticism of Mormonism, Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Anti-Mormonism, Opposition to Mormonism, Polygamous Mormon fundamentalists, and Mormonism and Christianity. You might also find the article Exmormonismto be helpful because of your past relationship with Mormonism.
There is no shortage of articles regarding Mormonism. In reading them you will come to understand that Joseph is alledged to have more than 30 wives; it just depends on which scholar is quoted. You will find examples in each article of how "facts" are cited and referenced. Yes, everyone does have opinions and everything you have stated above is your personal opinion and none of it is acceptable on WIKI. However, everything you have stated may be put, if it is not already there, with a referenced to a reputable scholar.
There is a big difference in what we think and what we edit. For example, you have stated what you think is true. If we use your principle of editing the next person that comes along that "knows" the truth about the matter just reverts your statements because they know them to be false. I hope you see the problem that could result. To counter this we require reputable references for controversial statements. In this way your edits will not be reverted and become acceptable. I hope this helps.
Also, if you are serious about being an editor please register. I am afraid there is already a registered User that goes by Sophie, but I am sure you will find a another name acceptable to you. Good luck and I do sincerely hope this has helped you become a more successful editor. Storm Rider (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


There is nothing that I stated above who is to be found in any of the articles.

No critic of the church or no documentations or witnesses made by people who counter the official opinion of the church, have gained access to the article, which is comprehensible when I see how ferocely those articles are defended by members of this church.
To your knowledge I am not an ex member but an actual member, and I do not refer to my past contacts with the church but my previous and actual contacts with it.
As to registration I am the registrated Sophie, so you know it.
My statements are in no way controversial and if it is your opinion that they are, please make your point about it as I cant see it.
As for references I have given them all: all what I have stated are part of the official teaching inside the church itself as it is teach about every sunday, and those topics have come again and again and been repeated the same way as I have discribed.
It is not an opinionated and personal view of the official scriptures, nor my moron way to interpretated it all, but facts as they occur in the church.
I do not have to citate people in regard to their personal identity, nor do I have to justify that I can clearly hear and understand the teaching, for so will you have too!
To corroborate with citations is superfluent when I am the central witness of those facts, and I will have to ask the other members to sign in and do the same to proove it, but in the end what would I have prooven????
What I mention are facts, and I dont see why you are having problems with it. You know very well how teaching is done inside the church so it must be why you insist for citations as you know there is none, except the mormon book itself and the book of covenents.
About editing and deleeting, it isnt my way to act, like in retaliation against others as you do.
I have never ever edited nor deleeted any contributions what so ever, but I know that you do not spare yourself in doing so to anyone who do not have the 100% same meaning as yourself.
This article and discussion is not a contest of opinion, nor a contest of whom has most power in wiki, and know most about it to can bannish the other, in spite of founding better to say and of being able to argument against, but is a, hopefully, serious place for mature persons to present clear and most richly documentated facts about different matters, with little regard to their divergence of opinion.
So please be a good wikipedian and stop threatening me just because you dont know what to say nor ask, and stop grabing at rules like last salvation to hide behind, as you dont have to be so scared.
Learn instead.
Does it ever occured to you that you might not know it all, and that you have to learn each and every day of your life? If indeed you set yourself to do so.
I do not have stated things that I believe to be true but that I know as a fact to be true.

There is nothing that I have stated who are second hands or stuff I have read somewhere, but all together things I was told at first hand by priest of the church, and by sisters of the church, missionaries, and members teaching at sunday schools, and priesthood teachings.

If what say priests from the church about the church, about Joseph Smith, about God, about his wife, about the construction of the church, and the way the different degrees of hell and heaven are articulated, and the different degrees of each of those, and the place of mormon members in it, and the place of other religions, and of non religious people in it, is to be untrue, or to be suspected of not being a part of mormonism and cannot be accepted in the article nor in this discussion page as a result of this, so you are all having the same problem as I, as You have all been teached at the same church by priest formed in that church, and are yourself priest, and thereby nothing that you have stated until now in any of the articles about the subject, made by any full member of the church, can be taken into account, as they will be all potentially caduque/ non relevant or untrue or non provable.
If I am wrong you are all wrong.
If my witness is not to be trusted or if you refuse to aloud me to voice my witness of the church, its set of believes, of those facts, so you denigrate all existing witnesses about the same church and set of believe, and facts, inclusiv you own.
As we all base those witnesses and references about this church on the same set of conduct and the same lineage of teachings.
You can shut your hears and eyes but you can't kill the truth.
And what is it about those facts that disturb you so much?
Please tell me what cause such a commotion, as all I see here to be strange is your reactions patterns and your very assertiv attempts to nail me as a person.

