Talk:Mormon (word)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A distinction without a difference

Mormonism is based on some kind of evidence. Aside from the claim of Nahom and the spice trail "contain similarities" there has not been any supporting evidence to the wonderful story described in the book of mormon. The Smithsonian has been quoted to verify that fact. This is the biggest factor with the religions basis so far from typical Christianity. It really boils down to the persons faith and refusal to look at evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.219.233 (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Mormonism is different in that they believe that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy ghost are three separate beings who are united in purpose."

Different from WHOM? From "Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, or Jehovah's Witnesses?" Different from Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses, yes -- but the above is not in the least different from what Mennonites and Amish believe about the nature of God. It may be a woefully simplistic remark, but it's at least true by their theologies.

One of the most persistent memes among Mormons is that Trinitarian theologies do not believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate persons. Mormons -- at least, lay Mormons -- with amazing consistency attribute monarchian modalism to precisely the orthodoxy that explicitly rejected it long ago.

Although this leads me to believe this sentence was inserted by a Mormon, the use of "God" instead of "Father" is careless enough that I wouldn't have expected it from a thoughtful Mormon. It's a classic formula among Mormons in response to Trinitarians they imagine are monarchians, but I've never seen "God" substituted for "Father."

Furthermore, there are a HUGE number of differences between each of these four groups and Mormonism. To use the phrase "different in that they" imports a sense of significant specificity that really isn't warranted. Why THIS difference? Why not cite any of the vast number of others? This isn't the provision of knowledge, it's more like tossing in gratuitous Mormonistic phrases for no legitimate encyclopedic purpose.

This doesn't clarify anything, it merely introduces an ill-advised Mormon meme to the article. rasqual 07:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Rasqual, good catch. I deleted the sentence; it did not belong in the section. I also changed the section header to more closely fit the purpose of the section. I would think it inappropriate to project any type of sinister motive to "Mormons" fo the phrase. This article gets a rather relatively high degree of vandalism and novice editing. It should be reviewed from beginning to end, as with all articles, to ensure that orphan edit phrases are not retained for any degree of time.

Curious, to be an actual meme, wouldn't it really need to be the same wording LDS/Mormons would use? Also, you begin to enter some very deep water. The Trinitarian doctrine is seldom understood by most Christians, let alone Mormons. Though it is not Modalism, it certainly would not claim to be polytheistic or henotheistic, which are often terms leveled against LDS for their perception of three, distinct individuals/beings. Though this is probably not the place for a discussion given that it does not improve the article, it is a great conversation. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

AP Stylebook advice

I've changed the statement on the AP Stylebook advice to say that (1) the AP Stylebook says "Mormon" should not be used for Latter Day Saint groups that developed post-1844 and (2) nevertheless, the term Mormon is often used to refer to "Mormon fundamentalists" that practice polygamy. This seems to be a NPOV way of stating the matter, rather than entering into technical arguments about whether or not the AP Stylebook contradicts itself. It's POV for the article to claim that applying the term to Mormon fundamentalists is "incorrect" or "correct". –SESmith 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's much better. Besides, digging into the Stylebook was almost a textbook example of WP:SYN. Cool Hand Luke 05:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a new reference for the Church's style guide online. Since this article is locked, would an editor please change the URL link to http://newsroom.lds.org/style-guide Thanks. ~~Spencer801 2/9/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer801 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Changed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Mormon Subcategory

I am not clear on the following phrase: "Mormons are a subcategory of Latter Day Saints". Does this mean there are Latter-day Saints who are not Mormons? Perhaps some additional clarification would be helpful. Alanraywiki 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's perhaps more fully explained at Latter Day Saint.

Here's a primer:

Latter Day Saints = all adherents that trace origin to Joseph Smith, Jr. and the Latter Day Saint movement

Mormons = (generally) members of the LDS Church and some breakaways from that church, like Mormon fundamentalists

Latter-day Saints = members of the LDS Church

THEREFORE

All Mormons = Latter Day Saints

All Latter-day Saints = Mormons

All Latter-day Saints = Latter Day Saints

BUT

Not all Mormons = Latter-day Saints

Not all Latter Day Saints = Latter-day Saints

Not all Latter Day Saint = Mormons

Crystal clear, right?

–SESmith 21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

After my head stopped spinning, I went to Latter Day Saint (as contrasted with Latter-day Saint) and it did make the issue clearer. Thanks for your help. Alanraywiki 21:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that these definitions are more academic in nature; they are not common knowledge among the Latter Day Saint people. It can be quite disturbing for LDS to read many of the articles on Wikipedia because the terminology is novel. The one thing we strive for on Wikipedia is to treat all the churches that descend from the church restored by Joseph Smith equally. Wikipeida does not define truth; we just report facts. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints I would like to point out that use of the term 'Mormons' is generally considered slang by many members of the church. That's to say, it's tolerated and even embraced (as a form of abbreviation) but the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" is looked at as the formal and, by some, the proper title of the church. Jamesnash (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly never heard of any member ever say that other splinters of the church are not to be considered Mormons. Jamesnash (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

All Mormons belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. There are no other "Mormon" churches, they copied and they made up their own names like "Fundamentalist Mormons" they are in fact not Mormons. Please correct all errors where you see this.

220.255.7.248 (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

All names are "made up" by somebody. The point is whether or not the term is used by those who adopt it and/or by others. Mormon fundamentalists call themselves Mormons, and media organisations and academics call them Mormons or Mormon fundamentalists, so I think according to WP:NAME, WP would also refer to them as Mormons. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The reformed church of Jesus Christ calls themselves Mormons. The main branch that did not break off prefers to be called Latter Day Saints. We don not like to be called Mormons. As we do not do polygamy anymore nor agree with it. Mormons are the reformed church which still believes in polygamy. The reformed church broke off from the main church after Joseph Smith was martyred. His wife Emma wanted her son to be the next phrophet. But this could not happen since it was not wht Heavenly Father wanted. She didn't want to hear that so she broke off and many people followed her. The main branch does not like to be called Mormon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.147.149 (talk • contribs)

Just a quick note: Usually mainstream CoJCoLDS tries to discourage use of the term "Mormon", preferring "LDS" or "Latter Day Saint". Not really sure of the reason for this, but I thought I'd add my 2c worth because the issue comes up in the opening paragraph of the article. - random LDS reader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.213.62.221 (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

LDS subcategories, etc.

Cool Hand, I undid your change again, but after reading the old version that it reverted to I was highly dissatisfied with it, too. It's wrong to say it's "incorrect" to use the word Mormon for anything but a reference to the LDS Church (and you do know which one I'm talking about). I changed the opening paragraph of the article to reflect that the usage of Mormon to refer to an LDS member is so common that any other usage is esoteric. The Greeks call themselves Hellenes and insist that the real Greeks were only a small and disreputable tribe among their richly diverse demographics, but that doesn't change the fact that Americans know what THEY mean when they say Greek. Similarly, let's not use an article that's supposed to be informative to confuse people. And your statement that the article should represent all points of view is simply unachievable. It's not a worthy goal because no article can represent all points of view; it's not supposed to represent any point of view. Everything in it is supposed to be fact.

And the fact is, when people say "Mormon," they're thinking of the guys with nametags riding on bikes. Or, as will soon be the case, the folks associated with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. People can argue about whether other sects share the same heritage, but there's no basis for argument about what virtually all people mean when they say "Mormon." Preston McConkie 14:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we can certainly point out that Mormon typically refers to the LDS Church, but neither scholars nor the press apply it exclusively to the LDS Church. We also cannot say that it's flatly wrong, any more than we can say that about, say, group sex. We can, however, cite the sources who say that it's incorrect, namely the LDS Church and the AP styleguide. As for points of view, WP:NPOV does indeed demand that we represent all points of view unless they are a small minority. The view that "Mormon" is a broader term than LDS is no small minority. Even the Deseret Morning News uses the term when putting it in scare quotes on first mention. Cool Hand Luke 18:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool Hand, your changes to the opening paragraph are excellent. However, in "Popular Usage" I strongly disagree with your changes. Popular usage means widespread use, not esoteric use, it does not hinge on what a small sect would LIKE to be nicknamed. The fact that scare quotes are used in the Deseret Morning News indicates the term is being applied in a nonstandard way, and only the fact that virtually its entire readership is mainstream LDS makes it understandable simply with those scare quotes. AP stories for general consumption would not be able to get by with this shorthand (by the way, I am a reporter and news editor by trade).

