Talk:Mormonism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions; Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue. During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box. After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page. (This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about Mormonism, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Archives
Archive 1: Jan 2003 - Jun 2006 Archived coverup allegations Archive 2: Jun 2006 - Dec 2006

Contents 1 Are Mormons Christians? 2 Latter Day Church of Christ, Matthew Gill 3 Reasons Mormons may not be Christian 4 Removed Weasle Wording from Judism Section 5 Quotation marks necessary? 6 Quetzacoatl, Kolob, and the Endowment ritual 6.1 Beliefs/Gospel 6.2 Nauvoo Endowment ritual 7 Needs more about Mormon beliefs 8 This article not consistent with the article on Joseph Smith Jr 9 Reform Mormonism 10 I want to talk 11 Book of Abraham

[edit] Are Mormons Christians?

The question of classification is way too controversial to be answered in such a flip and unprofessional manner as "nope". If we are to adress the question, we need to do so in using NPOV. ex. instead of "Are Mormons Christians", we should have a section something like this:

"Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity"

---Mormons emphatically see themselves as Christians; however this classification is disputed to varying degrees by many theologians. etc. Some Protestant denominations, while disagreeing with tenets of the Church of LDS, believe they are essentially Christian, while others argue that their acceptance of the Book of Mormon etc. (or other reasons etc) place them in a new category altogether. Etc.

(here we could summarize all arguments about the topic and provide info about:

1) the position of Mormon theologians, followers.
2) the position of various Protestant denominations, Roman Catholics etc.
3) the views of most lay Christians/Mormons
4) the politics of categorization.
5) a short list of differences etc. 
6) the position of academic experts on Christianity/Mormonism. 

I do not have a dog in this fight, but I think the current article is doing a disservice to interested readers. Sincerely, --Ampersand 05:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Or one could, as stated in the article, "See Mormonism and Christianity for more information." Val42 06:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latter Day Church of Christ, Matthew Gill

User:69.27.11.50 (I assume Matthew Gill) - can you provide a copy of documentation that your religious organization has been registered as such, according to the laws of Great Britain? We need additional verification of the sect aside from your blog (the in the mouth of two or three witnesses thing works on Wikipedia too). Also, can you provide membership statistics? (its not that we don't believe you, its just that there are thousands of people claiming to start a new religion, and ususally more than three months of history can be provided - we just need some verification or official status, and until it is obtained, your group may not qualify as an official church or religious movement).

The section you added would be better placed at Latter_Day_Saint_movement, and will likely be moved their in accordance with Wikipedia Style guidelines, after details you've included are verified. Please do not revert the current changes, as Wikpedia is not for advertisting, and the section as it was written was quite commercial and against wikipedia guidelines (see Wikipedia:NPOV. Continuing to revert back to such a commercial is considered vandalism, and may result in your IP address being blocked. Thanks and happy editing. -Visorstuff 17:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons Mormons may not be Christian

Today I removed the following new edit:

In particular, Mormonism differs from mainstream Christianity, in that it is polytheistic, i.e., it teaches the existence of many gods, and that man may attain divinity.^[1] In contrast, mainstream Christianity is strictly monotheistic, and as such precludes man attaining divinity

For this to be acceptable, you need to provide a reference for the statements that Mormons believe and worship many Gods. There may be some clarity needed on definitions. Mormons believe in Theosis, but you will find that theosis is most believed by some of most Orthodox of churches. In addition, Theosis does not create divinity to be worshipped in the LDS sense, LDS believe the Bible when it says we will be coinheritors with Christ. Whereas mainstream Christiantiy attempts to take One God in three persons (the Trinity), LDS take three persons in One God.

