Talk:Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) 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?

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 the Latter Day Saint movement, 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)

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

This Philrelig article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents 1 Archives 2 A distinction without a difference 3 AP Stylebook advice 4 Mormon Subcategory 5 LDS subcategories, etc. 6 Using the Term correctly and not derogatively 7 Misleading comparision of the Book of Mormon and the Holy Bible 8 Vandalism 9 Strangite use of term 10 Clarification of Book of Mormon Time Periods 11 Bible 12 Trademark Invalid 13 Meaning of the word 14 WP:OR concerns: "wild species" meaning based on Hebrew 15 A Misconception 16 LDS Church vs Church of Jesus Christ

[edit] Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

[edit] A distinction without a difference

Mormonism is not based on any archaeological 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)