Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. 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. Conservlogo.png

The Mountain Meadows Massacre

Should something about that be included in the controversy? That's a reference, but if that's not what you guys want, you can find myriads more by just putting "Mountain Meadows Massacre" into Google. ObiBinks 19:44, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Arthur Conan Doyle and Zane Grey

I said they "depicted the Mormons as 'bad guys'" but really that's putting it mildly. On checking these books again, "rabid anti-Mormonism" would probably be more like it. But I am reluctant to quote the passages that would support that view, as they are so virulent that I think even quoting them would be inappropriate. I think they're so "way out" as to be funny, but I expect a Mormon might not see it that way. Dpbsmith 13:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Cut from article:
The Mormons, like other small denominations, have been the target of discrimination. Mormons are depicted as "bad guys" in Arthur Conan Doyle's 1890 novel, A Study in Scarlet, and Zane Grey's 1912 Riders of the Purple Sage.
Novels don't prove discrimination. This cheapens the claim.
Anyway, I read Riders last year, and the Mormons in it were depicted as mostly a lowdown, lying, thieving gossiping, backbiting kind lot of people as well as a decent, hardworking, lawabiding, friendly lot. I seem to recall a saintly lady, who befriended the downtrodden and helpless, as being a Mormon. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Ed Poor 13:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Oops, on the other hand I forgot about the bishop's conspiracy and cruelty.
  • The Mormons are represented as a sinister, powerful force of evil, and in this respect, the comparison with earlier myth - 'conventional captivity plot' - is again noticeable. Their sadistic cruelty, for example - as depicted in the foiled attempt at whipping Venters. Or another passage which mentions the gratuitous blinding of Lassiter's horse. [1]
My question is whether ZG was using the novel to tar all Mormons with one brush, or more to illustrate what can happen when ANY faction turns fanatic. I must learn more about this. --Ed Poor 14:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

They are depicted really barbarously in A Study in Scarlet, as rapists, liars, and murderers.... about as negative depection as you could have.... Pandeism 21:14, 28 January 2008 (EST)

"the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians. "

Re the statement:

though in the 1970s the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians.

I really want to see a source citation for this before putting it in the article. What, exactly, did the church say in their own words? And was it, in fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as opposed to one of the small splinter groups? Dpbsmith 21:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

My suspicion is that they did not say "Mormons are not Christians" or anything close to it. They probably said something that some other group interpreted to mean "Mormons are not Christians." Dpbsmith 22:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)


Well, you may be right. I can't find the exact reference, but it is my understanding that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints made it clear that they did not want to be affiliated with Christianity during the 70s, when Christianity was not very popular, but now that Christianity has become popular again, LDS Evangelists or Outreachers or whatever you call the people who stop you on the street to talk about Mormonism often say very early in their talk that "Mormons are Christians, too", when in the 70s they would not, and would make it a point to say that Mormonism was not Christianity. So, perhaps saying that they said "Mormons were not Christians" was a gross oversimplification, and for that I apologize, but the sentiment is similar. ChristianHero 22:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)


I think the reason people use the quote "Mormons aren't Christians" is because "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints aren't Christians" is too hard to say with a straight face.

Seriously, though, what the church said was that Mormons aren't PROTESTANTS. They consider protestants to be reformers, and that Joseph Smith was a RESTORER. They like Protestants, and consider Martin Luther and other reformers to have been inspired by God, but consider their church was a restoration of the same church that Christ set up on the earth, not a protest against the catholic church or simply an attempt to set up a church they felt was closer to what Christ wanted.

But saying you aren't a protestant isn't the same thing as saying you aren't Christian.JustMe 12:26, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Question about scripture:

Is the KJV of the Bible really the one used for scripture? Didn't Joseph Smith do some minor re-translating of certain passages of a Bible, and that version is used? (I may be mistaken that it's authoritative as scripture, though.) If it is the preferred translation of the Scripture, then that can't really be called the KJV, right? (Also, out of curiosity, what translation of the Bible do LDS for whom English is not their native language use? I hope that they don't try to translate the KJV into another language.) Kolbe 18:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, the Church uses the KJV of the Bible. There is a version published by the Church which includes footnotes to JST (Joseph Smith Translation) verses and footnotes for references to other LDS scriptures like the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenants and Pearl of Great Price but the main text is the unchanged KJV.
I don't know about other languages - something for me to reasearch. Crocoitetalk 19:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Here's a statement from someone in the church "The goal of the typical Bible society, usually a collaboration of numerous different Christian denominations, has been to take a translated Bible to every people—a work which deserves our praise and gratitude. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not make translations of the Bible itself at this point, but chooses carefully a translation available in a particular language for use among its members who speak that language." Lenet H. Read, “How the Bible Came to Be: Part 8, The Power of the Word,” Ensign, Sep 1982, 64 Crocoitetalk 19:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. I didn't realize that the Joseph Smith just added footnotes. I thought he had actually re-translated or re-written certain passages. Kolbe 00:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Let me clarify this issue. Joseph Smith did indeed re-translate certain verses. Those re-translated verses do NOT appear in the KJV text. They appear as footnotes in the version published by the Church. Crocoitetalk 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

The Mormon problem.

Joseph Smith, Jr., like L. Ron Hubbard, or Helena Blavatsky or Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy, or Mohammed, were frauds, mountebanks. Mitt Romney is a religious fraud; he is a polytheist who believes in gods from outer space, in other words, a religious whacko.

I've never seen anything in Mormon literature about "gods from outer space". And Mormons certainly are not polytheists, and neither are Muslims. --Hojimachongtalk 03:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right? Are they not all gods? (And if not, do they not believe that Jesus is divine?) At least, this is my understanding of LDS teaching. Am I mistaken? (I don't think the original commenter was calling Muslims polytheists. He was calling Muhammad a fraud.) Kolbe 03:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right? Yes, we believe that Heavenly Father (God the Father) and Jesus Christ (The Son of God) have glorified, perfected bodies of flesh and bones; the Holy Ghost is also part of the Godhead but is a personage of Spirit in the form of a man.
Are they not all gods? Yes. Crocoitetalk 11:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes they are not all gods, or yes they are all gods? That's a bit of a confusing answer (to a poorly-phrased question, I guess). Kolbe 12:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, they are all gods. "The Church's first article of faith states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven." [ Gospel Topics:Godhead] Crocoitetalk 14:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
If there are three gods, and they are each separate beings, how is that not polytheism? (Or, at least, it's not "certainly" not polytheism, since it does appear to be polytheistic, lacking some equivocation about how they're not really all god, or not really three distinct persons.) Kolbe 15:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I was always just taught that the Trinity were three forms of the same being.--Elamdri 15:13, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
"They are distinct beings, but They are one in purpose and effort. They are united as one in bringing to pass the grand, divine plan for the salvation and exaltation of the children of God." [ In These Three I Believe by President Gordon B. Hinckley] Crocoitetalk 15:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"? That Jesus is the firstborn son of an exalted "man" who became the "god" of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the universe. He "earned" godhood, and was then appointed by a counsel of other "gods" in the heavens to his high position as the "god" of planet Earth. The Mormon's god of this world was a man, like all men, who became a god. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they, too, shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world... See also That isn't really "Christianity", is it? File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 16:45, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"? You are presenting an incredibly simplistic viewpoint on the Subject. You are also going into detail about things God has only touched lightly upon. There is some 'fact' to what you speak of. But the details about it are not going to happen as you presented them. No one "earn's" their 'godhood'. After all we can do we still fall short of the necessary "perfection" to return to God's presence. Christ's atonement "makes up the difference", to coin a phrase. We are "saved" by the grace and power of Christ's atonement. There is a different phraseology used by the LDS faith and otheres as to what it means to be "saved". As far as what God has in mind for all of his children, please read Romans 8: 16-17.
The LDS faith is not "polytheisitc". We worship God the Eternal Father. We direct our prayers to him in His Son's name, Jesus Christ. That is "monotheism" defined. God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost being separate beings and members of the "Godhood" does not mean they are the "God's" that should be worshiped. Jesus laid the foundation when he organized his followers. He instructed them to pray to the Father in his name. All that we do should be done in the name of Jesus, directed to the glorification of our Father in Heaven.

