Talk:Mormonism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

"Cites Religious text without citing sources which critically analyze those texts"

I think its unfair to require citations of sources which "critically analyze" the book of mormon, when such things are not required when citing: The Quaran The Bible The Bhagavad Ghita The Torah The Talmud and many other religious texts especially when there is very little to any actual proof regarding the historical validity of some of these religions and their texts and regarding the actual proof of ALL of their doctrines

There has been as much proof of the validity of the New Testament as there has been of the Book of Mormon. By that, I mean, NONE. Zero, zilch. There is no proof. And whether its true or not there obviously never will be proof. Both books say that you have to ask of God to recieve an answer about their validity. That means that if EITHER is TRUE, God would prevent any evidence of either from coming to light. IF either is false, then there couldnt possibly exist evidence proving their validity.

I find it more rediculous to require such critical analysis' in that, the book itself is so objective. Some people believe wholeheartedly in it. Some people reject it entirely. Both parties (regardless of actual claims) do so without a shred of evidence. Usually, a lack of evidence would require that the objective observer refrain from taking a position.

The last reason that it is rediculous is that i have yet to hear of a source that critically analyzes the Book of Mormon without either a.) Being written by the Mormon Church (thus obviously precluding it from the possibility of inclusion as an objective critical source.) or b.) being written by someone who claims to have proof that the book, or the religion it pertains to is false (regardless of the veracity of such claims, or claims to the contrary, we have previously stated that its not actually possible, at this time, to prove the mormon religion, or any other religion except for scientology and the Jehovas Witness wrong categorically. Thus, any claims by any "critical source" are obviously false claims and fueled by bias, making them NOT objective, and bringing the entire scope of their critical analysis into question. In fact, you could say of such sources. "Well, I cant tell you if the Book of Mormon has lies in it, but I can tell you that your criticism of it does.")

174.29.37.9 (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Matt 1/9/11

If you want to generally argue about the existence & usage of Template:Religious text primary, please do so at Template Talk:Religious text primary. Keep in mind that a great deal of digital ink as already been spilled about this at wp:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 2#Template:Religious text primary, and you may find some of that discussion enlightening.

Regarding the specific application of this template on this article, it really does belong here, or alternately Template:Primary sources, which provides a less specific but equally valid representation of the issue. This article relies heavily on wp:primary wp:sources that are religious texts in order to support conclusions that can be considered wp:original research for WP purposes. Religious texts are subject to an extreme amount of subjective interpretation, and usually require cited secondary sources stating "this is what this passage means"; the secondary sources don't have to prove or disprove the validity of any religious text, nor do they necessarily need be nonpartisan in order to provide interpretive information. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Matt, you said "such things are not required when citing The Quaran, The Bible, The Bhagavad Ghita, The Torah, The Talmud, and many other religious texts". You are mistaken. Such things are required in those cases as well. The reason that this article currently has the template is because the issue exists in the article and has not yet been fixed. I've moved the template to indicate the section where the problem mainly exists. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Relationship to Christianity

This article appears to be about the LDS movement rather than simply the "Brighamite" branches. In the "Relationship to Christianty" section it states "restored and led by modern prophets including Joseph Smith, Jr. and Brigham Young." However, Brigham Young is not considered a prophet by the LDS movement on the whole, just a subset, albeit the largest part. Recommend removing the reference to Young to avoid confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.34.55 (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement are not co-extensive. Smith started the Latter Day Saint movement, but Mormonism is the branch of the movement that came from Young's leadership. It constitutes the LDS Church and Mormon fundamentalists, almost all of which recognise both Smith and Young as legitimate prophets. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You say "this article appears to be about the LDS movement rather than simply the 'Brighamite' branches." It's intended purpose, however, is to be simply about the 'Brighamite' branches, so feel free to help us fit it to that scope. The Latter Day Saint movement article is the broader/more general one that includes non-brighamite Branches. (other editors, do you agree that "Mormonism" is a roughly equivalent scope to "Brighamite"?) ...comments? ~BFizz 05:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that this article really focuses on the LDS Church's beliefs and actions. However, there is an overlap between the term Mormonism and Latter Day Saint movement. The term Brighamite is not used except by the groups who stayed behind in Missouri/Illinois and is not a common term that would be understood by the public. It does have a certain POV attached to it; certainly a spin is intended by its use. Over time there is a bleeding in all the articles and then there is a re-focus that takes place to adhere to the actual topic. -^StormRider 07:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's good to occasionally revisit the terminology Wikipedia uses to describe the various branches of faith that originated with Joseph Smith. I think there are very good reasons not to include them within the term Mormonism. First, in academia, when they use the term Mormonism or Mormon, they are almost always referring either to the LDS Church (90%+ of the time) or to fundamentalist Mormons (less than 10% of the time). The term is very rarely applied to the Community of Christ, although it admittedly does happen. For example, Jan Shipps refers to the Community of Christ as a form of "Mormonism". However, the Community of Christ itself strongly resists being linked with the term Mormonism, which is reason number two. If an organization finds a name offensive, Wikipedia probably should use some other terminology if there is a suitable substitute that is not too disruptive or confusing. Third, there already exists another term, Latter Day Saint movement, which the Community of Christ uses on its website and apparently endorses.

Finally, there is a significant doctrinal divide between the followers of Brigham Young, including the LDS Church and fundamentalist Mormons on the one hand, and other groups who didn't follow Young, including the Community of Christ, the Bickertonites, and related branches on the other. In particular, the Community of Christ is essentially Protestant; it represents approximately what Mormonism was in the 1830s, except that women are ordained to the priesthood. It's true that the term Mormonism applied to this 1830s faith, but since then, the term has essentially followed the Utah-based branch of the faith as it stuck with most of Smith's secret developments of the 1840s, and later developments by Young and others, which distinguished Mormonism from Protestantism. COGDEN 20:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Serious definitional problem

The lede indicates that Mormonism is only related to the Brighamite branch of the latter day saint movement. This strikes me as incorrect. The RLDS or Community of Christ, and the Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints_(Strangite) for example are not part of the Brighamite branch, but in my mind are clearly part of Mormonism. This is a very serious problem in my mind guys. I propose we change the definition here to be far more inclusive of other branches of "Mormonism".--Descartes1979 (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Reading through the Strangite article in detail and am even more convinced. James Strang is repeatedly referred to as a "Mormon" leader and the purported second "Mormon" prophet, appealing to a "Mormon" following. Why are we not including this church in the definition of Mormonism?--Descartes1979 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Mormonism is the theology, distinct from Protestantism, that Joseph Smith was teaching around the time of his death in the 1840s. The main defining element of Mormonism throughout the 1900s was polygamy. Faiths like the Community of Christ are not Mormon mainly because they never practiced polygamy, and instead follow an 1830s version of Smith's theology that was more Protestant than Mormon. The Strangites did practice polygamy, and there is indeed a pretty good case for including them within the term Mormonism. Plus, they do embrace the term. So I would not oppose somewhat redefining the term Mormonism for this article. It's not so much that Mormons are Brighamite, as the fact that they embraced Joseph Smith's 1840s theology which made Mormonism distinct from Protestantism.

