Talk:Mormon cosmology

City of Enoch
The information on the City of Enoch in no way explains what this has to do with extraterrestrial life. The City of Enoch was taken to heaven. This doesn't imply extraterrestrial life, unless you would also say that the belief that Jesus went to heaven alive means all Christians believe in extra-terrestrial life; or that the assumption of the Virgin Mary means all Catholics believe in extra-terrestrial life; or that the belief that Muhammad was taken to heaven alive means all Muslims believe in extra-terrestrial life; and ... well, you get the idea.

Please don't add he information back in unless you add to the article and explain how this relates directly to the topic. -SESmith 08:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wholesale reversions
The changes I made were reverted wholesale without explanation. Why? Things as non-controversial as adding an original document PDF-link for one of the references and adding a wikilink for Joseph Fielding Smith were included in the revert. This type of wholesale reversion is unacceptable and shouldn't be done without some sort of reasons provided. -SESmith 08:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphan tag
The orphan tag was removed with the explanation that the article is not an orphan article. The orphan tag indicates that no or few other articles link to it. This is true, and as of this writing NO articles (apart from Talk pages and redirects) link to this article. It qualifies as an orphan and until articles are linked up the tag should remain. Pls don't remove as it adds the article to a category where people can see the articles that need to be linked to. Some Wikipedians work with this list and just enjoy adding links to orphaned articles. -SESmith 08:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Next time, explain before reverting.   It looked odd, that's all. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Next time, explain before reverting." My thoughts exactly—it was you who reverted my initial placement of the orphan tag without explanation or justification. -SESmith 02:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And it is still linked from only two Wikipedia articles. (i.e.: Actual articles and not User, Talk, Project, etc.)  Val42 06:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tone
The tone of the article needs some work. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you gotta hate that NPOV. (rolls eyes).... -SESmith 08:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of section on official LDS doctrine
A tag has been placed disputing the factual accuracy of the statement that the church has not officially adopted a doctrine on the existence or absence of extraterrestrials. Is there evidence of official adoption of a doctrine that anyone has? If not, it's hard to dispute the factual accuracy of stating that a doctrine doesn't exist one way or the other. -SESmith 03:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A POV tag has also been added, which is probably related to the above concern. I'm not sure how saying the church hasn't said one way or the other constitutes POV. -SESmith 03:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you an official spokesperson for the church? No.  How do I know what the Churches official doctrine on this topic when we have historical documents from LDS prophets making proclamations people live on the sun and moon?   I question that these statements you placed in this section on LDS Doctrine  are official church doctrine. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I placed no statements of official church doctrine; I said one did not exist one way or the other on the issue. You cannot prove a negative. The onus is on the person claiming that a doctrine exists as an official doctrine to prove it by pointing to specific material in current church printed materials or lesson manuals or on the lds.org website, for example. As far as I know, there's no indication one way or the other whether the church currently accepts or teaches the statements or concepts set out in the article. Everything printed in Journal of Discourses is not currently official church doctrine. I've presented a NPOV because there is no evidence one way or the other. Let's try to remain WP:CIVIL, I am not attacking you. -SESmith 03:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not feel like I am being attacked. I am just passionate about honesty and quality, that's all.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I corrected the section and removed the tags. This seems more accurate of the sources and balanced and does not assess that we mere editors are spokepersons for the Church.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with entitling the section "Official LDS doctrine"? It is simply a title--the section then discusses whether or not there is official church doctrine on the matter. Just calling it "modern lds views" or something like that is pointless unless we just want to scrap the section and merge it with the previous one since they too express some modern viewpoints. -SESmith 04:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not a spokesperson for the church. Please show me a citation "official church doctrine on extraterrestrial life". Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Tags placed to reflect view of new edits. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not claiming to assert the church's official doctrine. (That's the nice way of saying "no shit".) The title of the section indicates that "this section will be about the LDS Church's doctrine on the subject." Then, the text of the section states clearly and unambiguously that there is no official doctrine on the issue one way or the other. You don't need to be a church spokesman to figure out the church hasn't said anything on this on its website, publications, lesson manuals, etc. It sounds more like you are misunderstanding the purpose of a section heading and its relation to the text of the article. Focus on the text and what it says and I think it will become clear that my edits are not claiming any position as the official LDS position. -SESmith 05:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You dispute my edits that state there is no official doctrine one way or the other. So—you tell me—what is the church's official doctrine? How do you know it is the church's official doctrine? What sources are you citing, and how do you know this source reflects the current official doctrine of the church? Unless you can answer these questions, the section as it stands reflects the best we can do on this topic—i.e. it is not clear that there is any doctine one way or the other. -SESmith 05:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The section is titled Official Church Doctrine than is immediately followed by there is no official church doctrine, so which is it? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. That's the whole point of the section. Someone looking for the official church doctrine of the church on the matter will locate the section, read it, and find out that there is no official doctrine. The header is an organizational tool used for persons looking for information on the topic written in the heading. It sets out the general subtopic within the article that is discussed in the section. -SESmith 07:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No. If there is no doctrine, then change the heading to "Modern Views" or something else.  The current heading by your own admission is inaccurate and misleading.  The tags stay in until you change it.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol. I made no such admission. You obviously don't get it. I won't waste any more of my time on you; it is pointless because as your behavior on this page and others amply demonstrates, you appear to be dedicated to a POV way-of-life on WP. See ya. -SESmith 07:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea of people on the moon may refer to the belief of a terrestial kingdom in heaven. Brandon Bennett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.228.161 (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

article or wiki quotes?
This should be included in a wikiquotes collection rather than as its own article - a collection of quotes is original research, not an article. Or perhaps you pull a bunch of these strange quote collections together and start a real article called, "Obscure teachings by Mormon leaders." I'm undecided at what to do at this point, but as an admin I must say this article could easily go up for deletion. -Visorstuff 15:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This appears to be POV pushing. The mormon prophets have taught there was extraterrestrial life.  It is a notable doctrine as evidence by the massive effort to tag the article and insert voluminous sources.  If anything, you have made the case the article is exceptionally notable. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you are very unfamiliar with my edit history if you think the above is POV pushing. Please see my history of pushing for including controversial items from Mormon history as well as other controversial topics. I've pushed for many articles to have a place when others don't think they should be there. Nor have I filed a deletion request - as i think this can be turned into an article. How the "article" is written is not encyclopedic and is more of a listing of quotes on a topic.