(reset indent) According to Mormon Doctrine "there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus Gods." Joseph Smith: " "God himself, the Father of us all was once a man like us." (History of the Church). On salvation through Christ: "Believe in God, believe in Jesus, and believe in Joseph [Smith] his prophet, and Brigham his successor, and you shall be saved. No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith" (Brigham Young). Your comments are deliberate obfuscation. Also, the recent edits to the article, such as the extermination order, fail to mention the reason why it was issued, that Smith had raised a militia in Missouri that was attacking non-mormon settlers. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Origins of the church

Cut from intro;

, who claimed to have received a revelation of the Father -God-and his son, Jesus Christ 1820. Years later, he also claims to have recieved further instruction from the Angel Moroni

I see no need for jabs like this. Anyway, he started the church after a long and fruitless search for the "true" religion. --Ed Poor 13:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

It's not a "jab". Smith claimed he saw God and Jesus in 1820, and claims that three years later, he was visited by the angel Moroni who told him about the golden plates.--Epicurius 13:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the cut Ed. I totally agree. CrocoiteUser Talk:Crocoite 14:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

When I read this stuff, I thank god I'm an atheist.

Presentation of Mormons' relationship to Christianity

It seems to me a little tendentious to lead off with the opinions of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Courtesy seems to me to requires call for a short summary of the Mormons' position on this first. Then we can proceed to the views of the (relatively liberal) Methodists and the (relatively conservative) Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptists.

(And I have to wonder whether, in this matter, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod truly speaks for "the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States," but if they said it I guess we can quote it). Dpbsmith 19:08, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Word of Wisdom

The main article was changed to "Church members follow a law of health known as the Word of Wisdom that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, caffeine in general, and illegal drugs." Hoji reverted my edit added caffeine without removing coffee and tea, as all three are correct. All three are NOT correct. I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for over 30 years and I know that the Word of Wisdom does NOT include caffeine. Some Church members observe the practice of avoiding caffeine, but it is not Church doctrine. See this reference for the Church's official position.Obey the Word of Wisdom. Crocoite Talk Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 16:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

From my interactions with a Mormons (I live in an area with a large number of Mormons), I have always been told that caffeine is to be avoided, and drinks like Mountain Dew, Coke, Pepsi, etc. are out of the question. I am not a professional on the issue, though, and this was probably a community-specific regulation. You know more than I do about this, Crocoite, and I'll trust your judgement from now on. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 17:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the correction Hoji. I'm not a General Authority of the Church, but we can use the discussion page to clarify issues for the main article. Crocoite Talk 22:54, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
It has been suggested by Leaders of the LDS Church that caffeine should be avoided. Like people of all religions, different Mormons have interpreted those statements in different ways. Officially, (letter of the law kind of thing), Caffeine is not forbidden, and is technically not part of the Word of Wisdom. However, as it is a suggestion by LDS Church leaders, many (could I say most?) Mormons do not drink caffeine. Tirrian 18:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)


After reading this article, I would say a rewrite is in order. Geo.Complain! 16:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

this article says nothing about the schism. Geo.Complain! 16:37, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Agreed, a rewrite is in order. Rather than edit warring on the article, can we please draft up sections here on talk? File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Yeah! Someone finally says something intelligent. Geo.Complain! 19:17, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Page Improvement; Article Neutrality; Information Sources; Offensive Content

I am a lifelong member of the LDS church. I just found out about this website and was curious to see what the entry for my church looked like. Although I don't have time to do a complete rewrite, I do heartily agree that some serious work is needed, and I have spent a few minutes correcting some typos and trying to add some accurate information.

Although I understand that the creators of conservapedia apparently have some issue with Wikipedia, one aspect of that website I hope they (and its contributors) respect is Neutral Point of View. The accurate and unbiased description of a religion's beliefs should be allowed without disrespect and meanness. I may disagree with the beliefs of other religions, but I do not believe that gives me the right to mock or ridicule those beliefs simply because they are different than my own.

I caution the usage of and reference to "non-Mormon" websites as primary sources for explanations of LDS beliefs. Although they can be useful for comparisons of understanding and response, sole reliance on such sources can lead to the perpetuation of myths, increased misunderstanding, and outright prejudice. Often, the outside point-of-view can result in a description of beliefs so altered that even members of the church would not recognize it as their own. I have corrected several occurrences in this article, including the erroneous assertions that Mormons "do not believe in the diety of Christ" (?!) and that Mormons "believe in salvation through works". Where a group openly proclaims its beliefs, the honest scholar will allow the group to do so and may respond to them but will never misrepresent them.

The scriptural references I included are in no way an attempt to "prove" LDS beliefs, but rather are simply to indicate to the reader one of the sources of those beliefs, understanding that it is perfectly reasonable that one may have alternate beliefs or interpretations of the same.

Finally, although I understand the original author's intent to point the reader to both supporting and opposing views, I found the "Mormon" and "Anti-Mormon" subheadings under the External Links section to be quite offensive. If consistency is a desirable characteristic of conservapedia, this would necessitate adding an "Anti-Semitic" section to the Judaism article, which I (and I hope many others) would also find offensive. If a contributor would like to write an article about those who criticize the LDS church, or the criticism itself, then please take the time to do so, and provide a link to that page, and allow this page to be about the church itself.Doady 17:50, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Doady, I am a convert to the church and I don't like the tone of this article either. Your comments are like music to my ears. Keep in mind though, at Conservapedia, we don't try to take a NPOV. There will be articles from a Conservative POV. And Wikipedia doesn't really have a NPOV - they just advertise that. WP articles have a liberal bias that we don't allow here Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.
Unfortunately this article has been edited by anti-Mormons and it is difficult to accurately portray the church. I encourage you to continue your improvements to this article and others here. --Crocoite 18:25, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia smears the religious again

I am here because of wikipedia's prejudicial treatment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its members. Case in point is its article on Fawn Brodie, a woman who was the niece of one of the Church's presidents and yet still managed to apostatize and become one of the most embittered and destructive "anti-mormons" of all time. Simply put, wikipedia's article on her refers almost exclusively to another apostate in the citation of its sources, and has plenty of improvable comments that are derogatory toward Latter Day Saints. I have attempted several times to correct language in the article that I felt was unnecessarily negative or misleading. Every time I made a correction, even if it was nothing more than to clear up an obvious grammatical error, every single time the page was reverted back to its previous condition by the next day at the latest.

If wikipedia is going to present itself as an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, they ought not to shut down attempts by people like me to purge articles of bigotry and lies. I went so far as to make posts on the discussion page for the article, explaining my changes. One of the moderators claimed to sympathize and agreed that some of the wording was prejudicial sounding, but told me that my corrections were not good enough to stand as they were. I’m talking about correcting comments that did not have citations and therefore should have been afforded no more consideration than my corrections of them.

I have also stumbled upon two separate articles in wikipedia that contained nude photographs, and many more containing obscenities. It would not be hard to photoshop those photographs to the point that you could tell the person was nude but not have to see their privates. While it may not be possible to police the entire internet for pornography, surely a wikipedia page with its own moderator(s) could be bothered to keep their own page free of filth.

Consequently, I have independently come to the conclusion that wikipedia is not a quality encyclopedia, and that if you seek to remove anti-Christian bigotry from it, or have traditional American sensibilities, your voice doesn’t count.

Then I heard about conservapedia. I decided to check it out and find out if a Latter Day Saint could expect a fair shake here. I am glad to say that most of what I am seeing here about the Church and its members is fair and correct. In fact, my only complaint is that the articles are too short. That’s understandable given the relatively short time conservapedia’s been around. And at any rate it’s a far better option than moderator protected bigotry under the banner of a encyclopedia that you can edit.

This brings me to my last point. Since conservapedia is succeeding where wikipedia is cravenly failing, I decided to join. I intend to add my knowledge to it, particularly but not only in the areas of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I have one request: please be patient with me if my edits aren’t up to the standard. I am just starting out here and while I do not intend to break any posting rules, I can’t guarantee that in my rookie state I won’t overlook something. Thank you for your consideration.--ChetGustavson 16:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)


Right up until 1978 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints didn't allow black men in to the priesthood and it didn't allow black men and women to take part in the most important temple services. Even now the Church refuses to repudiate its racist past and has even been accused of trying to cover it up. Surely this is worth mentioning in the controversy section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RM (talk)

African Americans...