I don't believe, however, that the Community of Christ, the Bickertonites, the Temple Plot saints, and other similar groups are considered part of Mormonism. For one thing, these groups don't want to be considered part of Mormonism. Also, despite their early connection to Mormonism, these groups can probably be considered denominations of Protestantism. Mormonism is a new religion that diverged from Protestantism; thus, if you are a Protestant, you are probably not Mormon. COGDEN 23:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What Smith prayed for

I've changed the language that Smith prayed to find out what "faith" to join to read that he prayed which "Christian church" to join. In his histories, he speaks of trying to decide between various "sects" that had varying interpretations of the Bible. It is non-controversial that Smith was a Christian at the time of the First Vision, is it not? He was not asking God which of all the world's religions to join—he was asking God which Christian church he should join. I bring this here because this edit has been reverted twice now. Should it say he was deciding between competing "Christian sects", or is "Christian churches" accurate enough? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Which church he should join is not objectionable to me. It is the awkward way Christian Church sounds is objectionable. Don't tell me that you have forgotten the discussion about how some of my information interrupted the "flow" of the article. What I find more interesting is why you feel the need to undo each and every word of my contribution to this article, every reference, and mess with the language. Your spin of the facts is what I find controversial. If it doesn't have a negative spin, it seems it isn't relevant. Is there a problem here? Entropy's 1 Talk (UTC)

I view "Christian church" as being simply more specific and accurate than "faith" in this instance. I'm not sure how this could be called "spin of the facts", but whatever. You sound like you feel like you are being picked on, but it's the article I'm interested in, not your edits in particular. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In this context, considering Smiths own writings it is not more accurate. If you wish "church" suits me just fine. It's true that I would be happier If I could add something that would contribute to the substance of this article without having my edits systematically removed. Why exactly are you interested in this article? You don't seem to view the Mormonism movement as anything of value in either Christian Theology or American History. Entropy's 1 talk (UTC)

"... considering Smiths own writings it is not more accurate" Why do you say that? It seems to me if we are reporting what Smith said, Smith's own writings are probably the best possible source. Smith said he was trying to decide between the different "sects", and he mentions the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and so forth. He doesn't mention considering non-Christian faiths, so it seems natural to state that he was trying to decide which Christian church to join.

"You don't seem to view the Mormonism movement as anything of value in either Christian Theology or American History." Whaaa...? I would really be interested in how you came to that conclusion! It sounds like you are assuming quite a bit about who I am, what my background is, and what my motives are, and I'm not sure you know much about me as a person, do you? (This seems to be veering off topic, so you may wish to continue this discussion on your talk page, where I've made some postings.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

How very condescending of you. So, Joseph Smith said he wished to know which "Christian Church" he should join? Well, you have certainly taught me a valuable lesson. Was that before or after he was a horse thief and put magic salt and pepper shakers in a hat and talked to them? Talk about the personal attacks getting way off, here is a reference for you: "The teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith." Guess who wrote most of the content. So, answer the question, what is your bias with regard to this article? Oh, wait, that's not "mainstream" because it doesn't have a negative stream of commentary following it and it is of LDS origin.

OOPS, forget I mentioned that one. (Entropy's 1 13:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC))Entropy's 1 talk (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not following you at all. (My only point was that Smith and his family were Christians at the time of the First Vision, and from his own report he apparently was attempting to decide whether he should join the Methodists, the Presbyterians, or some other Christian sect. I view Smith's 1838 personal history as a good source for explaining what he said happened to him.) I'm a little taken aback by your personal comments about me and my motives, and I would appreciate no more of that. I'm off to bed so I won't be able to respond any time soon to further questions, but I do think we need to focus on content, not on personalities. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, I will be more clear. It is inaccurate to say that Joseph Smith's question of which church he should join was phrased in his writings as: "christian churches." I know that you prefer it, but I do not, because I believe it is not contextually consistent with Smiths accounts of the vision and his other writings. As I said before, "church" would be just fine with me. Could you consider a compromise? (([User:Entropy's 1: Entropy's 1 Talk] 13:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)))

If we used Smith's language, we would just use "sects", I suppose. The context of Smith's account makes it clear that he means "Christian sects", but I figured "Christian churches" was a bit more understandable to modern readers. I'm fine with just using "church", as that typically implies "Christian". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "which church" is probably better than "which sect" or "which faith" for today's readership. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

In standard Christian terminology, which would have been understood by Smith, the word sect does not necessarily mean precisely the same thing as church. A "church" is a particular body of believers, while the term sect can (and originally did) refer to a religious "path" or tradition. So if Smith used the term sect, it does not necessarily follow that he meant church. So I'm slightly hesitant to use that word, but I don't have a strong objection either way. COGDEN 07:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

In my view, changing from 'sect' to 'church' is a POV push. In the lines leading up to the passage where Smith describes his experience in the official Joseph Smith-History from LDS, Smith uses various words to describe religion and religious things.

• 7I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father’s family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church

• 8During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties

• In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect

• confusion and astrife among the different denominations

• 11While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists

• teachers of religion of the different sects

• 18My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

So, Smith uses a lot of different terms back and forth. We can assume he knows no distinction and just switches terms constantly, or we can assume he deliberately chooses the terms. Either way, he said the word 'sect' and so unless you have some clear evidence that it didn't mean sect, then it should say 'sect'. One thing to consider is that Joseph Smith declares that the dispensation that he proclaims is a restoration of the Truth, and for everyone else -- "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt". So if I personally were describing corrupt abominable people, I might use the word 'sect' also. -- Avanu (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt the term sect had the same pejorative connotation in the 1830s as it does today, though certainly Smith was antisectarian, and like any Christian primitivist in the 1820s thought that sects and denominations were a corruption of the Christian church. But rather than trying to parse the primary sources ourselves (which could be [[WP:OR|original research), I think we ought to let the secondary sources guide us. When Jan Shipps describes the vision story in her Mormonism (1985) book, page 9, she uses the word sects in quotes: "this theophany answered the lad's question about which of the 'sects' were right and which were wrong." Maybe that's the proper approach. Using the word sects, but quoting it, clues in the reader that Smith's 1830s use of the term may not necessarily mean what the modern reader might think. It also lets us side-step the question of Smith's precise meaning. COGDEN 09:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, I'm OK with using "sect", "church", or "denomination" here. Personally I feel "church" is the closest "translation" of what Smith said (translating from 19th century English to 21st). I hardly see it as a pov push to avoid "sect", since it only gained a negative connotation a while after Smith's time. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Pulled from our own Wikipedia page on 'Sect'

Wilson, Bryan Religion in Sociological Perspective 1982, ISBN 0-19-826664-2 Oxford University Press page 89

"In English, it is a term that designates a religiously separated group, but in its historical usage in Christendom it carried a distinctly pejorative connotation. A sect was a movement committed to heretical beliefs and often to ritual acts and practices like isolation that departed from orthodox religious procedures."

I think that statement only strengthens my theory. Smith clearly stated that he believed these other groups had fallen away. They were not only wrong, but corrupt and abominable. So if the reliable source (Bryan Wilson) is correct, then this is a usage completely in line with Smith's other words. I went ahead yesterday after looking at this and added 'see denomination' right after the word sect. This preserves the original wording, but gives some neutral insight for a current reader. Denomination, as far as I know, is not perceived as a negative term really. -- Avanu (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess Bryan R. Wilson would be a very reliable source on the "historical usage" of the term sect. I know some of the existing secondary sources, like Bushman's Smith biography, don't really make a distinction between church, denomination, and sect, but that's probably just because the authors haven't specifically thought of it as an issue. I don't think it's wrong, or necessarily non-neutral, to use a word like church or denomination in this context, but using Smith's own language--like Shipps does--has the added advantage of reflecting the flavor of Smith's early anti-sectarian views which he shared with other Christian primitivists. COGDEN 22:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

First Vision-related details

I have again removed details related to the First Vision of Joseph Smith that I just don't think belong in this article about Mormonism. I think this is detail that could be relevant and be included in a more specific article, such as First Vision. But why is it being added to this article? We're setting out a brief introduction to Mormonism in general, including its origin, beliefs and practices, cultural impact, etc. A mention of the First Vision is enough. Why would we need to include details about how certain newspapers in the Palmyra, New York area ridiculed Smith for his claims of seeing God as early as 1829? I don't get it. This material has been repeatedly re-added to this article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • I get that you "don't get it" but this is one event, THE FIRST VISION, was the event that true or false, was the basis for everything else that Smith did. It does belong here in this article more than a passing reference to a "vision" because it is the basis for this so called Restorationist Movement of Christianity. I have repeatedly added it to this article that is sadly lacking in the area of relevant substance for the foundations of Mormonism or the LDS Movement. As for the Newspaper articles, I have had long discussions with some that claim that Smith and the early members of the Church of Christ never claimed such a thing until the middle 1840's and that there is no proof to the contrary. Also, I believe it is important to show the impact of these events on Smith's community. This better explains some of the later persecutions of Smith and the movement. Entropy's 1 ^{User talk:Entropy's 1 —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC).}