You will also find that many religions would claim that the traditional Christianity is not montheistic. Islam is adamant that Christians believe in more than one God; they find the Trinity to be three persons impossible to equal one God. I am more than willing to further the conversation, but to include this information in the article you need to source the allegations to be in keeping with WP:NOR. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There was actually a citation provided, from the King Follet Discourse. However, I am willing to admit that Mormon's, although they believe in a plurality of gods, concentrate their worship on "the god of this world." As such they may be considered henotheistic, as opposed to polytheistic. But this is a distinction many may not grasp. In terms of theosis, there is a vast difference between sanctification, as presented in mainstream Christianity, and Mormon exaltation, in which one assumes the very essence and divinity of God. With all respect, it doesn't matter whether Islam considers Christianity polytheistic, because Muslims do not claim to be Christians, and Christians do not claim to be Muslim. However, I will re-edit this to more reflect the concerns you have stated. CBadSurf 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

With the many differences between Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity, why single out one issue to expand in this article? I think that the section under discussion should be brief then link to the other article for all of the details. Val42 17:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Val42; this is a significant topic that can not be appropriately handled in this article; one of the reasons for sub-articles. This is a recurring problem on Mormon or LDS articles; new editors with valuable contributions seek to expand information that is already covered elsewhere. The purpose of this article is to briefly identify Mormonism and point readers to main articles or subarticles. Mormonism is much broader than just the LDS church. Everything that you have added would be strongly rejected by the Community of Christ branch of Mormonism among others.

I may accept the term heotheistic, but you will find the vast majority of LDS would proclaim to be strict monotheists. It is very similar to Muslims that accuse Christians of being polytheistic because the the doctrine fo the Trinity does not make sense to them. It is impossible to have three distinct persons, but only one God. Where mainstream Christianity focuses on One God in three persons, LDS state it differently, three persons in One God. The fact that LDS believe in Theosis does not make them non-Christian. This is a common red herring that anti-cultists and others bring up. They change the definition of Christianity to fit their specific objective. If one relys only on the New Testament as a guide, it is impossible to develop a definition of Christianity that is limited only to believes of the Nicene Creed; a fourth century doctrine. When you begin to really get into the argument, what is really being said is that Mormons are not part of the 4th century Christianity and the churches that descend from that movement. LDS gladly agree with that statement; LDS are restorationists they firmly believe that their church is restored and does not descend from the apostasy.

I am deleting all information that can not be accepted by all the churches of the Latter Day Saint movement because that is the only information appropriate for this article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I can agree that the entire topic can be better covered elsewhere, for example in the Mormonism and Christianity article. However, one has the impression from reading the discussions that this article is treated as the property of LDS, and a presentation of facts other than what is considered suitable by Mormons is not allowed. That really isn't what wikipedia is about. Case in point is the additions I made. First you said that they were not cited well enough. When I cited them, you now say that this "is a significant topic that can not be appropriately handled in this article." On the other hand, you allow a lengthy quote from Gordon Hinckley (which by the way is not cited) to remain. This does not seem entirely honest to me intellectually.

By the way, the Nicene Creed is not a fourth century doctrine -- it was a fourth century formulation of beliefs held by orthodox Christians from the time of the apostles. The reason for the Nicene Creed was to create a standard by which one could judge orthodox Christianity from heresy. Heretical and gnostic teaching had, of course, been a problem from the days of the apostles. But of course, this is a long discussion which we will not come to agreement on here -- and I don't intend to start a debate on it.

By way of compromise, I propose this section be removed, or contain only the link to the Mormonism and Christianity article.

CBadSurf 04:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

CBad, I would not retract any of my statements. I have been editing Wikipedia for a while now and I have seen the same comments come up consistently. One of the things that is a problem, as I stated above, is how articles bleed all over. New editors on Mormon related articles, both pro and con, will read a single article and then begin expanding the article including information that takes the topic beyond its parameters. It may be that we need to review the other articles and merge them; I personally think there are too many of them, but trying to delete articles is almost an impossibility on wikipedia. Previous editors do generally do not appreciate such drastic change. The result is a plethora of articles.

You may want to review how other church articles are written. I particularly recommend the Roman Catholic Church article. This article is virtually devoid of any critical commentary, however it has been recognized as the Whore of Babylon since before the Reformation. Today there are many Protestant churches that do not recognize it as even being Christian. Further, it has played a role in throughout the Middle Ages that was not in keeping with what one generally would associate with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet, none of it is mentioned in the main article.

Conversely, you will not find a single article about Mormonism or any of its churches without some critical commentary. If one is going to accuse a group of "owning" an article or refusing to allow criticism, it is would not be justified in any of the churches of the Latter Day Saint movement. Not only do we allow critcism, but we write it ourselves. I am not saying we are perfect and free from our own POV, but we, the editors both pro and con, are not deserving of your accusation.