I think this topic is interesting, however, to be honest is not very relevant to the post-correlation LDS church today, which is why i think an "obscure" in the title would actually help draw attention to the content. In any case it should be renamed to follow the Latter Day Saint movment style guides with the "(Latter-day Saint)" appendage as it is not true of all of Mormonism, but relevant to the LDS Church. (see Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) and Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints). You may also want to add to List of articles about Mormonism or listing on the WP:LDS to gain more help in editing it.

Also, as this is not something a typical mormon studies or cares about in any shape of the imagination - yet is freqeuntly taught by anti-mormon activists to show a bit of sensationalism. Giving the new title would lend some creditibity that it is/was a teaching of church leaders - but that it is something not oftenly discussed. In the current form the article needs to be rehauled or put on wikiquotes. -Visorstuff 19:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from using denigrating racial and social slurs to refer to sources or groups with the term anti-mormon, this term is a pejorative of hate and a secret signal word used by LDS Church members to brand a group, idea, or individual as "satan's messenger." As for the POV, its obvious to me and other editors. Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you need to assume good faith. Notice I said "anti-mormon activists" not Anti-mormons, critics of mormonism or someone who disagrees with mormonism. Again, you may want to visit my discussion on the topic when Anti-Mormonism was created (see my comments at Talk:Anti-Mormonism/Archive_1 - as I feel the term is used too broadly and could not be supported from an academic perspective. Nor did I accuse you of Anti-Mormon behavior, rather I said I find the topic interesting, but it is generally used by those activists. And you do not need to remind me of wikipedia policy as i've been here for quite a long time, thanks. you'll find I rarely give an LDS sunday school answer, but am quite frank with what is and isn't. -Visorstuff 19:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I took it that way and it sounded that way, but WP is about forgive and forget -- so forgiven and forgotten. Outside of articles on this topic of anti-mormonisn please advise other LDS editors to cease using this term in discussions.  We do not allow people call each other any other racial or social slur so this word also needs to be off limits when editors are in discussions about sources, ideas, or people.  An article about the mormon concept of anti-mormonism is certainly ok, but it needs to end there.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did you get that "information" about "anti-mormonism"? As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have never heard of this "information" about "anti-mormonism" before your postings.  But as an expert on the meaning of "anti-mormonism", I guess that you're the ultimate arbitrator of the subject. Val42 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The references on anti-mormonisn in your own teachings verify its usage. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you give me specific references, because being a life-long member, I have never heard them. Val42 20:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a random person reading this, Jefferey Vernon Merkey's opinon's sound like his own personal opinions. Sorry dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.203.130 (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Kolob
Just a thought (I don't want to join this edit war currently in progress), but it would be interesting to add a little bit about Kolob into this article, as certainly this is an aspect to teachings about E.T. in Mormon theology. I've seen people speculate about which star in the night sky might actually be Kolob, and the whole aspect that we, being human and offspring of God are in fact extra-terrestrials that have come here to this planet somehow.

I'm not suggesting a full treatment of this subject, but a single paragraph with a reference to the more extensive article about this topic would certainly be reasonable to include here. --Robert Horning 20:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of article
If this is supposed to be a personal blog page then it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. However, if it is to portray the LDS teachings and doctrinal about life on other planets, it has potential.

No where do LDS refer to life on other planets as "extraterrestrial" life. LDS simply to not discuss the subject in this manner. Life on other planets is termed in plain terms...i.e. life on other planets. I find the current topic title to be highly POV. The only people who attempt to paint LDS doctrine in such terms is the more mundane anti-Mormon web sites and publications. Further, the term extraterrestrial life smacks of quackery; is that the purpose of the title? If so, it is highly POV and disrespectful of LDS beliefs.

I have reorganized the article today only to see it was reverted by Merkey. I have since reverted. The article is not about the personal ideas of individual leaders or people, but by the title it is LDS teachings. Your desire to focus on nondoctrinal statements is POV and misleading. The actual doctrine of the LDS church is the primary focus! To add the color of personal musings if fine and appropriate, but only if it is stated as such..they are not doctrinal nor ever were doctrinal. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * These are the statements of your leaders about aliens living on the moon. Stop rewriting history. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Pope saying something does not make it Catholic doctrine, unless he explicitly states that he is dictating as such. The same thing applies here; statements by Mormon leaders are not necessarily church doctrine. -Amarkov moo! 04:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The prophets of the mormon church should be careful what they say. 150 years later it may end up in Wikipedia. Stop vandalizing the article.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ...did you deliberately ignore what I said? -Amarkov moo! 04:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Statement of your leaders claiming quakers live on the moon is pretty out there. Whether doctrine or not, they presented it in public forums before the mormon people.  I can understand how embarassing it might be for LDS church members, but they said it, and this article is about their public teachings in this area.  Deal with it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, they're not my leaders; I would be Catholic. Second off, nobody is saying that statements of leaders should not be included. We're just saying that they should not be presented as doctrine, because they are not. -Amarkov moo! 04:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Show me where the word "LDS doctrine" appears in that article? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Mormon teachings about extraterrestrial life" implies teachings by the LDS church, which would mean doctrine, not just any statement by influential people. -Amarkov moo! 04:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * These statements by LDS Church leaders appear in Church History and doctrinal materials. And?  Please troll elsewhere.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know very well they appear in history, and I keep trying to tell you that I don't dispute that at all. I do dispute that they appear in doctrinal materials, because I don't see evidence of that. -Amarkov moo! 04:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The LDS Church is not like the Catholic Church. The LDS Church leaders are "prophets".  With such a title, everything that comes out of their mouths is notable. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I never disputed that everything a prophet says is notable, and in fact, it's probably a fair statement to say that their opinions are often held as true. However, none of that means that everything a prophet says is an official doctrine. -Amarkov moo! 04:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Merkey, the confusion you have is when is a man speaking as a/the prophet and when is he speaking as a man. It is obvious that this is not the doctrine of the church because you have been offered repeated evidences of the same. By your own admission your objective is not to focus on the doctrine of the church, but rather the individual beliefs of individuals who were LDS. Do you have any evidence that the statements you seek to focus on, POV pushing; is the doctrine of the LDS church? Unfortunately, you have nothing to support that position. At no time has any editor attempted to delete this information; it is notorious and great fun to see what people of 150 years ago thought in that sort of condescending manner we all know and appreciate. My grandmother, who died in 1996, thought that men never walked on the moon (she felt that it was all a hoax. She was not a LDS, but rather a Pentacostal. I agree it is quaintly interesting. I suppose we could also look at the beliefs of the early Apostles and the folk mythology of hte period. Today, we could laugh at it, but it is more reflection of the period rather than a reflection of the doctrine. A prophet is a man at all times, but a man is not a prophet at all times; sometimes they are just simply a man.