Isn't the material more appropriate for First Vision, though? This article is not about the First Vision, it is a broad article about Mormonism in general. I don't see the rationale of including this information in this article. It also sounds like you are out to "prove" something is the case. The visits of the angel Moroni to Smith were emphasized by the early church much more than the First Vision, but the details of those visitations are not set out in this article—they are reserved for articles like Angel Moroni. To me it sounds like you are giving undue weight to the event which actually was not given a great amount of weight at the time. Also, you state that Smith's account is in the Pearl of Great Price and is considered scripture by adherents, but only the LDS Church has canonized the 1838 account—other Mormon fundamentalists don't necessarily view the account as scripture. (You have also placed a capitalization on "Orthodox Christianity", implying that we are referring to the proper noun Orthodox Christianity (of the Eastern or Oriental type) rather than what is really meant, which is a generic Christianity that is orthodox, or mainstream.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please explain to me your thought on why it does not belong here. It seems to me that you simply don't want to include this as an inconvenient troubling fact about Mormonism. I believe that it does belong here, references included so that it is not removed for other reasons. As I have explained Mormonism, without this First Vision, is like trying to talk about the US Revolution without mentioning King George or the British Empire. Entropy's 1 04:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You say that I am giving undue weight to the First Vision, as opposed to the visit of the Angel Moroni. This is the sort of discussion that is important to have with members of the wiki editorial group. To any current member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints it is not difficult to see the problem with leaving it out of this article. There was a "falling away" as 2Thesselonians spoke of and a "Restoration" with the story of the First Vision. True or not, it is the foundation of the 1830 church. The Book of Mormon and the visit of the Angel Moroni happened second, and is here as the keystone of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. These too are important points, but as you have seen in this article, it is more important to point out more obscure and poorly understood doctrines like polygamy and blacks & the priesthood. The US supreme court decision of 1890 upholding the Idaho law disenfranchising Polygamy, and the almost simultaneous Feb 1890 Official Manifesto by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints officially banning plural marriage is not relevant. The persecution of the Missouri and Illinois saints is ok, if they are referred to as "subversive" culturally, but the fact that a big part of this is that they were mostly immigrants from the North-East and other countries, the LDS church's teachings against slavery and their politics were Abolitionist in nature is not relevant to this article. This First Vision event was spoken of and Smith was severely persecuted for it. So when I say that it is relevant, you shouldn't just rely on detractors of the LDS Faith for your information.

My mistake about Orthodox v. orthodox. I meant orthodox in it's generic form. So If you wish, go ahead and change it back.Entropy's 1 04:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entropy's 1 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, I'm well aware of what the LDS Church teaches as well as other Latter Day Saint groups. I was speaking kind of in Wikipedia-ese, and I think you've misunderstood my meaning. I'm not arguing that the LDS Church does not emphasize the First Vision in its teachings today. But what I am saying is that this article is not the place where one should attempt to prove the LDS Church's position as being correct, which is essentially what it appears that these additions are attempting to do. Of course the event of the First Vision is relevant to this article, but what is not particularly relevant is pointing out that newspapers were making fun of Smith in 1829 for claiming to have seen God. It's just unneeded detail, and it's been added in a sloppy way that interrupts the flow of the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe I can go along with some of what you are saying. Believe it or not I am trying to contribute what I believe are relevant facts to Wikipedia and not trying to run a propaganda mill. I do believe that one or two sentences more than what was there are needed (from the two sentence paragraph you seem to like in your version). I think I understand what you are saying about the newspaper articles however. Maybe including them in a briefer reference note down below and completely omitting them above might help the flow? Entropy's 1 04:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entropy's 1 (talk • contribs)

We can see what others think. I don't want to dominate, so I'm willing to wait a bit and see if anyone else comments. I still think it would work better at First Vision than here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

As you wish, It might be useful though to make some modifications to the article so that you and I are happy with it first. I will leave it alone for a while and observe. As to taking it out all together and placing it in First Vision wiki article remember: King George, The British Empire. Entropy's 1(talk)

I don't want to take all the First Vision material and move it. I want it to read as it did before. I don't want it to talk about how newspapers were mocking Smith in 1829 for it; the point is not relevant in this article in the context. (Somewhat ironically for your argument, King George III isn't mentioned by name in the lede section of American Revolution.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed, but be part of the article. Mormonism of today does not exist without the First Vision; as such, it would seem to have a place in the article. I am not sure about the newpaper discussion. That may be something to add to the First Vision article, but it may be something for this article, I am not sure though. Regardless, I support talking about the First Vision in this article. -^StormRider 09:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think the point that the article needs to have First Vision information in it is non-controversial, and prior to the edits there was info about the First Vision. My concern is with the newspaper stuff. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. -^StormRider 06:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The First Vision is a very important part of post-1900 Mormonism. But the proposed material here, such as the newspaper articles, is not appropriate in this article.

Entropy1, don't let me discourage you from trying to improve this article, but in this case I think you are trying to introduce conclusions that are not supported by mainstream scholars, including Mormon mainstream historians like Richard Bushman. There are many problems with Abner Cole's 1831 reporting (in Palmyra) of a rumor (in Ohio) that Smith was "frequently" seeing God by 1831--something Smith never actually claimed as far as we know. We can forget about Cole's earlier 1830 "Book of Pukei" article which has nothing to do with this subject. And there is no evidence that any of this has to do, specifically, with Smith's later claim to have seen two personages. Though I deeply respect my former professor Anderson, I don't think we can make much use of his BYU Studies article in Wikipedia, given that no non-Mormon scholar agrees with the underlying conclusion of his article. COGDEN 00:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I still believe that the newspaper articles are appropriate to the discussion specifically because they challenge certain preconceived notions about pre-1900 Mormonism. Dismissing one academic because one has supposedly taken a class and considers him to be less "mainstream" than the current thought does not change his academic credentials. Smith, according to his own account, told local clergy about the First Vision and was mocked and scorned over the pulpit in his own community shortly after it had happened. If his own accounts are not enough, his mother's journal, as well as other sources including local newspapers all support this idea. I have heard arguments that have attempted to dismiss all three of these witness separately, but upon investigation I have not found them credible. Recirculated yes, but they have no depth. Together they do support the idea that Smith did claim to have a vision much earlier than I have read some believe. Witnesses from two or three sources are enough for a claim to stand up in a court of law, but apparently not here though? Are we getting rid of evidence BECAUSE it doesn't support our preferred conclusions?

I am also surprised at the apparent concern for adding something that showed that Smith had been publicly scorned for his claims. If it did happen, how would including it detract from its relevance? Smith did not claim to "frequently seeing God" just as you say, however what is interesting about this article is when it is taken in context with Smith's own writings of how the community received his ideas does support his claims, if somewhat indirectly. It sounds to me that the uncomfortable prospect of newspaper articles that challenge your preconceived notions about the apparent "pre-1900" Mormonism. No one is disputing that Cole has wild exaggerations as part of his information like most anti-Mormon literature. What it does tell us, in conjunction with the other article from prominent pre-1900 members of the church is that there was a discussion about Smith's claims to have seen a Vision and that vision involved God.

Further I do not accept that there is a complete consensus in the non-Mormon academic community concerning this matter. All Gore tried that one, and well maybe we should believe him, after all he did invent the internet and has does have a Bachelor's degree in Government. Seriously though, that is a broad and unsubstantiated claim and you have provided no evidence to support it. As for Professor Anderson's and other LDS scholars seeming disqualification because they are LDS, from what basis is that authoritative dismissal given? This is an article about Mormonism, is it your assumption that no LDS scholar has the academic integrity or competence to follow academic standards to determine the truth? Again I am appalled at the suggestion of neutrality as an excuse to present only one side of the issue. Even if it were true that every single Non-Mormon scholar did not agree with Mormon scholars, does that mean that the question is settled and the LDS Academics are unquestionably wrong? Even if people like "Bushman" are considered "mainstream" that does not make his scholarly opinions correct. Galileo when facing the consensus of the "mainstream" view that the earth was the center of the universe was correct to disagree and present his evidence contradicting the accepted view of how things were.