I think with the changes I've made, we can meet the goal of including the different viewpoints without misrepresenting how the name is widely used and perceived. Preston McConkie 03:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No source except Deseret Morning News uses scare quotes. My point is that even an LDS Church-owned publication can use the term without stating that it's incorrect. This term has been used sans-quotation marks in very reliable mainstream coverage over the last 30 years including the Washington Post, New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, Los Angeles Times. And these are just stories I found pre-1990 in a quick LexisNexix search. Yes, it's a minority use, but Mormon fundamentalists are a minority. What you're arguing is analogous to saying that Mormons are not properly called "Christian" because people don't normally think of them when they say "Christian." We strive to instead represent all significant points of view. Cool Hand Luke 06:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "all significant points of view" deserve mention in an encyclopedia article. But once again, I'm talking about what fits into the "Popular Usage" subsection. To use your own example, while the LDS Church definitely doesn't like being considered non-Christian by mainstream Christian churches, the fact is it isn't mainstream and it can't dictate what the majority of Christians mean when they say "Christian." My changes do acknowledge other points of view, but don't equate them with popular usage. There is a subsection on academic use for discussing non-popular terms used in scholarly works. Perhaps you need to suggest another subsection appropriate to the material you want to include. Preston McConkie 06:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, a consensus of Wikipedia editors feel differently. In spite of arguments to the contrary, Mormonism is listed on the Christianity template, and we don't dismissively say that Mormons are "self-described" Christians. Outsiders sometimes call us Christian just as outsiders sometimes call these splinter groups Mormon. This use of "Mormon" is not merely academic. It's been used in most of the reliable news sources in the English-speaking world. Cool Hand Luke 06:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool Hand, you're missing my point. I'm not arguing that the LDS Church is non-Christian. I'm talking about popular usage. The strict definition of a term and its popular usage are different matters. Wikipedia including Mormons in the Christian template doesn't mean that all or most Christians therefore consider Mormons among their ranks. I personally consider that unfortunate, but the issue isn't how we feel about these things. And the fact is, in popular usage, these splinter sects are not what is meant when most people, and even most news articles, use the word "Mormon."

And although many reliable news sources have used the word "Mormon" to include splinter groups, the fact is that the style guide that governs most newspapers has tried to do away with this practice, precisely because it's confusing and vague. As more reporters and editors become educated about the history and demographics of congregations connected to Joseph Smith, the willy-nilly use of "Mormon" is declining. Just because some articles have failed to be clear is hardly a justification for Wikipedia failing to be clear. Preston McConkie 07:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that you're using the wrong sense of "popular". The term will be used less frequently due to numerical superiority, but the meaning of "Mormon fundamentalist" is popularly understood to the point of being indispensable, and it is not in decline. Newspapers are being more clear, but I frankly don't think this article was ever unclear; we've always noted that Mormon fundamentalists are excommunicated from the LDS Church. "Mormon fundamentalist" is by far the most popular term for identifying these groups. The LDS Church's suggested "polygamist sects" is not even used by the Deseret Morning News. This is a concept that cannot be popularly communicated without saying "Mormon."

That said, your new edit looks good to me. Cool Hand Luke 14:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point; certainly "Mormon fundamentalist" relies on the word "Mormon." I think, though, that when the word stands alone without any modifier, in popular usage it is almost always referring to the LDS church. It's just like members of the Liberal Catholic sect have to use the word Catholic, but when that word is used all by itself it's almost always meant to mean Roman Catholic.

Thanks for your feedback, I understand your position better. Preston McConkie 15:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That is true. Without any kind of qualifier, "Mormon" almost never means anything besides LDS. I think it's good to distinguish the groups (mention that there are perhaps 40,000 fundamentalists vs. 13 million Latter-day Saints), I just didn't want the peculiar LDS POV (that there is "no such thing" as a "Mormon fundamentalist") to be treated as absolute truth in this article. Cool Hand Luke 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vsmith, you called it a putdown when I pointed out that "the existence of this small sect is unknown even to most members of the mainstream LDS church." You also questioned the use of the term "mainstream."

The truth is not a putdown. If you aren't claiming that I'm wrong, you shouldn't be throwing a hissy fit because it doesn't leave the reader with the impression that the Strangites are a large and well-known congregation. Also, the term "mainstream" is perfectly appropriate and perfectly clear. 13 million members vs. a few hundred members clearly calls for a distinction between "mainstream" and "splinter." For instance, as pointed out earlier, Mormons cannot claim to belong to mainstream Christianity, since it is clearly a miniscule minority among Christians. Let's not get emotional about correct terminology. Preston McConkie 06:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think that's redundant with the membership numbers listed though. In fact, I'm not sure if it reflects more poorly on them or the LDS Church. I only put the Strangites in as an exception to the rule that non-Brigham Young churches disfavor the term "Mormon." Cool Hand Luke 06:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My family has sometimes referred to ourselves as "Jack Mormons". It means those in the C&E club (Christmas & Easter) who still identify themselves as LDS, probably don't pay tithing, but interact sporadically with members of the ward, some of which are family friends for decades. Is that a category? It damn well should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.181.157 (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Using the Term correctly and not derogatively

Though others may refer to, as you call them "splinter groups", and others as "Mormons", such as the press and scholars, they are incorrect in their usage. The term may have started in a negative way, but then and now, the term was used not only to define people who believed in the Book of Mormon, but also the additional elements of the Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Being ill-informed has lead some, press and scholars, to perpetuate the misuse of the term, which has the ability to reflect negatively upon the LDS Church. This article should hold only fact, written in such a way that the fact is clear.

To help clarify, refer to the Oxford English Dictionary, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, or other non-opinionated/slanderous references for proper usage.

75.162.204.218 22:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no fact of the matter; this is language. The LDS Church certainly thinks that other uses are incorrect, but "Mormon fundamentalist" has been used for decades. The Strangites have an even stronger claim—they never stopped using the label since 1844—indeed they claim the same 1830 Smith founding that the AP Style guide demands. You're asking us to prescribe usage rather than describe it—prescribe the usage preferred by the LDS Church because other uses might reflect negatively on the LDS Church. You're asking us to go out of our way to declare other variants are "incorrect"—even more than the Deseret News does. I think this is too much.

Our policy is WP:NPOV and there is dispute about whether this term is properly applied to other groups. We must cover all points of view on the matter. Cool Hand Luke 22:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Misleading comparision of the Book of Mormon and the Holy Bible

The article reads, "Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is another scriptural witness of Jesus Christ that is comparable to the Bible, which they also believe to be the word of God.[1]"

The online reference to the Articles of Faith actually says the following, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

For those individuals who are not Mormon and are wondering how Mormonism differs from Christianity, the current wording is misleading and will cause confusion to many curious readers. I propose we offer a clarifier that states Mormons believe there is less misinterpretation in the Book of Mormon than the Holy Bible. Penciljunk 13:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We should look at the context of the statement; the emphasis is on being a witness to Jesus Christ. In this context they both are viewed as equal witnesses, one for the lands around Jerusalem and the other for Jesus' appearance in the Americas. Your point is valid when the context is fullness of truth or which is a more correct transaltion. LDS do feel that the Bible we have today has errors within its text due to translations through generations, whereas the Book of Mormon is believed to be more correct. Does that make sense? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Storm Rider, your explanation is a lot more clear. I suggest adding your explanation so the article is more clear or future readers. Would it also be worth noting which Holy Bible translation the LDS' have concerns about? Penciljunk 21:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The LDS Church uses the king James Version of the Bible, with footnotes concerning some of the changes that were made in its translation and history on the earth.

Vandalism

The tag will be placed there for four weeks as per admin. Please support a vandalism free environment, and respect others. Carter | Talk to me 08:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Strangite use of term

The article has stated that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) "embraces" use of the term "Mormon" to describe itself. According to their website, I don't see much "embracing" of the term — it looks more like a grudging acceptance that its use may be used in certain circumstances. It says, at various places:

• "As people, we prefer to be called Latter Day Saints."
• "Though members of the church prefer to be greeted as 'Latter Day Saints,' we acknowledge that where the different churches are compared and contrasted in printed works, there needs to be some differentiation. For that purpose the term 'Great Lakes Mormons,' parallel to the term 'Rocky Mountain Mormons' (now used by many professional historians), is most historically specific. Even so, the proposed phrase is only appropriate in cultural histories or sociological studies, not as a title for personally addressing people."

