Talk:Common Latter-day Saint perceptions

Is this a proper article?
I have some concerns about the continued separate existence of this article. It's really about someone's judgment as to what are mis-perceptions, making it impossible to pin down the article's subject matter in a completely NPOV way. It has the same problem as the old "controversies" articles. Because of the title, anything listed in this article is pre-judged to be a misperception. (I don't think the effect of the word perceptions is any different than misperceptions in this regard.) maybe the information on this page should be merged with another article, such as Authority and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Priesthood Correlation Program. COGDEN 22:31, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * There are no personal judgements as to what are mis-perceptions. The items listed below have been clarified doctrinally be the GAs for years, however, they continue to persist in Mormon culture. Perhaps the name of the article should change, but doctrinally from Church POV, they are sound. Perhaps we should state what the common mormon belief is, and then demonstrate what is really officially taught by the church. I don't recall why it was changed to from mis-perceptions from percetpions. It definately should not fit under either of the entries you suggestested, as there is no place in authoriy, and correlation doesn't seemed to have worked in the perpetuating of these corrected teachings. Perhaps Mormon folklore is better place for it, however, I think the article is a stub and should be expanded. I do agree that the title should change, but it should not be deleted. -Visorstuff 20:55, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Mormon folklore would probably work, because just because you call something folklore doesn't necessarily mean you are saying it's untrue. My idea for a folklore article would include persistent rumors or anecdotes within the "penumbrum" of official church doctrine, church history, or secular history. But the article shouldn't frame these as unfounded or untrue, because there are people who strongly believe them, and many of those believers are, or were, prominent General Authorities like Brigham Young or Bruce R. McConkie. One difficulty I can foresee, however, is that absent canonized scripture or an official pronouncement by the First Presidency, it's hard to put a finger on what the Church "officially" teaches, because there are honest differences of opinion on many subjects, even among general authorities. And those opinions have been known to change over time. COGDEN 00:23, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Although I'd normally agreee, items listed in the article including Outer Darkness, blood atonement and pre-existence topics have been clarified on a number of occasions by leaders of the Church. Others such as Adam God theory have been denounced, and most traditionalist Mormon scholars have decided they have no idea as to what Young meant. The one on what it means to be a god is a perfect example as President Hinckley has clarified that we don't understand what this means. In fact, during the Mike Wallace interview, he stated, that the Church doesn't teach that people can go about makeing other worlds, being gods over other creations. That is speculation - the church teaches that we can become like God, and have all that he does. The Church, and through it's correelation program is very careful on what it puts in manuals and what is doctrine. Other items are speculative in nature. In this way it is easy to pinpoint what the church "officially teaches" versus what people are speculating. There is also a difference to what the church teachES versus what they taught. Just because a GA says something does not mean the church teaches it. Even among the differences between what GAs believe, they are NOW very careful on what they state as official. That is why I think in many instances, you can say "these doctrines are untrue/speculation" according to official doctrines although many Mormons believe them. -Visorstuff 23:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To answer the original question, I'd be inclined to say, not really. It's not significantly referenced elsewhere, the content is very minimal, and pretty miscelleneous. (We get references to doctrinal matters, without statements as to either what the "(mis)perception" is, or the correct position; and there are references to disputed historical events thrown in.)  In fact, the only linking article I could find cites it in connection with Outer Darkness, a topic it doesn't elucidate beyond pointing to that article -- which was linked to anyway. My feeling is that it really ought to be reworked very substantially (not simply expanded, for the reasons I've mentioned), merged, or deleted. Alai 03:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that it needs to be fixed. The issue within Mormonism is that there are things that are taught by the Church, and things that are believed by Church members. In the latter case, many ideas that are regularly promoted by church members are not truly doctrinally sound. This is a major cultural thing within the LDS Church and needs to be addressed in the Wiki, but i'm not sure how to best fix it, yet. I've actually re-worked the article a number of times on my computer, but never put those edits in as it doesn't quite work for me. Let's give this one some more time before deleting. -Visorstuff 08:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, reworking should be the first resort. I was thinking about this earlier today, and I came to much the same conclusion:  the core idea here is "non-canonical beliefs within the LDS Church" (less clumsy ways of putting that wanted), and the article title and intro should change accordingly, and the items that don't quite fit within that moved elsewhere).  That seems to me to be both a more clearly defined topic, and less prone to POVishness (as we don't have to say which is correct, just what each are). Alai 18:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Very good suggestions, Alai. The article certainly seems, er, a bit out of place as it is.  A Catechism at Wikipedia.  Hmm.  Tom Haws 20:51, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