Claim is fully sourced. Please do not remove w/out discussion or a source for counter-claims. Aboganza 20:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Those sources do NOT support your claim. There are no references to specific verses in the Book of Mormon that substantiate your claim. In addition there is this quote:
In the twentieth century, various Church leaders continued to offer possible reasons why a race of people was prohibited from holding the priesthood. One explanation, carried over from the previous century, stated that blacks were descendants of Cain, the first murderer, and therefore were denied the priesthood because of lineage. Another theory held that blacks were less valiant in the premortal existence and therefore had certain spiritual restrictions placed upon them during mortality (132). Priesthood denial was perceived to be one of these spiritual restrictions. But by mid-century, President David O. McKay stated, "There is not now, and there never has been, a doctrine in this Church that the negroes are under a divine curse. . . . It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed".
Your edits are not fully sourced and have been reverted. --Crocoite 21:12, 25 February 2008 (EST)
(written before edit conflict)
Actually, it's not. There's nothing I can see in either source to say that the Book of Mormon was the basis for the ban on blacks being priests. But now that there are sources, I can alter it rather than simply delete it. You are welcome to alter it back if you can provide evidence of the Book of Mormon part of the claim (and a reference to just where in the Book of Mormon this is said would seem to be appropriate also). Philip J. Rayment 21:16, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I don't get it. Weren't blacks excluded from the Mormon priesthood in early times? If it wasn't a doctrine per se, then it was a policy anyway: whether official or unofficial.

The point is that the practice has ended because, as their leadership claims, God told revealed to them that the practice was wrong. --Ed Poor Talk 07:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Material added by Ultimahero

Ultimahero is an anti-Mormon who is adding a mixture of false, and true unsourced material to this article. Unless I see some sources for these edits, they will be deleted. --DeanStalk 09:01, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Which ones are false? I can source them all. Ultimahero 14:52, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

  1. Both Jesus and Lucifer offered a plan for salvation. (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)
  2. Many Gods. (Mormon Doctrine, page 163; Book of Abraham 4:3)
  3. The Father has a body of flesh and bones. (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 38.)
  4. Mother Goddess. (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 143; Mormon Doctrine, page 516.)
  5. God and Mary had relations to produce Jesus’ physical body. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, page 115; Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 547; Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18; First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, God the Father, compiled by Gordon Allred, page 150.)
  6. The Bible is corrupted. (8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church; 1 Nephi 13:28.)
  7. All other Christian denominations are apostate. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 1, pages 5-6; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, page 270; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 171, 1855; Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 167, 1858.)
  8. God resides near a star called Kolob. (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, page 428.)
  9. God used to be a man on another planet. (Mormon Doctrine, page 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, page 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 333.)
  10. God became a God. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345)
  11. Joseph Smith must approve of one for salvation. (Mormon Doctrine, page 670; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:289)
  12. Levels of Heaven. (Mormon Doctrine, page 348)
  13. Prophets are needed. (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, page 444-445.)

(I obtained all of the above sources from, and

I also removed a link to Mormon in the second paragraph, because the word “Mormon was referring to the Mormon people, and the link was to the Mormon Prophet. So the link made no sense.

The only thing I can’t source at this moment is about the fact that blacks were cursed for their neutrality. But give me some time and I’ll try to find it again. Ultimahero 15:32, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Start with these:
  • Positions of Various Christian Groups -> "They beleive that they must have Joseph Smith Jr.'s approval to get into heaven."
  • Positions of Various Christian Groups -> "They believe that God the Father had relations with Mary to produce Jesus' physical body."
  • African Americans and the Priesthood -> "Mormons used to believe that black skin was the result of a divine curse. According to Mormon Theology, those spirit children which did not side with Satan or God in the pre-existence, but instead decided to remain neutral, were cursed with black skin."
These are obvious false statements to me.
"A common anti-Mormon attack technique used by many conservative Protestants is to take a single past statement by a Mormon leader and treat it as a formal LDS doctrine that is binding on all LDS members today. In reality, there are many beliefs expressed by early LDS leaders that have been abandoned and are no longer recognized by the present-day church. Some, in fact, have never accepted as valid."
I'm also going to involve another administrator here, because I'm upset with your anti-Mormon edits. --DeanStalk 15:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

“They must have Joseph Smith’s approval to get into Heaven.” On October 9, 1859, Brigham Young said, "From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are -- I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent" (Journal of Discourses 7:289).

Young clearly taught that you must have the consent of Joseph Smith to get into Heaven. Now, whether or not the Mormon church still accepts this is a different issue, and if you can show me documentation where they have denied or denounced this teaching, then great. I’ll gladly concede it and withdraw that point. But the fact is that Brigham Young was one of the most influential leaders of the LDS, and I have provided documentation as to his teaching on it. It’s up to you to give documentation to the counter.

“They believe that God the Father had relations with Mary to produce Jesus’ physical body.” I’m aware that this is a debated issue within the Mormon church. But I gave sources on it being taught by: Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, as well as the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve. Again, whether the LDS church still holds to this is debatable. But it was officially taught by influential leaders in good standing with the church. So, again, provide me documentation that the church today denounces these things and I’ll be more than happy to remove them.

I already stated that I don’t have the documentation for the “blacks were neutral and were cursed with black skin.” I’ll try to find, but if you wish to remove it, then that’s fair enough for now. Although, just to note, I didn’t add the quote “Mormons used to believe that black skin was the result of a divine curse.” This was already there, I added the sentence following it.

Now, as far as “Anti-Mormon Sources”, that’s not true. Granted, those websites may not agree with Mormon theology, but they are simply quoting Mormon writers and prophets. The sources in question are the Mormon men who wrote these things. The websites merely provide the documentation. So, unless your own prophets and writing are “Anti-Mormon”, then they’re not Anti-Mormon sources.

They are valid references. They are things that were taught by the leaders and prophets in the Mormon church. Mormons believe that prophets are still around today and whatever they reveal is the word of God, just as legitimate as the official theology. Again, if the quotes in question have been denounced by modern prophets then that’s fine. Give mw documentation and I’ll gladly remove them.

I’m not making “Anti-Mormon” edits. I’m simply quoting Mormon leaders. But, fine. If you wish to involve another administrator, then by all means, please do. Ultimahero 16:27, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

  • (interrupting) You said, I’m not making “Anti-Mormon” edits. I’m simply quoting Mormon leaders. Neither is true. You are making primarily anti-Mormon edits. And you are not "simply quoting" but using old position statements as if they were still in force. The burden of proof is on you (not Dean) to show that any nasty-sounding information is true. Dean need not document a denunciation: on the contrary, you need to document an avowal. Failure to do so will result in reverted edits. --Ed Poor Talk 07:53, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
I agree with you that it's inaccurate for him to describe his edits as "non anti-Mormon". They are, but there's nothing wrong with that as long as they are true. I don't agree that the burden of proof is on Ultimahero to show that they are still in force. If Ultimahero has claimed that they were once the case, then the onus is on him to show that they were. If someone else claims that they no longer are, then the onus is on that person to show that they no longer are. To put it another way, if, hypothetically, President Bush says that Iran is evil and has never recanted that, then what evidence can be produced to show that he still believes that? If he's never recanted it, then that is actually a lack of evidence that he has recanted it, and nobody can cite a lack of evidence. Rather, if someone thing's that he's recanted it, then the onus is on that person to show that he has. Otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that it's still the case. Philip J. Rayment 11:08, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

While it is proper to bring up differences of opinion, as much as possible any discussion should be done with the utmost of respect realizing that this is a sensitive area and that good people can have differing points of view. Perhaps it would be appropriate to put together a small section touching upon various beliefs held by the Mormon Chuch during its journey, but also acknowledging that the same beliefs are not held today (where that is true) and keeping the focus on the beliefs of the Mormon Church as they currently stand. Learn together 04:17, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, and this will be a lot of work, but to be a trustworthy source of information on the LDS church, we'll have to do just that. In addition, if there are modern controversies about what the historical beliefs and practices were, then we might do well to adopt the NPOV policy of another (larger) online encyclopedia.
This will require supporters and opponents both to tone down their combative rhetoric; I'm not saying that either side has been more hostile than the other; both sides need to be sympathetic to the other for the process to work. Both sides need to be open to allowing the opposing side to make its case or present its views.
I've had a lot of contact with Mormon missionaries throughout my life and have always found them sincere and forthright in explaining their beliefs. Whether I agree with those beliefs or not, I feel it's important for me to learn what those beliefs are; even more valuable to understand why they hold those beliefs and how those beliefs affect their lives. --Ed Poor Talk 07:47, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

No, my edits are not “Anti-Mormon”. I’m quoting Mormon prophets and presenting what they taught. I’m simply quoting men like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith (All Presidents of the Mormon Church) as well as many other Mormons in good standing with the LDS church. I’m not adding anything to there quotes, nor attempting to establish new doctrine based on them. I’m not insulting Mormons or calling them names. I’m just quoting them. So unless those men (Smith, Young, etc.) are anti-Mormon, then my edits cannot be anti-Mormon, because it’s coming from their mouths. If someone were to come to me and say, “Well, Jesus taught ‘X’,” I would not call that anti-Christian. That’s just reiterating what the beliefs are.