In conclusion, as much as I appreciate your willingness to help me not feel discouraged to present items to the article, I would appreciate it more if pro-LDS Scholars and evidence were not automatically dismissed. News paper evidence here of the First Vision's presence in young Smith's community (and pre-1900's Mormonism) is relevant because it allows the reader a better opportunity to understand the basis of Mormonism for themselves. Entropy's 1 talk> 6 April 2011 (UTC)

To me, it still sounds like an issue that would be most relevant at First Vision or one of the bio articles about Joseph Smith (if anywhere). I find the issue is a bit too granular in detail for this article, which is about a more general topic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

My effort and why I believe so strongly that it should be here is because of the lack of such substance in the article. I do not hide the fact that I am a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. When I cannot read it without coming away feeling like it is written by those ignorant of the history and main doctrinal teachings I believe something must be done. Shouldn't the First Vision be told historically correctly and in a way that a member of one part or another of Mormonism movement can recognize. It is the event that started Mormonism as a movement. Entropy's 1 Talk 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not at the level of detail you are proposing. Not in this article. There are other more specific articles. In more specific articles, more specific information is appropriate. In general articles, the information provided is more general and less specific. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

My level of detail is minimal. I don't understand why approximately 6 lines of text and details like who Smith saw in the first vision are too specific. I have a whole list of things that are inappropriate to list in this article but I allow others to contribute something and leave it alone for the most part if it has any relevance to the topic. Again this is the foundation of the Mormonism movement. Just like King George is important enough to have DOZENS of references in the Wiki article on the American Revolution and more reputable sites, ONE paragraph referencing the first vision isn't going to harm anything unless suppressing or distorting information is your goal.Entropy's 1 talk (UTC)

Where did I say the detail of who Smith saw are too specific? I've never disputed that. What I have opposed is the addition of details about how newspapers in the early 1830s were mocking Smith for having claimed to have seen God. That's unneeded detail, and I thought it was what we were talking about all along. The article should mention that Smith said he saw God and Jesus and that seems to me to be appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your previous statement along with a long string of undo's of my edits led me to believe that you were opposed to more detail. It seems like you have been targeting each of my edits and have methodically set about undoing them. The newspaper evidence which, like I explained before, is relevant when both articles are taken together. Here's irony for you: Abner Cole, self proclaimed Mormon hater, wishes to discredit Smith's claim. He gets published in a local paper. A century and a few decades later, the article about Cole, when combined with the other article supporting Smith's claim to have seen heavenly visions, his Anti-Mormon voice provides credibility to the idea that Smith told people about his vision before the Church was established in 1830. It is relevant because it adds a historical dimension to these critical events at the beginning of Mormonism. From your edits this seems to bother you for another reason. Entropy's 1 Talk (UTC)

It bothers me because it's far too specific for this article. Multiple users have agreed with me on this point, so I encourage you to expand your horizons a bit—realize there are more specific articles on WP than this one about the First Vision and how Smith was treated in the 1830s—and target your edits about specific details to articles that are about the specific events. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why are these details about the newspapers mocking Smith now being added in again? There doesn't appear to be any consensus that they should be included—multiple users here have agreed that it's probably too much detail for this article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what I wrote over and over above. Yes the consensus of multiple like minded users might feel very comfortable to you but I still don't agree for reasons that I have explained exhaustively and to which you have almost completely ignored. So I should play nice and simply bow down to your consensus? (Entropy's 1 13:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC))Entropy's 1 Talk.

You don't have to agree, or "bow down" to the consensus, but you do need to respect it. Certainly you should not be making changes that go against the consensus just because you, a single editor, disagree with the consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

New "Mormons" article

I'd like to propose a new article entitled "Mormons" as distinct from this article in the same way that Jews is distinct from Judaism. The "Mormons" article would discuss the Mormon people, demographics, culture, and institutions, whereas this "Mormonism" article would discuss Mormon beliefs. The "Mormons" article would contain a summary of the history of the Mormon people, while the "Mormonism" article would contain a summary of the history of Mormon doctrine and beliefs. Thus, the "Mormons" article would take over some of the subject matter of the present article. The "Mormon" redirect article would point to "Mormons". COGDEN 23:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am tentatively happy with that. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Do not use some comparison with Jews which is clearly based on some mormon religious bias rather than on science. Unlike Mormons, the Jews are a distinct language, nation, culture and ethnicity (and have been for over 3500 years). They have an indigenous homeland (Israel/Canaan) and a distinct language (the Hebrew language). Not all ethnic Jews for example follow Judaism. To be a "mormon" by contrast, one has to simply be a follower of their cult-like religion.

Mormons are merely a religious sect from a variety of ethnic backgrounds (mostly English-American as shown in US Census data). They are not an ethnic group.Epf (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting viewpoint from Epf there. I would say that if there is enough source material and differentiation to create a distinct article about Mormons then it would be a valid article. Just like any other article. -- Avanu (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my point there. I have no problems with an article on Mormons, the adherents of mormonism. I merely wanted to remove the ethnic group infobox which was used since is it is not an article about an ethnic or national group, that is all. Cheers, Epf (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There are sources that characterize Mormons as an ethnoreligious or ethnic group. For example: May, Dean (1980), "Mormons", in Thernstrom, Stephan (ed.), Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, p. 720 (describing Mormons as an ethnic group); Epperson, Steven (1999). "Mormons". In Barkan, Elliott Robert (ed.). A notion of peoples: a sourcebook on America's multicultural heritage. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 411–27. ISBN 0313299617. (arguing that Mormonism has become an ethnicity in addition to a religion); Arrington, Leonard J. (1994), History of Idaho, vol. 2, University of Idaho Press, p. 268, ISBN 0893011649 (describing Mormons as an ethnoreligious group). COGDEN 22:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess that would depend on what creates an ethnic group. In the US, there is a definite 'whitebread' (no offense meant) sort of culture, with the stereotype of liking Jell-O and so on. But I have no idea if this is even realistic. I suppose as always, we simply defer to the sources, but who knows. -- Avanu (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus among sociologists on whether Mormons are an ethnic group, but that view is a prominent one, if not the most prominent view. On the pro-ethnicity side is Thomas F. O'Dea, who wrote a landmark sociological work on Mormons, "The Mormons" (1957) published from the U. Chicago Press. O'Dea noted in a separate work that the Mormon group has "its own history, its own traditions, its conviction of peculiarity, and even its native territory or homeland." (O'Dea & Aviad, The Sociology of Religion, 1983, 2nd ed., p. 86). Also on the "pro" side is Jan Shipps, writer of Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition (1985, U. of Illinois Press) and a preeminent expert on the subject of Mormonism, who wrote that “the Latter-day Saints, by virtue of a common paradigmatic experience as well as isolation, have acquired an ethnic identity so distinct that it sets the Saints apart in much the same fashion that ethnic identity sets the Jews apart." (p. 187).

But that's not to say that this view is the only view. For example, the most prominent proponent of the theory that Mormons are not an ethnicity is sociologist Armand Mauss, who suggests that while Mormons were once an emergent ethnicity, they are in the process of losing that ethnicity. (Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive (1994), U. of Illinois Press, pp. 61 et seq.) So while there's no consensus that Mormons are an ethnicity, that view is at least a prominent one.

As to whether Mormons are an ethnoreligious group, that's possibly a different question. My sense that the term ethnoreligious is more inclusive than ethnic, so that there may exist some ethnoreligious groups who are not necessarily ethnicities. COGDEN 22:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Entranteyeguy, 22 May 2011

The first sentence reads: Mormonism is the religion practiced by Mormons, and is the predominant religious tradition of the Latter Day Saint movement.

For clarity, this should be changed to: Mormonism is the nickname given to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by persons not of the faith, and is the predominant religious tradition of the Latter Day Saint movement. [1]

[1. See mormon.org and lds.org for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints logo on the top left-hand corner.]

The third paragraph reads: Mormon theology is a form of Christian primitivism that shares a common set of beliefs with the rest of the Latter Day Saint movement, including use of, and belief in, the Bible, as well as other religious texts including the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. It differs from other Latter Day Saint movement traditions in that it also accepts the Pearl of Great Price as part of its canon, and it has a history of teaching eternal marriage, eternal progression, and plural marriage (although the LDS Church had abandoned the practice by the early 20th century). Cultural Mormonism includes a lifestyle promoted by the Mormon institutions, and includes cultural Mormons who identify with the culture, but not necessarily the theology.