I've removed the sentence about their "embracing" the term, as they seem to be more accepting of its scholarly use to disambiguate them from Rocky Mountain-based churches. Snocrates 22:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Where there may be numerous websites created by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the website that was mentioned before in the first paragraph of this subcategory, "Strangite Use of Term," is not an official website of the Church. The official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is www.lds.org. For investigators of the Church, or those who are looking for answers to their questions about the Church, www.mormon.org is the place to look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.231.90 (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood the context here. The website mentioned in the first paragraph is the official website for the Strangite faction of Mormonism (Great Lakes Mormons), which is what the discussion in this section is about. The links you provided are for the Brighamite faction (Rocky Mountain Mormons, "mainstream" Mormons), who are absolutely not Strangites and their websites are all but irrelevant to the Strangites. CraniumHand (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of Book of Mormon Time Periods

The Book of Mormon history actually covers the time period from approximately 2700 B.C. to 400 A.D.--John Freestone (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added this information into the article. Since the Jaredites and Nephites/Lamanites/Mulekites didn't interact (except for one man), they are generally thought of separately. I've separated them this way. — Val42 (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the current thought among LDS scholars is that the time of these societies overlap. We must not perpetuate older less careful reading of the BofM. As writers in Wikipedia we must seek the clearest most accurate information and ways to express that information. Thanks. See the following below:

• • • Joseph L Allen PhD presents a well thought out consideration of the time period of the Jaredites in the Book of Mormon. See Sacred Sites: Searching for Book of Mormon Lands and Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon. The following is his reasoning.
      • "No dates are given in the Book of Mormon pinpointing the destruction of the Jaredites... However we know that the Jaredites could not have been destroyed prior to 586 BC, becuase that is when Jerusalem was destroyed and because Mulek did not come to America prior to that destruction.We are also inclined to move farther away from the 586 BC date, and closer to the 250 BC date, for the following reasons:
      • 1. The Mulekites first landed in the Land Northward, the place where the Jaredites lived. (Alma 22:30) A certain period of time was required for the people of Zarahemla, Zarahemla being a descendant of Mulek, to migrate to the Land Southward where Mosiah discovered them. (Omni 1:13-16)
      • 2. Zarahemla's being a descendant of Mulek suggests that more than one generation had elapsed from the time of Mulek to Zarahemla.
      • 3. When Mosiah discovered the People of Zarahemla, they had become exceeding numerous, they had fought many wars, and their language had become corrupt. We can expect that one or more generations had transpired for those events to occur. (Omni 1:17)
      • 4. When the 121 BC Limhi Expedition discovered the 24 gold plates that contained the history of the fallen Jaredites, they also reported that they saw ruins of buildings, BONES, SWORDS WHICH HAD RUSTED. (Mosiah 8:8-11) We know that the Jaredites lived near the seashore and that their last battle was also near the seashore. (See Ether 9:3) If the Jaredites were destroyed in a sea-level climate and if the Jaredite destruction was anywhere near 600 BC, certainly no evidence of bones or swords would have remained in 121 BC, when the Limhi Expedition discovered the Jaredite records.
      • The Mesoamerica records are a little more clear in terms of dating the last battle of the first settlers to Mesoamerica. I propose that the pre-Olmecs and the Olmecs of 2500 BC to 300BC were the Jaredites. If this is the case, then the destruction of the Olmecs(Jaredites), as determined by carbon-14 dating, is between 300 and 400 BC(See Coe 1962:90) A recent publication written by Edmunson records the Stela 13 date of Monte Alban, a proposed captivity date, at 251 BC (Edmunson, 1988) The date of the Jaredite destructio may be close to this date.
      • Ixtlilxochitl records the destruction of the "giants" (Jaredites) at 240 BC. He was so precise in his dating to the destruction at the time of Christ, from which the 240 BC date is taken, that his dating lends credibility to the date of the destruction of the giants(Jaredites). (See Ixtlilxochitl:18) For the sake of compromise, in this text I will place the destruction of the Jaredites around 350 BC."

Clearly there was some overlap of periods of these societies. This does not mean that these societies interacted, merely that North and South America were not void of people when the Nephites arrived in the Promised Land. The Jaredite time period most likely was from 2500 to 300 BC --John Freestone (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the section under discussion to avoid covering this issue in this article. This issue is better covered in another article. — Val42 (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Bible

according to LDS beleive the most correct english version of the bible is the King James Version, and Joseph Smith said that the most correct language was German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.107.215 (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, They believe the bible as far as it has been translated correctly. Which allows them much elbow room for any confrontations between typical Christians comparing the book of Mormon to tbe bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.219.233 (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

LDS don't believe that the KJV is the most accurate translation, but rather it was the most common translation of the time. Joseph Smith made a comment that the German translation of the start of Genesis was more accurate than the KJV, but I'm not sure he ever made a general statement that the German translation was the most correct. - wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 20:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the church I can assure you that Joseph Smith did state the JamesII version of the bible to be the most accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesnash (talk • contribs) 18:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the manuscripts, which are 1900 years old (some), are the most accurate. The book of Mormon on the other hand has changed so many times in the last 100 years, to correct human grammar errors such as "he was a going," "he was a sleeping," (which were typical of Smith's time) and also to correct the racist teachings of the book of Mormon, that today the book of Mormon is in effect a poor translation of its self. Unfortunately for the elders "I a meet," to use Smiths poor grammar, at the train station they are ill prepared to defend the book of Mormon or the fact that there is no evidence that anything Smith wrote down ever actually happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.65.17 (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting position you take; ignorant of facts, but interesting all the same. I suspect that you were not aware that Joseph Smith first changed the "racist" language in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon. However, the 1841 edition printed in London was the edition used until 1981. To accuse Smith, who corrected the wording to more closely reflect the intent of the verse, pure and delightsome and not white and delightsome. The number of errors corrected in the Bible and the age of the manuscripts? You have not even come close to the dates of the manuscripts in existence or the number of errors corrected over time. Cheers. To speak from ignorance and propose "facts" is one of man's greatest follies. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith's translation of the "Golden Plates" contains 27,000 words from the King James Version of the Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMCC66 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Trademark Invalid

The trademark application by The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints was denied on Aug 22, 2007 after consideration of applicant's appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.207.54 (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find some information on this; could you provide some references? Thanks.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of the word

I think the fact that mormon literally means "more good" is buried in the quote. Good Olfactory disapproved of bolding the phrase to improve scanability (which is fine, since I guess that's not in line with Wiki policy). Is there anything we could do to fix this problem? Perhaps briefly summarize the quote in the preceding paragraph? Thank you! --Eustress (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the entire quote needs to be there either. If the reason we're including it is for the portion you bolded, is there really any need to quote the entire thing? From WP:QUOTE: "editors should avoid long quotations if they can keep them short. Long quotations not only add to the length of many articles that are already too long, but they also crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information." I have no problem with emphasis being added, but I think if we want to add emphasis to quoted material, WP:QUOTE suggests that we should use italics and then include in the footnote a note that says "(emphasis added)" or something like that. I'd be fine with either shortening the quote or using italics for emphasis. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I shortened the quote significantly, trying not to devoid the quote of context, adding a link to the full text, and later adding a quote by Gordon B. Hinckley. Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR concerns: "wild species" meaning based on Hebrew

The part that has been added about what Hebrew words the word "Mormon" might be derived from appears to me to be original research. Unless we can cite a work that has made this argument, I suggest the section be deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it appears to be original research and should probably be removed. --Eustress (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize- I'll remove the offending text until references can be made available. Mavasher (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A Misconception

In one of the notes at the end of this page it talks about how the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic faiths both say they're the original. At first you say Greek Catholic, then you say Eastern Orthodox in another sentence. Would someone be kind enough to change the first reference from Greek Catholic to Eastern Orthodox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.63.161 (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Done; good catch.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, sir. 71.194.63.161 (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

LDS Church vs Church of Jesus Christ

Someone went through and replaced all the uses of the abbreviation "LDS Church" with "Church of Jesus Christ". Wikipedia fairly consistently — almost univerally from what I have seen — uses "LDS Church" as the abbreviation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This seems to me to be a good compromise between using "Mormon Church", which would have a higher recognizability but would be hated more by members of the church, and the "Church of Jesus Christ", which would be preferred by the church but has close to zero recognizability to non-members. LDS Church seems to be a middle position for both palatability for the church members and recognizability, and until there is an overwhelming move to change in WP, I suggest we continue using it on this page too.