And I have given ample documentation as to these teachings. I didn’t just make baseless claims, I backed them up. Now if these teaching were denounced, then please provide my the documentation and show me. I’m not aware of any retraction by the LDS church on these issues. But I’m certainly eager to learn. If there is something there, show me. We do know that the Mormons have changed positions over the years. They once taught polygamy, now they don’t. So maybe they have changed here as well. But you have to understand that it is now up to you to provide documentation to the counter. I adequately demonstrated how these doctrines exist, so must show if there has been some change on these positions.

I have no doubt in my mind that Mormon's sincerely believe what they do. I have no doubt that there are numerous Mormons who are genuinly good, in a human sense of the word. And I in no way am trying to be confrontational or argumentitive. I am merely trying to adding things in that Mormons have beleived historically, and to factually contribute. Ultimahero 15:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I readded my material about the differeces in beleives. If there is documentation that these positions are no longer held, I'll be more than happy to withdraw them. Otherewisw, it seems unfair to leave them out when I can show that they have been taught. Ultimahero 23:59, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the way you have presented information. For instance the additional information on what Mormons believe, if I understand it correctly, comes from beliefnet, a site that is not Mormon. There may be further explanation of the Mormon religion that is not included. And while I can understand that you weren't pleased that your original work was simply removed, you should also be respectful of the fact that Dean is an elder in the Mormon Church, and as such, is intimately knowledgable of current Mormon teachings and beliefs. Learn together 12:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

"Beliefnet"? I don't know what that is, and certainly didn't use it for my material. Now, I quoted Mormon leaders on their positions.(Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc.) So these men would certainly know what Mormoln doctrine is. Now, as I've said, there may indeed be furtehr explanation that is left out. But it is now up to the objector to provide the evidence that these things aren't taught. It makes no sense to leave my material out based on the fact that it's "possible" that counter-material exists somewhere. If it's there, show me, and I'll be gladly agree that it gets taken out. But you must show me first. And I do respect that DeanS has been in the church a long time. But that doesn't mean that he knows more than anyone else about it. There are many people who don't know what they beleive. (I'm not saying that this necessarily applies to Dean, just that it's generally true.) So if he or you or anoyone can document these things not being taught, then fine. Otherwise you have no leg to stand on. Ultimahero 14:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

References shouldn't just be on the talk page. I want to see you incorporate the reference information that you have here, including any quotes, into reference forms on the article. I see predated you. Not having followed this article, I was unaware of that. Since there were no references on the main page and that was the last source quoted, I assumed that was your source. As far as Dean not knowing what his church teaches, please. I don't know whether or not you are religious yourself, but I am a regular church attender and it would be very difficult for me not to know what my church teaches when I hear sermons week in and week out. If Dean says that is a misrepresentation of Mormon belief, then what he says the Mormon Church believes will be included into the article as well. And don't tell me that he doesn't know any better. If he has been an active member for many years and never heard these things, then it's not something they actively believe or else he would have heard it. I would imagine the truth will fall somewhere in the middle. Learn together 17:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
L.T., many "anti-cult" advocates will claim that a church they hate lets most members believe one thing while having stronger teachings for the more deeply initiated. You don't get to hear about the stronger more "authentic" teachings until you get into some sort of inner circle. They seem to think this is common knowledge and that the burden of proof is on the church to demonstrate that they don't "keep two sets of books" theologically. This is nonsense and won't be tolerated here.
I'll say this one last time, and those who refuse to accept it can just go join another project: we trust Dean to tell us what his church teaches. The burden of proof is on non-Conservapedians (such as our recent visitor U.H.) to prove that obscure or outdated teachings are current and valid. One more word out of line and he's gone - I have no more time for this nonsense. --Ed Poor Talk 18:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure he's making that insinutation Ed, but certainly in either case as an elder Dean would be "in the know". I am also aware that sometimes churches, especially in their early history, can go through change. We shouldn't ignore Mormon history, but we also shouldn't force that to be current Mormon view when the present might be quite different. And of course, any discussion that takes place here should be held with respect for those who follow this belief whether or not the people stating their views are Mormons or not. Learn together 19:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I specifically said that I wasn’t necessarily implying that Dean didn’t know what he was talking about. It’s just that in general a lot of religious folks don’t know what they believe. (If you keep up with things and study as you’re supposed to, then you probably will be well learned. But most people don’t read their Bibles like they should, which leads to ignorant church members, and this is what I was getting at.) Also, an individual church might teach many things that go against the mainstream denomination. So it just depends. Ultimately, I’m not saying that Dean knows everything or nothing. I don’t know what his knowledge level is. I’m not commenting on that. Again, Dean, or anyone saying this isn’t Mormon belief, needs to give adequate source material to support that claim. Someone whose been in the Mormon church before could say that Mormonism teaches that God is a purple unicorn, and we would not accept this based solely on the fact that the said individual attends an LDS church. (I know that’s a ridiculous example, I’m just trying to demonstrate the point by exaggerating to an extreme.) I don’t doubt for one second that Dean is an intelligent, honest man. But he stills needs to source the info, like the rest of us do.

I don’t “hate” the Mormons or their church, Ed Poor. I do indeed think that Mormonism is a false religious system, yes. But I don’t hate them. Most Mormons that I’ve met are genuinely nice folks. It’s just their theology that I have a problem with. Next, I’m not a “recent” visitor. I’ve been here contributing for many months now. Now I have shown that Mormons have taught this in the past. I’ve well documented it. Is it still taught? I don’t know of any current Mormons leadership which has disavowed the teaching or said that they now don’t follow it. (Which they have done in the past on other issues, so I’m assuming that they’ll be consistent.) Finally, I didn’t know that I was “out of line”. I’m just providing material that is factual, as far as I know. If anyone can show me to the contrary, I will support it being taken out. I’m not sure what you want. I’m not trying to be rude or call names, and I’m being as factual as I can. So I don’t know what else can reasonably be expected of me.

Learn Together, I certainly hope that I have not given the impression of disrespect towards Mormons. I’m not at all trying to disrespect them, and hope I haven’t come across that way. I simply am presenting things that are historically true. If they aren’t currently taught, then I would think that certainly some church council or Mormon President would be available somewhere that has denounced them. I just haven’t seen any of that, so I can’t assume that they have. Ultimahero 23:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

You show disrespect toward Mormons when you assume that old teachings are current. You have proof that LDS used to teach or practice certain things. You offer no proof that they still do. You merely argue that the existence of old stuff should be taken as evidence of its currency. That is not a trustworthy argument.
On the contrary, if the old stuff is current, it should be very easy to show that it is. Your refusal to make any effort to do so, combined with your repeated argument of having no need to do so, disqualifies you as a writer on this topic.
You are hereby banned from this article and this discussion page. You may bring up issues related to LDS on any other talk page where it has already been addressed. I value you as a writer, but not on this issue, until you agree to adhere to my concept of burden of proof. --Ed Poor Talk 08:57, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
He has provided "proof." the question is whether things have changed. It is logical to assume that they have not, unless there is proof of a change. How is he supposed to prove that it hasn't changed. If there is nothing to say that it has, then he will not have anything to find, and you will continue to say that he has no proof. The burden of proof here lies with those who are trying to prove that it has changed. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 09:16, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
Ok, I think it's pretty evident that you can't ask someone for evidence that something hasn't changed as a criteria to accept their initial evidence. That was a bit silly. I don't think we should just sweep away the information provided, but I do think we should use our own resources to help us construct the article in a way that is true to both the history and the current philosophy of the beliefs of the Mormon Church. I believe we want the article to read in a respectful fashion and where there are differences between traditional Christianity and Mormon beliefs, these differences should be presented in a non-judgmental way. Hopefully we can all agree on this. Learn together 20:49, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
That is a wonderful sentiment Learn Together. Striving for an article that addresses religious topics in a respectful fashion where the differences between Christian and whatever that other religion are is treated in a non-judgmental way would go a long ways to increasing the reputability of Conservapedia. Is there any chance that atheism and agnosticism could be unlocked? --Rutm 14:30, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Editorial standards

My position (as a site administrator) is that a member in good standing of a major religion should be trusted as to what its current teachings are. If there is a dispute between church critics and church members about "what is currently taught", then I say we have to go with what Dean (aka Crocoite) has said - whatever it is; I'm not going into detail right now, but I will if need be.

I have no doubt that early Mormon doctrine and practices involve a significant number of things that most modern Christians would repudiate. Polygamy is the most obvious one; race discrimination against blacks is also important. If Dean says LDS no longer accept these, that's good enough for me. Same for any other point unless clear proof is shown that contradicts what Dean has reported.

I intend to truncate the article severely, removing any disputed information. The burden of proof is "ultimately" on church detractors (pun intended). We simply cannot assume that a position taken several decades ago is still maintained.