For what crimes?

Not being a very good and nice and neat wikipedian, or disagreeing with something you are yet unable to point out?

Have nice sacrements tommorrow, and for those in Utah, hils Mr and Mrs Browns for me.

Peirani -- 21:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You are nothing if not verbose.(Storm Rider)

I am not sure we are communicating very well.
I am not sure if I understand the point you are trying to make or you are not understanding any of my responses.
What we do not do on WIKI is work or edit from a point of view of Original Research. This means we do not edit from a first hand position; our personal experience. Since you have used WIKI for so long you must be aware of this.
Some points that are incorrect. Mormons believe in three degrees of glory as described in 1 Corinthians 15:40-41. As you must know, LDS believe that baptism for the dead and other temple work will be done for every person that will have ever lived. If we do not do this work now it will be accomplished in the millenium. If that is so, every person that has ever lived will have these saving ordinances done for them. If that is the case, the Celestial Kingdom is not and will not be a degree only inhabited by LDS. If you have been instructed otherwise, then you taught incorrectly. I tell you now that the doctrine of the church is that the Celestial Kingdom is open to all those who receive the ordinances and everyone will receive those ordinances. They will be judged on the degree of truth they had in their lives and how well they lived those truths.
There is no such thing as a Knight of Mormon or anything remotely similar to this. If you have any reference for this, please come forth with it. Your allegations about "hidden" or "secret" knowledge has long been an allegation by Anti-Mormons. No once have they ever proven that anything like that exists. If you are talking about temple ordinances, you would be wrong. Just google Mormon temple and you will find a plethora of sites that provide exact quotes of everything that goes on in a Mormon temple. It is hardly secret, but it is sacred to LDS and we do not talk about it...even with other LDS.
Regarding polygamy. Your information is incorrect; Joseph had more than 20 wives sealed to him. To this day there were no known progeny from any of those relationships. Did he live with them as man and wife? No hard evidence exits to substantiate any of their marital realtionships. Many believe that he was sealed only, but did not live as man and wife. Others believe that he did have sexual relationships with some of his wives, but that is only supposition. All of this information is found in the article about polygamy. None of your information adds to what is already there and corrects many of your errors.
Joseph Smith did not join a Masonic Lodge until he lived in Nauvoo. Your information about a much earlier period is simply incorrect. This also is covered in several of the articles.
Your allegations regarding the Book of Mormon are simply wrong. There are several quotes that appear to come directly from the Book of Isaiah, but I have no idea what other books you are referring to. I have never heard an allegation that the Masons had "books" that Joseph Smith copied into the Book of Mormon. If you have evidence that proves this, please reference it in the appropriate article. I would suggest Book of Mormon.
Your allegations about Peter are absured and patently false. Peter was an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ fully empowered to baptize. What you are attempting to say is that Mormons believe in an apostasy. After the time of Christ and shortly after the initial apostles died out, certainly prior to 300 AD the priesthood and the simple truths of the Gospel had been lost and the doctrines of men took the fore.
There is no first degree or second degree of the Priesthood. There is an Aaronic priesthood that follows after the Levitical priesthood. You will also find the Melchizedek priesthood named after the priest mentioned in the Old Testament. The term degree is not used in the church. I suspect it is pure fabrication by you or some faulty information that you have been reading. Check out Priesthood (Mormonism) for further clarification.
At no point in time has the LDS church ever taught that a Heavenly Mother, greater than God the Father, exists. However, it is logical based upon other doctrine to assume we have Heavenly Parents. We know nothing more than that and anything stated beyond that is supposition. The information you provided above is complete fabrication.
It is not worth going further. Your information has very little basis in doctrines taught by the LDS church. If you would like precise references for any of the information I have provided above, just ask and I would be happy to provide it. I am really not sure how to improve upon this situation. You need to do some more reading, because you don't yet have a grasp on the teachings of the Mormon church or its history. Storm Rider (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Your personnal attacks seems to have no end, now I am verbose, what will be next? that I am black and you dont like it?

