Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 3

Unrealistic projection
I removed the projection of numbers for 2080 because (1) nobody knows anything about what numbers will be like in 2080. (2) the book may be by a 'non-lds' sociologist, but is published by two LDS organisations. DJ Clayworth 19:16, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Hey, DJ:
 * No one knows what the world will be like in 2080, but the paragraph specifically says it is a projection.
 * The reference I cited was from a LDS publication. However, they cite a non-LDS publication for the data. It comes from the Religious Reseach Association, a non-LDS organization. Would you prefer I cite that as a source?


 * I think the information is encyclopedic and informative. However, I'm biased since I added it myself. But I'd love to see similar future membership projections for other religions. I think it's relevant. :-) &mdash;Frecklefoot 19:57, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Incidentally, the study referenced was done by a non-LDS researcher, Rodney Stark. -Visorstuff 00:58, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noted that it was a non-LDS source. Would anyone object if the info was added back in? &mdash;Frecklefoot 14:42, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I personally don't care either way - Stark has continued, in various forums, to say his projections were conservative. The church basically doubles every two decades. -Visorstuff 16:50, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is relevant, informative and its conclusions should be relatively unobjectionable although it may be helpful to state what the the study presumed in making the projections so that no one gets in a tizzy. Maybe this was already included in the original post which I never saw. B 16:56, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

Why the capitals?
Why throughout the article does the word "church" have a capital C when not used as part of a proper name? Shouldn't this page have the same style as the "Christianity" or "Catholicism  etc pages which only use a capital C in proper names.  Moriori 21:52, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think the difference is that both those articles refer to many churches. Where an article is devoted to one church, I think it reasonable to treat the Church as a proper name, as it is merely a shorted version of that particular church's full name. FearÉIREANN 22:08, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I think it more reasonable to only capitalise proper names, and "the Church" is not one of them, unless you wish to argue that LDS is the one and only church. Moriori


 * It's also standard business writing style/practice to refer to the company's proper name on first reference and then the Company on second reference. Nearly all annual reports are written this way. Visorstuff 22:32, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * That answer speaks volumes. Wikipedia is not a company report and not meant to be, but the page we are referring to reads like a LDS handout. A church is no different to a school or university. Check out Brigham Young University.  The letter U is not capped when not used as part of a proper name. Nor should it be. Moriori 23:10, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)


 * This is not meant to be a "handout" as you say, but it is a standard writing style that most of us in the business world (or even academia) are used to. We use the same about other organizations. It's a common second-reference style. See comments below about writing styles.


 * Since when does the business world set Wikipedia style? In the publishing/communications world -- which Wikipedia is part of -- the general style is to only use capitals for proper names, the same as used in the Brigham Young University page which I brought to your attention but which you have not commented on. Moriori 02:30, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * I have not been involved with editing that article and know very little about the usage there. I think in the "publishing world," as you say, it can go both ways - especially according to Associated Press (AP) style rules. Having been a journalist, and currently in the world of communications for a living, I have personally referenced the Church and the church both ways, depending on the organization's preferences. However if you feel that strongly, as I said before, feel free to edit the 1000s of religion pages that have adopted this style. It sounds like you have many years of experience as a writer, and so trust your judgement. We on the other side of the lake see it a bit different, but that's fine. Visorstuff 00:27, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Feel free to change if you want to take the time. -V

I think you are fundamentally wrong, Moriori. In this article church is not used generically but as a specific reference to a specific church, with Church shorthand for the full name. I would expect the word to be capitalised here just as I would expect Church when referring to the Roman Catholic Church to be capitalised in an article talking about RCism, just as I would expect an article on the Church of England when referring in shorthand to that institution to use Church, just as I would expect an article on the state church in Norway, when talking specifically about that institution to capitalise the Church, just as I would expect an article on the Lutheran Church to capitalise the Church. In effect, as it is shorthand for a specific church and not a generic reference to multiple churches, it is quite normal to treat it as a proper noun. It would be different if in an article on multiple churches one church was capitalised. But in a specific article, referring to a specific church, rather than use the entire name of the Church it is perfectly logical to capitalise it, and illogical not to.