I will also warn to to stop attacking others. Everyone that disagrees with you (Catholic, LDS, or agnostic) is a troll or POV. You might want to consider that it is you that has a axe to grind, which is also inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but molding the article into an "approved" LDS propaganda piece violates the spirit of this project. Its not about Church Doctrine, and articles about the LDS Church do not have to reflect and only contain "approved" teachings of the LDS Church.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, how do you distinguish efforts to "mold the article into an approved LDS propaganda piece" from good-faith efforts to improve the article? alanyst /talk/ 05:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries like these are a disgrace:


 * 1) (cur) (last) 04:27, 10 June 2007 Val42 (Talk | contribs) (9,986 bytes) (By their nature, scriptures of a religion are more important than statements not accepted as scriptures.)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 03:56, 10 June 2007 Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (Talk | contribs) (9,987 bytes) (this article is about the statements of your leaders about alien, its not about the doctrine of the church)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 02:05, 10 June 2007 Storm Rider (Talk | contribs) (11,081 bytes)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 02:04, 10 June 2007 Storm Rider (Talk | contribs) (11,082 bytes) (The doctrine of the church comes first rather than nondoctrinal statements by individuals.)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 01:55, 10 June 2007 Storm Rider (Talk | contribs) (10,627 bytes) (The article is about the beleifs of the church; not the independent thought or nondoctrinal statements)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 00:31, 10 June 2007 Sesmith (Talk | contribs) m (9,997 bytes) (add orphan tag--only one article linked to this one)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 00:23, 10 June 2007 Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (Talk | contribs) (9,987 bytes) (put materials the article is about. unbury materials pushed to the bottom of the article.)

Please think about how these types of summaries look. I was unaware that the holy LDS scriptures guided our editing on Wikipedia. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I think you may not be reaizing that your POV is coloring your position. When talking about the doctrine or beliefs of a religion, that churches doctrine is the primary source and position of the article. That is not POV, that is just plain common sense. If the article is US government, we do not focus on the Teamsters Union long governance problems or focus on the ideas of Thomas Jefferson. Those are subsets of the main topic.
 * You insist on stating a falsehood. The article is not about the ideas of individual LDS leaders, it is about the Mormon church's ideas. You are right, there is a communication problem and though I have asked a few times how you get just leaders' opinions out of the title, I have yet to see an answer.
 * Ditto on the third one.
 * Ditto on the fourth one.
 * This one is rather obvious; is it an orphan or not? I see you eventually got it added to the Kolob article. That is at least a start.
 * Again, this is your personal axe to grind; the title of the article is broader than your personal hot button.
 * All in all, your summary does far more damage to your position than you realize. Based upon your propsed title below and the manner in which you have edited it is obvious that you are really only wanting to focus on the alledged statements by Joseph Smith and the statements of Brigham Young. What the chruch really teaches is just clutter that gets in the way of your purpose. This is an example of strong POV and your ownership of the article, the things that you have accused so many others of doing. You are going to have to tone this position down to be successful on Wikipedia. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested Page Protection
I have requested page protection until all disputes are resolved. We seem to be having an edit war here. Time to slow down and talk. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * *points up* -Amarkov moo! 04:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. Let's go through this discussion about doctrine and the title of the article.  What are your concerns exactly.  Please be specific. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My concerns are as follows:
 * The title of the article is LDS teachings. This is the equivalent of LDS doctrine. That would then seem to be the primary focus of the article; not the individual beliefs of some of the early leaders.


 * When they get up in front of a group as public speakers and spew this stuff, its teachings, not "private personal opinions".  This statement is total huey.Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd normally agree, however, two of the major historical quotes in this article were done in private settings. The third was a very clear opinion, not expounded upon during a sermon ("I rather think they are"). The others do not neccessarily discuss extraterrestrial life in the sense that most americans think of extraterrestrial life, but rather about the bounds of God. Visorstuff 05:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You insist on ownership of the article and every edit that conflicts with your personal agenda is attacked as trolling, POV pushing, and a personal affront to you.


 * I think you and your fellow LDS editors are asserting ownership, and inserting edit summaries materials are being deleted because you claim they "are not approved church doctrine." Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Church doctrine simply stated, is what is found in the LDS scriptures. If it is not in the "standard works" it is not "doctrinal." That is official church "policy," which I can explain in another forum at another time. Visorstuff 05:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * At no time in the history of the LDS church has life on other worlds been identified as "extrterrestrial life". This is a term in the title needs to be replaced with terms LDS use...life on other worlds, life in the universe, etc. If you are going to write an article about LDS beliefs you necessarily have to use WHAT THEIR BELIEFS ARE and not what you personally interpret those beliefs to be.