Scientific theories change. It was not much longer ago than the early days of LDS that biologists and doctors believed all sorts of crazy things about infection. The germ theory of disease is less than a century and a half old. There is plate tectonics to explain continental drift, and all sorts of new ideas in physics.

Although some churches keep their theology static, others do indeed change. I trust contributor Dean to report these changes faithfully. We are all about trust here, and if anyone is going to contradict a sysop speaking about his own church, he'd better bring solid proof. --Ed Poor Talk 15:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

You may trust a member of the church, but I don't think that as an encyclopedia, we should just take someone’s word. I'm not saying that Dean is untrustworthy, but rather that we need documentation to whatever is put in. To remove material without sourcing it would be a "poor" (see, I can be clever, too) way to do things.
The fact is I have given sufficient documentation on the what is taught. Unless someone can give documentation to the counter, then the facts should remain. Polygamy is a great example. You said that the LDS church once taught it, and now doesn't. That's true. And it can be well documented that they stopped this practice and disavowed the teaching. So why can’t someone give sources on all these other facts, if they are no longer taught? The burden of proof is on the person saying that something has changed. It's not on me to show it's remained the same. Ho do you prove that things haven't changed? If they haven't changed, then by definition there would be no new info to cite. But if it has changed, then there should be things to point to and source.
I don't distrust Dean. But you don't simply trust an encyclopedia just because it says something. You expect it to back it's claims up with documentation and sources. If it doesn't, then it's worthless. Ultimahero 16:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
"... a member in good standing of a major religion should be trusted as to what its current teachings are.": I believe that this is assuming too much. I couldn't tell you all the details of my denomination's official stances on things, and I'm quite sure that my minister would have different views that the denomination on some points, so I wouldn't expect to learn all those positions from his preaching.
"We simply cannot assume that a position taken several decades ago is still maintained.": Neither can we assume that it's changed. In fact, if it was said last week, we can't assume that it's still maintained this week! But in both cases, the onus is on the person claiming that it's change to show that.
Philip J. Rayment 10:09, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Non-encyclopedic Material Here

It's inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not "Christian", and the entire provocateur-like section here is going to be deleted. There are obvious reasons for this, but I'll give just one reason: it leads to bigotry against a group of people.

This is a fair warning to provide some time for discussion before the deletion occurs. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:12, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

As far as my knowledge goes, the page never claims that Mormon are or are not Christians. I could be wrong, but I don’t see that anywhere. There is a section on what positions various Christian denominations hold. Also, there's a section claiming, "Mormon beliefs that are different from traditional Christianity”, and it goes on to list the differences. But all of these things are factual and can be sourced. I understand that it doesn’t make everyone feel good, but are we not allowed to talk about things that are true just because they might upset someone? Ultimahero 23:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Why is it inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not Christian? Surely if it is not Christian, it is correct and proper to say so? And how is it okay to say this of an individual (such as Barack Obama) but not of a church?
Further, why does it necessarily lead to bigotry? It's possible to respectfully disagree with Islam, Hinduism, atheism, etc., without being bigots, so why not with Mormonism?
On many of the pages that I tend to frequent, to do with the creation/evolution issue, editors put in pro-evolutionary/anti-creationary material, and as long as it's factual and civil, I let it stand and point out the problems, rather than censor it by removing it. Why can't this article be handled in the same way?
Philip J. Rayment 23:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Andy, I would like to ask you to reconsider. If there is some way in which the information needs to be rewritten in order to be respectful to the Mormon Church then I say we do that. I also do not believe we should take a position on what is right or wrong, but simply present factual differences. But since above all else we endeavor to show truth, then I don't believe simply removing the knowledge of differences is the way we should go. Thank you Learn together 00:01, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
I disagree, I believe that we need to take a stand for what is right. As for the issue of whether or not the Mormon church is Christian, read Galatians 1:8-9. I cannot agree with calling a church "Christian" if they add to the Gospel. As for the material, If it is factual, it should stay. I don't think that it is disrespectful to Mormons. The info is MUCH more accurate and encyclopedic than a large portion of the Barck Obama article. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 10:29, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I've read the above comments, but there's no getting around the fact that describing an entire church as "non-Christian" is inappropriate for this type of site. Such claims lead to contradictions, falsehoods, bias, and invite ulterior motives (like people who have axes to grind against a particular church). At a minimum, Christianity is a personal choice and it is inappropriate to attempt to label a large group of people as "non-Christian" unless they describe themselves that way or it is undisputed.

That said, the sincerity of a particular politician's claim (like Obama's claim) about his own beliefs should be questioned, particularly when the evidence is abundant that his claim is self-serving and contradicted by other evidence.

So the bottom line is don't rant and rave here about how you don't think someone else's church is Christian. I'm sure we could find other people wanting to rant and rave against your church in the same way, and we're not going down that slippery and destructive slope.--Aschlafly 13:39, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Again, though, I don't know of anywhere that the article makes the implicit claim that "Mormons aren't Christians". It just shows differences between the LDS church and Christianity. All are sourced facts. What's wrong with fact? Ultimahero 13:44, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Claims by outsiders about a church's doctrine are inherently unreliable. The statements in the entry are not from the Mormon Church itself and were probably developed or promoted by someone who dislikes that church for some emotional or perhaps even closeminded reason. We're not going to allow such an inherently unreliable approach to be taken here. Find a Mormon Church leader to tell us what its doctrine is, if that's what you want. But you haven't done that, and I doubt you will.--Aschlafly 14:04, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't mean to be offensive when I say this, but you didn't read the previous discussions on this talk page, did you? I never cited a bunch of non-Mormons as to what the LDS church believes. I quoted Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith, (all Mormon Presidents) as well as other Mormons in good standing with their church. I've given documentation about what these men believe from their own mouths. They are the ones making the claims about their doctrines and theology. So, unless Mormon leaders are an unreliable source for Mormon doctrine, then I think that they should suffice. Ultimahero 14:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

This issue has become muddled. It appears that the following has occurred:
  1. Ultimahero created a debate page "Debate: Are Mormons Christians?", and argued for the affirmative. An hour later Ultimahero was blocked for "violat[ing the] 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk" and the debate was deleted on the grounds that it was "posted by account that has been blocked, no other debaters". The debate was recreated by other editors (which, if nothing else, showed that others did want to debate it) and several times, and deleted again each time for various reasons (including that it was "non-encyclopedic", which is odd given that all Conservapedia debates are "non-encyclopedic" by virtue of them being debates, which encyclopedias don't have).
  2. Ultimahero then started editing this article, but made no claim that Mormonism was not Christian.
  3. Skipping various other discussions, Andy then claims that "It's inappropriate to present claims that a particular church is or is not "Christian", despite this not being what Ultimahero had done in this article.
  4. While Ultimahero addresses the point that the article doesn't claim that Mormonism is not Christian, three administrators disagree that it's wrong in principle to claim that a given body is not Christian. That's not to say that it's not Christian. In order to decide that, one needs to determine what "Christian" means. It's clear that Mormonism is not an Islamic cult, nor a Hindu cult, and arguably it is a Christian cult. So really, whether it is Christian or not is not the issue. The issue is whether that question can even be discussed.
So we have two distinct issues being mixed up here. Now, on to specific responses to Andy's comments:
"it is inappropriate to attempt to label a large group of people as "non-Christian" unless they describe themselves that way or it is undisputed": I don't think anybody is suggesting labelling the individuals in the religion as non-Christian, but (potentially) labelling the religion itself as non-Christian. Are you happy to label the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and the Ku Klux Klan as "Christian"?
"...a ... politician's claim ... about his own beliefs should be questioned, particularly when the evidence is abundant that his claim is self-serving and contradicted by other evidence.": If the evidence about a religion is abundant and self-serving and contradicted by other evidence, why should the same not apply to an organisation?
"...don't rant and rave here...": Excuse me? Are you accusing three of your administrators of "ranting and raving"? (I'm not counting Ultimahero, because he wasn't arguing that point.) Rather, we are making reasoned arguments, and getting an insult in return.
"I'm sure we could find other people wanting to rant and rave against your church in the same way, and we're not going down that slippery and destructive slope.": As I've already pointed out, people already do criticise my beliefs (including "ranting and raving"), and I respond with reasoned arguments, not censorship. Why is this particular belief protected?
Philip J. Rayment 10:12, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Just as a side note, the page on Jehovah's Witnesses says this:

"They use the Bible as their holy book, including the New Testament, but draw conclusions that do not match mainstream Christian thought, including denying the Trinity and denying the divinity of Christ".