 * Then you need to go the Brigham Young University page to capitalise every reference to the university on that page. Will you volunteer to go through Wikipedia to rectify similar occurrences? Moriori

Oh God - I was accused of being a Catholic-apologist for defending NPOV principles on various RC pages. Does this mean I'll be accused of being a Mormon-apologist too? Heck I'd better keep away from protestant pages then. :-) FearÉIREANN 00:03, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * We are talking style, not content, so I don&#8217;t see how you could be a Mormon-apologist and I certainly wouldn&#8217;t say you were.Moriori

Very funny, I love it! Can you imagine what would happen if Wikipedia standardized on one specific writing style or set or writing guidelines like to AP, APA, Business Standard or Chicago? Visorstuff


 * Wikipedia does have a style. In the English version it&#8217;s to present concise English to inform readers clearly and accurately without infuence from outside pressures or POV re content. Most releases I have ever dealt with from business houses, throughout a long career as an editor, were ungrammatical waffle requiring savage excisions. Their use of caps was appalling. Incidentally, have a look at the following quote: &#8220;Structure of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The First Presidency (church president and two councillors), the Council of the Twelve, the First Quorum of Seventy (and its presidency, concerned especially with missions), and the presiding bishop and two councillors (who control the Aaronic priesthood) constitute the &#8220;General Authorities&#8221; of the church&#8221;. Note &#8220;church&#8221; twice without caps. It&#8217;s from  Brittanica. They obviously haven't heard of  "standard business writing style/practice". Cheers Moriori 02:30, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah now I think I am seeing the problem: we are having a clash of English's. For example, the quoted Encyclopedia Britannica article is using UK English (hence the "misspelling" of councillors), whereas I think and write in US English. Considering the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation is located in Florida, I think it fair that we write the encyclopedia entries in US English, thus making the reference to the Enyclopedia Britannica irrelevent.


 * My overall opinion is this: if the sentence sounds natural and has the correct meaning when you replace "the Church" with "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", then "the Church" should have a capital C. Zulugrid 03:41, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

That is exactly correct. It makes no sense to lowercase Church when it is simply short for a full name and should of course be uppercased. It does not by any wild stretch indicate accepting a special position for the church being discussed. FearÉIREANN 23:55, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Explanation of Updates
I added a References section. I thought that tidbit on the LDS Church being 5th largest Christian denomination in the US was interesting, so I tried to look it up online. I went to Adherents.com, which is easily the most informative (and often most confusing) religion statistics website around. I couldn't find anything about the LDS Church being 5th in the US for denominations, but it did say that it was 4th for religious bodies in the US, so I went ahead and changed that part of the article and linked to my source in the references section.

I also linked to the Church's "Facts and Figures" webpage in case anyone was interested where the number "11 million" came from. It is a good idea to cite sources as much as possible anyway. For both references I used the unofficial Wiki standard from Cite your sources.

I went to all the scriptural references and linked them to the approriate webpage at the Church's scripture website. It seemed appropriate to link it to that website instead of another because the article talks about official Church canons, and so it makes sense to link to the official Church canons. It is possible that I missed some though, and I didn't link the Articles of Faith because they are pointing to the Wiki A of F page.

I also changed many of the "church"'s to "Church"'s where it seemed approriate. I think this issue is pretty much settled that "Church" is generally being used as a proper noun as shorthand for the full name of the Church. I'm sure I missed many because I only went through about half the article.

I modified several sentences that didn't read properly (such as the "God is the organizer of this earth" sentence, which wasn't grammatically correct and repeated itself) and added/moved/removed a few commas as seemed appropriate. I also moved the "a" in "a spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents" outside of the quotes because it is not actually part of the quote, and then I put a reference to The Family proclamation to help those not familiar with the document locate the source of the quote.

Last, I changed an "LDS" and a "Mormons" to "Latter-day Saints". It would seem appropriate to follow the Church's style guide as much as possible when writing about the Church. (It also reads easier I think...)

Today was the first day I ever visited Wikipedia, and I am quite impressed with the LDS page that everyone has created together. I have already pointed several non-LDS friends to it to help them better understand my religion and its basic beliefs in a non-LDS setting.