 * I disagree. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that extraterrestrial has a different connotation that a discussion about the bounds and creations of God. For example, you don't find an article about the Catholics and extraterrestrial life, when it very clearly states in the Bible that there are other Worlds that God has created. Catholic teachers over the years have stated that they believe that God has created life on other worlds - or worlds without number. There is no presedence for this article, or its connotation. To me the article is a sensational as stating that some Mormons believe in eternal sex (from the Godmakers series), instead of saying that some Mormons believe they can have children throughout the eternitities. Wording is very important to connotation and denotation. Visorstuff 05:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The title also includes the term Mormon. As you are aware the Latter Day Saint movement is much broader than the LDS church. The Community of Christ, to my finite knowledge does not address this issue. This also goes for the Fundamentalist and all the other sect within the movement. The title should be changed to LDS teachings about other life in the universe or something similar.


 * Now we get to the WP:OWN part. You "own" any article with the "mormon" in the title?Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No we don't "own" them, but they do fit into and are subject to the Wikipedia naming guidelines. See Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints). This article does not. Visorstuff 05:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oliver B. Huntington's statements are highly suspect and needs to be noted as such. He was ten when he received his blessing. There is evidence that he acutally received it from his father and not the father of Joseph Smith, Jr.. It is the equivalent of hearsay at worst and the recollections of a ten year old boy 50 years later in his life. Recollection or memory has been proven to not be the best of sources.


 * They are reliable and verified sources. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with leaving in the quote, but in a source like wikiquotes. this article does not justify being an article, as stated above. Visorstuff 05:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your insistence is to focus on the personal belief of Brigham Young and the recollections of a boy about Joseph Smith. These two individuals, while two of the most important individuals in LDS history, never taught any of these teachings as doctrine. Nor did the church ever recognize these teachings as doctrine. You are not the authority on telling LDS what LDS believe. The LDS church is the sole authority on telling the world what it believes.
 * That is for starters my major concerns. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * They were your prophets. You do not get to retract their public statements just becuase they are embarassing today. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't find them embarrassing, nor does anyone else here, that I know of. On the contrary, the title leads the reader that these are current LDS teachings and doctrines. I find the statemenst highly influenced by popular thought of the day, which impacts how I view what the church emphasizes in their teachings today. What was taught 100 years ago is not neccessarily what is taught today, nor is this a significant LDS teaching. There are not even articles about mormon teachings about Grace or Mormon teachings about Faith, which to me are much more relevant "teachings" to discuss for an article in wikipedia. Plus there is more than a handful of quotes on the topic. Visorstuff 05:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, when a Catholic (alanyst) tells you that you are far from LDS doctrine, what does that say about your edits? I'm glad that you have requested page protection until this is resolved.  Since both of our edits have (at this time) been reverted to a previous version, let's agree to not make any more edits to the article page at least until the direction of this article is resolved by consensus. Val42 06:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Point of order: I believe the Catholic editor was Amarkov. Look for the "moo!" to find his comments.  alanyst /talk/ 06:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I stand corrected.  Sorry for making this mixup. Val42 07:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is not about LDS doctrine, its about the public teachings of LDS prophets. I can see there is clearly a communications problem here, or some misperception of terms.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The current title of the article is "Mormon teachings about extraterrestrial life". It is not Specific leaders of the Mormon church ideas about extraterretrial life or anything equivalent. Please explain how you get to "leaders" from the current title; particularly when you know that the Mormon church nor any of its many sects teaches, or possesses doctrine remotely comprable to your proposition by citing two alledged individual musings (there are significant problems with Huntington's comments; they can/should be cited but with qualification). --Storm Rider (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The writings of the Mormon Prophets, book of abraham, kolob, other worlds == extraterrestrial (not on the planet earth). I think the term is descriptive.  I agree its a modern term, but this is what they were talking about.  Leaders == Joseph Smith.  All of the mormon sects branched from Smith or his family.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is everything said by a man who is a prophet of the LDS church doctrine? Obviously not, Brigham said many things that are not doctrine, the Adam God theory for one.
 * Please keep your accusations and personal attacks to yourself. It is the work of a troll, which I assume you are not. If you attempt to argue or engage in a verbal fight, take it elsewhere. Given your rather colorful past and your penchange for throwing out accusations for anyone who dares contradict you, I assume it is just a personal quirk, but you really need to tone it down so that we can have an intelligent exchange here. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit amongst an editors edits Merkey, you have destroyed the format and flow, which is confusing to all readers. Care to correct the format now? It is always best to edit in a chronological order so that subsequent editors can follow the flow more easily and contribute. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did the same - sorry SR - but once in-line edits are started, they are a trap. Agree that is only for voting or similar dialogue.


 * Let's stay on topic. What was that suggested article name again? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that more editors have had the joy of meeting JVM. Word to the wise: don't waste your breath (or in this case, typing fingers). Some editors are more interested in promoting a point of view or tearing another one down than producing quality WP articles. The process goes like this: POV article created--other editor makes changes--edits reverted with threats about 'vandalism'--editor makes changes--edits reverted with accusations of POV-pushing--editor makes changes--edits reverted with charges of creating LDS propaganda--editor makes changes--edits reverted and JVM gets his buddy administrator to protect the page. Seen it before--not worth the effort, especially on an orphan page. And yes, I know this constitutes an uncivil personal attack. In some cases they are semi-justified when someone exists who doesn't listen to the positions of other editors. -SESmith 09:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Change Article Name
I apologize to everyone for failing to understand how this could be construed as church doctrine. Let's change the article name to Early LDS Views of extraterrestrial life. The fact that mormon leaders in the mid-1800s were pondering life in the stars is actually a very forward looking and advanced view for the time in the wild wild west. It is worthy of mention.