The argument for avoiding the "Church of Jesus Christ" in referring to the LDS Church is made all the more stronger when the article refers to The Church of Jesus Christ, a separate and less-well known Latter Day Saint church, as this article does. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone referring to it as “the Church of Jesus Christ” is probably attempting to follow the church's official style guide on its name. So the question is--prefer wikipedia style [more common] or the church's official style? http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/style-guide Rogerdpack (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not even the Deseret News uses "Church of Jesus Christ" anymore—we should follow the majority of reliable sources and use "LDS Church" on second reference. Cool Hand Luke 17:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't the LDS Church's style guide sheet come out right before the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City? It seemed like it was an attempt to shift usage as the LDS Church was on the cusp on being more and more in the news, and it just didn't fly. From what I've observed, they've all but abandoned efforts to have "Church of Jesus Christ" used in the media. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That is also my recollection. The Deseret News adopted the style, but dropped it after a few months. I haven't seen any efforts to promote it in a long time. Cool Hand Luke 00:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The official style guide discourages the use of LDS Church (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/style-guide). That style guide is still referenced today at the bottom of stories at newsroom.lds.org (07 August 2009). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.172.61 (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No "Controversy"

Shouldn't there be a section which reveals the massive gaping holes within Joseph Smiths claim and story?! I find it odd that there is no mention that to most people, the story is absurd. I am in favor of people believing what they want of course, but shouldn't it at least get a part devoted to questioning the facts and credentials. Same with Christianity. Some of the stories from the bible that are in here are written as pure fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.153.207 (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The topic of this article is Mormon. Who is it, where they come from, etc. You might want to review other articles such as Joseph Smith, Jr., The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, Book of Mormon, and Origin of the Book of Mormon. In these you will find the criticism you are seeking. I am glad to see you have such an open mind. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a very open mind, you don't know me whatsoever. If people want to be Mormons and it makes them happy and encourages them to be good people then i'm all for it. But i'm sorry if i cannot deny what is sitting there in front of me. I am not "close minded" to say that this story is ludicrous and could not seriously be taken down as fact. I am just a realist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.153.207 (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the degree of your open mind. No need to be defensive here. Thank you for sharing. --^StormRider 00:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

the "The"

I'm not sure how it happened this time, but the second sentence of this article currently says the following: "The term most often refers to a member of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)..." (emphasis mine). Issues like this seem to happen fairly often on Mormonism articles because an implicit need of some to include and capitalize the first "The" of the LDS Church's official name within a wikilink on the name. My best guess is someone didn't like the cap &/or that the link including the "The", so they piped the link with a "the" outside of the link, then someone else came along and undid the piping, so we end-up with the strange wording above. As the article appears to be semi-protected (and so is not editable by someone just using an IP), could someone please fix this? More importantly, can someone keep an eye out for this in the future, as this a high traffic article on the topic of Mormonism. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As a note, the church's official spelling for its own name is "The Church..." http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/style-guide so that's probably half the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerdpack (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

POV Statements

How are statements that the LDS church believes to be true suppose to be stated? For example "Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates." Is it supposed to be "Joseph Smith claims to have translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates." or even further "Joseph Smith claims to have translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates supposedly in his possession." I see someone has changed a few of the sentences recently to a more matter of fact stating of certain beliefs. What is wiki policy? TAU Croesus (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The major point to remember is that Wikipedia should not be put in the position of defining truth, rather it reports facts by reputable sources. When the topic is of a religious nature it must be made clear that the article is reporting on the beliefs of a group and not stating positions of truth. Some editors prefer that every sentence begin with a qualifier to ensure that readers will always be reminded the topic is one of faith. Personally, I do not think it is necessary in every sentence, but only made clear the topic is one of faith. I value well written articles and think that is of more importance to the community.

You may want to review words to avoid prior to correcting these types of edits. Many editors either misuse qualifiers or introduce POV by using them. In these cases, it is better to first edit the paragraph or section to make sure readers understand it is a topic of faith and then revert the misused qualifier. Does this make sense? --^StormRider 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Wiki should stick to the facts rather then be swayed by a comical belief system. Joseph Smith wrote the book of Mormon, we all know it. Why do people feel compelled to lie and say some guy named Mormon wrote it. So i want to get this completely straight if i sit down and write something completely absurd right now and call it a religion. It makes completely insane clams like horses being in America before the introduction of them by the Spanish. Wiki will allow it to be here without having to site any sources just because i said faith somewhere in the article? You guys really need to resolve this or you will have to allow any silly article from the zillions of modern religions that have funny belief systems. Just wanted to add i am not anti-mormon i am ok with them, so i toned down my wording but some Mormons may still be offended by me thinking the belief system they have is funny but sadly they have to face the fact that to most non-mormons it is funny. Book made entirely of gold plates that is 200 or so pages would weigh a ton. Lol you just got to laugh. --Deathmolor (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Book made entirely of gold plates that is 200 or so pages would weigh a ton". According to the wiki entry on gold, "1 gram of gold can be beaten out to a square meter" whilst paper typically weighs in at 100 gsm (grams per square meter). A gold-leaf book might weigh less than a paper book --Salocin-yel (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the Term

The words Claim crept into this section. Claim is a word to avoid. I know that there are people that think that Joseph Smith was a fraud. So, what we want is a paragraph that is neutral either way. We do not want a paragraph like this "Smith claims that a angel spoke to him, and smith supposedly recieved some golden plates from the angel." I am guessing that we don't want "An angle spoke to Joseph Smith, and gave him the golden plates, which are an ancient historical record that he translated." I removed the word historic from the second sentence for two reasons. 1. It might be less offensive to the people that disagree with Smith. 2. The Book of Mormon was not intended (according to its writers, and Mormon) to be a history book. It was intended to be a religious book. I placed the words "By divine inspiration" in the front of that sentence. This was intended to give the reader to accept or reject the possibility of someone receiving divine inspiration. For those that are atheist, they can now immediately reject the sentence immediately, since divinity does not exist. For those that believe in a closed heavens, they can reject the sentence immediately, because God doesn't talk to man anymore. Placing "J Smith says..." "J smith stated" and so forth infront of each sentence becomes cumbersome. I believe that when it comes to religious pages, we are allowed to state beliefs without saying "the Church believes", since this is about beliefs. TAU Croesus (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

After skimming the Catholic Church page, I would like to say I'm wrong on stating beliefs. TAU Croesus (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with first two lines

I changed it, but somebody changed it back. Maybe someone could tell me why?

"Mormon is a term used to describe the adherents, practitioners, followers or constituents of Mormonism. The term most often refers to a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)"

should be

"Mormon is a term used to describe the adherents, practitioners, followers or constituents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.219 (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That was me. I tried to post to the talk page for the user who made that change; the notes are still there. Here's a copy, though:

Hi! Thanks for pitching in on the Mormon page. An important point of the article is that the word 'Mormon' refers to more groups than just members of the LDS Church. Otherwise, we could just have the word 'Mormon' redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is important to both LDS and non-LDS Mormons. Many non-LDS are referred to as 'Mormons' because they still believe in the Book of Mormon, and they want that belief to be recognized. Many LDS, for their part, might be concerned that saying all 'Mormons' are members of the same church would confuse people about LDS doctrine, since there are some important differences in our beliefs.

Hope that's helpful. Cheers! Adamrmonteith (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree: Broaden the terminology

This statement: "The LDS Church believes that "Mormon" should properly be applied only to its members." is false. The LDS Church has varied its policy over the years. There was a charming little march song for children in th '70's and '80's called "I'm a Mormon," but beginning in the late 1990's the church began to urge its members not to use the word "Mormon" to describe themselves. But the term has come back into vogue with the church's launch of mormon.org and the attempt to trademark the term "Mormon."

Mormon articles on Wikipedia in general suffer from LDS-centric uses of terminology as well as a lot of use of LDS jargon. MiriamKnight (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Miriam KnightMiriamKnight (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The quote given above is meant to signify that other groups, particularly the fundamenatlists groups, in the eyes of the LDS Church, should not use the term Mormon. Further, the LDS Church does have a preference for using other terms rather than "Mormon" for its members and the name of the church.

Jargon should be defined when used and not left naked. When talking about a church, we should always use their own language to describe their beliefs and culture. That goes for the LDS Church as much as any other. Cheers. --^StormRider 19:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Could someone add the following?

{{wiktionary-inline|Mormon}}

{{wikisource-inline|Category:Mormons}}

{{commonscat-inline|Latter Day Saints}}

{{wikiquote-inline|Category:Latter Day Saints}}

I can't add myself, since the article is semi-protected so IP's can't edit it.--208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

How did the "Nephites and the Lamanites" get to the Americas?