I do, however, agree somewhat with Shane Hathaway in that the article uses an excessive amount of the Church "believes" this and the Church "claims" that. Once you state in a paragraph, or often even in a section, that what you are talking about are the beliefs of the Church, then I don't think it is really necessary to repeat it every sentence. This paragraph gives a perfect example of (what I consider to be) both bad and good:


 * In Mormon theology, God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct personages that together form the Godhead (as distinct from the Trinity decreed by the First Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, in response to disagreement in the form of Arianism within the early church). According to Church doctrine, all three members of the Godhead are eternal and equal in divinity, but they play somewhat different roles. While the Holy Ghost is a spirit who has not yet received a physical body, God and Jesus are embodied spirits; that is, the spirits (or spiritual bodies) of both God and Jesus are clothed in separate, distinct, perfected, glorified, physical bodies of flesh and bone.

Notice that there are three sentences in this paragraph. The paragraph starts by saying "In Mormon theology", which clearly states that this paragraph is going to be about the beliefs of members of the Church. But then in the second sentence it says "According to Church doctrine". It should be obvious to the read that the second sentence is "according to Church doctrine" because the first sentence said "in Mormon theology". Removing "According to Church doctrine" would make for a nicer, more NPOV-sounding paragraph. Looking at the third sentence, you'll notice this is exactly what the author did; the third sentence contains no "the Church believes" introduction. There are several other places in the article that would sound and flow better if the extra "the Church believes" were taken out. I just thought I'd bring it up and perhaps get some comments before I go making major changes to the text of the article...

For future updates, I'd like to add something to the currently blank Faith section if nobody currently has any plans for it, and perhaps add a little more detail to the explanation of the name of the Church (nothing like an indepth history, but maybe a slightly larger paragraph than what is currently there would be nice).

Anyways, let me know if I've seriously botched anything or took too much liberty with my editing, as I am new to this. :o)


 * That was a nice, informative description of all your changes. :-) I don't have a problem with any of them. As far as Faith goes, the more information the better. The only thing I'd say is be sure to sign your comments. I see that you did on several other comments here, so I assume it was just an oversight this time. :-) &mdash;Frecklefoot 15:04, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Oops. One thing I should point out is that it is generally considered bad Wikipedia style to insert links to external sites within article text; it is preferable to keep them all in the External Links section. This style is ignored when it is more or less unavoidable. In my browser, the links show up in different colors, so I can spot them easily, but new visitors may not realize they are being directed to another website. I think in the case of your edits, it was apprpriate to link to the Church's website, but I wonder if there is a nice, concise way to indicate the link is external? Anyone have any thoughts on this? I don't think their is a Wiki style guideline.


 * Also you say you added the references section, which is good, but it'd be nice if you actually referred to your references with footnotes. For example (in Wiki markup):


 * "...in the United States1"


 * But this is just MHO. I don't know what the style guide says about it. It just seems really useful to me. I don't know which references you used for which fact, so I'll leave that as a job for you if you care to do it. &mdash;Frecklefoot 15:23, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes I thought about doing that, but then ran into the problem of what if someone adds a new reference somewhere in the middle of the page. Do we allow the references to go 1, 2, 3, 7, 4, 5, 6? Or would we have to change the reference number for each and every reference after the new reference, and then change the reference numbers at the bottom? Or perhaps the references could be at the end of each main section (eg, Overview, Name of the Church, The Godhead, etc etc..), starting at 1 again for each new section (thus making renumbering much easier) and possibly in a slightly smaller font size (so it doesn't stand out quite so much).