any objections? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That is only one issue to discuss. The concept of other life in the universe is not typcially addressed by other Christian churches. It is as if God created just this one earth and no other planet. The subject is much bigger than the quotes of early leaders of the church. Your proposed title is too narrow to encompass the full topic. No one is saying they sould not be included, but they are not the highlight of the article. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. What's your suggestion for a title? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Article titles are always touchy. The concept you are addressing is the LDS belief that there is additional life in the universe. The problem with the term extraterrestrial is its application in society at large; it smacks of science fiction. The first thing people think is little green men or Star Trek etc. LDS do believe that God created many worlds, even worlds without number, and that there is life on those planets. It is also thought that those creations are similar to this world; i.e. they look like us. I offered alternative titles above, but here are some more:
 * LDS views of additional life in the universe
 * Other life in the universe (LDS)
 * LDS beliefs in God's creations


 * It might be best just to start a list and allow people to propse their ideas. That generally results in a title most will agree with as "the one". --Storm Rider (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's start a list. great idea.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about a little broader article that would include all this information and more, called Mormonism and astronomy. I don't think that the title should be limited to early Mormonism, because some of the 20th century teachings expand on things taught by Joseph Smith. CO GDEN  07:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That title could easy include the Kolob article; are you thinking of a Kolob being a subarticle to this one or being fully integrated into this one? It certainly has merits. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that Kolob would be a subarticle, because there's a lot to be said about Kolob. But other things, like the astronomical discussion in the Book of Abraham, etc., would be included too, as would teachings about life on other planets, and several other things, like possibly the new star and the day without a night in the Book of Mormon. CO GDEN  09:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Title Runner Ups

 * Mormonism and astronomy
 * Agree Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
 * Proposed CO GDEN  07:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * LDS views of additional life in the universe
 * Other life in the universe (LDS)
 * LDS beliefs in God's creations
 * Mormon cosmology
 * Proposed per my comment at the AfD discussion. alanyst /talk/ 14:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * weak oppose: I considered Mormonism and cosmology, but I'm not sure, because in my mind, cosmology would include the Plan of Salvation, and I don't think the article needs to be that broad. Cosmology also might exclude such things as Kolob, and anything that is about specific parts of the universe rather than the universe as a whole. CO GDEN  17:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's useful, I'm basing my idea on the dictionary definition of cosmology (from Merriam-Webster):
 * "1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe"
 * I'm not sure I agree that Plan of Salvation would be necessarily encompassed by such a topic, but even if it were, enough is written about it that it can be mentioned with a simple link and little else. Topics such as Kolob would be naturally addressed by a cosmology article, in my opinion, as its mention in the LDS canon is in the context of other cosmological matters anyway.  I'm just throwing this out as food for thought; I don't mind if you still don't care for the suggestion.  alanyst /talk/ 17:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't liked any of the proposed titles yet, but I don't have any other ideas either. I do hope that we can work something out though. However, it should meet the naming conventions mentioned above.  Val42 07:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability and sourcing
One of my chief concerns about this article, or even the broad subject of Mormon teachings about astronomy, is its notability. There is presently a dearth of reliable secondary sources cited in the article. A handful of primary sources and a couple of apologetic explanations for what they say seem insufficient to indicate that anyone outside the community of believers and critics finds the subject noteworthy. The teachings themselves have little prominence in the overall body of LDS canon or among the multitude of sermons by its leaders, and there are other teachings that have much more prominence but do not have their own Wikipedia article. Does anyone know of neutral, reliable secondary sources that have explored these topics? I think that reliance only upon primary sources and a couple of critical and apologetic secondary sources will simply lead to a bunch of original research, as the synthesis of the sources presents a picture of Mormon teachings that has been developed nowhere else but Wikipedia. Thoughts? alanyst /talk/ 13:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The large number of websites publishing this material and its importance to critics of Mormonisn indicate it is notable. I found over a dozen websites with these materials and they are also contained in the church's own publications.  This sounds like POV pushing (yet again) to me, and desire to delete the article since it is embarassing to the LDS movement.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not project "feelings" upon the Mormon people. You continue to accuse other editors and the entire LDS membership of something that is strictly your personal issue. It is highly POV. If we were embarrassed by this, or even offended by it, we would be deleting the comments by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young; THAT IS NOT HAPPENING! What is happening is your insistence and disgruntlement that others are not in agreement to focus on these opinions and staetments. You would prefer that LDS be embarrassed by them; unfortunately, they are not. Again, your persistent attack of others is unworthy of you; stop it. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Alanyst, my take on this is it is much better to have it. Merkey is correct; anti-Mormon websites, at least the sensationalist ones, are full of this type of stuff. They take the same position that Merkey does by demanding that this is what LDS believe. Unfortunately, it is highly misleading and comprable to base propaganda.


 * Please do not refer to me as an anti-mormon, I am not anti-mormon. I am a sincere person who has studied parallels between LDS beliefs and Native Religions for a very long time.   I do not agree with the Tanner's approach, but teachings of LDS leaders are relevant to historical cataloging of LDS material for an encyclopedia, whether you feel it matches current LDS doctrines are not.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out and reporting the personal thoughts and even beliefs of some individuals; it demonstrates that these individuals were just simple men. It is also important to clarify the doctrines and teachings of the LDS church. Other life in the universe is genearlly not addressed by most of Christianity; however, when you talk with other Christians I have yet to hear the refrain that God created just this world and then stopped. When presented within the context of theology, rather than science fiction, the entire tone of the article changes into something logical and enlightened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs)