This is inaccurate. "Mormons" and Latter Day Saints are the exact same entity, and therefore, "Mormons" and Latter-Day Saints alike consider the Pearl of Great Price to be scripture. The last sentence of the paragraph only serves to confuse, and should be deleted altogether. (I think what the writer was trying to say is that there are some "Mormons" who live in or grew up in Utah among the Mormon culture who no longer practice the religion.) This paragraph should be changed to:

Mormon theology is a form of Christian primitivism whose scriptural canon includes the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

Entranteyeguy (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Some members of the Latter Day Saint movement—for examples members of the Community of Christ—are not part of "Mormonism", and members of those churches would consider themselves "Latter Day Saints" but not "Mormons". The term "Mormons" is usually restricted to those who followed Brigham Young after Joseph Smith died. This includes the LDS Church and Mormon fundamentalists and various other branch-offs from these two groups. Those Latter Day Saints who followed Joseph Smith but remained in Illinois or Missouri after his death are not regarded as practitioners of "Mormonism" as the term is used today, and they don't accept the Pearl of Great Price as scripture or plural marriage as a practice once authorized by Joseph Smith, as most Mormons do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but Good Ol'factory's response matches everything I've seen about this before--it isn't actually correct to equate Mormonism and LDS, despite the fact that many people do. Entranteyeguy, if you have references that verify that the groups are the same, please present them here, but without that and a lot of discussion, this change can't be made. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.218.146.197, 24 May 2011

The following paragraph should be clarified:

In many ways, the religion differs from orthodoxy as held by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity. To those for whom Christianity is defined by that orthodoxy, Mormonism's differences place it outside the umbrella of Christianity altogether.

After the first sentence you should add: "One of the fundamental ways Mormonism distinguishes itself from that orthodoxy is in its rejection of the Holy Trinity. Instead Mormons believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are distinct entities, not all part of one God."

98.218.146.197 (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be elaborated after the next paragraph; is there a good reason to summarize it earlier? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

..and no one has put in a section on the criticism of Mormonism? Seems to me that this article shouldn't be so pro-mormon. Paleo Kid (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, "Mormonism" is rather vague. This article simply gives some history and points to other articles about the specific churches that fall under the category. Criticism of Mormonism leads to criticism of the largest Mormon church. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Fix for wordy and speculative sentence.

The article reads,

"Partly for public relations and proselytizing reasons, the LDS Church seeks to distance itself from other branches of Mormonism, and particularly from the practice of polygamy."

Although the word "partly" exists, this still seems to speculate on the underlying motivation of the Church in this context. Are we to assume that if it was popular and helpful for proselytizing the Church would reverse its decision?

I propose a simpler rewording as follows;

"Presently, the LDS Church continues its efforts to distance itself from other branches of Mormonism, and particularly from the practice of polygamy."

This drops the speculation and simplifies the paragraph. Shorter is usually better.

--Canadiandy talk 01:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The entire section and the one following are unsourced. Before you begin to reword everything, maybe it would be good to get what we have sourced, or get sources for the changes you want to make. -- Avanu (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a partial source. . . "Although [Fundamentalists] comprise a tiny fraction of all the kinds of Mormons, they generate press far out of proportion to their numbers. Some attempt to remain within the fold of the mother church in the belief that the temple rites still are valid. The church repudiates these groups and excommunicates their members if discovered." -- Richard L. Bushman Mormonism: a very short introduction page 91. That's the strongest statement the book makes about the church distancing itself from fundamentalist sects. He doesn't mention any public relations and proselytizing. Those sound like original research and speculation to me. I agree with the proposed change. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Adjwilley. @Avanu, I am not proposing addition of any new information, merely a rewording of a point made so that the unsourced material is removed. Please compare the new edit and see if you still have any major concerns.--Canadiandy talk 21:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Canadiandy's rewording sounds fine. As to the sourcing issue, that statement sounds pretty obviously true--everybody familiar with the issue knows that the LDS Church has been trying to distance itself from fundamentalism in the public eye, so there ought to a source somewhere that says that. COGDEN 01:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I found this news article from the Associated Press. I'd rather have a book or journal article, however, if one exists. COGDEN 01:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute the Church is using its public relations arm to distance itself. I just don't see solid evidence that the first motivation of the Church in doing so is for PR or proselytizing purposes. It's a grey area and that is why I think it was wise for us to state the known and avoid the speculative.--Canadiandy talk 15:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

For our purposes, possibly more relevant than finding solid evidence that it is true would be finding references that report the suggestion of others that this is what the church is doing. You're not going to find evidence it is true unless there is a statement from the church stating its purpose, which is unlikely. It's far more likely you will find sources similar to those COGDEN provided that suggest a purpose-driven approach to what it is doing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Good olfactory. The onus is not on the Church to disprove accusations, it is on us to properly source and support what is written. COgden himself sees the weakness in the article. It does well at pointing out that the Church is distancing itself from polygamy and fundamentalist groups. I have never had a problem with that. Still, it does not evidence the Church's motives which is the point the fix addressed. Until there is good evidence as to the Church's motives we are involved in speculation which is contrary to WP guidelines.--Canadiandy talk 16:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not inappropriate to report what others have said about it. That's what I am saying. We're not supposed to interpret at WP, we just report. If others have consistently said stuff in reliable sources, we report it, whether or not we think it's too speculative. I don't think the issue of what the church is or is not required to do comes into issue either way since all we care about it what has been written about the topic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right. At Wikipedia it's fine to quote speculation, as long as it is sourced properly (i.e., according to the New York Times, blah blah blah). But to just state something as fact because one reporter speculated it in an editorial is not good sourcing. Also, if you read the article COgden linked to carefully it does not state anywhere what the Church's motive was in distancing itself, only that it is distancing itself. Not WHY they are doing it, merely WHAT they are doing and the context in which they are doing it. The unsourced speculation is all that was removed.--Canadiandy talk 03:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that re: the specific ref. I'm just proposing that if we can (theoretically speaking) find appropriate sources that say it, it could be included. I wasn't meaning that this source was adequate for this purpose. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.--Canadiandy talk 15:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. The revised version now has 3 sources (one from the LDS style guide) and none of them speculate. -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Liberal Reformist theology?

All right. Where in the world did the Liberal reformist theology section come from? If there is such a movement it is not a significant movement from "within" the LDS Church. In fact it could be argued that any seeking "reform" from within the Church are as much LDS as Luther was Catholic. Yep, Luther was Catholic. Yep, these individuals are likely members on record of the Church. But to understand the Church and its doctrine of sustaining the doctrines and leadership (by free will) it could be argued that members with a problem with Church doctrine and practices are on the high road to apostasy. Given that this "group" has no authority given them from the Church to act as such, and that their numbers would make up such a small percentage of general membership (I've never met one), It seems that this is more of a fringe group than a movement from within and should be identified as such. I would argue it only deserves a one sentence mention and not a whole section.--Canadiandy talk 17:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

All right, having reread the section I see it is meant to focus on different groups seeking liberal reform historically and at present. To fix the article so it focuses on that please consider the following change;