So, why is it okay to make the claim that the Jehovah's Witnesses are considerably different than mainstream Christianity (which is substantiated by showing their denial of the Trinity and the deity of Christ), but it's not okay to make the same claim about the LDS church, even though they would deny both the Trinity and the deity of Christ as well? (Mormons would say that they affirm those beliefs, but they define both differently and actually hold views that are indeed against mainstream, historical, orthodox Christianity.) Ultimahero 13:43, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Ultimahero has done nothing to deserve being blocked. He is not in violation of the 90/10 rule, and has violated no other rule. He should be unblocked. As for his position, there is nothing wrong with it, and I agree with him. If you are going to block him for it, (even though we do not block ideologically) you may as well block me too. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 15:16, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

If that is not encyclopedic, then much of the Barack Obama article is worse. Should I go clean it up? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 10:21, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

No, Obama is attempting to President and acquire power over all Americans. What he says, what he believes, and if and how he lies to advance his goals are relevant and should not be deleted.--Aschlafly 10:30, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
So factual information about the mormon church is irrelevant because it might be offensive to some people, but extremely questionable material is Ok in the Obama article because he is running for president? That doesn't make sense. If Mormons are just Christians like everyone else, then why do they try to convert us? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 10:55, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Yes, Tim, we should clean up the Barack Obama article. After all, he's only trying to be the President of America and have power over living Americans for four to eight years, whereas the Mormon church is trying to be the presiding world religion and have power over all living and dead humans for all of history. (That may be a rather loose description, but no looser than the claim about Obama.) Philip J. Rayment 11:35, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Stating what the differences are between two groups is not "bashing" them. There is such a hypocrisy here. Like it has been mentioned before, we can leave everything in on the Barack Obama page, even though there's a lot of questionable material there, but this page, which is factual and has been sourced, can't remain because it's "bashing"? Well anytime you make a comment that isn't flattering it could be called "bashing". (Even if the statement’s true.) This is simply taking facts out because someone doesn’t like them. That’s all this amounts to. Ultimahero 14:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Comparison with the mainstream

Churches like JW and LDS are on the outskirts of traditional American Christianity. Certainly a large proportion of American Christians consider them non-Christian due to theological differences over the Trinity and so forth. It is against site policy to directly label them "non-Christian", though, so let us as writers working under a common leader agree how to collaborate.

I suggest we continue to categorize Mormons in the Category:Christian Denominations while courteously informing our readers of any documented disputes over whether LDS is Christian or not. The point is not to hide the dispute, but to refrain from "pointing a provocative finger". --Ed Poor Talk 15:26, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

If the information that shows the differences between the Mormon faith and traditional Christianity is to be removed, then how will our readers know that there is a difference at all? Say there's a difference but not be allowed to say what it is? Learn together 22:23, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
How much doctrinal difference is allowed from traditional Christianity before a denomination is considered a sect, a heresy, or *shudder* a cult? And who decides? --Ed Poor Talk 22:33, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Let me start by saying are you aware you changed the subject? I was not asking for any classification of what is a cult and who decides, only the right to be allowed to bring up differences from traditional Christianity without judgement. That being said, generally the doctrine of the trinity is considered to be a core doctrine. Christ as fully God and fully man dying for the sins of the world and through His sacrifice all can be saved. Learn together 01:21, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Whilst Conservapedia might not want to take a position by labelling them as "non-Christian", how is labelling them "Christian" any more acceptable? That's still taking a position, and one that many Conservapedia supporters find objectionable.

"Cult" has a pretty-clear definition, so to suggest that it is hard to determine if a group is a cult is incorrect. I see that our article on that needs some work, though.

Philip J. Rayment 04:23, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't believe we should take a stand either way. Conservapedia is a resource for all conservatives, and Mormons as a group are very conservative. The difficulty, of course, is that many other conservatives do not have the same view as Mormons do in regard to their relationship with Christianity. I believe we should allow the differences to speak for themselves, but do not apply labels declaring one way or the other what category the Mormon faith should fall into. I don't see that as being our place. Learn together 01:01, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only that, but the Bible itself makes it very clear that there are certain things one must believe in order to be a Christian. (The deity of Christ, His physical resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, etc.) Cultic groups and non-Christian churches will deny these teachings. Ultimahero 17:32, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

The Controversial Material

Look, I understand that this stuff creates a lot of controversy. But, the fact is I can source all of these things from Mormon leaders themselves. No, if can find me a source to the counter, then that's fine. But if you can't, then you have no leg to stand on. Simply removing it because it hurts somebody’s feelings is a poor excuse to make those edits. Prove the point, or let it go. Ultimahero 15:07, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I understand your frustration, but we don't edit war here. While I would like to see your information reinstated and looked at in more detail by those who have more intimate knowledge of the Mormon faith, you must also understand that it's not vandalism to remove it and it wasn't wise to put that in the title line. Learn together 16:11, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Oh, but it was vandalism. Lets be honest here. If I went to another page, lets say the Atheism page or something on Liberals, and I went to a section that was completely factual, fully sourced and perfectly relevant, and I just removed it without any good basis. What would that be called? Vandalism! So of course it was vandalism if it’s done here. Oh, but I forgot, we don’t look at it that way. Vandalism is not based on what is done, rather who does it. If someone else removes perfectly factual, relevant, and sourced material, it’s vandalism. But if an admin does it, then it’s “constructive editing”. Ultimahero 15:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Once again, a wonderful sentiment. Could you please unlock the atheism page? Apparently, finding quotes of various historic figures and attributing them to the entirety of a group is not appropriate. Likewise, contributions from someone who is familiar with the subject matter rather than someone who has an axe to grind (so to speak) would go a long ways to moving articles from being hatchet jobs (pun intended) to something isn't completely one sided. Above, there was the comment of "Claims by outsiders about a church's doctrine are inherently unreliable," - that is assuming, of course, that atheism is a religion. I understand that Conservapeida wishes to be a source of knowledge, but when articles are so one obviously one sided it leaves people looking for information other sites that may not be in agreement with Conservapedia. --Rutm 16:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Unless the sysop who protected the article is no longer available, only that sysop can unlock it. You'll have to bring it up with him. Learn together 03:08, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Ultimahero, it is obvious to me that you have an ax to grind against the Mormon Church. Why aren't you ranting and raving about how the Democratic Party once supported slavery for blacks? No, you've singled out the Mormon Church without explanation or justification. It's not doing you any good and it's not fair to treat one entity in such a blatantly one-sided manner. Give it a rest and ask yourself why you don't complain in a similar manner about the Democratic Party and countless other institutions. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:42, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

He wasn't ranting and raving. Again I point out that if it's not fair to "treat one entity in such a blatantly one-sided manner", why are so many entities, such as Barack Obama, treated in such a blatantly one-sided manner? Philip J. Rayment 09:28, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy, no offense, but when you say things like that you show your utter ignorance on the subject. I have an “ax to grind against the Mormon church”? I’ve “singled out the Mormon church without explanation or justification”? Really? That’s come as news to me. Makes me wonder why I spent all that time debating Atheists, homosexuals, people who doubt the Bible, Liberals, etc. I‘ve also been debating about the Roman Catholic Church while working on this page. (Just check my edit history.) Seems to me that my interest is debating anyone who isn’t Christian. So please don’t make claims that demonstrate that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Ultimahero 15:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

The removed link

I'm sure that someone will ask why I removed the link about "Why Protestants agree with Mormons", so I'll quickly explain. The link in question did a very poor job of relating the two theologies, and quite frankly, misrepresented and misunderstood Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ. It's one thing for Mormons to try to show the parallels between themselves and Christians, but we shouldn't misrepresent one another. I do not agree with LDS teachings, but I certainly would not wish to present incorrect info about them. So I simply do not wish for the Christian side to be misunderstood with that link in question. JimmyP 23:59, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

You say the link "misrepresented and misunderstood Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ" but you don't say how it does that. Please explain. --DeanStalk 12:41, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
Please use the talk page and wait for the reply before removing an important information. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:21, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

What? No one has objected. I would be more than happy to talk with anyone about it, but no one has said anything. What's wrong with making a change then letting discussion take place if it is necessary? There may be no need for discussion on this, so I see no reason to sit back and wait. JimmyP 12:25, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

What does that link have to do with anything? It links to a site about credit card debt. Ultimahero 15:12, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

First off, I think that it needs to be pointed out that there is nothing wrong with putting up an article that attempts to defend the LDS doctrines. However, it should seek to try and properly explain Protestant beliefs. This article makes several mistakes and misrepresents Protestant theology in many ways. (I ’m not saying that it was in a dishonest way; perhaps it was a mere misunderstanding on the authors part. Nevertheless, there are points that are claimed to be Protestant thought that simply aren’t.