 * Storm Rider, I understand where you're coming from, but the fact that it's one point of criticism levied against Mormonism doesn't suffice, in my mind, to justify an encyclopedia article. After all, we shouldn't expect all other points of criticism to receive such treatment, should we?  What is the standard of notability?  I'm honestly casting about for some guidance on this; to illustrate, "Mormon teachings about education" and "Mormon teachings about religion and politics" seem like much more prominent teachings; are such topics less notable than "Mormon teachings about astronomy" simply because the few primary sources for the latter are targeted for criticism?  They're less sensational, to be sure, but sensationalism does not equal notability, in my opinion.  If we could show that reliable sources such as Jan Shipps or other neutral academics had dealt with any of these topics, then I would surely support a claim of notability.  I'm sorry for repeating myself, but without reliable secondary sources I fear that we just end up debating the reliability and interpretation of a nebulous collection of primary sources in an attempt to synthesize something that matches the article title.  Seems like original research to me, if that happens. alanyst /talk/ 19:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not the best resource for defining notability and you do have a point. The LDS teachings regarding education and political issues are probably more notable and applicable to today; however, they do not even begin to be sensationalistic. In many ways the mere fact that something is sensational does make it of note; I think it is debatable if it is also notable. I am not sure they are equivalent. I would look to other editors to contribute; COgden is who I would go to first in this case.
 * Alanyst, outside of Wikipedia I have little regard for this type of thought. I find it to be a throw-back to the dark ages and stories of boogey men. What I find so distasteful is the absolute stupidity of the premise. How many people in the 1800's believed man would walk on the moon? How many were superstitious; believing in elves, goblins, and the like? What is even more remarkable is take it back 2,000 years and one is completely shocked by what society believed as a matter of course. This is an example of historical reconstructionism; let's go back and judge those of yesteryear by today's standards. I find it intellectually repugnant and dishonest. Its sole purpose is to denigrate those who lived by different standards, yet judged by those standards we hold today. However, those are just personal thoughts and have nothing to do with Wikipedia or how we operate here.
 * Regardless, for Wikipedia it is appropriate to discuss these types of concerns in a neutral manner. We do not allow original research, or editorializing, or any other editing that goes against the grain of our policies. This article was instigated for the wrong reasons I suspect, but it can be made an article worthy of Wikipedia. I like the direction COgden has suggested; though I must admit that COgden and I are ofen on opposite sides of issues, I still respect his contributions. Does this help at all? --Storm Rider (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion proposal
I'm sorry if anyone felt like I was pre-empting the discussion here by proposing deletion. That was not my intent, nor was it even really to get it deleted (unless that was the consensus). I did it more as a way of flushing out the issues being discussed here and to get some input from those who haven't been involved in editing. I don't think the result will be delete, but hopefully the process will help provide some ideas of what's best for this article. In all liklihood, that's some sort of abuse of the WP proposed deletion process, but what the hey.... -SESmith 06:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is an abuse, I've seen it done quite often, and it has produced respectable articles in the past. I see some positive contributions here as a result of the AfD.  daveh4h 14:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that the discussion has become more reasoned since the deletion proposal. Val42 07:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a reader of this article; I enjoyed it. It could certainly use some work, but please don't delete it. I think the article could go under a better title, and I was surprised that the city of Enoch wasn't mentioned. It was taken up to heaven, but where is that? May I quickly point out that the people who built the towel of Babel were trying to get to the same place as the city of Enoch. There is a speculative quote by Brigham Young stating that the Gulf of Mexico was about where the city used to be. Incidentally, there were a lot of UFO kind of incidents there. Please focus on good sources and neutrality. Anyway, that's my feedback, from the reader. 141.150.201.27 17:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Twig


 * I enjoyed writing it. It was somewhat advanced and forward looking for Mormon pioneers in the wild wild west to have debates about extraterrestrial life.  I fail to understand the almost rabid opposition to the article, as it is an excellent example and window into early LDS thinking about the topic of life in the stars.  The Mormon Church did advance some revolutionary concepts in the mid-1800s about life scattered accross the cosmos.  I originally had a section about the City of Enoch, but other editors removed it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the City of Enoch information for the reason indicated in the talk section above. No one else has replied to this so I assumed the consensus was that it did not belong. I haven't seen any "rabid opposition" to the article itself—hardly anyone is voting for deletion on the proposed deltion page—all disputes seem to be more towards the structure, title, format, tone, POV, etc. of the article and those choosing to edit it. -SESmith 23:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Mormon cosmology?
I think there was a consensus to rename the article, but I don't think the consensus was Mormon cosmology. As discussed above, cosmology is somewhat different in scope than the direction of this article, which deals with specific stars and extraterrestrial life, which are not part of cosmology. Moreover, it's not just "Mormon" cosmology or astronomy: it should include all interactions between Mormonism and astronomy, including what I would call "astronomical Mormonism". My recommendation is Mormonism and astronomy. CO GDEN  05:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I still favor the term "cosmology" but grant that I may have a different understanding of the term than you or perhaps even Webster would. I tried to find the best word to express "beliefs about the cosmos", so if a better word than "cosmology" expresses that notion then I am happy to adopt it instead.  I think the scope of this article should expand beyond treatment of specific stars and extraterrestrial life, and should attempt to encompass the various descriptions of the cosmos that one can find in Mormonism-related literature.  I think such an approach would better justify the article in terms of notability, as the overall Mormon conception of the universe is, I think, rather unique among religious philosophies.  Details about Kolob and life on other worlds should certainly be included, but I fear that treatment of those topics individually would be giving the ideas much more representation on Wikipedia than they actually have in Mormon theology; it's essentially a concern about undue weight that I'm trying to express here.  I don't think the topic of "Mormon cosmology" needs to go into much detail about the Plan of Salvation or other major components of Mormon theology that are better documented elsewhere; the topic concerns the heavens but not Heaven, and the celestial sphere rather than the Celestial Kingdom, if that makes sense.  To me, "Mormonism and astronomy" comes across too much like "Mormonism and psychiatry" or "Mormonism and electrical engineering", rather than a discussion of particular beliefs Mormons have held about the heavens.  I'm not sure what you mean by "astronomical Mormonism" though; perhaps you could elucidate? alanyst /talk/ 07:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The grand cosmological scheme of Mormonism is really just the Plan of Salvation, I think. Cosmology as I see it means the study of the cosmos as a whole, including its origin, its fate, and man's place within it. Really, the only unique Mormon contribution to that subject I can think of is the Plan of Salvation, i.e, a spirit gets a body on a planet, and the more elite ones become gods and godessess and start peopling their own planets or universes. To make this article distinct from Plan of Salvation, I think we need a different focus, not so much on the grand scheme of things, but more on more local and practical things like Kolob, extraterrestrials, the space program, the astronomical scheme in Abraham, the physics of the Light of Christ emanating from stars, the star marking the birth of Jesus in America, the night without darkness, Joseph Smith's connection with the vernal equinox, etc. What I mean by "astronomical Mormonism" (that's not really a good term, but I don't think there is one), is any connection between Mormonism and astronomy that isn't Mormon astronomy. For example, notable Mormons who were astronomers (like Orson Pratt), and their contributions to the field of astronomy, or astronomical work at BYU. These are not Mormon astronomy, just astronomy by Mormons, perhaps using insights of Mormonism. CO GDEN  19:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that "cosmology" is much too broad unless the article is expanded to discuss the plan of salvation, etc. Compare this article to Hindu cosmology or Buddhist cosmology and it's clear that this article is not really about Mormon cosmology.