After all your previously attacks nothing will surprised me.

Am I writing in chineese or are you deliberatly misunderstanding and misinterpretating anything I write to avoid the subject at hand?
I have been stating many times that this was not a statement about personal research, and I can see that you keep repeating the same accusations times and times again, without ever taking a stand from where I left the last time, nor taking into account any of my answers.
It make this discussion sterile and you are making of it a controversy that wasn't there on the first place, so I will ask you to come down and to apply one of the basic rules on WIKI, that stand that you musn't supposed the worse on the other users, but the best, and that you musn't bull any user away, nor use racistic tones.
Concerning first hand experience you are doing nothing but it and all your verbose and empty criticism of me are based on your "knowledge" in a matter based on your personal experiences.
This apply to all the people who have contributed to this discussion and article without being deleeted: they are all mormons.
On WIKI, it is a rule that selfbiography are not to be written by the person it is about, so when writing the biography or history of mormonism, it shouldn't be done by mormons, at least on ONE of the site about the subject, in order to insure a minimum of objectivity on the matter.
You descriptions of the teaching are not points that I disagree about, nor facts that I have denied anywhere in my contributions.
On the opposit, and if you for ONCE took the pain to read what I write and not what you think I should write or what your big bag of prejudices hinder you to see, you will realize how ridiculous all your attacks are.
I have clearly stated that there is an official side and an official teaching, and that what is presented on most of the articles about the subject discribed in the big lines what is actually and factually teached inside the mormon church, but that those topics are subject to changement, that there is diversion from one interpretation to another, as well as there is complete denial of what was previously teached, and assertions being made who contradict what was first presented.
As I have enumerated some of it in my first contribution, those things constitute some of the pillars of the churchs doctrine and are therefor very important, and I therefor, founded very singular that they were changed with time on this way.
Reread me from the beginning and you might see the light.
Concerning knights I WAS SIMPLY REFERING TO THE APPELATION AS SOLDIER OF CHRIST applying to all members.
"Your allegations about "hidden" or "secret" knowledge has long been an allegation by Anti-Mormons. No once have they ever proven that anything like that exists. If you are talking about temple ordinances, you would be wrong. Just google Mormon temple and you will find a plethora of sites that provide exact quotes of everything that goes on in a Mormon temple. It is hardly secret, but it is sacred to LDS and we do not talk about it...even with other LDS."
Do you read what you write? and do you have read what I wrote?

Here is a very clear exemple of what I am warning you not to do so systematically: judge others on the basis of what you have been told and are well brain washed to judge as, but from what you can actually see and hear that those others are trying to tell you. I have absolutly nowhere in my contributions used the words hidden, nor secret, nor temple ordinances, but you have the audacity to present those words as being directly taken from my own text, so blinded you are of your own certitudes and prejudices! I found incredible that you couldnt see it on your own! I have extremely clearly stated, many times, and on several occasions and places, and repeated myself to death on each of my answer to your attacks, that the teaching I refer to, are USUAL TEACHING FOUNDING PLACE AT CHURCH ON SUNDAY MORNING.

Is it now clear enough and can you take the pain to remove your veil and read what I actually write and not what you presume I should have say.

Thanks. And hear yourself staging your speach, with "secrecy" and by "long been allegated Anti-mormons".. bouh! those bad anti mormons, have you been so brain washed and have you been assigned for so long to pursue the bad wiches that you can't actually see what is in front of your eyes?