How did the "Nephites and the Lamanites" get to the Americas? Did they travel by boat or by foot? How many were there and what supplies did they bring to their new homeland? If they traveled by sea what type of vessel did they use, but if they traveled by land what type of transportation did they use? Did they stop along the way to get more supplies or just live off of what they brought with them? What route did they take to the Americas?

If you answer please by either an historian or geographer. I want an educated answer not a philosophical one.

Waiting on a reply...Project Gnome (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a historian or a geographer but I can tell you what the Book of Mormon says. I don't think a historian or geographer would have anything "scientific" to say on the issue, though, since there is no "scientific" evidence of these people. The book says they went by boat over the sea, that God told Nephi what kind of boat to build and how to build it (though details are not given), and that it took "many days". It doesn't mention any stopovers, nor does it tell us the exact route, though we can surmise from the general directions given that it was launched from somewhere southeast of Jerusalem on the Arabian peninsula. The party consisted of Lehi and Sariah (married couple), their sons Laman Lemuel, Sam, Nephi and their wives (and possibly children), and Lehi's unmarried sons Jacob and Joseph and Lehi's daughters (numbers unspecified). Also Ishmael, Zoram, and their wives and children were in the party, the daughters of Ishmael being married to the sons of Lehi. Total exact numbers unspecified. As for supplies, the book says they brought seeds from Jerusalem to plant in the new land, but it doesn't mention any other details about supplies that I know of. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Conform to the Wikipedia:Disambiguation standard for well known primary topics

This article should conform to the Wikipedia:Disambiguation standard by being redirected to the article covering the well known primary meaning of the word as there are many other disambiguous less known secondary meanings. In the top of the primary article there should be a "redirect|Mormon" tag:

"Mormon" redirects here. For other uses, see Mormon (disambiguation).

, clarifying that the article Mormon is redirected to this article. The Mormon (disambiguation) page will then be referenced by default at the top of the primary article, clearly specifying all the secondary meanings of the word Mormon. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is by far the most well known meaning, most often referenced and most often visited. --79.102.81.126 (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

But Mormon doesn't "redirect" here, it is "here". ? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The redirect text should not be inserted here, but at the top of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article. This page should only redirect dirctly to that page. This means when you enter "Mormon" in wikipedia you will access the primary meaning article directly, which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and at the top of that page you'll see a reference to the other secondary meanings through the default tag:

"Mormon" redirects here. For other uses, see Mormon (disambiguation).

--83.252.118.218 (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that Mormon should redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Certainly Mormon Church should redirect there, but the primary meaning of Mormon is broader than just the church organization, and includes a broader religious tradition and a culture. For example, most people would associate the word Mormon with Mormon fundamentalism, even though the fundamentalists have nothing to do with the LDS Church.

This set of articles is analogous to Christian, Christianity, and Roman Catholic Church, which correspond to Mormon, Mormonism, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. COGDEN 21:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with COGDEN on this point. The primary meaning of "Mormon" is not the LDS Church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Mormon has a broad range of meanings (ambiguation). The Mormon population is unique compared to the Catholic or Christian population as more than 99,9 percent of all who accept to be called a mormon belong to the same church. As wikipedia has a standard for dealing with ambiguation issues like this, I see no reason for not following that standard in this specific case.--79.102.89.117 (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the present name does follow the Wikipedia:Disambiguation standard. The primary topic of Mormon is a topic broader than--and different than--the LDS Church. For one thing, the LDS Church is not a Mormon, and a Mormon is not the LDS Church, because the LDS Church is an organization, and Mormon refers to a person, a culture, a type of literature, or a type of art. Plus, a Mormon, in the most common popular understanding, can be a Mormon fundamentalist an excommunicated Mormon, or a believer that for some reason or another has not yet joined the LDS Church or some other "Mormon" church. Mormon culture, Mormon literature, and Mormon art all occur independently of the LDS Church organization. COGDEN 09:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a Mormon (noun/substantive) can consist of a person and that Mormon (adjective) also can indicate a culture, a type of literature or a type of art. I also think a Mormon is the singular form of a church, an organisation and a group without excluding other churches, organisations and groups. Mormon is used both as an adjective and a noun with a singular and a plural form (Please note that singular is a synonym to individual). Mormon is along with the adjective above an singular form of individuals and Mormons the plural form of a church, an organisation and a group of those individuals. My point is that one group (the LDS Church) consist of 99,9 percent of all the Mormon individuals. (These Mormons also have, sometimes independent of the church organisation, created almost all of the Mormon art, culture and literature.) Mormons, meaning the other 0,1 percent Mormons is a secondary meaning and they are not an equally well known topic. Mormon (disambiguation) and the top of the primary topic will still refer to these mormons, but not as a primary topic. Using google you'll see that the LDS church is 90 times more well known primary topic than Mormon fundamentalism. --79.102.102.171 (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This just isn't convincing to me. If any change were made, it would make more sense to redirect "Mormon" to "Mormonism", but not to LDS Church. The LDS Church is far from the centre of Mormon life, culture, literature, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding merger of Mormon and Mormonism, I've been kind of ambivalent about that. I think there has been some talk about it at one point, and there is some merit. I really don't have any strong opinion either way.

(Responding to User talk:79.102.102.171|talk]]): Technically, members of the LDS Church constitute about 200% of all Mormons, because the church counts as members people who no longer consider themselves to be Mormons. If you say that there are about 6 million people who identify themselves as Mormons, and about 300,000 of them are not LDS, then that's about 95%. But that's beside the point. Even if 100% of Mormons were LDS, the real issue is what Mormon primarily means, and its primary meaning is much broader than just a synonym for LDS Church. COGDEN 17:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you say that Mormons are far away from the centre of Mormon life, culture, literature, etc? --79.102.151.140 (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this claim of the following four basic meanings of Mormon:

Meaning 1. A Mormon is an individual

1b. Mormon in this meaning is a noun, where Mormon is the singular noun and Mormons is the plural noun.

Meaning 2. Mormons is a group of individuals

Meaning 3. Mormons is different kinds of groups of individuals

Meaning 4. Mormon lifestyle, culture, literature and art

4b. Mormon in this meaning is an adjective (an adjective modifies other nouns)

Which of these four basic meanings do you agree with? --79.102.151.140 (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Mormon includes all of the above meanings, and I believe all those meanings are captured in the present article. LDS Church, however, does not have any of the above meanings, and therefore should not be treated as a synonym for Mormon. COGDEN 17:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As there has been no reply for ten days, I can only assume you agree on the above claim (of each of the four basic meanings of Mormon). Should I see our issue as essentially resolved? In that case I will implement the Wikipedia:Disambiguation standard as proposed, but please let me know if/when you are preparing a reply.--79.102.196.130 (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I hadn't responded because my position hasn't changed. I essentially agree with what COGDEN said above. I hate to be repetitive, but I'll reproduce it since it reflects my sentiments well: "I think the present name does follow the Wikipedia:Disambiguation standard. The primary topic of Mormon is a topic broader than--and different than--the LDS Church. For one thing, the LDS Church is not a Mormon, and a Mormon is not the LDS Church, because the LDS Church is an organization, and Mormon refers to a person, a culture, a type of literature, or a type of art. Plus, a Mormon, in the most common popular understanding, can be a Mormon fundamentalist an excommunicated Mormon, or a believer that for some reason or another has not yet joined the LDS Church or some other "Mormon" church. Mormon culture, Mormon literature, and Mormon art all occur independently of the LDS Church organization." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole issue has developed into two smaller sub-issues:

Issue 1) Agree on whether there are different meanings of the word mormon and in that case exactly what each of these different meanings are?

Issue 2) Agree on how (if applicable) the different meanings differ from each other, and whether there are different candidates of a primary meaning.