 * Otherwise it needs to be renamed and moved. I'm not too fond of "Mormonism and astronomy" either, for reasons I can't quite put my finger on. It just doesn't seem to ring quite right, probably since so many of the concepts here discussed are religious teachings or beliefs and really have no basis necessarily in what we would normally consider to be scientific "astronomy". I guess such a title reminds me too much of "scientific creationism", with a religion trying to pass off religious beliefs as science. I know that's not what is being attempted here with these teachings/beliefs, but the name "Mormonism and astronomy" might give off that impression to persons unfamiliar with the LDS Church or the topic.


 * Frankly, if the article is not expanded into a full treatment of Mormon cosmology, I find it hard to justify its existence. That's probably one reason for the difficult in naming—it's just an unnecessary article with no parallels that we can use to assist in naming. -SESmith 03:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Mortal Life section
The Pre-Mortal Life section needs some major cleanup. -- 159.182.1.4 01:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it. –SESmith 01:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision
I've performed some major revisions in an attempt to make the article better reflective of what it claims to be. Religious cosmologies are supposed to be about the origin, destiny, evolution etc. of the universe, so I've tried to make the article reflect that. Some of the previous edits were not well-sourced at all, so I pretty much just scrapped it and tried to start afresh using good citation to LDS scriptures and publications. I hope I haven't stepped on any toes here. Ubi Terrarum 02:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

About the atonement
Hey, the atonment is teh most important thing to teh mormon religion. So if you must mention it then at least give a nice paragraph about it. or direct them to another site.Lobre 01:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Name
I realise the name of this article has evolved over time, but should this article be Latter Day Saint cosmology, or is the current title more accurate because it only deals with the LDS Church beliefs? Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it should. Bytebear (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to WP:LDSMOS, "Mormon" is correctly used when we're just dealing with the LDS Church. "Latter Day Saint cosmology" to me would suggest that we're talking about all Latter Day Saint churches' cosmologies, but right now there is no discussion of any other churches' cosmology in this article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus and Lucifer as spirit children of God
I've restored the deleted information that identifies Jesus and Lucifer as spirit children of God the Father, and Jesus being the eldest spirit child of God the Father. These facts are fairly basic to Mormon cosmology and should remain. It does little good just to suddenly bring up Jesus as "the Messiah" without referring to who he is or what his relationship with the Father is. Similarly with Lucifer, his status and origin need to be explained, rather than just saying something like "Lucifer also proposed a plan", because the reader will be asking "and who the hang is he?" Since the article is about Mormon cosmology, and not the plan of salvation in the abstract, the origin and identity of these figures is key and must be explained. The more general explanations an editor inserted would be appropriate for an article on the plan of salvation, but this goes above and beyond that—here we're talking about ultimate origins, so it needs to be explicit. All the changed information was amply cited to LDS Church materials that are available on the web for all to see, so it's not exactly controversial or hidden information. Ubi Terrarum 23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In LDS doctrine Jesus was more than teh eldest spirit child of God; there is no comparison between Jesus Christ and all other children of God. In fact, he is recognized as God, he is a member of the Godhead. The terminology that you are using seems to completely obviate these facts. The facts you are focusing on are not basic, but inconsequential is LDS doctrine. Lucifer is looked upon as a creation of God not only by LDS, but by virtually all of Christainity. Do you know of any Christian group that believes that Lucifer is a creature unto himself? Stating the obvious has always seemed to be something to be avoided and not encouraged; of course asking the obvious is even worse. Ubi, you might want to READ the references. All the edits I made did not change one supporting fact of the references. Everything I changed was a previous editor's opinion and not supported by references. If you can prove otherwise, please do so. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) I realize that in Mormon doctrine Jesus is far more than the eldest spirit child of God, but in an article about cosmology, the fact that he was the eldest spirit child of God is surely relevant. Otherwise, there may be confusion, since other Christians believe that Jesus has existed as God eternally. There's no reason to delete the fact that he was a spirit child of God—the other terminology as him as a Messiah, Savior, and God should also be included. Why include some but not others?
 * (2) The reference to Lucifer you have deleted is that he is a spirit child of God, not just a "creation of God". There is a signficant difference, in that most Christians would not argue that Lucifer is a child of God. This too is relevant and should be mentioned.
 * (3) I have read the references, (please WP:AGF) and they do support the information you have deleted. For example, in relation to my points (1) and (2) above, one paragraph in one of the references from Gospel Principles states: "We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, 'Whom shall I send?' (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, 'Here am I, send me' (Abraham 3:27)." It then goes on to say how Lucifer also suggested a rival plan. Another quote from a different chapter says: "The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see D&C 93:21), so he is literally our elder brother". Seems relevant.
 * (4) Just because you think it is a statement of the "obvious" that part of the plan of salvation was that God the Father would cause people to forget the pre-earth life does not make it so. If it's so obvious and not needed in an explanation of Mormon cosmology, why does the LDS Church bother mentioning it in their explanation of it? It may be perfectly relevant if someone were to ask—"if all this pre-earth life stuff happened, why don't I remember it?" In other words, it is not obvious that God caused the forgetfulness of the pre-earth life (it could have just as easily been a mistake in the plan that screwed things up—if it's not explained, readers will not know) and it is a point worth mentioning. Ubi Terrarum 02:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with you rephrasing things and the other "non-deleting info" changes you have made are fine, but please don't delete relevant information that is supported by citation. It looks too much like whitewashing. Whether it is "inconsequential" to Mormon doctrine or not is irrelevant—on a page for Mormon cosmology, the origins of things and individuals and gods and devils is relevant, even if "Mormon cosmology" as such is not a huge topic of discussion or concern in the church. Ubi Terrarum 02:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You should not give undue weight to the concept of Jesus and Satan being brothers. It is equally true that Ghandi and Jesus were brothers, and Hitler and Bob Barker were brothers.  Bytebear (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive?
This page is a bit long and the conversations are stale; does it make sense to archive this talk page? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That was more than three years ago. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Non-canonical views
Why are we chronicling "non-canonical" statements by Mormon leaders? Why can't we delete the entire subsection. Someone says they're people on the moon. Another says such thoughts were common in the 19th century. Who cares? What does this have to do with official Mormon cosmology?