My objective is to ensure well written articles meritorous of an encyclopedia. Articles should match their topics and be in keeping with WP:NPOV and all other policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to accomplish personal agendas, attempt to share the truth about one's own religion, or write religious tracts. My expertise is religion and thus you will find that I edit predominately those articles. I have a particular expertise in Mormonism and early Christianity. I hope that we can work together in the future. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, Let me clarify that I did not suggest to delete the article on Mormonism -- I suggested that the section Mormonism and Christianity refer readers to the Mormonism and Christianity sub-article, where as you rightly observed, the issue can be treated more fully. Although I am new as a registered editor, I am well aware of how wikipedia works. I am certainly not of a mind to accomplish personal agendas (I don't have one) or write religious tracts. But I am certain you were not suggesting that this is what I was attempting. But I must say that, though I am not Catholic, I do take exception to you stating that many Protestant churches do not consider Catholics Christians -- with the exception of Bob Jone's type fundamentalists, I know of few Protestant Churches that would say this.

Nor do I consider my contribution critical commentary. Was what I wrote inaccurate, undocumented, or represent an attack on Mormonism?

Right now, what I am concerned about is reversion of edits without even entering a discussion as to why they may be relevant.

For example, why is it even relevant to have this section if there is an entire sub-article devoted to the subject?

My background is from a Lutheran seminary, in particular Church History, so I am sure we will work together in the future. --CBadSurf 07:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the section has merit only because it mentions a significant point; that mainstream Christianity does not consider Mormons to be Christian. If it was not at least mentioned, the article would be accused of being deficient. Further, I suspect it take no more than one week before it would be added back by a new editor.

I would agree that groups who consider the Catholic church to be nonChrisitian are generally fringe, but it might be a more common concept than you might think. I grew up in the south. There were two groups that could be very friendly because of shared tribution, the Mormons and Catholic kids; neither was considered Christian enough for our good Southern Baptist friends.

You will find that some editors (read me) are impatient at times. So much of what I see is stuff that I have seen before and have discussed repeatedly. It is possible that I am too brusque and have a knee jerk reaction. I should take more time to explain reversions and other edits with editors with whom I am unfamiliar. Regardless, when you have an idea or concept please make a new section on the discussion page and present it. You will find a number of editors that would gladly respond. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your civility, and I do recognize that I am new to this article. However, you say you want this section to remain to make the point that "that mainstream Christianity does not consider Mormons to be Christian" but the effect of the wording is to suggest that only those Christians who do not accept the Nicene Creed do not accept Mormons as Christians -- whereas in reality the acceptance of the Nicene Creed is the definition of mainstream Christianity. You may argue that mainstream Christianity is apostate, but acceptance of the Nicene Creed is none the less the definition. (Hence, according to Mormonism, mainstream Christianity is apostate). In fact, keeping the section heading, but providing the link to the sub-article would better achieve what you say you want to accomplish.

In this case, the apologetic quote by Hinckly takes most of the wording in the section. This could tend to lead readers to a different conclusion than what you propose.

Even though I am new to the article, that does not mean I cannot make a contribution. I believe this section to be inaccurate, and would like to see it improved and made more accurate. Can we work on a compromise together?CBadSurf 17:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

(I will begin a new entry so that we don't get too far over). If I understand your proposal correctly, are you suggesting that we simply list the title, provide the link, and delete the text? The motivation being that the full argument agains being Christian is underrepresented while Hinkley's statement provids too much pro information. I am not sure deleting all the text is best. An alternative could be to shorten it to something such as Mormons firmly claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, but most mainline Christian churches believe they are not Christian. I suspect it would work, but it also seems like an invitation to other editors and/or readers to elaborate. Why aren't they Christian, why they are Christian, etc. It may actually be better to delete the section in its entirety. There is already the listing for the subarticle under the "See Also" section. What do you think? Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you have understood what I was saying now. I can agree with any of these proposals, but I think that to delete the section entirely will be to re-invite its addition later. Perhaps the best would be to keep the section, and add text along the lines of "A complete discussion of Mormonism and Christianity is outside the scope of this article. Please refer to the Mormonism and Christianity article for a complete discussion." Would this work? CBadSurf 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it!