If I was you, I will found it very worrying.
About polygamy you are wrong as already explained by one of your friend, the number of wifes differ depending on the sources, and he married them on the unique purpose to have legaly aprouved sexual relation with them, as muslim do in Iran for instance where they married for 2 months, and if there was children or not, is surely something the different mothers knows about, and certainly not a matter for you to dissert about.
It is very laughable that you speak of it and insist about its progeny, when absolutely NO WHERE in my statements I have even mentioned this. I only named the factor of polygamy as it was a subject treated before, and only as to corroborate the reason for polygamy in the early church, and if you read me and not your own mind and set of prejudices, you will see that I actually stated that Joseph Smith was against it after having talk with his wife who knew nothing about it previously to her husbands revelations about it, which also will imply that he wasn't living with them (moral!)and that the polygamy was in fact pressed by the other males around him, who managed to have this law made official AFTER Joseph Smiths death.
I shouldn't have to repeat myself and you should learn how to read instead.
About the exact date of JS joining the masonic lodges... really are we going to trespass repeating everything or are you completely unable to comment anybody on wiki?
Where exactly did I ever mention Navoo or any other place or any place or date in time about JS contacts with the Freemaconry?
I never named any...
I only mentioned his contacts with people from different maconic lodges, and thats it. Which you yourself aknowledge, so, where is the problem? the big dilema you seems to all have me conspiring about? where are the big disputes? and the very controversial statements?
Do you see any controversy, I mean, who are somewhere else than printed inside your mind, and that can be actually read in what I wrote?
What you write is incredible, did I ever wrote that JS had a book of free maconery and that he copy it contains and put it inside the book of mormon?
It is your very opinionated translation of what i actually stated, and who have nothing to do with what you are writting here.
That Peter couldn't baptised is often sayed in the church, and I was the first to be surprised. It is very often sayed that they were unable to follow his precept and that it is the reason they died of illness and some of the apostles were killed.

This is the teaching held by missionaries, as well as teachers inside the church. I had very hot discussions with them about the subject, so believe me, I am not dreaming, and it isnt something who was say accidentally or that I had misunderstood. It is something who was with to retrieve me from the church as I couldn't agree to one more of those "changes to the original doctrine". I was vey irritated by those things, and founded impossible to trust anything who was sayed, as it was subject to changement and different interpretations all the time. Once, I just stand up and went away.

And yes, mormon do believe in apostasie and talk about it, it is on what your church is funded on after all: the break down of the lineage of baptism, only fished up with Josef Smith after another fiasco attempt in latin america...

How could none of the baptised christian transmit their gift unless they were not really baptised? Thats the theory I have heard.

I have also heard the one you have presented, that I could see the meaning of, so I was kind of unsure and disapointed and unsetled to hear something else later on.
And as stated before it doesnt mean that you have been teached the same in Utha or somewhere else, I am telling about the teaching I have see myself and others receive, and who were given by local memebers/priest, but also coming from the state, from Utha, from California, and so on... So don't bull me but scream at your owns and ask an explaination to your owns, not at me.
I am the carrier or messenger, and you know the saying: "dont kill the..."
I heard the version you present here the first times, for several months, but suddendly they begin to change the contain and it get worse and worse, it was like each time I was accepting one thing they were coming with another, until all the primal teachings brass together, so different it became to the original version.
First and second degree is aaronic and melshisedec priesthood, it is a reference to the level, and of course there is a level, the first one being the youngster and the second one the adulthood.
What are you trying to proove here? that you cannot comprehend simple facts as this one? What is wrong about it? It also exist in maconic loges with the same name as in the Mormon church and also goes by level denomination. Do you have a problem with that?

And you ask for prooves and books, go found it yourself when you are so keen at criticising others peoples research, why should you reap their fruits?! They are named after priest in the old testament, and if you knew something about hebrews history and about their religion you will also knew that those names become the denomination for specific degree of priesthood, and area of occupations, with their own specific teachings, and that they have the same name as in the mormon church as those models were borrowed to the hebraic priesthood system! Cant you think on your feet?

Now, I crave a complete apologize from you for all your insults and diffamations, for all the times where in your statement you are accusing me of lying, bringing false informations, and even to fabricate them!
I warn you, you have absolutely no fundament for your accusations other than your anger and desire of retaliation, who are very displaced as I dont see why I, as a person, should have to be blamed for the saying of OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH.
But of course it will never fall you in to actually consider the possible veracity of my witnesses so imbued you are of your selfrighteousness!
So now you are telling ME, that I am the one who created the story of the heavenly mother. This is the best. It is even spoken about in church after sacrement, and was even exposed once when one of the apostle came to visit us here with his wife. So I think you are the one not knowing enough or directly lying here for some obscure reasons.

