Talk:Mormons

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

"the vast majority of modern Mormons are monogamists"

Within the heading section, the phrase "the vast majority of modern Mormons are monogamists" doesn't reflect reality very well. Perhaps we should change this to say something like, "mainstream Mormons today practice monogamy." This reflects the fact that the 14 million memebers of the LDS church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints) enforce monogamy while also acknowledging the existence of small sects (or splinter gourps) that both practice polygamy and consider themselves in name "mormons". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.2 (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you replace "mainstream" with "most" or "almost all", I think that would be pretty good. I'd like to avoid mainstream if possible, given that it could be construed as implying a mild value judgment. Alternatively, I'm sure there are many other more artful ways to express the main idea. COGDEN 08:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if one includes polygamous Mormons, is it still not true that the "vast majority of modern Mormons are monogamists"? Or is it being suggested that most LDS Church members believe in polygamy but practice enforced monogamy? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

First, I would agree that the vast majority of Mormons are monogamists. If there were a hundred thousand practicing Mormon polygamists (doubtful), that would still constitute less than one percent of Mormons.

Second, I find it strange that this small but controversial issue finds itself in the second paragraph in the introduction. I'm not saying it should be hidden away - it's important, and has its place in a Wikipedia article, but it should not be the focus of the article. --Adjwilley (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)adjwilley

At one time, polygamy was the defining element of Mormonism. That's not the case today, but I think it still retains importance in a definitional sense. A history of polygamy is what separates Mormons from other Latter Day Saint religions such as the Community of Christ. So I think that's one purpose to mention polygamy in the lede. Another purpose might be that in the popular mind at least in the U.S., Mormons are still largely associated with polygamy, as any LDS missionary can attest. If that's the case, it makes sense to clarify the issue in the lede. COGDEN 19:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. Adjwilley (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Adjwilley

Images

The placement of some of the images seems to be a bit of an inside joke, with Reid on the right (top row), Romney on the left (middle row), and Beck in the center (last row) -- was this intentional? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No, just a coincidence. COGDEN 23:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

US bias

I put the worldwide template on this article because I think it has a very strong US bias. It makes broad statements about Mormons that don't really apply outside the US. Wrad (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please be more specific about what parts of the article have a US bias. COGDEN 10:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The article spends almost the entire time talking about the US. It devotes a grand total of one sentence to Mormons in other countries, when it says they are an international group. This seems disproportionate to me, since most Mormons are not Americans. Wrad (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think that much of the material in this article applies to Mormons everywhere, but there also has to be some sociological material, somewhere, written specifically about non-U.S. Mormons. COGDEN 17:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not an ethnic group

To be a mormon, one has to follow some section of their beliefs and practices. Atheistic, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Catholic, etc. "mormons" do not exist. There are different nationalities and ethnicities within the Mormon faith. There is no mormon nation, mormon language, mormon national culture, etc. Those who have rejected the faith completely would not be classified as mormons.

Compare this for example with Punjabi people in northwest India. Not all Punjabis are of the same religion and they are divided into agnostics/atheists, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims yet their ethnic and ancestral Punjabi ties go beyond their respective religious and even national (India vs Pakistan) communities. Epf (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not an "ethnic" group, but in many areas is would be considered a "cultural" group, which is what the article says. I personally know an atheist who is very open about his cultural "Mormonness". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That type of box is part of the Wikipedia ethnic groups project for national cultural groups with a relatively homogenous common culture, language and/or descent. "Mormons" simply refers to anyone who adheres to such religious practices, even if non-practicing. Again, there are no Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, etc. "mormons". Just because someone is of northern European descent and from Utah, does not make him or her mormon. If you do not follow any of the customs of the mormon faiths, what else is there that is mormon ?? I had two mormons come to my door a year ago, one was Chinese and one was a white/European-American, clearly they are not of the same cultural or ethnic group.Epf (talk) 07:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you make sure there is a consensus for removing information before you remove it again. I disagree with your position. Let's see what others think about this issue. I see no reason the "box" as you put it, can't be used in this instance since it's recognized as a cultural groups in many areas. As I said, I know atheists who consider themselves "cultural" or "DNA Mormons", and they, e.g., don't smoke/drink alcohol or coffee, and so forth. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that you raised this same issue at Talk:Mormonism, and users provided a number of sources which discuss Mormons as a cultural group, with some even arguing that it is an ethnic group. Did you see that part of the discussion or are you just ignoring it so you can edit as you prefer? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a split of authority on whether Mormons are an ethnic or ethnoreligious group. Some sociologists say yes, while others say no, or at least not anymore. The sociologists who describe Mormons as an ethnic group were mostly writing in the mid-20th century, when Mormons were arguably less assimilated then they are now. But there's still a split of authority. COGDEN 15:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