You may want to check out how they handled it on the Mormon. I have always found it interesting how it is appears impossible for an article to focus on Mormonism rather than how others feel about Mormonism. It is one of the reasons I apprciate the Catholic article so much. Readers are able to read an article that is simply about the topic. There are other articles that address the critiques, contrary perception, and anti-Catholicism. I have pretty much capitulated to the fact, but I would like to emulate their articles. It would seem like there should be one standard, but there are obviously standards for the majority and then different standards for minorities. C'est la vie, on y va. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As they say, the devil is in the details. (No pun intended) I agree with you on the Catholic site -- even though as an ex-Catholic I would have strong views on a number of items there. In this particular case, I did not add anything to the overall article out of respect to group being able to create a balanced presentation. It is just I felt this particular sub-section inaccurate. Not because Mormons are a minority -- indeed in this world any person of faith is becoming a minority. Ça aussi, c'est la vie. CBadSurf 03:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Weasle Wording from Judism Section

I changed the following statement in the Judism section: "Mormons as religious body in general embrace Jews and Judaism with more enthusiasm than Evangelicals, in part because of historical and doctrinal connections Mormonism shares to a greater degree with Judaism than other Christian denominations."

I removed the comparison with Evangelicals, because there is no empirical basis on which to make this statement. Indeed, the support shown to Israel by the Evangelical community has caused Israel to look to them for much support in Washington DC. Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League wrote:

These realities should make American Jews highly appreciative of the incredible support that the State of Israel gets from a significant group of Americans -- the Evangelical Christian Right. In many ways, the Christian Right stands out as the most consistently supportive group of Israel in America.

(See http://www.adl.org/Israel/evangelical.asp)

This in no way diminishes the great enthusiasm shown in Mormon support for Israel, it merely aims to maintain a npov.

And, by the way, I am not part of the Christian Right, and I do not give my personal unqualified support to Israel.

I also added a request for citation to "In contrast, Jewish denominations see no reciprocal connection to Mormonism" I question the use of "In contrast" at the start of this sentence, which should be used in contrast and comparison of the same issue. In the case, for example, where you would want to contrast the Mormon view of the Holy Spirit to the Jewish view of the Holy Spirit. This sentence would be more accurate as "Jewish denominations see no reciprocal connection to Mormonism"

CBadSurf 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

--Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation marks necessary?

Mormonism is a term used to describe religious, ideological, and cultural aspects of the various denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement. The term Mormonism is often used to describe the belief systems of those who believe in the Book of Mormon, a "sacred" text which Mormons believe was translated by Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1829 from golden plates, described as the "sacred" writings of the inhabitants of North and South America from approximately 600 BC to 420 AD. In 1830 Smith published the Book of Mormon and restored the Church of Christ, and the faithful were known amongst themselves as Latter Day Saints. Outside the church, church members have come to be called Mormons because of their belief in the Book of Mormon as the restoration of their religion. As the result of a "revelation" in 1838, the name to the Church was officially stated as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".[1] After the death of Joseph Smith, a succession crisis ensued and the church membership was divided among various sects. The largest group accepted Brigham Young as the new prophet-president of the church and followed him West to the Salt Lake Valley in the current state of Utah. However, there was a large faction that did not accept Brigham Young's claim to leadership and remained in the Midwest. The Community of Christ is the largest church that emerged from the Latter Day Saints who did not follow Brigham Young and it also claims to be the original church founded by Joseph Smith, Jr..

Notice how there are quotation marks around sacred and revelation.

Are these necessary?Erik-the-red

I noticed this as well when reading the article, and I wondered if this was a deliberate insult by someone or an attempt to point out perceived bias. Then again, the whole intro is garbage -- it reads more like an LDS pamphlet than an encyclopaedia entry. AntarcticFox 03:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the quotes. AntarcticFox, do you have a proposal for what information can be deleted so that it does not read like a pamplet. I am not sure I agree with you on you statement, but if you have a constructive recommendation to improve the article, please propose it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I take exception to the description of the Book of Mormon as a sacred text, as according to the second sentence, as opposed to a more encyclopaedic statement that it is a text held sacred by Mormons or, perhaps, less elegantly described as a religious text. This is not a result of my beliefs -- it is merely the result of what I believe to be a rather poor choice in sentence structure. Then again, further research into LDS related articles on Wikipedia has shown me that most of them suffer from NPOV problems, as do most articles on Wikipedia where there is at least one person on the planet with a computer and an axe to grind about the topic. -- AntarcticFox 04:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't oppose your edit; however, the sentence states:

• "The term Mormonism is often used to describe the belief systems of those who believe in the Book of Mormon, a "sacred" text which Mormons believe was translated..."