Liberal reformist theology

Historically there have been pockets within Mormonism seeking theological liberal reform of their religion. Most of these have been members of the LDS Church. While some of these individuals were excommunicated,[Godbe/Watt] others left the LDS Church but consider themselves to be cultural Mormons. Others have formed new religions. One of the first of these, the Godbeites, broke away from the LDS Church in the late 19th century on the basis of both political and religious liberalism. More recently, the former Restoration Church of Jesus Christ broke from the LDS Church as an LGBT-friendly denomination.--Canadiandy (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Canadiandy, I'm no expert, but I think liberal Mormonism is more than just a historical thing, and that there are a significant number of "liberal" Mormons. They certainly don't get as much press as say fundamentalist Mormons, but I think they're certainly there. I'm not sure how I feel about trimming down the article at this point - in fact, I think there is a gaping hole in terms of traditional Mormon theology. Perhaps instead of cutting out the Liberal reformist theology, we could add a section on regular Mormon theology. I have made some recommendations above where I would appreciate your comments. -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Adjwilley, I'm good with your recommendations up top. And my rework does not deny the reality of so-called "liberal" Mormons. My main point is that they are quite rare and do not function with sanction (i.e. from within the Church). They are likely members, sure. But I get the sense from the article that they are somehow influential or relevant to the formation of LDS doctrine which according to LDS theology they are not.--Canadiandy talk 23:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for the sake of argument, one could say the same thing of fundamentalist Mormons. I'm preparing to go on a camping trip in about 10 minutes, so I don't have time to investigate and form an opinion right now. (sorry) I'll be interested to see where the discussion has gone in a couple of days. Good luck! -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Adjwilley. Enjoy the camping! You're right about Fundamentalist Mormons, the differentiation is that they knowingly operate outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. One important distinction in LDS theology is that it is a self-proclaimed theocracy which does not set doctrine according to "inside movements". In fact these individuals are often excommunicated, (see Godbe and Watt). So if the article is going to allude to these fringe groups it should at least point out that they have no legitimate influence, no empowerment or authority to direct Church policy, and are in many cases politely shown the door. In my experience I have met more Mormon Vegans (and I don't mean Las Vegans) than so-called "Liberal Mormons". They have no formal organization. I don't doubt they exist and are sincere in their beliefs, but they sure aren't common-place nor influential within the Church. I am not sure but looking back at the history it seems COgden might be the originator of these factoids which look like original research and might reflect his own POV. He is a self-professed "Liberal Mormon" (a foreign term which does not appear in Church terminology) I am not accusing bias, merely perhaps a regionalism. Perhaps there is a small gathering of these "liberal Reformists" who have organized in COgden's region. Additionally, I don't see any sources to the term "Liberal reformist" and am not familiar of any research using this term. I tried a Google of 'Mormon liberal reformists' and found nothing that looks like what is referred to here. The historic stuff about the Godbeites is fine (though I don't see it termed as "Liberal Reformist" in any of the research) but if this is not going to be clarified I suggest it is not significant enough to be given a full section's treatment. There is no direct link to the Godbeites and any modern group of "Liberal Mormon Reformists" as their sect died out by the 1880s.--Canadiandy talk 01:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I'm reading in "Wayward saints: the Godbeites and Brigham Young", via Google Books, it doesn't sound like Godbe and the others wanted to really overthrow the LDS Church as much as overthrow Brigham Young personally to a small extent. Godbe and Young were at one time fairly good friends, and Godbe considered him to be a mentor. But differences over religious freedom in Utah, the direction of commerce in the new territory, along with outside pressure by the US government made their relationship much more strained, in a church where one simply didn't question Brigham Young. -- Avanu (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Avanu. What point are you making? --Canadiandy talk 00:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

My impression of what points Andy made above is he is saying these groups operate outside authority, and should be acknowledged as such. I personally find that to be biased somewhat against the idea that individual people have self-determination, which is another prevalent idea in LDS doctrine. This is why I mentioned Godbe's close relationship (for a time) with Brigham Young, as a counterpoint to the idea that these people are all just rebels. Although I haven't read the rest of the book yet at Google, I have the impression that some of Godbe's ideas did at the very least, give all Mormons of his time something to think about and consider. -- Avanu (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My point is not whether Godbe gave people something to think about, nor that they excercised self-determniation, but that if you follow what is known and the research we have about Godbe/Watt they were clearly excommunicated from the Church and should not be confused as influential from within. It is not a position of bias to state that the Church viewed them as apostate, that is clearly proven through the research. That Godbe was friends with Brigham Young before he was excommunicated is interesting information which belongs to that article, not this one. As to your belief that, "it doesn't sound like Godbe and the others wanted to really overthrow the LDS Church as much as overthrow Brigham Young personally to a small extent" I have to question your understanding of Church authority. Is it possible to "overthrow" the sitting American President "to a small extent" (like the Doctor telling someone their friend is a little dead)? Kind of like robbing a bank but only taking $50? Apostasy is apostasy. Did you read on to the part where Godbe started his own church? You don't have to believe Church doctrine or beliefs to accept the researched facts.--Canadiandy talk 00:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless you actually believe the sitting prophet is infallible, then yes, it is possible to ignore or overthrow that person. Church members are taught that they can question the prophet (not that they ever do). Not all questioning is apostasy, but I suppose if you are completely inflexible, then it can all be viewed as the same. It was a cult or theocracy based on the leadership of 1 person, and to challenge that was to challenge all. Anyway, my point is just that if you label anyone who stands a little outside the official line, a traitor or an apostate, then I guess its great for maintaining an unquestioning status quo. If you actually want people to have a true, deep faith, not just a superficial skin of faith, then you let them think it through. -- Avanu (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, I don't think you're responding to the topic as much as pushing some POV. Obviously it is not apostasy in most religions (the LDS religion included) to personally question the actions and doctrine of Church leadership. But the act of going around pushing one's fault-finding in the middle of a group of those who do believe is not only annoying and a little bit tactless, but it is also commonly viewed as apostasy in most faith groups. Like the guy in the theater who stands up and yells out how the movie ends. Or how about maybe standing up at the elementary school Christmas concert and yelling out that Santa isn't real? In the end it is not whether they are right or even justified. The Godbeites were asked to leave the theater. They were no longer influential within the Church. That's what the research suggests. And I'm not sure what point you are making referring to the Church as a cult because it had (has) one leader. Don't Catholics have only one leader? The Jews under Moses, Abraham, Isaac...?--Canadiandy talk 09:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not pushing a point of view, because honestly I barely understand what your original point was above. What I can tell from previous discussions is that you typically come at these things with a peculiar-Canadiandy-pro-'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' point of view.

If you notice, this article is titled "Mormonism", which describes any and all of those who self-describe as Mormon, or related to it. The membership of that group is determined by that criteria alone (and our Reliable Sources, of course).

What I think you start to say, in your 1st and 2nd replies to Adjwilley above, is that this is about whether people are operating with the permission of TCOJCOL-dS, rather than just being within the sphere of 'Mormonism'. I'm not sure why that matters to you, and I'm not even sure if that's your point, but to the best of my grasp of your point, I simply made a comment that Godbe and those who followed him didn't sound like such bad people when you look back at them. They lived in a stressful time with the US government breathing down on them, threatening their very existence, and Godbe and others recognized that a lot of that ire was specifically focused on Brigham Young. Add to that the personal disputes they had with the man, and you have a recipe pretty much calling for a change in leadership. -- Avanu (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made two basic points. The first, that the term 'Liberal reformist' is original research and so the heading should be reworked. Second, that the way the article reads there is an organized group within the Church influencing reform. Given the leadership style of the Church (a theocracy not a democracy) this is not at all the case. This should be addressed/qualified/removed.--Canadiandy talk 18:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. The term 'Liberal reformist' isn't terribly clear anyway. On the second point, it is important to remember that this article isn't just about 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'. -- Avanu (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I am aware the article is not about the Church, Avanu. The sentence I take issue with though states, "Many of these are members of the LDS Church and work for liberal reform from the inside." My point is that the action of working for Church reform would by virtue of its intent place one outside the sphere of Church influence. Well-intentioned or not, this translates to apostasy. I assume if we were writing that a group of active Catholics were seeking Church reform it would not be written they were doing so from the inside. A better way to state this accurately would be to state something like,