I propose we first deal with the first issue and leave the second until after we have fully unified on the first. As I understand it so far we disagree on the second issue, but we have no clear picture on where we stand on the first one. I think it will be easier for us to know what we are meaning on issue no.2 if we first know exactly where we stand on issue no.1. Would this be a good working order with you? --79.102.196.130 (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the matter can really be broken down in this manner, or that doing so is helpful. My answer to "Issue 1" would be "yes-and-no"; "yes" because the word Mormon can indeed refer to a variety of "things", but "no" because there is somewhat of a unity or connection that binds the "things" together into one unified concept of "Mormon-ness". In other words, I don't see the various meanings as "separate" as such. I see there as being one unified meaning, but at the same time it's more complex than just saying "Mormon = x". The contents of the article helps explain this more. Thus, I wouldn't even get to the point of "ranking" the uses as "primary" and otherwise. I would view it as having one meaning, and that meaning is "Mormon-ness". But actually defining the content of that is complex. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My answer to #1 is that yes, clearly there are several different meanings to the word Mormon. These meanings are all interrelated, and the present article discusses all or most of these meanings. The LDS Church organization, however, is something different than a Mormon or even Mormonism. They are different topics which compete in different spheres--just as United States should not redirect to Federal government of the United States. I see The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as essentially a sub-article of Mormon and Mormonism. The LDS Church organization is not the primary meaning of Mormon--it's just one facet of Mormonism, the others including culture, doctrine, art, literature, other denominations, etc. Somewhat less accurately, you could also say the reverse--that Mormon us a sub-article of LDS Church. COGDEN 17:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Ol’factory: Are you saying there are both many separate and different topics/meanings/things associated with the term Mormon and at the same time a somewhat of a unity or connection topic/meaning/thing that binds all things together into one somewhat unified and unseparable concept of Mormon-ness? Have I understood you correctly? Do you propose the binding connection or unity is a relation or association between all different topics/meanings/things? --79.102.137.98 (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's basically what I mean. Your second question gets me into fairly abstract territory, but I would tentatively say "yes" to it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

COGDEN: Are you saying there are several different topics/meanings/things associated with the term Mormon and they are all interrelated to (associated with) each other in several different ways? Have I understood you correctly? --79.102.137.98 (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a valid way to view the topic. However, I look at the topic not as a set of separate meanings, but as a single meaning that has many different facets, the LDS Church organization being one of them. COGDEN 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying Mormon has one single primary topic and also several secondary topics that all are related to the primary topic in different ways? --79.102.34.30 (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Before discussing how different meanings of the term Mormon relate or associate with each other, I first like to know what meanings you are talking about. We already agree on that the term Mormon is associated with a person, but Mormons, meaning several people, is exactly the same term. Mormons (people) and Mormon (person) is not different topics. Do you agree? --79.102.137.98 (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think they may be slightly different, because "Mormon (person)" is going to usually have a more-or-less definable association. The person is either going to be a practicing member of the LDS Church, or a practicing Mormon fundamentalist, or a non-practicing "genetic Mormon", or an ex-Mormon, etc.—whereas "Mormon (people)" could include any and all of these types of individual persons grouped together under one common term of reference. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if we even really need to get into this fine a grain of detail. I don't think anybody wants to split Mormon and Mormons into two separate articles. I'm even sort of ambivalent about whether Mormon and Mormonism ought to be the same article. However, I do believe that Mormon/Mormonism and LDS Church should be separate articles, because if you draw a Venn diagram, LDS Church is a subset of Mormon/Mormonism. It is also a subset of Latter Day Saint movement. Mormon/Mormonism and Latter Day Saint movement are intersecting circles. COGDEN 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's true—in terms of the articles we have, there would be no point in having both "Mormon" and "Mormons". In practical, everyday terms, one Mormon will have a specific identity, whereas a group of them may have various identities. But we just have one article where the variations are discussed. I'm not entirely clear on the purpose or usefulness of this parsing, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Ol’factory / COGDEN: I believe we agree that Mormon(person) and Mormons(people) is exactly the same topic. --79.102.34.30 (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we so far can agree that the following topics in at least some way are associated with Mormon/Mormons:

-Mormon (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

-Mormon (the unity of all Mormon topics)

-Mormon (Mormonism)

-Mormon (Latter Day Saint movement)

-Mormon (Mormon fundamentalism)

-Mormon (Ex-mormon)

-Mormon (Cultural Mormon)

(Each of these topics can also be modified by other topics like education, organization, technology, culture and so on.)

Do you agree on Mormon (the unity of all Mormon topics) above?--79.102.34.30 (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all clear on where any of this is going. We seem to just be covering the same ground in ways that are worded slightly differently and basically summarising positions that have already been put forward. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm not sure I understand all aspects of your explanation of Mormon. The "Union of all Mormon topics" question is my way of trying to understand you. You have previously said Mormon is "- somewhat of a unity or connection that binds the things together into one unified concept of Mormon-ness". You have then agreeed to my question that you meant there are "both many separate and different topics/meanings/things associated with the term Mormon and at the same time a somewhat of a unity or connection topic/meaning/thing that binds all things together...". You have also somewhat agreed that "the binding connection or unity is a relation or association between all different topics/meanings/things". May I summerise this into simply "the Union of all Mormon topics", or perhaps "the unseparable Union of all Mormon topics" or how should I otherwise refer to this concept in a more clear way? I think the the Union in this case is a mathematical Union as in a Venn diagram, but the Union word doesn't say anything on how all the Mormon topics are unified. I will also try to only use the word topic and avoid thing or meaning. --217.210.70.220 (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. I'm not too concerned if you paraphrase what I've said in a slightly different form. But what I was primarily wondering about was—"to what end?" Where is this going? How's this discussion leading to improvements in the encyclopedia? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As we now agree on the topics above, I would like to apply the Wikipedia:Disambiguation process to resolve on how these Mormon topics should be disambiguated in wikipedia. Citing the standard: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title." I think the term Mormon is associated with more than one topic and is therefore subject to the wikipedia disambiguation process. The multiple topic list above clearly prove that. Do you agree? --79.102.220.33 (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we've been here before. No, I don't think it's necessary in this context, mainly because we have a self-standing article about the term. Mormon (disambiguation) does exist but I think it is largely redundant to the article as it currently stands, and as I see it the article is superior to any possible list DAB page that could be created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A DAB page was never intended to replace any article, only to complement them so that wikipedia users easily may find all the topics associated with the ambiguous term. An article should neither replace the current DAB page for that same reason. Disambiguation pages on the other hand are not their own article in the article namespace, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).--79.102.249.78 (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I suggested that a DAB page should either replace this page or that an article should replace the DAB page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Even though you claim this current article is the primary topic, it is not even mentioned in the DAB page. In case it is the primary topic it should be defined at the top of the DAB page as specified in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) standard. I cannot see the current Mormon article have even been mentioned in the Mormon (disambiguation) going back in history. --79.102.249.78 (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't now doesn't mean that it shouldn't. There are errors in WP, you know—it's not all perfect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Mountain Meadow Massacre

The article doesn't say anything about the massacre committed by the Mormons in Mountain Meadow, Utah on September 11, 1857, where 120 men, women and children were savagely murdered in the name of 'God' by the Mormons. The massacre is strongly denied by the Mormons, but this article should include it as well as the later prosecution of some of the Mormons for that crime by the US government. After all - it is a fact. Refer: September Dawn, Eagle Entertainment, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.8.205 (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

See Category:Mountain Meadows massacre. There's a whole series of articles about this in WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This fact should be mentioned, just as the article about the Catholic Church mentions about the Inquisition etc. The reader then can follow the link to the whole series about this massacre. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.27.220 (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that this article is not about the "Mormon Church". That would be at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is something quite a bit different. Not all Mormons are in the Mormon Church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Brigham Young versus Joseph Smith in intro paragraph

Just recently Good Olfactory reverted an edit by an Anon, which I have a question about. here is the edit diff: [1] So I think its fairly obvious that the second reference to Brigham Young is correct since it is referring to when the groups split up, with the LDS church following Brigham Young. But why is Brigham Young there in this sentence: "However, the term is also often used to apply to all of a group of religions that recognize Brigham Young as a prophet, including Mormon fundamentalism." Doesn't it make more sense to have Joseph Smith there, since he is the originator of the mormon faiths? Boccobrock•T•C 22:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, because the first reference is attempting to refer only to the groups that recognize BY as a legitimate prophet. Both the LDS Church and the Mormon fundamentalists recognize BY, but if we extend it to all groups that believe in JS, that includes the Community of Christ, the Temple Lot church, the Strangites, etc. and these groups generally reject the designation "Mormon", whereas it's generally accepted by LDS Church members and Mormon fundamentalists. That was my understanding of the meaning of the sentence. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. For some reason it failed to occur to me that they could have rejected Mormon as a designation. Thanks for the explanation. Boccobrock•T•C 22:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Circular Definition