BTW, are we certain that we can tell a "canonical" statement from a "non-canonical" one? If all incorrect statements become "non-canonical" at the time of the discovery that they were wrong, then the section should stay. Student7 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Although the Mormon canon is open, in a sense it is very narrow. Things only become canonical if they are accepted by a vote of church membership as being canonical. But stuff that doesn't meet this high standard still has a very strong effect within the church. Statements made by the President of the Church are not canonical, but they carry tremendous weight with many Latter-day Saints, and there are statements to the effect that are widely believed that the words of the living prophet are even more important than the words of the scriptural canon. So the non-canonical stuff is very significant, even though technically it is not as "authoritative" as the canonical stuff. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * These noncanonical statements love to be paraded by what is typically identified as anti-Mormon literature. They are the personal musings of men that were also leaders of the Church. It is vital to segregate actual doctrines and teachings and the personal opinions of men. Although it is quaint to read what was written or thought by a man in the 1800s, it is no impact on the Church as a whole.
 * The living prophet does have a position of authority and that which he states in a world wide conference (twice a year) or that which he publishes is given weight; just as Catholics will listen to the pope when he speaks. However, these are not the same as an encyclical or anything cose to it. Even the prophet today cannot publish a church wide statement unless it is approved by the apostles.
 * I see no reason to keep the private musings in an article that is attempting to describe actual Mormon cosmology. To keep it is more like saying here is actual teachings and there here are some wierd thoughts that individuals have thought, but are not believed or taught by the Church. I suspect we could do this for every other church known today (men can think of some real doozies), but we just don't do it for other churches. Strange, but true. -- Storm  Rider  14:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think if popes, for instance, had made such non-canonical statements, they would definitely be covered by WP articles. The president of the LDS Church is not just "some individual"—his comments, whatever the context—are typically given substantial weight both by LDS Church members and by non-members. The article does not need to be a "canonical-only" coverage of the topic. If it were, much of it would need to be deleted, because much of Mormon cosmology that is covered in books such as Gospel Principles is not found in the Mormon canonical scriptures, but rather is derived from the teachings of LDS Church presidents.
 * Anyway, regardless of what we individually think, the best book I know on the topic, Brooke's Refiner's Fire, does have extensive discussions of non-canonical statements—especially those by Joseph Smith—related to Mormon cosmology, so it certainly is information that is covered by reliable and neutral sources. This article probably needs to do a better job of citing to the reliable sources in addition to to the original texts of the statements. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as there are qualifiers that clearly identify doctrine from non-doctrine, I don't havea problem. I have a major problem when someone tries to enforce what they think is Church doctrine. The prophet is first, foremost, and last a man; nothing more and nothing less. Not once in all eternity has a prophet been declared absolutely perfect as God is perfect (don't try the OT verses to the contrary, context is everything). They think as men think and yet are inspired by God at times. We know when something is inspired as doctrine because it is added to LDS scripture. If it has not been added to scripture there is a reason; it is because it is not doctrine. This is really simple, but obviously evades the understanding of even those who should know better. It is like seeing a burning fire and still needing to stick your hand into the coals to confirm that they are hot. Some individuals are compelled to spit into the wind; touch the coals; babble about who said what and deny actual LDS doctrine. - Storm  Rider  11:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Second Anointing not Requisite for Exaltation
I'm just a reader and don't want to step on any toes here as you all seem passionate about the page, but, upon reading it, I immediately noticed an error: "As prerequisites for this 'greatest gift of God', adherents believe that either in this life or the afterlife, they must become 'perfect', they must participate in all the required ceremonies, and their exaltation must be 'sealed upon them' by the Holy Ghost via the Second Anointing." The second anointing is a way to receive an assurance of exaltation, but by no means is it necessary and the number of people that receive this ordinance is very small. --174.19.122.137 (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)kb
 * good catch. Did you correct it? - Storm  Rider  11:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ it seems, although you have to 'read between the lines' and you won't find documentation. --  Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A current edit to improve the article
A non-editor improved the article with, "The pre-existent godhood of Adam/Michael is and has always been repudiated by the LDS Church..." and this is a germane point of "Mormon cosmology" discussion here. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with the statement is that it is not necessarily true, depending on how one interprets some statements of church leaders in the 19th century. It's therefore a POV statement. Many people interpret Brigham Young and other leaders' comments relating to the Adam–God doctrine as equating Adam with Elohim and therefore stating that Adam was God before he came to earth as a mortal. This concept is today rejected by the LDS Church, but past teachings are not as clear-cut as "is and has always been repudiated". There was a period of years where this very issue was vigorously debated among leaders and members of the church, with some of the highest leaders of the church supporting the Adam=God position. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)