I think there needs to be source support for the statement "Many Mormons are also either independent or non-practicing." 99.56.80.78 (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Linking The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the "See Also" section

There seems to be some disagreement as to whether The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints belongs in the "See Also" section. Wikipedia guidelines state that "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section ... however ... it is ultilmately a matter of editorial judgement and common sense." It also states: "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible."

I argue that the LDS church belongs in the See Also section, while noting that it is already cited in the body of the article. Here are my reasons:

1. Roughly 98% of Mormons are Latter-day Saints.

2. Many people (myself included) use the "See Also" section as a guide for reading. I often skim articles and then click on the links to find out more. This article gives a decent overview of Mormon history and polygamy, but doesn't do a very good job of discussing the teachings, practices, and organization of the LDS church. I'm not saying it should do that; however, when somebody searches Wikipeda for "Mormons," there's a very good chance they're wanting to know about the LDS church, and the best place for them to learn about that is not on the Mormons page.

3. For the reasons stated above, there needs to be a clear link in the "See Also" section - not buried in the body of the text.

4. The proposed link is more relevant to the subject matter than the two links we have currently (All About Mormons ("South Park episode)" and "Black people and the Latter Day Saint movement").

5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page links to Mormons in its "See Also" section - even though Mormons is already linked in the body of the article. That is a relatively well-kept page, and it links here. There's no reason not to have it go both ways.

In conclusion, I only think of two reasons to not have the link. The first is the Wikipedia guideline, which we've already discussed. The other reason would be that the ~2% of non Latter-day Saint Mormons don't want the link to be there for their own reasons.

Please let me know your thoughts. Adjwilley (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Adjwilley

• I just don't think it is necessary at all because the article in question is linked to in the very first paragraph of the article already. The link is far from "buried", as is stated. To add a further link in the "see also" section seems inappropriate because it is not accompanied by another link to Mormon fundamentalism, or Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or other articles about Mormon but non-LDS Church churches. I don't see any need to do anything to reinforce the perception that the article might be slanted towards promotion of the idea that all Mormons are members of the LDS Church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason for not adding Mormon Fundamentalism is because they only make up like 0.3% of Mormons. I could see maybe justifying a link to the Community of Christ. The purpose of the link is not to reinforce any perception that all Mormons are LDS - the article does a pretty good job at refuting that one. The purpose is to make it easier and more accessible for people to learn about Mormons on Wikipedia. I wouldn't call it slanted to have a "See also" link to the church that 98% of Mormons belong to.

Adjwilley (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Adjwilley

Polygamy officially ended in 1890, not the early 1900s

Polygamy officially ended in 1890, not the early 1900s. The "1890 Manifesto" that officially ended polygamy is a well-documented fact, and this article should reflect it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qumran1 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The open teaching and authorization of plural marriage ended in 1890 with the Manifesto, but it continued to be practiced quietly by a minority of church leaders in the U.S. into the 20th century, and it continued to openly be taught and practiced in some areas of Canada and Mexico. It wasn't really until the Second Manifesto that plural marriage "ended" definitively in the LDS Church, although men who had been married to multiple wives were never required to divorce their plural wives or anything of that sort, so it did linger on for some time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Garments are significant for more than encouraging "modesty"

Yes, one purpose of garments is to encourage modesty in dress. But their significance goes far deeper than that. The primary purpose of garments is to remind the wearer of covenants, or promises, they have made with God in the Mormon temple. Hence the symbolic markings on the garment, each of which represents a specific promise to God. These symbolic markings can be found on the breasts and above the right knee. The best way to summarize the garment is this: Garments are an outward expression of an inward commitment to God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qumran1 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)