I'm going to reword the first sentence, because you cannot define a word using the self same word...Mormons are people who follow Mormonism. Salt also tastes salty. Brilliant. Twunchy (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Shouldn't there be a criticism section added to the Morman definition? There are lots of things LDS's believe in that are considered to be "Socially Unecceptable" in common society that I think are important to add. One example could be the belief that multiple wives are acceptable, even though such actions are illegal in most states. The Mormon page seems to only support and encourage Mormanism, as well as promote it. It looks more like a Mormon created web page than anything else. Being agnostic, I think that this page is too biased. It seems like it's trying to convert non-mormons, rather than providing information about Mormons. A "Beliefs" section would also help make the page a little more unbiased and easier for the average person to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.101.44 (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The page is only meant to explain the word "Mormon" as such, not the religion. I suggest you take a look at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for the religious viewpoints of various Mormon denominations. Yo can also take a look at Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement. There's plenty of criticism around on Wikipedia. -Duribald (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the Term

{{editsemiprotected}} In this section it states that "a sacred text adherents believe to have been translated from golden plates discovered by Joseph Smith, Jr." I suggest that it should be changed to "a sacred text adherents believe to have been translated from golden plates revealed by an angel to Joseph Smith, Jr." I suggest this change to clarify what adherents believe about the origin of the Book of Mormon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.98.223.90 (talk • contribs)

Change made. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Mormon population in California

I recalled reading a part of the Universal Almanac about the largest Mormon population per state was in California, then the repeated statistic on Utah has the most Mormons per state appears. Which one statistical fact is true? Utah has 1.9 million (the 70% of the 2.8 million residents), while California has 1 to 2 million (a rough estimate). It clearly shows Mormons in California must had decreased in recent years by Mormons moving out of Cal. to Utah. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the highest percentages in the US for LDS have been & still are in Utah, followed by other states in the Mormon Corridor, including CA; see The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints membership statistics (United States) for more details & links to sources (such as the excellent Pew studies). There is no mass exodus of LDS from CA and membership in CA is on the rise; see The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in California for a few details. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Image Needed

It would be really nice to have an image on this page, such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Slc_mormon_tempel.jpg. I would suggest a picture of the Book of Mormon 1830 edition, except that commons file is already in use on the page for "Mormonism." 101heather (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added a public domain image of the Book of Mormon next to where "Mormon" is derived from and clarified the printing. 101heather (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Hi12322, 13 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hi! First time trying this out.

Hi12322 (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It worked. :)  Not done ^Avicenna_sis @ 03:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

cleanup intro

Any objections to my shortening the intro to not have as many details about the Book of Mormon? It feels out of place. Rogerdpack (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not objecting, but what would you remove? IMO, those two paragraphs seem about right for the WP:LEAD. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Divorce figures misleading

Hello. According to the "demographics" paragraph of this page "In 1999 the divorce rate for Mormons in the United States was 24%,[19] which is well below the nation average."

The link cited is http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm

HOWEVER: on this page, regarding divorce, the following is stated

"Overall, the Mormon divorce rate appears to be no different from the average American divorce rate. A 1999 study by Barna Research of nearly 4,000 U.S. adults showed that 24% of Mormon marriages end in divorce -- a number statistically equal to the divorce rate among all Americans. 5 Members of non-denominational churches (typically Fundamentalist in teaching) and born-again Christians experience a significantly higher divorce rate; Agnostics and Atheists have much a lower rate"

This is not just misleading, it's lying! This citation says the exact opposite of what the Wiki page says!

And the citation given for that (on religoustolerance.org) at the bottom of the page is to this article: http://www.mormonstoday.com/000102/N1Divorce01.shtml

The article is titled "LDS Divorce Rate at U.S. National Average" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.28.61 (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Demographics section

Surely there is more to discuss in the newly introduced Demographics section than just the divorce rate; however, is this the best article for any of demographics discussion at all, especially if it is US-centric? Isn't this a duplication of part of the information found at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints membership statistics (United States) (which really should be renamed Demographics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the United States or Demographics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (United States) anyway)? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed the section, it innaccuratly quoted the source (here) - the quote was "A 1999 study by Barna Research of nearly 4,000 U.S. adults showed that 24% of Mormon marriages end in divorce -- a number statistically equal to the divorce rate among all Americans." - the article claimed that this divorce rate was less than the general population, which was not what the source claimed. RandomTime 17:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Wearingaredhat, 12 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change the starting time period of the Book of Mormon from 2600BC to 600BC as this is in line with the information contained in the Introduction found at the beginning of the Book of Mormon.

Thanks

Wearingaredhat (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Based on commentary on the Book of Mormon at [lds.org the LDS website], it does appear that 600 BC is the correct year. My guess is that the original editor may have meant "2600 Before Present". Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon contains the Book of Ether, which is dated to 2600 BC. The Book of Ether takes one to about 600 BC, which is when the rest of the book picks up. I'll try and find a source for this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Source added for 2600 BC: [2]. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I'm seeing that now myself. I haven't found any "reliable" sources yet. Is josephsmith.com reliable for Mormon issues (see this entry? How about Cedar Fort publishers (see this book excerpt)? I'm going to go ahead and self-revert back to 2600 (I see you already got it for me Qwyrxian (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)), because the unreliable evidence seems convincing to me, but I'd prefer to get a reliable source. Scanning through the Book of Ether on the lds website, I don't see any dates like there were in other sections, but maybe I just didn't find it yet. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The LDS Church version of the Book of Mormon doesn't attempt to date the Book of Ether because of the difficulty (or impossibility!) of dating the events of the Tower of Babel, which is where the story starts off. The rest of the Book of Mormon, which deals with an entirely different group of people, has reference to events which are more realiably dateable, like the reign of Zedekiah and the birth of Jesus, etc.

But from what I have read, the earliest estimate from Mormon scholars is 2600 B.C. Other estimates are similar. Later in the LDS Church's student manual on the Book of Mormon, it says 2200–2100 B.C. is the likely latest dates possible, so we have a range of 2600–2100 B.C., I suppose. I'm not sure how to deal with this in this context, as it's really just a passing mention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the cite you had is fine. Book of Mormon should probably be a little more clear, but for this case, we don't need to go into too much detail. Thanks for your help—I leaped too soon on the first sources I saw without digging further. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

I feel that this article needs a little revision. It says that "Mormonism is the largest branch of the Latter-Day saint movement," which is confusing, as it implies that some Latter-Day Saints are not Mormon. "Mormon" and "Latter-Day Saint" are synonyms. Also, the article says something about the difference between the FLDS and LDS churches is that the Latter-Day Saints never practiced polygamy. That is untrue. Both religions practiced it, but only the LDS faith abandoned the stopped. Next, it should be mentioned that the reasons that members of the LDS faith prefer to be called "Latter-Day Saints" are the following: 1. The Book of Mormon is only one of four standard works of scripture that the LDS faith embraces, all of which are used harmoniously to define one cohesive doctrine. 2. The full name of the religion is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and its doctrine says that this name was given to it by revelation, which indicates that God the Father has a preference as to what his church should be called. It is also made clear in the Book of Mormon that the Lord's church must be identified by his name. 3. For the sake of practicality, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints prefers to be referred to by only one name; there is much anecdotal evidence that many people do not regard "Mormon" and "LDS" as sysnonyms-- not the least of which is the confusing first paragraph of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wirecaballo (talk • contribs) 00:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot here, but the most basic point to address is the issue of "Latter Day Saints" and "Mormons". There are some Latter Day Saints who are not Mormons. Mormons generally refer to members of the LDS Church, and sometimes the term is used to refer to the FLDS Church and other Mormon fundamentalists. There are groups within the Latter Day Saints movement, including the Community of Christ (RLDS Church) and other groups that did not follow Brigham Young, that do not self-identify as being "Mormons", but they are Latter Day Saints because they are part of the Latter Day Saint movement. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: add parenthetical

I'm thinking, based on WP:D, that this article needs a parenthetical, probably "Mormon (terminology)". There are many articles for things that may be referred to as "Mormon", and this article, specifically about the terminology, is less prominent subject than Mormonism, which is specifically about the people and the religion. When people are looking up the word Mormon in an encyclopedia, they generally want to learn about Mormonism, and not about the particulars of the terminology. We should help them find the article they are looking for 90% of the time. In this case, Mormonism seems to be the "primary topic" according to WP:D.

