Talk:Angel Moroni

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Retracting proposal due to numerous dissenting opinions. --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are there two articles for Moroni, here and here? They are the same person - I propose we merge them. Please vote:

• MergeNeutralMerge --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Changing my mind after reading some of the other perspectives. --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Changed my mind again - I understand what some of you are saying - but it doesn't change the fact that everyone connected with Mormonism considers them to be the same person - it would be pretty easy to merge them and talk about the issues you guys mention - and would be far less confusing for people that are unfamiliar with Mormonism. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      • "...everyone connected with Mormonism considers them to be the same person..." This isn't true. Some of the smaller Latter Day Saint sects believe the visitor who visited Smith was Nephi from the Book of Mormon, who is quite a different character from Moroni (separated by about 1000 years in the storyline, in fact). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge The sooner we minimise this sort of spam from Wp the better. I am not sure this is how you do a merge proposal however. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • According to the guidelines at WP:Merge, this is the appropriate way to propose a merge. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. In the Latter Day Saint movement, not all people agree that Angel Moroni is the same as Moroni the prophet, which a reading of Angel Moroni reveals. When Joseph Smith wrote one account of the angel coming to him, he called him "Nephi", and there is still some dispute about whether Smith claimed it was the prophet Nephi or the prophet Moroni. The LDS Church teaches that the Angel Moroni and the prophet Moroni are the same, but other groups disagree. Many think that the Angel Moroni was actually the prophet Nephi. To merge would be LDS Church-centric. It is the largest group of Latter Day Saints, but it's not the only one and more than their view should be presented. The article says "most" Latter Day Saints view the Moronis as the same person, but that's only because there are far more members of the LDS Church than any other Latter Day Saint organization. I'm not at all clear how either of the articles qualify as "spam". Snocrates 07:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - Spam? either we have an editor ignorant of the topic, incapable of self-expression, or is exhibiting the kind of intolerance that only the KKK or Nazis were capable; regardless, it makes me very concerned when I find something in common with that ilk. However,I see no reason for two articles on the same person. Snocrates does bring a valid point, but it is a point that can still be covered in a single article. Redundancy does not help readers or editors. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Godwin's law ;) --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Merge as I agree with Snocrates. Smith never referred to Moroni as an angel: Moroni was a resurrected human being and it would be similar to merging articles about Jesus into one called "Angel Jesus". In addition, Storm Rider's personal attack of another editor directly above should qualify Storm Rider for an immediate and long-term block, especially with the vicious Nazi and KKK analogy. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I would strongly oppose such a block. SR is generally civil whilst he holds strong opinions. He is not a vandal. He knows, I imagine, that what he wrote is intemperate but it's not anything I would lose sleep over. Albatross2147 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, Smith did refer to Moroni as an angel, though in a later description of the event, in D&C 128:20. --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This might identify qualities rather than a type of being. Acts 6:15 refers to Stephen as "angel" and John 12:29 refers to the voice of God as the voice of an angel. Plus, the fact Smith's use of that term (if the D&C record is correct that he did use that term) so much later indicates it was a secondary description and that the Angel Moroni article could be merged into the Prophet Moroni article but definitely not the other way around. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• I have to say no merge. The angel and the Book of Mormon writer are not necessarily the same subject (and some would argue, not necessarily the same person). Plus, the angel means much more than the man. We have angel Moroni iconography and art, as well. Merging the two would be like merging Gabriel with Noah or Michael (archangel) with Adam. COGDEN 20:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge Moroni enters American history through Joseph Smith. The distinctions pointed out by User:Snocrates are not serious enough to justify separate articles. Indeed, separate articles would, I think, mislead the naive (non-LDS) reader. The clarification written above by User:Snocrates (with references of course) should be incorporated into the merged article as a significant alternative view. Robert1947 (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merge — On the face, these would appear to be articles that should be merged. Rather than repeat, I would say that COGDEN's comments match most closely with what I would write to argue my point. However, both articles need to make clear in the introduction the points about why they are not one article. — Val42 (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge Even though Moroni and Angel Moroni are the same people, they talk about two different subjects. One is the mortal Moroni, and the other is his Celestialized form. I say that these pages need to be left alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.129.145 (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.