Probably the biggest problem comes under the section “God has a physical body”. Contained within are several misconceptions about the trinity. It states that the Trinity is “three beings of one substance”. This is a glaring error. Trinitarians do not believe that God is three beings. We believe that God is one in being and that within that one being there are three persons. One being, three persons. The distinction is the difference between being and person. A being is what makes something what it is, whereas a person is what makes someone who they are. Everything has being. God is one in being. There is one substance or essence that is the being of God. But that essence is shared by three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Essentially there is one “what” and three “who’s”. So for the author to say that we believe in a God with “three beings” is incorrect.

Following this in the same section is the idea that because Jesus took on physical flesh, that the Father must also have physical flesh as well. The problem is that the Trinity doesn’t work that way. The Father, Son, and Spirit all share one spiritual being. But that doesn’t mean that if one does something then the other two are required to do it as well. Just because the Son took on human flesh doesn’t mean that the Father had to. Trinitarians do not believe that because we see the distinction in the personhood of the Father and the Son. (Note that I said the distinction in personhood, not being.) Following the logic that the author presents, then if the Son were crucified on the cross, then that would mean that the Father was as well. But such is not a Trinitarian idea in the slightest.

In the section “God is a Man”, the Trinity is once again misunderstood and misrepresented. The author claims that because Jesus was born on earth with a physical body then the Trinity would necessitate that the Father be born with one as well. Again I would point out that Trinitarians do not believe that just because the Son does something then the Father would have to do it as well. But secondly, and more importantly, LDS teachings are that the Father was originally a man and that He was exalted to godhood. He was a man who became God. But Protestants believe that God has always been God for all of eternity. The Father never was a man and never will become a man. (In the Protestant view, at least.) And when the Bible uses the term “Father” of the Father God it is referring to either Him in His creator role or to His role as our adoptive Father. (Per Romans 8:15).

Now certainly Protestants and LDS would disagree on a great many of things. But if we wish to have a meaningful dialogue, then we must do our best to represent each other accurately. It is perfectly fine to link to a defense of LDS teachings, but preferably not one that so utterly misrepresents the historical beliefs of Protestants. The Trinity was the major issue at hand here, although to be honest there were many other glaring errors on the authors part. But, to cut to the chase, because Protestant theology has been misrepresented in this way I humbly suggest that the link be removed. Thank you. Ultimahero 07:01, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Ultima, thank you for your refreshing, sincere, and comprehensive analysis. You have clearly brought out the contrast between what Mormons and Trinitarians believe. Dean and I will incorporate these ideas into the article. --Ed Poor Talk 07:09, 27 November 2008 (EST)
  • Or you can go ahead and do it, since I'm dawdling so. --Ed Poor Talk 12:40, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Thank you. I will removed the link then. Ultimahero 13:54, 28 November 2008 (EST)

No, I didn't say you should remove the link. Didn't you notice that I moved it apart from the other links and labeled it controversial? Put it back, and do what I said. --Ed Poor Talk 09:12, 29 November 2008 (EST)
Ed I'm not sure what you want here either. He's pointed out that the link misrepresents the view of the Trinity in traditional Christianity. Are you telling him that he should write a section that discusses the differences between traditional Christianity and the Mormon faith on the concept of the Trinity? Thanks Learn together 13:07, 29 November 2008 (EST)
Yes, L.T. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Black dots on a white screen are a severely limited communications format.
I want the article to compare and contrast LDS theology with traditional Christian theology, particularly on the Trinity. --Ed Poor Talk 13:51, 29 November 2008 (EST)

So I originally suggested that the link be removed entirely. I wrote out the explanation above and then explicitly asked that we take down that link. When Ed Poor came along and seemed to approve, I figured he was approving of my suggestion for removal so that's why I took it out. Simply a miscommunication.

Now, I think that there is a bit of a misunderstanding as to what I was saying. There is nothing wrong with the LDS church attempting to defend their beliefs. That's perfectly fine. There are several other links on this page that do just that, and I have no problems with those. What I do have a problem with is the link in question. Not because it is trying to defend Mormonism, but rather because it is misrepresenting Protestantism while doing so. The assertions made about the Trinity are simply misleading and often very basic errors. (I should point out that there are multiple other mistakes as well, such as the views presented on the trustworthiness of Scripture, the historicity of the Reformation, Jesus and Satan being brothers, etc. But the Trinity was the most obvious and therefore the easiest to utilize in discussion.) I was never arguing that we should incorporate a distinction between Trinitarian and LDS theology (although that's a very good idea). I was simply saying that the link should be removed altogether because it is quite honestly a bad link. Anyone who goes there looking for solid information will not benefit in the slightest.

Consider the implications here for both sides on this particular discussion. For the Protestant, he will see the information that is being presented there and be as dumbfounded as I was. All it will do is cause him to question both the knowledge and the integrity of the author, and because she has purported herself as a representative of the LDS faith, the Mormon church will be viewed with the same degree of doubt. For the Mormon, he will see it and gain a flawed understanding of the Trinity as well as many other Protestant doctrines. Now that’s fine if he is merely going to go to church on Sundays and not worrying about his faith anywhere else. But if he chooses to honor his faith as he believe that he is commanded to do by the spreading the message of his church, then he will be forced to at some point engage with Protestants who know what true Trinitarian belief is. This view of the Trinity can’t stand up against even a basic understanding of Protestants views of Scripture, history, and the like. If this is what young LDS missionaries are taking to the mission fields, then there will be very few Protestants who are converted by this level of misunderstanding.

Therefore, I believe that both sides can see the harm in leaving such an article up as if it were a knowledgeable representation of the facts. In the spirit of respect for one another, I would ask that the link be removed altogether. But, because I do not wish to be accused of any impropriety, I will not do it myself and will leave it for another. Ultimahero 12:53, 30 November 2008 (EST)

This makes good sense. While we respect the positions of different religious beliefs, it is certainly not our policy to put links that given incorrect information about another religious view. We need to maintain accuracy. Learn together 13:29, 30 November 2008 (EST)
I removed the link and added an appropriate edit comment. --DeanStalk 15:35, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Controversy as Christians?

There is a section devoted to whether or not Mormons are Christians. However, this issue is not actually adressed in the section. Where is the controversy? Don't they have the words "Church of Jesus Christ" in their name? Oh, wait. That is their name. Where's the controversy?

That the reference to the controversy has been removed does not mean that it does not exist. And I take it you are not being serious with the name, as if names are voted upon by the greater community for inclusion. If you truly believe a name defines an entity, then you may wish to move to a different Democratic nation -- such as North Korea. While it is not the place of this site to say who is right, that there is a controversy is not a matter of debate. Learn together 13:20, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
Should we make a chart, showing which major churches have branded other churches as being "non-Christian"? --Ed Poor Talk 18:06, 6 December 2008 (EST)

History Section

I started a history section, although it's all about Utah, as the bit about the Church before Utah is in the introduction. I'd like to turn it into a larger history section, hopefully going from the founding up to present day. I'm happy to write about the period from 1847-1890, I'm working off a paper I wrote in college about the "Mormon War" of 1857. My knowledge of the history of the church basically stops with the leaders finally coming out of hiding from federal marshals and issuing the "Manifesto," as this ended the federal government's fight with the Church.

So, I have two requests:

1.) Could someone help out with the history after 1890?

2.) I'm planning on moving the historical bit down from the introduction and into a history section. Could someone suggest an alternate introduction? Or would it be ok to say the same information twice?

I'm also going to source all the facts I put in the section, but it's 12:10 and time for bed now. ArnoldFriend 00:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Removing Section on Splinter Groups

Hey, I'm just curious why the section mentioning the splinter sects was removed. I realize they're not the official church, and hotly denounced by the official church (I was raised Mormon). Wouldn't it be a valuable source to people to be aware of these splinter groups and their relation to the main church in the main article? There are many misconceptions about the LDS church which that could help clarify. Many people think the splinter groups are directly part of the mainstream LDS church. PeytonJ 14:08, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Links to splinter groups sounds like a good idea. --Ed Poor Talk 14:46, 8 December 2008 (EST)
An unauthorized group is exactly that. It deserves no credibility, and has no connection with, the main group. An entry on an unauthorized group, but there is no reason to connect it with a group that disavows it. Make sense?--Aschlafly 15:04, 8 December 2008 (EST)
What you say makes sense, but I disagree. Explaining the lack of connection is important to make the existence of splinter groups known so that they are -not- confused with the real thing. As is it leaves the interpretation very open to error. PeytonJ 15:16, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I agree. --Ben Talk 15:08, 8 December 2008 (EST)

The only "connection" I had in mind is the sectarian one. If a tiny group splits off from its main body, they would no longer be related, of course. But perhaps if we make a detailed enough history of the LDS, we might mention some of its offshoots - taking pains to describe how the sects differ from the mainstream.
I would hesitate to do this, if it would backfire editorially. That is, if people would pounce on the 'link' and misuse it to claim a closer relationship than what was really there. --Ed Poor Talk 16:21, 8 December 2008 (EST)
I agree with Mr. Poor. Adding links to splinter groups sounds like it could become a sub silento way of tying Mormons to extremists who share nothing with the real church.-AlexanderM 16:25, 8 December 2008 (EST)


In my own church, I have encountered racists. (Don't worry, they won't punish me for revealing this! ;-) Many unenlightened Asian members openly despise blacks. Our church is only 54 years old, and it takes time for bad attitudes to change. Would that "being saved" would eradicate our fallen nature in an instant. (It seems not to have that effect in Colonial America, and even the US Civil War did not eradicate the lingering traces.)