"While viewed skeptically by most Latter-day Saints, some active members of the LDS Church seek liberal reform of the Church." Or even, "Though subject to Church discipline, some LDS Church members work towards a liberal reform of the Church." If anyone wants to accuse me of a bias I think it might be noted that this actually paints the Church in a potentially negative light based on their active disciplinary approach towards members who are skeptical of Church positions.--Canadiandy talk 02:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your restatement is a better way to phrase it. The "work from the inside" quote sounds a bit cloak-and-dagger-ish, and your new version sounds a bit more in line with assuming these people have good intentions. I do think claiming 'apostasy' might be a bit much, especially if they are self-described Mormons, although you could probably say that Latter-day Saints consider the views apostate, but even then it is a bit like me casually tossing around the word heretic. -- Avanu (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Avanu. So which of the two proposals do you prefer? Or any other proposals? Smiles.--Canadiandy talk 03:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a question about the first suggestion: how do we know that "most Latter-day Saints" view attempts at liberal reform "skeptically"? I think it's probably far more likely that most Latter-day Saints aren't aware of such attempts or movements. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, Ol'factory. It would be hard to source that one. I can only tell you that from my experience these so-called "Liberal reformists" are at best socially tolerated (more likely unappreciated) inside of the Church. Your point about most members being unaware of this "movement" needs to be explained. By this I meant to suggest that most members are skeptical of any individuals seeking "reform" of Church policy (Liberal or not). The problem is the point the article alludes to that this is an organized movement. I do not know if there is a network or significant organization of so-called "Liberal reformers" and so it follows that; If such a "movement" even exists, it can be safely assumed that general membership would be skeptical. If such a movement does not exist, then those who identify as "Liberal reformers" fall into a category of individuals promoting potentially apostate theories and would likewise be viewed skeptically. The problem may stem from original research (finding a source to disprove something that doesn't exist is like the rhetorical question about whether one has stopped beating his dog). Without a source though it would probably be best going with the second proposal, "Though subject to possible Church discipline, some LDS Church members work towards a liberal reform of the Church." I am sure the existing research (see "Godbeites" and "Excommunication") supports this point.--Canadiandy talk 17:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think most other Mormons are aware enough of liberal forms of Mormonism to have an opinion one way or the other. Most Mormons, for example, have probably never heard of the Godbeites. Also, I don't think the focus on this section necessarily has to be limited to organized groups, which are rare in comparison to organized groups practicing polygamy or other forms of conservative Mormonism, which tend to form organized sects. There are Mormon pagans, Mormon atheists, Mormon mystics, and Mormon trinitarians who still quietly think of themselves as LDS. Unfortunately, because there are few discrete sects to study, there isn't nearly as much sociological scholarship on the liberal fringes of Mormonism as there is on the conservative fringes. COGDEN 22:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"who still quietly think of themselves as LDS" - it is additionally difficult to document/track the beliefs of those who keep their beliefs quietly to themselves. I think the current article text does a good job of capturing the important ideas on this topic. If the LDS church has published any official statements about Godebites or the Restoration church, then that information would be good to include as well. However, the text "A small movement" is rather vague, and borders on WP:WEASEL, being rather similar to the phrase "some people". Of course at some point you do have to throw WEASEL out the window, otherwise you end up repeating yourself: liberal Mormons are liberal. I think Canadiandy's latest suggestion ("Though subject to possible Church discipline, some LDS Church members work towards a liberal reform of the Church") would be an improvement. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Just one small point - make sure to follow the LDS capitalization guidelines (WP:LDSMOS) when you implement. Capitalize church when it is a proper noun ("LDS Church") but "church" when it is not. -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Adjwilley. Unless anyone has any more to add I am going to be bold and make the change to;

Though subject to possible Church discipline, some LDS church members work towards a liberal reform of the church--Canadiandy talk 18:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A "Peculiar" way of saying it.

The article reads that;

"The church is becoming a part of the American and international mainstream. Like all Mormon faiths, however, it consciously and intentionally retains its identity as a "peculiar people", set apart from the world by what it believes is its unique relationship with God."

The use of the term (originating in usage from the KJV Bible which from the Greek means a flock or possession) has been used colloquially among the members, and I get what is intended, correctly or erroneously. But I think the style by which it is used here is simply meaning to communicate unique (not odd which is it's more common usage).

Would it not be simpler (and yes shorter) and less POV to write;

"The church is becoming a part of the American and international mainstream. However, it consciously and intentionally retains its unique identity as being set apart from the world by what it believes is its unique relationship with God."

I also took out the statement comparing this action to all Mormon faiths (with the number and range of Mormon faiths such an absolute statement might be questionable).

Rationale 1: Improves upon unlinked and potentially POV statement about "peculiar people" by simply stating what is implied. Rationale 2: Removes presumptive universal attribute ("Like all Mormon faiths") Rationale 3: Shortens the section by 5 words

Any thoughts? Peculiar or otherwise?

--Canadiandy talk 22:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think since the phrase "peculiar people" is the one that is commonly used, it could be used. But I think it would be helpful to put the KJV biblical reference in parentheses after the phrase is used, as in "peculiar people" (1 Peter 2:9). I have read comments by LDS Church leaders of this phrase that have interpreted the "peculiar" in this verse as being more of the sense of being "different" from the world or "odd", whereas other leaders do focus on the unique relationship. But when it is spoken about, the phrase "peculiar people" routinely comes up and is used. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I could see having a footnote with the text: <ref>The term "peculiar people" is consciously borrowed from [http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-pet/2.9?lang=eng#8 1 Peter 2:9], and can be interpreted as "special" or "different," though Mormons have certainly been viewed as "peculiar" in the modern sense as well. {{Harvtxt|Mauss|1994|p=60}}</ref> You could take off the last bit, which I included for the sake of humor. (Mauss actually does pretty much say that though, and it made me smile.) Good Ol'Factory's suggestion works as well. -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The footnote might make it a bit clearer than just the bare scriptural reference. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Good olfactory. Adding the scriptural reference could be a bit sketchy. It might lead to a debate from the 'Mormons aren't Christian' sector that we don't need. And besides, the issue I don't think is that Mormons ascribe to the scriptural definition, but what they believe the definition to mean or imply.--Canadiandy talk 18:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I do like the removal of the absolute "Like all Mormon faiths" which was a little awkward anyway, and could probably cause some confusion. -- Adjwilley (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Humor appreciated Adjwilley. Great idea adding the link, I think that would clarify the intent.

I'm not good at adding links, but how would this look;

"The church is becoming a part of the American and international mainstream. However, it consciously and intentionally retains its identity as a "peculiar people" [link*], set apart from the world by what it believes is its unique relationship with God."

For a link I would recommend the following as an excellent explanation of how the Church self-identifies with the label, as well as what it believes the term is meant to imply.

But what about peculiar? A modern dictionary defines peculiar as “unusual,” “eccentric,” or “strange.” What kind of compliment is that? But the term peculiar as used in the scriptures is quite different. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew term from which peculiar was translated is segullah, which means “valued property,” or “treasure.” In the New Testament, the Greek term from which peculiar was translated is peripoiesis, which means “possession,” or “an obtaining.”

Thus, we see that the scriptural term peculiar signifies “valued treasure,” “made” or “selected by God.” For us to be identified by servants of the Lord as his peculiar people is a compliment of the highest order.

• From "Children of the Covenant" authored by Russell M. Nelson, then (and still) a member of The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Sourced from http://lds.org/ensign/1995/05/children-of-the-covenant?lang=eng&query=peculiar.

I recognize the reference is to an LDS source and could be argued to be POV, yet the issue is not whether the doctrine is correct, but to source that it is a term with which the Church self-identifies (as well as what it means when it self-identifies with that term).--Canadiandy talk 17:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really favor use of the term peculiar people in this context. Even with a link, I don't think the average reader is going to understand the "peculiar" Mormon sense of this term, which is different both from the modern English usage and the Biblical usage. I think it's better to just say that Mormons hold themselves apart as separate from the surrounding society, drawing by analogy upon the Biblical separation between Jews and Gentiles. COGDEN 18:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the link would come after the comma. As for "peculiar," I think there is a pretty good understanding (among Christians at least) of what it meant historically. There was a Methodist group who called themselves the Peculiar People and it has also been applied to Quakers. To a certain extent, every religion has to be "peculiar" in some way, otherwise they are assimilated into the mainstream, and once that happens, there's no reason for anybody to join that religion anymore. I'm sure Jehovah's Witnesses and Southern Baptists also have sermons on how they should be a peculiar people.

So I guess my point is, even though the meaning of "peculiar" has changed, "peculiar people" is a high status in Christianity, and it is something that Mormons try very hard to achieve.

Here's what I would suggest for the final product. I'm not fabulous with references myself, but I'll try to format it so that you can copy and paste it (reference and all) into the article if you so desire.