To me qualifying the sentence with no less than 3 "believe/belief" would seem to make it clear to the reader that this text is something believed only by Mormons and not anyone else. I would gladly accept your proposal if we can get rid of the repetitive qualifiers of believe. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quetzacoatl, Kolob, and the Endowment ritual

I may have got some of this stuff wrong. Please let me know (specifically) what is incorrect. I am doing my best to understand LDS with the information that is available to me. I focus on these particular issues because I find them interesting and they are not in the current article. I find them interesting for various reasons: I find them strange and novel, they are quite different from other related religions (i.e. Christianity), they are intriguing due to their secretiveness, and they are a subject of ongoing controversy due to outsiders misunderstanding and misrepresenting them and due to LDS members' secretiveness regarding them. Please, by all means, correct what is possible to correct as I am certain I am misunderstanding some of this, and have been told I am misunderstanding some of this. Yes, some of it I already know is incorrect and I am simply filling in the blanks (making it as easy to correct as possible) because I do not have all the information.--24.57.157.81 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beliefs/Gospel

1. Gods and spirits are corporeal beings. They are supernatural beings with real, human, bodies (I will refer to them as spiritbodies for now.) They do not shapeshift, even if it was within their supernatural abilities, and they always appear human.
2. A spiritbody, whose name is Jesus, has appeared on Earth a number of times throughout history. One instance of Jesus' appearance (apart from His appearance as Jesus Christ from 0-30 BC) was that of the Mesoamerican God Quetzalcoatl [1][2]. Drawings of Quetzalcoatl as a snake or dragon are said to be stylized drawings of Jesus, not literal representations.
3. Jesus travels to and from Earth from a planet near a star called Kolob. The manner in which He and other spiritbodies travels is unknown, and it is presumably supernatural. Jesus is also Jehovah.
4. Kolob is within our physical universe, however the location of Kolob is unknown. The planet can be visited through non-supernatural means, such as a spaceship. This area of the physical universe is known as Heaven. The spiritbody Elohim (LDS God) is also on this planet.
5. All human beings are descendants of the spiritbodies of a man and woman named Adam and Eve, who came to Earth from the planet near Kolob in or around the year 6,000 BC.

First, you are getting into deep water and I am not sure you have any foundation to understand. Jesus Christ talked about drinking milk before eating meat; this is one of those situations:

We do not use the terms supernatural beings generally. I am not familiar with a Christian religion that would use those terms. Our Father in Heaven is God. As God we believe He can do anything He chooses to do. The concept of shapeshifting is forgein to Latter-day Saints. I am not aware of any doctrine in any Christian church that preaches this concept. I am aware that in mythology there are such concepts, but that is outside the parameters of this conversation.

Jesus, the Son of God, gainied a physical body by coming to this earth. We believe that all things are spiritual. Within Mormon doctrine at no time do we believe that Jesus came as anyone else other than Jesus Christ. He never appeared and use another name. Quetzalcoatls is white god found in ancient American belief systems. Mormons would say that there is a high probability that this is a residual belief, though twisted, of the original appearance of Jesus in the Americas after his resurrection as recorded in the Book of Mormon.

Kolob is believed to be a star close to the throne of God. It serves no pupose in Mormon doctrine other than that statement. No prophet has provided more information than that. Some have speculated further, but it is speculation and is not doctrine.

Adam and Eve were not spirit bodies; they were persons of flesh and blood. They became/were mortal. Yes, Mormons believe that Adam and Eve were our first parents. I am not aware of any doctrine that they came from the throne of God. What we teach is that we were all together in the Spirit world before this earth. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nauvoo Endowment ritual

An initiation ritual LDS members go through is called the "Nauvoo Endowment." This ritual is performed before the LDS member begins his or her missionary work and/or before the LDS member marries and is done at the discretion of a higher priest. The ritual takes place inside the Temple, and is usually performed as a large group of members of identical Priesthood.