The heavenly mother is teached about and they say to have very little informations about her, and that she is the wife of God. You seems to deny it all so I strongly recommend you that you ask about it to other priests in your church and in your community, and eventually to the president of the church you are under, who could transmit your request to one of the apostle and have it all sorted out, confirmed or infirmed, instead of throwing stones at my face, like an idiot who can't accept what he wasnt told by his closest. It is childish and very unproductiv.

I have done my readings thank you very much brother!
And I believe we do have the same documentation, so the problem can't possibly be there. It seems more to me a question of interpretation, and more even than this, a direct wish for many members to explain things in their own ways, and to give at the end, their church the solely power of redemption, by stating that they are the alone one able to baptize people ever.

And concerning the baptism of the death, well, I heard clearly being stated that not all will be so, and that nevertheless it isnt the same as being an active member inside the church, nor as being a direct descendant of a pioneer, and that special rules apply there. What you are stating sounds more like missionary teaching at the first months of enrolment, than anything I heard thereafter. You might be against all of it, and so was I, but it doesnt change the FACT that it is happening and that those teachings are founding place, even today, and that they are professed by very well preapared teacher, or so should one believe, specially the missionary and specialy those coming from Utha, who are priest, and have officialy been accorded the assignement to teach, and retreated couples from Utha teaching here as missionaries should also be people to be trusted in their knowledge of the church and its teachings, as well as in mix class, where men and womens are teached, from a certain age, and having a certain level in their knowledge of the scriptures, where special subjects are being teached about and discussed, and where this subject about hell was teached about and I was well surprised to hear something very paradoxal to what I first thought it was about.

It was very well discribed and with a specialpaper with a draw and the explaination s of it and it didnt ressemble to what I had seen before, thougth there was some similarities, and I had to get the all thing repeated several times and to ask for confirmation as I couldnt believe what I heard.
I do not have to apologize for what I know and am so friendly to teach you about, but you do have to do some attonement for your behaviour and your undeserved criticism of me because of the true statements that I bring here to you.
I hope that you do not consider yourself as being superior to for exemple me and having a superior intelligence or wisdom and an all clear eyed who permit you to see what others cannot grasp, because you are out for some disappointments.
Just learn to accept facts that you weren't prepared to, and who go against your believes or what you believe is going on, as you cant know all, nor be prepared to everything who can happen in a lifetime. You can dislike things but it does not mean that thing you dislike are unreal or inventions or unproovable, or never happened.
I hope to have cleared up some mess here and that you will be more attached in the future at seeing what is in front of your eyes and at reflecting at its meaning, and consequences, and will choose more appropiate and effectiv ways to grab this dilema.
In fact I shouldnt be telling you that, you should know that wisdom and light and gods true guidance come at a cost, often being your own barriers, that you have to transgress to go to the other side.
But as you stated it, you know your scriptures, so show me some application of it instead of blaring yourself in chapters and unlegitimate insults!...

Sophie -- 05:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Logic of Sophie

I am not going to comment on Sophie's usage of English. I speak a foreign language well enough, and English is one of the most difficult to learn (as a non-native speaker). Some editors who otherwise do good work also have trouble with English grammar and spelling. I'm also not addressing the doctrinal mistakes in what Sophie has said; on Wikipedia, if challenged, it is up to the editors to provide citations for their information. Nor am I going to directly address Sophie's ignorance of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. I am dealing with Sophie's own "What I am stating here, far from being a personal opinion, are actual facts" with Sophie's own words, wikipedia records, common knowledge, and (for #6) personal opinion (mine is as good as Sophie's).