The church is becoming a part of the American and international mainstream. However, it consciously and intentionally retains its identity as a "peculiar people"<ref>The term "peculiar people" is consciously borrowed from [http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-pet/2.9?lang=eng#8 1 Peter 2:9], and can be interpreted as "special" or "different," though Mormons have certainly been viewed as "peculiar" in the modern sense as well. {{Harvtxt|Mauss|1994|p=60}}; See also: [http://lds.org/ensign/1995/05/children-of-the-covenant?lang=eng&query=peculiar Children of the Covenant] – Russell M. Nelson, 1995.</ref> set apart from the world by what it believes is its unique relationship with God.

-- Adjwilley (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Objection noted. As it stands, I think the motivation to do anything at all has dwindled, and I think that what we have proposed above is an improvement over what is currently in the article (better wording, explanation of term, and source). I'm not entirely convinced of the Jew vs. Gentile analogy, and I can't think of a source that says that off the top of my head, so I'm going to implement the above wording, and if somebody wants to improve on it later, that's great. -- Adjwilley (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism Today

First, I need to say that I am not a Mormon, but I do not disregard the fact that Mormonism is a denomination of the Christian faith. The tone of this article is riddled with a dissenting Mormon tone. Had I not been better informed I would have been mislead by the article simply on account of word choice.

Here is the link to the credible and real Mormonism today. Mormon Defense League

ADTejada (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)ADTejada

Is it possible that what you see as "dissenting Mormon tone" is our attempt at taking a neutral course in the article? After all, most of what people consider Christian religions do not recognize Mormonism as Christian also. While Mormons may consider themselves to be Christian, if we are to take a balanced view here in Wikipedia, we cannot simply write one-sided, but take our material from all sides, and then attempt to present the information neutrally. -- Avanu (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ADTejada. You're pretty much bang on. I don't doubt that the editors here are generally working towards neutrality, but there is a systemic problem when it comes to the treatment of Mormonism. Unlike say Lutheranism or Catholicism which are commonly researched by a broad spectrum of academics, Mormonism is generally interesting to three schools of researchers Mormons, anti-Mormons, and fringe researchers (i.e. Fawn Brodie who likewise proposed that Nixon was homosexual and who herself had a literal romantic attraction to Thomas Jefferson). Brodie's only other subject was Joseph Smith, and while her research on everything else was mocked by almost every academic, her research into Joseph Smith is magically seen as prominent and the fundamental work on Smith. So when Mormons speak that is dismissed as POV. When anti-Mormons speak their ideas must be validated unless there is evidence to the contrary (it is quite tricky disproving something that never happened). And when fringe researchers write, rather than waiting for more reliable research, they are seen as the best available source and so the articles remain cynical or as you identified accurately, "dissenting."

Again, I get a sense that there are editors here willing to see the article corrected to neutral, but this can be a huge undertaking when Mormon contributors are not always shown good faith. But your insight at least helps remind us all of the elephant in the room.

Thanks for taking the time.--Canadiandy talk 02:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Much of what Fawn Brodie wrote about Smith has been essentially re-stated by Jan Shipps in her writings. It's interesting to see the differing reactions within Mormonism to the two writers. When Brodie wrote what she wrote about Smith, she was excommunicated from the church and her work was called borderline "anti-Mormon". But when Shipps writes it, Mormons seem to feel generally good about it because an outsider actually took the religion seriously didn't dismiss it as craziness outright. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The difference between Shipps and Brodie go much deeper than that one was an "insider" and one wasn't. Brodie was not held in high regard among many (if not most) of her peers over 40 years ago. In fact the only reason she became the most prominent researcher on the topic of Joseph Smith is because in the 1940s she was almost the only researcher on Joseph Smith. In fact the only positive reviews she received were from literary critics based on her writing style. Her heavy Freudian slant taints her research so heavily it is surprising her works are taken seriously at all today. Shipps, on the other hand, is current, she writes without a prior bias or agenda, she does not manipulate her data, and she is trusted. Fawn Brodie is no Jan Shipps.--Canadiandy talk 05:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the content of much of what they have written about Smith is nearly identical, yet the reaction of some Mormons to either have been quite different. That was my point. Mormons didn't oppose Brodie's work because of her methodology--it was because of the content of what she wrote about Smith. The difference in reactions may well be an "insider" vs. "outsider" difference; it may be the differences of time and perspective. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Good Ol', that would seem to be a likely explanation, but I don't think that explains it. Maybe 40 years ago Brodie was viewed skeptically based on her membership in the Church, but not today. Most of the academic-minded Mormon researchers recognize Shipps as prominent because of her accuracy, and her ethics. Brodie, sad to say, does not have that same respect because, as one non-Mormon critic referred to her, she was the "Mistress of the iffy sentence." Shipps may have said some of the exact same things as Brodie, the difference is that Shipps didn't manipulate her data to arrive at her outcomes. It's simplistic and unfair to suggest that, given today's high standards of general Mormon apologetic research (http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=8&num=2&id=227#note80 or Flanders, Robert Bruce (1966) "Writing on the Mormon Past", Dialogue, 1 (3), 47-61) Mormons don't like Brodie's research because she was an insider. If we are to simplify this it would be better said that Mormons don't like Brodie because she manipulated her data. At BYU there's three good ways to get expelled, drinking beer, dancing too close to your girlfriend, and manipulating your data. Mormons love everybody, but they can't stand lyin' drinkin' and dirty dancin' (humor implied).--Canadiandy talk 05:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, dunno—I'm not convinced. I don't think at the time of Brodie's heyday anyone within the LDS Church leadership was concerned about manipulation of data. Someone like Nibley may have been, but I doubt that was the Quorum of the Twelve's concern at the time. They were concerned about the content of what she was writing about Smith—that he used a seer/peep stone to money-dig, and so forth. I think the negative reaction was probably far more likely because it was the first time these accusations had come from someone within the church as opposed to the common allegations that had traditionally come from without. Though I do think a combination of time, perspective, and acclimation to the suggestions pioneered by Brodie are the more likely reasons for the difference. I think it's fairly easy to come up with ex post facto reasons that make the discrepancy in treatment between now and then make sense, but I doubt very much "data cooking" was the primary concern at the time. (I think there's some written on this in a bio of David O. McKay that I could dig up...it talks about McKay's concerns as a church leader and relative of Brodie's. "Data cooking" was not his concern, according to the book. I'll take it to your talk page if I can get it.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we're off-topic here. The point I thought you were making was that there is a different treatment be Mormon scholars of Shipps and Brodie. If you're going back to the 50's I think that makes this twice removed from initial topic. In the interest of avoiding this topic becoming TLDNR, I suggest we agree to disagree here and move on. To summarize, you suggest the Church treated Brodie unfairly for her writings 50 years ago, I (and several others) think her research was unethically carried out. Points made, let's move on.--Canadiandy talk 07:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It is off-topic, but ... er, no, that's actually not a good summary of what I wrote. I didn't ever write the Church treated Brodie unfairly. I think that the overall point of my comment may have been missed, which is not surprising if you were reading something extra into what I wrote, so ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your point. Could you summarize it?--Canadiandy talk 15:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

OK: It's interesting to compare the reaction of the LDS Church leadership to what one could call "the Brodie case" vs. its reaction in the more recent "Shipps case". In comparing their writings, Brodie and Shipps are in basic agreement about the facts of Smith's life, but while Brodie's work was generally frowned upon by the leadership, Shipps's work is generally smiled upon and embraced. This observation was made in the previous context of a suggestion that there are three classes of people interested in studying Mormons: "Mormons, anti-Mormons, and fringe researchers". I would classify Shipps as none of those three, which, if true, blows a bit of a hole in the premise. This in turn could suggests that maybe the perceived differences between the different categories of researchers into Mormonism tells us more about the biases or preconceptions of the reader than it actually tells us about the writers themselves. As you said, kind of off topic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, you have a valid point. As I initially said, "Mormonism is generally interesting to three schools of researchers...". The word 'generally' was used purposefully as there will always be rare exceptions to any rule. And I would argue Shipps is just that, a pleasantly uncommon voice of courteous neutrality and fairness. I agree with you that my premise is not an absolute. Moving on.--Canadiandy talk 05:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I will try harder to abstain from making general observations that are or that are about about comments that are not directly related to the improvement of the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)