So my proposal is to rename this article as "Mormon (terminology)", and redirect the article Mormon to Mormonism. We can link to this article from Mormonism, and also from the disambiguation page. COGDEN 23:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with this proposal and think that it's a good idea. I have noticed over the months that many editors who edit this page make edits as if the article were about Mormonism, when really it is much more narrow a topic, so I agree that those searching for "Mormon" should be redirected to Mormonism. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

While this makes sense to me, I checked Christian and Muslim, and both of them go to a page just like this one (for example, the first line of Christian is "A About this sound Christian (help·info) is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament"). Or am I still misunderstanding what the purpose of this page is supposed to be? We don't have to be consistent with other articles, but it seems like we should unless there's a compelling reason not to. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear if it would apply here, but there is related policy discussion going on right now at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Genus and species. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I think this article differs from Christian and Muslim in that this article focuses on the terminology, whereas those are about a particular person who is Christian or Muslim. Unlike Christianity or Islam, the term Mormonism already refers to a people and not just a religion. Thus, there is no need for a separate article called "Mormon" or "Mormons" that refers to the people who are part of Mormonism. But there is a good reason to have an article that focuses on the terminology, given that there is a lot you can say about the word Mormon.COGDEN 09:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

But the first line of this article says that "A Mormon is an adherent, practitioner, follower, or constituent of Mormonism...." That sounds to me like this article is about the people who follow the religion called Mormonism. So, if we do move this, then I think it would make sense to create a replacement article that is about the people. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the lede seems to suggest the article is about Mormon people, but the article is actually about the term, not the people. The topic of Mormon people is discussed in Mormonism. I don't see a need for a separate article (at least yet) about Mormons as a class of people, but if there were one, I'd be inclined to name it "Mormons" by analogy with Jews. (See WP:AT statement regarding plural form of "names of classes of objects".) COGDEN 13:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Partial support. I agree with much in this proposal. A parenthetical like "Mormon (terminology)" will work fine. I also think the current Mormon article isn't the primary one, but I'm not convinced that most people are helped by being redirected straight to Mormonism. There are currently at least two dominating Mormon articles in wikipedia other than the current Mormon article. An -ism is in its historical context used as a "collective derogatory term" or as the dictionary says as "a form of prejudice or discrimination, either for or against a group". This is especially true for the mormon -ism. This is probably why Mormon believers, like myself, avoid call our belief mormonism and why disbelievers more likely use that term. Mormon is more neutral and equally used by belivers and nonbelivers alike than mormonism is used. If you google the words "Mormon" and "Mormonism" and count the number of believers and disbelievers you can actually measure the difference in belief associated with the words. I think mormonism as the primary mormon article isn't as equal or neutral choice, because it doesn't equally include all beliefs or points of view. HelloWorld50 (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss further what the best name for the current Mormonism article should be, or whether we should create a new article about the Mormon people, but it seems like there is at least no strong opposition to renaming this article Mormon (terminology). So I'm going to make the change and see what happens. If anyone really does oppose this, then lets discuss further. COGDEN 21:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We have not yet evaluated the primary Mormon topic. There are at least one other higly sought and referenced mormon article other than Mormonism. WP:D only mandate a primary topic if one of them is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box". Exceptions may exist when there is a consensus for doing so. I suggest we continue testing the new primary article and then test other frequently sought mormon articles, also the renamed one if applicable, each one for a equally measurable amount of time. I also think the Mormon (disambiguation) page is a powerful test-candidate that can be used to evaluate what people seek. I think this way of testing would give us lot's of reasonable hard data to properly evaluate the primary mormon topic. Are you in for some further testing before deciding? --HelloWorld50 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "testing"? Is there a way we can do statistics on what users are looking for when they type "Mormon"? If so, then I think that's great. One thing I think we can be sure of is that this article is not the main topic. If there is a main topic (and I think there is), I think it has to be Mormonism, although I can possibly see room for the creation of a separate "Mormons" article that discusses Mormons as a people. Basically, this would just involve a split of the existing Mormonism article into Mormonism and Mormons. But I'm not convinced yet that this is a good idea. COGDEN 23:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

COGDEN's point is strong--even if we don't know what the main target people are looking for when they type "Mormon", it clearly is not this--an entomological/historical analysis of a certain term. As for what HelloWorld50 is suggesting...I don't see how we could possibly get "hard data", unless there's something at the toolserver that I've never heard of. Also, this probably isn't the right page to try to figure out whether to use a dab and whether or not there's a primary topic. Probably the best way is to put a discussion on one of the main articles (like Talk: Mormonism), then put links to on other relevant pages (and an active Wikiproject, if there is one). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Though I usually prefer selecting a primary topic, in this case I think it might be wise for Mormon to redirect to Mormon (disambiguation). I've made the change for now, but am willing to step back and discuss if this is controversial. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there definitely is a main topic. When people want to know about Mormon or Mormons, there is a specific topic they want to know about 95% of the time. Right now, that topic is reflected most closely in Mormonism, but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of creating a Mormons article, by analogy to Jews, which I think would clearly be the main article. COGDEN 09:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Talk:Mormonism#New "Mormons" article. I propose we take the remainder of this discussion there. COGDEN 23:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Mormon (terminology) --> Mormon (word)

I propose another renaming, this time from Mormon (terminology) to Mormon (word). Most articles about words, like Man (word), seem to use the "(word)" parenthetical, and this seems more straightforward. If nobody opposes, I'll make the change in a few days. COGDEN 20:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Probably for the best. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Archive?

This talk page is very long, and most of the conversations are stale. Is it time to archive this talk page again (maybe everything prior to 2011)? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I set it up to archive automatically. COGDEN 03:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the automatic archiving code. Graham87 09:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

From Talk:Mormon (word)/Comments

The following contribution was previously found at Talk:Mormon (word)/Comments, but it belongs on this talk page instead, so moved it here. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In the first paragraph the following is said of the mormons:

Mormons most commonly carry knives in their back pocket...if one of them is to be approached by a non-christian. In which they will skin the person and use their blood and skin for communion on the following Sunday.

Not only is this really bizzare but it is poorly written. Have there been cases when non-christians were skinned and their blood used for communion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.168.255 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 28 January 2007‎

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mormon (word). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120226233437/http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/040507mormon.html to http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/040507mormon.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110718135353/http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/PA_1_0_LT/OpenServletWindow?serialNumber=78161091&scanDate=2005110155650&DocDesc=Offc+Action+Outgoing&docType=OOA&currentPage=1&rowNum=11&rowCount=33&formattedDate=01-Nov-2005 to http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/PA_1_0_LT/OpenServletWindow?serialNumber=78161091&scanDate=2005110155650&DocDesc=Offc+Action+Outgoing&docType=OOA&currentPage=1&rowNum=11&rowCount=33&formattedDate=01-Nov-2005

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request: introduction is factually incorrect. (Frogontrombone (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC))

The current introduction claims that the term "mormon" was originally derogatory. There is no evidence for this claim until the term "Jack Mormon" was invented, and the earliest source I can find for this is in the 1840's. The term "Mormon" was used on occasion by church leaders in 1832 and 1833, PRIOR to the official name change. This source has dozens of sources demonstrating this, as well as several instances of the term "Mormon" two years before the citation used in the article.

I propose two edits. First, remove the claim that the term was initially derogatory since this is demonstrably untrue. Second, either remove the Oxford citation in the origin of the term section, or update the section with better sources.

References

This page still reflected incorrect information that the term "Mormon" was originally a derogatory term. I updated the page the reflect what primary sources actually show, and greatly increased the number of sources while keeping the length of the section roughly the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogontrombone (talk • contribs) 18:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

General Improvment

Hey Wikipedians,

This is just a little blurb to let you editors know that we (Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) do not like to be known as Mormons. In the early 1800s, "Mormon" was actually used as an offensive term that was meant to be degrading to us members. If anyone on here has an idea about possibly renaming the page or doing a major edit, it would be much appreciated.

Please also take some time to view this news article:https://www.deseret.com/2018/10/7/20655389/president-nelson-talks-about-the-name-of-the-church-here-s-some-twitter-reaction

Respectfully, JacksonTylerWoods

JacksonTylerWoods (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

1st, your history is incorrect. Perhaps reading the article you are commenting on would be educational. 2nd, the word "Mormon" is an umbrella term for all followers of any sect derived from the church founded by Joseph Smith. The LDS church in Salt Lake does not have primacy over all other sects. The language here should reflect that reality while also noting that the LDS church currently prefers to not be referred to as "Mormon".

I will also note that the LDS church has flip-flopped dozens of times in its 200 year history, including a multi-million dollar ad campaign no more than 20 years ago branding the LDS church as "the Mormons". Therefore there is little incentive to continually edit documents to reflect an LDS bias since that bias may easily change within the next 10 years once again, and instead note that LDS believers do not want to be called Mormon and respect that desire to whatever degree is feasible. This reduces the number of major edits necessary to only a handful of sentences here and there. Frogontrombone (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)