Quoting from Sophie:

What I am stating here, far from being a personal opinion, are actual facts, and I do not need some scholars to tell me whats true or not, I do trust my own analitycal abilities as well as my perception sens to understand what I see, hear, and read, and consider myself as being able to make my own conclusions based on facts. Personal opinions are what can be read on more than 50% of wikipedia so this remarque is rather biased and a bad attempt to try to dicredit me. If you had read and understood what I wrote and was sincere enough, you will certainly know that I am stating facts. On the other hand: just proove me wrong, I am waiting.
  • Proof #1: There is not ONE word of critic or attempting critic in any of the articles and even discussions related to the articles about mormonism, and not even one exemple is given of true problems actual or ancient related to this cult. (See Mormonism Criticism, on the page you says contains no such information. This information existed before you started editing this article.)
  • Proof #2: About your suggestion of making my own site about the subject, yes, on the condition that it will be forbidden to any mormon to participate into it, as it is forbidden to any non officially stampled mormon to contribute to those pages and have anything inside the article. You say thanks for my writings here and not in the article, know that I did also wrote in the discussion page, and that it was also removed with the rest. I never spammed any articles and you calling that is your personal opinion as a mormon scholastic who have to proove how mormonic he can be at the cost of others, and who only wish to show how deep a believer he is and a true defender of the mormon value system as stampled by the elites of his church. (See your edit on the 10th that was reverted by Mike Rosoft who, according to his own user page, is a hard-core atheist.)
  • Proof #3: Concerning the scientifical proove og gods non existens, it is very simple, and the theory of the point zero of the univers together with the recent data brought by the sonds send into space 15 years ago and who came back in february and marsh, we have the proove of this theory compleeted, and thereby the proove that god does not exist. Concerning the details of this theory you know perfectly well that this is not the place to discuss that topic, and I do not think you can be able to understand its details, to judge from your poor ability to make a conscious argumentation and analysis of the subject here at hand. (See definition of 'simple' to see why you just contradicted yourself.)
  • Proof #4: No critic of the church or no documentations or witnesses made by people who counter the official opinion of the church, have gained access to the article, which is comprehensible when I see how ferocely those articles are defended by members of this church. (See #2 above.)
  • Proof #5: There is nothing that I have stated who are second hands or stuff I have read somewhere, but all together things I was told at first hand by priest of the church, and by sisters of the church, missionaries, and members teaching at sunday schools, and priesthood teachings. [But from earlier in your soliloquy:] I speak from relevent data and facts known at first hand, you speak from things you heard that a prophete or evangelist, or apostle or president has say about some other earlier prophete sayed before him. (So, you're "first-hand experience" derives from second or third-hand experience. That, in fact, makes Sophie's experience third-hand, at best.)
  • Proof #6: If I am wrong you are all wrong. (Translation: "Listen very carfully Norman: Sophie is lying.")

And some advice to Sophie which comes from Sophie:

So please be a good wikipedian and stop threatening me just because you dont know what to say nor ask, and stop grabing at rules like last salvation to hide behind, as you dont have to be so scared. Learn instead. Does it ever occured to you that you might not know it all, and that you have to learn each and every day of your life? If indeed you set yourself to do so. [...] But of course it will never fall you in to actually consider the possible veracity of my witnesses so imbued you are of your selfrighteousness! [...] I do not have to apologize for what I know and am so friendly to teach you about, but you do have to do some attonement for your behaviour and your undeserved criticism of me because of the true statements that I bring here to you. I hope that you do not consider yourself as being superior to for exemple me and having a superior intelligence or wisdom and an all clear eyed who permit you to see what others cannot grasp, because you are out for some disappointments.

On the other hand, we may all just be feeding a troll. [Hint: If real, Sophie will understand his own words. If a troll, this soliloquy will continue.] Val42 06:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Val, who is also a mormon [or a parrots, 'ain't sure].

I found very strange that each time I am answering to one wikipedian/mormons question, it is another who react to it instead of the one to whom it is adress to.
I do not see why you are defending stand point who are not at all being made by you, nor why you feel the urge to respond for another one than you.
I think that the person concern, Storm Rider, is grown up enough to do so on its own.
Unless next time I am under attack, you take the relay and answer that one for me as well. It could be interesting.
If you have something to say, say it so, but use your own words idea and language instead of making a copy paste of my entire edit, as you have nothing at all to add to it and in fact seems clearly to don't know what to say.
So do the wisest, just shut up!
It is in fact evident that you do not have understood one word of what has been sayed, and as you can see, repeating it indefinitely like rot speach, is not going to give you the ability to understand.
All you do is agressing agressing personal attacks and agressing.
Try to use half as much of your energy to understand what this is about and I am sure that you might see some light.
I do not think that my statements can be make clearer than they already are and that your reaction, more than a physical unhability to comprehend, expose your reticence at accepting things you just dont want to accept.
You cannot accuse me of talking in circle when you are the one doing so as it can be very clearly seen in your edit.
As for you stupid accusation of me not being >sophie, what about you? Are you VAL? or are you rama? or are you DGL626, there is a lot of nick name on wiki, and all of them cover up a real name.
They are all a pseudonym, meaning they are anonymous.