The difficulty of having a non-canon page is that it is, by definition, not canon. It's difficult to cite. Also, the difficulty with non-canonical beliefs is that not all members believe them. I'm not convinced of the necessity of this article. And if it can be proven necessary or useful, the major difficulty is in finding references. Greenw47 19:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename, and/or restructure?
This article now has a useful-looking link, yay. However, I think that makes it more imperative that it be drawn with a tighter focus; I think the primary sense is clearly "non-canonical beliefs among LDSers", or "Mormon folklore", or something to that effect. Is there general agreement that's the intended gist? Alai 20:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me do a quick case by case. Please understand "my dumb-ass guess, please tell if I'm at all warm?" to be appended to the 'summary' in quuestion I'd sugest we drop the last and third last at least, and maybe the fourth last too (there are more suitable places for each, I'm sure), then we can write a more cohesive lead, and have another thing able the article title. Am I making any sense? Alai 22:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Outer Darkness
 * Non-canonical belief
 * What it actually means to be a god or exalted human.
 * Non-canonical belief, set of beliefs, speculations
 * Pre-existence issues including divisions by valiancy, pre-mortal sin, and the war in heaven.
 * More non-canon
 * The nature of pre-mortal intelligence, and how it (and/or/if spirit and spirit matter) was created
 * And more...
 * The Adam-God theory
 * Former canon, Youngite non-canon?
 * Blood Atonement
 * Disputed to be a Youngite doctrine, historical controversy
 * The responsibility for the Mountain Meadows Massacre
 * Controversial history, politics, etc.
 * Miscellaneous Mormon Folklore and "faith promoting rumors" such as encounters with the "three Nephites".
 * Folklore, I guess. :)
 * Number of members allowed in the First Presidency, length of time general and local officers serve.
 * Failure to understand organisation chart. (Understandable -- I'm still working on it!)


 * Yes you are making perfect sense. I've been very concerned about this page, as it is very much needed, but how to structure has been problematic. Perhaps this would make a good "collaboration of the fortnight" project? I think as a Mormon my writing of this page is problematic as well, because I can point to some things that would fit into this category, but I may peronally believe or adhere to them myself. I also think retention statistics should be included on this page, as I am under the impression that we have a higher retention than anti-mormons would have us believe - this would be non-mormon mis-belief, rather than Mormon perceptions. This article will need some major collaboration and objectivity from others in the project.


 * I wonder if Mormon folklore would be a more appropriate title and then in the LDS section discusing the various folklore in terms of false doctrines (such as outlined above) and cultural folklore (such as three nephite stories). Thoughts about the struture? -Visorstuff 23:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This is out of place for the Restructure topic, but you asked, so I can refer you to an LDS missionary themed website which has posted the information you seek. Look at the right hand column, in the pre-publication manuscript for the book, The Law of the Harvest.  In the chapter titled "Trends in LDS Member Activity and Convert Retention" (it is long) you can find the statement, "of the 4.6 persons baptized by the average missionary each year, approximately 1.3 [28%] will remain active".  These figures are for the year 2000, and you can find a lot of detail there if you care to wade through it all. Growth within the US was 19% from 1990-2000 (23rd of 149 US denominations but 1st of those over 1 million), and worldwide is less than 3% per year.  The data come from such questionable sources as The Ensign, BYU Studies, and "The Glenmary Study".   The thrust of the chapter is that unfortunately the LDS growth trends are decelerating, especially compared to  Seventh-day Adventists, Southern Baptists, Assemblies of God, and many Pentecostal groups, and examines possible ways to reverse the trend. One caution, the manuscript has the standard disclaimer "information is subject to revision prior to publication". Back to the topic of "Common Latter-day Saint perceptions", perhaps this should be included as an eye-opener for everyone. --Blainster 21:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The name
I still have a problem with this article's name. It's certainly better than what it used to be--"...mis-perceptions"--but it now seems to be too amorphous to be useful. I have a few possible suggestions: CO GDEN  23:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Nonstandard Latter-day Saint doctrines and practices (my personal favorite at the moment)
 * 2) Nonstandard Latter-day Saint beliefs
 * 3) Unorthodox Latter-day Saint doctrines and practices (my problem with this is that unorthodox implies that it is uncommon, but there are some LDS beliefs that are both popular and nonstandard.
 * 4) Unorthodox Latter-day Saint beliefs
 * 5) Latter-day Saint apocrypha (has promise, but I'm not sure)
 * 6) Non-canonical Latter-day Saint doctrines and practices (seems too wordy)
 * 7) Apocryphal Latter-day Saint beliefs