Anyway, the idea that Negroes are under the "curse of Ham" has been peddled to me more than once by Japanese churchwomen, and quoting to them from our Founder's sermons seems to have had little effect on their desire to cling to this notion. Does this mean the Unification Church is racist? No. It means that the church is a hospital for sinners. You don't have to be "healthy" to join. Giving up sin takes time. --Ed Poor Talk 16:30, 8 December 2008 (EST)


Periodically criticism of Mormons concerning long-ago polygamy is inserted into this entry, but we're not going to allow liberal bias against Mormons here. Should we bash FDR for having the equivalent of two wives first???--Andy Schlafly 22:24, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

polygamy was a core Mormon belief and a requirement to be a Mormon leader before 1890. If Conservapedia doesn't tell the facts on how the Church rejected polygamy then some readers will harbor seriously mistaken views about Mormons (as Romney discovered last year). Indeed many religious conservatives today have a very negative view of Mormons. RJJensen 22:50, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
For the vast majority of its existence this Church has rejected polygamy. The smear of Romney and the other editorializing have been removed. Now how about featuring in the entry on FDR how he maintained the equivalent of two wives?--Andy Schlafly 14:21, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
what we have is a very strong anti-Mormon sentiment among fundamentalists and evangelicals--CP's readership base. They tell horror stories about polygamy and if CP ignores the issue it will be that much worse for the Mormons. RJJensen 15:55, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
We're not ignoring the issue, but we're not going to exaggerate liberal smears either. The entry should remain factual and not exaggerate an issue as liberals want. The opposition by some evangelicals to this Church has nothing to do with polygamy, by the way.
Why aren't you just as concerned about writing about FDR's de facto polygamy, which occurred decades after this Church banned it for its members?--Andy Schlafly 17:07, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
Actually I'm the CP editor that did write about FDR's love affairs. see Eleanor Roosevelt. While FDR won the votes of most Mormons he had rather little to do with them. RJJensen 17:42, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
But why aren't you writing about polygamy in FDR's own entry? That is far more recent and significant than any polygamy by the LDS Church.--Andy Schlafly 18:20, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
Polygamy is official marriage. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had 40-50 official wives each, and other top officials had dozens. The issue came to a head in 1904-5 in the US Senate, with the conservative Protestants leading the battle that forced the Mormons to condemn polygamy. RJJensen 18:31, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
Your history on this issue is wrong RJJensen. "In obedience to direction from God, Latter-day Saints followed this practice for about 50 years during the 1800s but officially ceased the practice of such marriages after the Manifesto was issued by President Woodruff in 1890. Since that time, plural marriage has not been approved by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any member adopting this practice is subject to losing his or her membership in the Church." [2].
Under "Additional Information" it says "Just as the practice of plural marriage among the Latter-day Saints began gradually, the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was also gradual. Some plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto, particularly in Mexico and Canada. In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith called for a vote from the Church membership that all post-Manifesto plural marriages be prohibited worldwide." --DeanStalk 19:00, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
RJJensen, the witchhunt in 1904-05 had nothing to do with "official" marriage, but with allegations of "unofficial" polygamy, of which many prominent non-Mormons have been guilty in more recent times. Moreover, the claim that "conservative Protestants" led the 1904-05 Senate hearings (which were a failure, by the way) is unsupported. It seems much of the motivation of those hearings was to deny a seat to the Republican Smoot, and to resist the migration of Mormons from the Democratic to the Republican Party. That said, thanks for bringing this embarrassing episode of Senate history to our attention.--Andy Schlafly 19:46, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
well I have looked at the record, and I can assert that conservative Protestants --including every faction of the Presbyterian denomination, which took the lead--were very hostile to Mormons in 1904. Most of the ministers were Republican and they demanded the Senate take action against a Republican (Smoot). Three reasons dominated: whether the Mormons practiced Polygamy, theocracy and Christianity. The top Mormon leaders had multiple wives from official marriages--not unofficial mariages or comcubines or mistresses. (Smoot had only one wife and was seated). Mormon leaders realized the dilemma and forced the explusion after 1904 of outspoken polygamists, but they did not give up their own multiple wives. That is, they tolerated quiet polygamous mariages that had already started but did not allow any new ones. The last official polygamist --a widow--was a young woman in 1904 and died in the 1970s--not so long ago. Several leading Mormons were forced out of the leadership on the polygamy issue, and a faction broke off and still exists that practices polygamy. Theocracy was a somewhat different issue, which the Mormons resolved by splitting Mormon men into Republicans and Democratics, so there would be genuine competition in state politics. As for Christianity that still is a lively issue as the 2008 GOP primary suggests.RJJensen 20:34, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
I don't doubt that the Senate opponents of the LDS Church were Protestant. Virtually all congressmen then were Protestant. But the protagonists of Smoot included Democrats, which is not typically known for being conservative. Moreover, the witchhunt was politically motivated and little to do with genuine opposition to polygamy. Smoot, as you concede, was not even a polygamist.
Some Protestants do oppose the LDS Church for reasons other than polygamy. But that is even more reason not to exaggerate the polygamy issue. Let's not make the same mistake the Senate did in 1904-05, exaggerating the polygamy issue when no one genuinely cares about it.--Andy Schlafly 20:48, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
  • 1 Corinthians 1:10-25 (NIV) --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:15, 10 April 2009 (EDT)


Why exactly is this page locked to all users except for administrators? I did want to fix an issue with the article: the beginning paragraph states that the church has 12,800 "temples". I'm vaguely familiar with the LDS church, and they certainly do not have 12K temples....they probably mean that they have 12800 churches. there some sort of reason as to why this page is fully protected? RichardSears 00:38, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

  • It is locked because far too many people who were only "vaguely familiar" with the subject attempted to edit without regard to the facts. Hysterically laughing.gif

As is normal, users who cannot access a page, are certainly free to ask any Administrator to open it, or leave their suggested changes on this talk page.--₮K/Admin/Talk 01:10, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

  • I meant that I am familiar with the LDS church (having family who are part of it and having read a decent amount about the church) but not an expert on the topic. I would guess that the individuals that wrote the article are probably more or less on the same level of knowledge as me. Being arrogant like that doesn't help either. According to [3] the church has 128 temples, not 12800. RichardSears 17:08, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Deity of Christ

This article states,"Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe in the deity of Christ." I do not think that is true. Well, it is and it is not. Mormons believe in a trinity of three completely separate Gods. God the Father is Elohim, he is the chief God of Mormonism, he is the entity that they worship. The Holy Ghost and Jesus are considered lesser Gods, and I believe that they are not actually worshipped by Mormons. From my understanding, the statement that Mormons believe in Christ's deity is misleading at the very least. Bill Keller is a Christian pastor in Florida who I know is very extreme and I would not endorse his religious views or his bigotry against Mormons, but he has said Mormons reject the divinity of Jesus. "The 'god' of the Mormon cult used to be a human who rose to god-like status, just like Beck and all Mormons believe they will too after their death. The 'jesus' of the Mormon cult is the natural offspring of their 'god' Elohim who had sex with Mary, meaning their jesus is a created being and NOT a deity as the Bible teaches, and is the brother of Lucifer."[4] I think he was correct about that topic. Also this source, "While Mormons claim to believe in the deity of Christ, we have already observed that they do not believe in the true 'deity of deity'; for the Mormon, God and man are of the same species. Consequently at the end of the day Jesus, and even God the Father for that matter is but an exalted man different from us [i.e. human mortals] in degree but not in kind." The Deity of Christ edited by Christopher W. Morgan, Robert A. Peterson page 247 [5] Burke39 21:11, 11 May 2015 (EDT)