So if I take the name "anonymous" as a pseudo, I will be as hiding and as showing as you are, because at the end, in both case it is a pseudonym with nothing to do with the person real name and identity.

So what are you trying to proove, except the fact that you were unable to figure what I just told you on your own?
I had a name, this name seems now to be unavailable, and I dont feel to make it again or take another.
Following wiki rules all are equal on wiki, old rats as well as newbees (hahaha) and even arb com and board members and admi are as equal as usual wikipedian, thought they have much more power than them and abuse of this power constantly without bad conscience, and have learn to twist and bend all wiki rules behond recognition, so who are you trying to fool with your wiki neutrality and wiki equality, who is wikis first rule?
It is all a lie.
How can you claim equality with another if you have more power than this other and power on this person and can exclude this person from the group?
It isnt equality it is power struggle.
It is adversity, and supremacy and group pressure as here.

WIKI is oppression and extinction of the freedom of expression, it is so corrupt that not one admi found it disturbing nor strange to banish or revert a user edit to impose his own point of view, on the sacro sankt name of wikis neutrality and equality!

Make me laught, but dont think you can trick me at believing such lies.
Please, in the future, avoid using words that you do not fully understand, as "logic".
For your knowledge english is one of the easiest language to learn so stop affirming stuff like that gratuitiously, do some research first.
I speak 9 languages:

English, danish, french, german, norvegian, swedish, occitan, latin, greek, and geek!

5 of them fluently, the others as pocket use. Like german I can read a book but I dont have spoken it for some years so it might take me 2 3 weeks to get back the rythm.
As a nativ american your knowledge of foreign languages is zero, maybe hightened if you are a mormon who have been on mission outside the US, but you have absolutely no experience of the process of learning new languages. In europe from age 11 we choose between 3 languages: english german and spanish, at age 13, we have to chose another one, and choose between english german, spanish italian russian, from age 15, when we begin graduate school, we have to take another one, and chose between those named before and also chineese and modern american, and a dialect or local language, and can also take hebrew.
2 to 3 languages are part of the compulsory pensum.
I also took extra english dialect as the one spoken by semi natives in australia, and english dialect spoken in India.
That was for learning a foreign language, sister.
Oh! I forgot, you are a man, difficult to know with a pseudo!
I found it superfluent but will mention it nonetheless, cant you see on your own that you are so used at repeating what was once teached to you, and at avoiding thinking on your own, that when comes the moment when you have to do so and cant jump over it with one of your prelearned group-of-sentences, you are lost, and come back as an automatism to repeating...what the other has already say!
Like a parrots!
Thats a problem with religious believes you see, when injected in the brain from a very young age, they block the developping process of the brain and the ability to emit independant and original thoughts. At the adult age those individ are unable to think on their own and have never experienced it, but mix it up with memory of a thought.
Several research have been done on the subject, and it exist a lot of document and books about it. Look under psychiatry to found it.
The problem is even worse as it stop the logical process of the mind.
The subject learn not to ask nor think objectively, but to accept very illogical thoughts, which has a very destructive effect on the brain, and end up in some cases in very serious misconduct who endanger the person and the people around him/her.
Like the sects who poisonned their members, or the islamic suicidal bombers, or mormons jumping out of the window, or people killing themselves because "judgement days has now come".
All those abnormity are the result of a life who set aside logic and learn to accept illogical stuff as fact and even twist them into logical stuff, in a very sophistic way.

The brain cannot function with 2 types of logical sets and certainly not with one logic set applying to both logical and illogical stuff.