 * I vote for 3 or 6, with preference for 6. Unorthodox means simply "not right belief".  Non-canonical is good NPOV description.  I can believe it if I want, but this article is informing me I am not canonical. Tom Haws 22:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How about a modified 6: "Non-canonical Mormon beliefs and practices". That way we can include FLDS and strangite beliefs, humanistic mormon thoughts, and old stand-bys like the adam god theory and blood atonement. Tom, I miss having you on the English side of the Wiki...you are a good man. -Visorstuff 22:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I vote for #6, followed by #7. #5 seems (to me) to mean that there are other apocryphal texts that some believe in but others don't.  This is probably true (somewhere) and would be covered in this topic but should not be the title of it. Val42 23:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Part 2
I see a problem developing above that will split the vote: Whether/how to include other Latter Day Saint denominations. This is a vote on the "Latter-day Saint" portion of the above texts:
 * 1) "Latter-day Saint" - Leave as is since we can get better coverage of the differences when the cannonical beliefs are in one place
 * 2) "Latter Day Saint" - Covers all of the sects descended from the church founded by Joseph Smith, Jr.. We can break down specifics in subsections.
 * 3) "Mormons" - Covers most of the sects ... (Community of Christ will be the one excluded from above list)
 * 4) Something else that I've forgotten (Add other options above this)


 * I vote for the second option. Val42 23:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think because of the cultural aspect, Mormonism is the way to go. the Latter Day Saint movement does not have a shared culture, whereas Mormonism does. FLDS, Strangites, Apostolic Brethren, etc. as do Latter-day Saints - all have cultural elements and traditions that perpetuates rumors, folk doctrines, etc., whereas the bigger LDSM does not. Therefore it should be Latter-day Saint (specific to the LDS church) or Mormonism. Just my thoughts. -Visorstuff 00:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think the idea of the article kind of flounders unless there is a "canon" against which beliefs and practices are contrasted.  And for the LDS movement, that is kind of meaningless.  I think it should be Common non-canonical beliefs and practices in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or some variation of that).  Tom Haws 20:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Good one, Tom, but it's very wordy. How about Non-canonical beliefs of Mormonism or Non-canonical beliefs of Latter Day Saints? --Trevdna 00:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My Cents
I think that this page may as well be part of the LDS Church Culture page (narrowing the scope to the Latter-day Saints with Tom). I think it would be good to rename it including the term apocrypha and agree that #7 above is better than #5 for Val's above-mentioned reasons. As part of the other page the name could be simple: where the something becomes topics or issues or perceptions, etc.—Red Baron 23:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Apocrypha or
 * Apocryphal Something


 * Apocryphal Latter-day Saint beliefs would seem to be the best way to go. You can't really say that all of these beliefs are apocryphal for all of the Latter Day Saint denominations, but it would be relatively easy state this (using documented reliable sources) if the scope is narrowed to just the LDS Church. If this article is not more limited in scope (and name) I fear there is little hope of it every becoming more than a poorly sourced fuzzy mishmash. -- 12.106.111.10 21:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I know, this is so AOLer-me-too, but it is true.  The very nature of this article will make it nearly impossible to properly reference.  I don't think it would survive a request-for-quick-deletion. Val42 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you believe the article wouldn't survive a deletion request, why not put it up for deletion? Vassyana 05:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I want to give this article a chance to improve. Val42 03:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)