The ritual is comprised of religious cleansing and religious instructions and revelations kept secret from lower members. The instruction and revelations imparted depend on the Priesthood level of the group, but the rest of the ritual is the same. Both sexes perform the same ritual, more or less.

LDS members performing the ritual do the following:

In private, they remove their current clothing and dress in a single piece apron, called the "Shield." The apron is plain green and has a fig leaf on it. They proceed into a room called the _______ Room, full of small curtained areas, each with a person called an Officiator (male Officiators for male members, female Officiators for female members). Individually, each member enters one of these areas.

Inside the curtained off portion, the Officiator blesses the member by lightly touching various parts of their body with holy water and consecrated oil. The Officiator provides religious counsel and provides them with a spiritual name. This name is unique to that particular ceremony, not the person. However, due to the secretive nature of the ritual, most members believe, for the duration of the ceremony, that their spiritual name is a unique to them. The members then undress. The Officiator helps them into their Temple Garment, an undergarment which has spiritual symbols on it, which they are told to wear for the rest of their life. The Officiator then dresses them according to sex. Members are dressed all in white. Women wear a white veil, white dress, white sash (a girdle worn as a sash), slip, and pantyhose. Men wear a white hat (resembling a pastry chef's), white pants, collared shirt and tie. Both sexes drape a white sheet over a shoulder and wear white slippers.

After each member has performed this part of the ritual, they gather in another room, called the _______ Room. This room is the Temple theater. Members are seated based on sex: males on the right, females on the left. They receive an introduction from an Officiator, and then watch a re-enactment of the book of Genesis, as interpreted by the LDS church. In contemporary times, the re-enactment is presented as a film on a large movie screen. In the past, however, this part of the ritual was live theater (by various Officiators playing the parts of God, Adam, Eve, etc.).

At different points during the re-enactment, the members are asked to pray and make various oaths, and move their robes from one shoulder to the other. Members are told of sacred religious signs (based on the level of Priesthood they are attaining) they must use in order to get into Heaven once they die, and are instructed to keep these signs secret. The signs are various hand gestures--folding the fingers a certain way--and various handshake grips. Revealing this signs, they are told, is heretical and Satanic. Prior to the 1930s, members had to make a verbal agreement that they be eviscerated (and, thus killed) should they reveal these signs.

After the film and the religious instruction, members then leave the theater and queue up at a curtain to another room, the Celestial Room. Before entering through the curtain, each member is tested on his or her memorization of the previous instruction, including the hand gestures. Members then enter the Celestial Room and the ritual is over.

Upon completion of the ritual, members have attained a higher level of Priesthood.

If two members are getting married, they proceed to the Sealing Room.

This is close, but it is full of errors. This information is already fully covered in Endowment (Latter Day Saints). At now time is anyone told it is heretical or Satanic to reveal the signs and tokens. We covenant with God not to reveal them. Is is Satanic to break a covenant with God? My personal beliefs is that the Evil One does all he can to thwart the will of God. He relishes when any human breaks the laws of God. Mormons are covenant making people. I wish that we never broke covenants or promises, but we all fall short in one thing or another. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was perfect, in fact I explicitly said it was not. I would not say a list and a short paragraph describing the ceremony constitutes "full coverage." The entire Endowment article is basically history and poorly explained theology. The religious understanding is explained poorly (heavenly gift? What's that?), the only symbolism discussed is washing and anointing which is just a rehash of that article, and the actual ceremony is described, in point form, in two paragraphs at the end of the article. That's not full coverage. What I wrote for the description above is in fact shorter than what is there now, and manages to describe the entire thing from start to finish.--24.57.157.81 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

---

IMPORTANT NOTE: (Storm Rider's reply is regarding what I wrote before. I erased it because it was getting messy, and also to temper the negative tone I used initially.) --24.57.157.81 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is too rich. Please, please let us all know about where Extraterrestials come into play in the Endowment. This is the worst form of Anti-Mormonism; it has no basis in reality and is made from whole cloth. Please do some bloody research. The web is full of exact quotes of the Endowment and no where will you find anything remotely like this is "secret knowledge" left to be revealed in the temple, oooooohhh; scary stories to tell "Christians" to warn them from the evils of Mormons. Did you know that Mormons also have horns; of course they only come on on Blue Moons after raping their 18th wife when she is two, but has born 87 children and she jumped off the Salt Lake temple's top most spire into the Great Salt Lake (several miles away) and swam to safety after walking barefooted to the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas and was saved by the preacher who raised her to adulthood. She now, SAVED, teaches the good Bible believing holy rollers about the wickness of Mormons. I think Mormons eat their young; don't they? I am almost certain they do.