It get confused and cant function normally.
It also affect the emotional part of the brain, and give very disturbed people. Denying it of course, as they were tought to.
All religions present this problem and that is the reason why they should be all forbidden, for the good of the kids and of future generations. The world will be a much better place without all those brain washer and brain washed people in it.
Being a religion or an ideology.
Many political or pseudo political ideologies present the same symptom as religions does when they are taught as universal truth who cannot be changed, like USA under Mc Carthy and like communism in USSR.
There is a propanganda factor that the logical brain cannot comprehend, and who usualy is forbidden to be even discussed.
All that make people creasy, act creasy, and do stuff who are completely illogical, destructiv, and absurd.
There is too much contradictions, too many things who does not balance, nor compute in the brain, and even less at an emotional level, and too much restrictions asked to the individuals, too many sacrifice for the good of the all, and who are in contradiction both with the individs good and the good of the masses.
In the mormon case both with each mormon and the church as a whole.
Like ideologies are semi religious, are religion very political, there is in both a factor of economy involved, of power, and of duration. The theories/laws have to feet in and be adapted to feet with the rest.
Typical of them they are all controlling, in all actions of the individ and every day and each part of its life, and each age.
There is no way out.
No real choice, no question asked nor answered.
A real question is never accepted and to do so never directly answered.
All is twisted, and in extreeme even forbidden: to ask or to mention.
This is a very effectiv way to squize the mind, and press it dry from any originality at any level. The individ has no real personality, it is eaten by the "common goal".
None of them show sign of independancy, they are unable to do so and strickly trained to be always depending on at least another one and to be alone as seldom as possible.
They are all conditioned in the same form, and agree with each other and convein of their commun enemies and friends, and what to say and how to treat them and what must be say in what situation.
And of course this kind of proceeding lead to major failure in the system as there is no such as ONE enemy nor a black and white world. This is very weel illustrated by what is happening on this discussion page.
They are all trained on the same code book, so their first reaction is the standard one, as teach in the standard book of standard reactions to standard attacks by standardised anti mormon.
Here come the unexpected and not-to-be-found-in-the-standard-book: I do not feet the boxes.
What can I do?
They do as they are used to and just repeat what is told them.
In that case my own words, as they have nothing on their own to match what I say, there is no box feeting in their standard reaction shemes.
They are sanded.
Far from getting aware of the illusion they live under, or getting aware that they do reply in a stereotype kind of way, they will just deny such idea, and maintain the opposit even if unable to proove the opposit.
It is the fear factor who play here.
The fear of the unknown. As more fear, as more agression.
When believed to be under attack as my words do not correspond to their mormon codex of communication, they immediately presume that I am an enemy and begin to attack.
They go on defensiv right away, without analysing the text at hand, as analysis crave logical mind, and the logical mind is actualy being paralysed, as the preprogrammed automatic respons of "defense-under-anti-mormonic-attack" is automatically activated and blind all logic.
And here troubles begins, as there was no reason for such and the person cannot come with a logical explaination for its actions afterward.
It trigger another attack as each individual is trying to found what type of enemy they have in front of them and to force their own prejudices of such into it.
They act like emotionally arroused robots.
But the shit doesn't work!
What to do?
At no time any of them actually read nor comprehend what was written and subsequently none of them saw what was in front of their eyes.
They cant understand what is unauthorised stuff so conditioned they are.
They are of course unaware of that.
There is in fact no way to recall a preprogrammed individual.
In the '60 and '¨70 ees some study have shown how difficult it was to bring back individuals who had end up in a religious sect, with gurus in india or in the state. Even if they had first come in contact with those people at a comparativaly late age, around 20 - 23 years old, many were lost already after 2 years in this environment.
It doesn't bodes good for children educated from their birth in that kind of stereotyp model of life and thought process.
I didnt write anything wrong, and there is in fact something very important for you in it and for the church, but you cannot see it because you hide from it out of pure prejudices and fear.
You want to see a dragon spyting flammes, it is a leave on a bark.
Have a nice reprogrammation time, I mean pray,

Jolly Jumper and his asperge -- 18:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Shedding full light on Sophie

The fact that Sophie didn't even understand his own words (repeated back to him) means that he's not listening (even to himself) or that he is a troll. Either way, it is in the interests of enlightenment to have all of his text available for perusal by those in doubt. So I have restored his words of personal attack against me. I don't mind his words because they are not true, except any allegations that I am a follower of Jesus Christ. Val42 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)