This is going to be a fun ride. You best pull in your minister now, because you are getting way out over your skies on this one. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What an interesting stereotype of me you've provided for the peanut gallery: an ignorant bigoted Christian in over his head and trying to smear Mormonism. Do I have horns, too? --24.57.157.81 18:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, now, let's not forget that you are saved and it is only us cultists Mormons that have horns. Feinging humility is unbecoming. This is not personal, but it is infuriating and rather common for new editors to come in on a crusade to "proclaim the truth" of Mormonism ater they have only read base, common, anti-Mormon literature. The vast majority of which, as evidenced by your edits, has nothing to do with Mormonism and everything to do with the creative minds of some Evangelical. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe they keep coming back because what you think the truth is is not in the article. How about you provide a referenced paragraph which counters these "anti-Mormon" misconceptions? Wouldn't that solve the problem? The reason I added these things is because they aren't in the article, nor is anything contradicting them in the article. p.s. your stereotype is still interesting but I'm not Christian. --24.57.157.81 06:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

All of this is already covered in other articles. If each article only repeated what other articles had then every article would be extremely long. This is supposed to be a very brief description of each of the groups within Mormonism. LDS articles are well researched and referenced and I encourage you to spend a little time reading them. I am curious, if you are not Christian why do you only spend time reading anti-Mormon literature. I find that very odd. When I study Islam I read the Quran; when I study Catholicism I read the Catholic Catechism and other teachings. Strange method of research, but I assure you that at the end of your research you will have no understanding of Mormonism. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I read "anti-Mormon" literature because I find these specific rituals and beliefs fascinating, strange, and disturbing, and I would like to know more about them. Since no one in the LDS church will talk much about these issues, "LDS approved" information is extremely limited and hard to come by. I am not studying Mormonism, I'm studying these particular rituals and beliefs. The same way I would study the Eucharist ritual for instance (Now that I've seen it, that article is worse than the endowment article, I'd say). --24.57.157.81 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs more about Mormon beliefs

The article is mainly just about the history of the LDS religion, but not very much about LDS beliefs. The only part about Mormon beliefs is in the first paragraph. For instance, the LDS prophet Nephi is nowhere in the article. --24.57.157.81 22:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Many new editors see one of the many articles about Mormonism and think that it should include all of the information in these many articles. This article is about several sects that believe in the Book of Mormon as scripture. Personally, I think that this article should redirect to the broader topic of the Latter Day Saint Movement. The reason that there is not more about the beliefs of these sects in this article is that many of them split in 1844, shortly after the death of Joseph Smith, Jr. To put anything but the broadest statments about doctrine would be to do so with a lot of "most sects believe" and "some sects believe" throughout the article. That would confuse things even more. Val42 04:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't need to put that. You can research the names and beliefs of the sects and write "The _____ sect believes..." And you can also write about LDS canon or gospel. Look at Christianity there is a huge list of beliefs. --24.57.157.81 05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article not consistent with the article on Joseph Smith Jr

Section 1.3 the Succession Crisis of this article states that "There is little dispute that Joseph Smith, Jr privately and publicly taught and practiced plural marriage; he certainly alluded to the practice in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132." However section 2 of the article Joseph_Smith,_Jr. is a discussion of the uncertainty and controversy on whether Joseph Smith did teach and practice plural marriage.

I just wanted to point this out so that folks more knowledgeable on the subject can address the inconsistency.64.105.48.146 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)APF

[edit] Reform Mormonism

This group is using wikipedia to promote itself and it is a very small group - see the yahoo discussion group --Trödel 22:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I want to talk

Mormons, I want to debate faith constructively on my talk page. Thank you! Zantaggerung 15:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Abraham

I read more about the controversy about the Book of Abraham. Very insightful material in the FAIR website. I will make a change in wording. An unsigned user had added the assertion about the Book of Abraham translation, based it would seem on very shallow research. Reiddp