 * I absolutely agree that it would be much more convenient and useful to have reference numbers, but I didn't see anything in the wiki style guide thingamajig saying how to do it, and am not sure what the best way to do it would be. Right now I'm leaning towards the having the references at the bottom of each section idea. &mdash;Zulugrid 21:09, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Got something basic, but useful, going. Pretty easy to follow the example of the three references I already put in. Basically you put the small number as you normally would for a reference in the article, but it links directly to the reference, not the References section. And in the References section you cite your source like you normally would, and all you have to worry about it putting the source in the correct spot in the list (the numbering is all automatic). Only thing I couldn't figure out was how to get sup to work with the autonumbering feature... &mdash;Zulugrid 05:59, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I modified the paragraph on the Church's use of the cross. The previous paragraph stated that Latter-day Saints believed that the life and resurrection were more important than the death of Christ, which isn't necessarily true. The Church teaches that the death of Christ was a very important and essential part of the atonement. Instead, I put a small thing in there saying that many members find the use of the cross repugnant (eg, offensive, although repugnant also carries the meaning "contradictory" which is in line with LDS beliefs that it doesn't make any logical sense to wear the method of Christ's death around your neck) and giving an explanation of the Latter-day Saint's alternate method of worship. Zulugrid 00:17, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Did a bit of rewording in the Godhead section. IMHO, phrases like "according to" and "LDS believe" are WAYYY over used in this article (or encyclopedia entry or whatever you want to call it. I'm going to refer to it as an article because "article" is a nice short word.). Obviously when reading about any religion you are going to hear the opinions, beliefs, and teachings of whatever particular religion you are reading about. An occasional "reminder" that what you are reading is not necessarily the beliefs of the common person is reasonable, and even beneficial, but really only one of these reminders is needed per paragraph or two. I also phased out a few "mormons". "Mormonism" is a correct term, but generally "mormon" is a slang word and should be left out of an encyclopedia entry (except for a small remark stating that the slang exists, as someone thoughtfully did in the "Name of the Church" section). For a future change, I think I'd like to touch on the topic of omnipresence and its relation to God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Zulugrid 00:52, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * Zulugrid, I like what you've done with the references. The [1] works really well and shows that the link is external. One minor quibble is your placement of the "References" section inside the External Links section. Normally, External Links are absolutely last and "References" are just before it (you can look at other articles to verify this). So, personally, I'd move it to just above the external links section. If you don't have strong feelings about this, I'll do it sometime. &mdash;Frecklefoot 14:46, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have a question about this sentence in the Godhead section: In the context of this Universe, Creation, or Time and Space, the Church believes that God is the creator of the entire Universe, that nothing existed until God created it, that God himself is uncreated and has always existed, is omnipotent relative to anything at all in the totality of creation, and is immutable, without change in the past or future. The phrase "that nothing existed until God created it" seems to contradict what it says a couple paragraphs earlier, that God organized existing matter rather than creating from nothing, ex nihilo. Could one of these paragraphs be rephrased to avoid the apparent contradiction? Also, in this section, I presume that "God" refers to "God the Father" when not otherwise specified? If so, should this usage be clarified? Forgive me if it was already spelled out this way earlier in the article; I could have missed it. Thanks, Wesley 06:46, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Usually the confusion is that "creation" means "organized" in Mormonism, but in this case the wikipedian went to far in the editing. That phrase is flatly wrong. B 00:01, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for confirming my suspicion regaring that phrase; I just couldn't be sure. ;-) Wesley 19:34, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Problem is "Mormon Church" not "Mormonism"
While it's true that the formal name is "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints," I think it's silly to claim that the term "Mormon" is "incorrect." Bruce R. McKonkie was an apostle when he wrote "Mormon Doctrine," and even User:BoNoMoJo uses "Mormon" colloquially to mean "LDS." (See his comment below, for example, where he objects to someone else's "prejudicial bigotry against Mormonism.") The use of the term "Mormon" as a name for the church is simply an example of metonymy, a very common linguistic practice. People have adopted the term "Mormon" to mean the church because one of the characteristics makes Mormonism distinct is its belief in the Book of Mormon. It's no more "incorrect" to do this than it is when someone refers to an employee as a "hired hand." Everyone knows that the employee consists of more than just a hand, and moreover there are people with hands who aren't necessarily employees, but the term has acquired a meaning that everyone understands. Just as "Lutheran" or "Protestant" are used because they point to the special characteristics of religions that regard themselves as Christians first, and "protesters" or "followers of Luther" second, the term "Mormon" has become thoroughly associated with the LDS church. In fact, there isn't any good substitute for the word "Mormonism," which is why even BoNoMoJo is compelled to use it. No one, LDS or non-LDS, refers to the creeds of the church as "LDSism" or "Joseph Smithism." Are the people who discuss their religion on alt.religion.mormon also "incorrect"? Is the Mormon Tabernacle Choir incorrectly named? What about publications such as "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought," "Sunstone: Mormon Experience, Scholarship, Issues, & Art," or the "Journal of Mormon History"?

It's true that in the early years of Mormonism's existence, the term had pejorative connotations, but those connotations have faded away with time. In Wisconsin, where I live, most people know that Salt Lake City is "a Mormon city," but they don't use the term with any intention of disrespect, and many of them don't even know the official name of the church. If anything, the connotations of "LDS" are worse than the connotations of "Mormon," in part because of the unfortunate similarity to "LSD," and in part because an acronym made up of consonants sounds rather bureaucratic and stilted. I realize also that one issue here is the church's effort to rebrand itself to put more emphasis on the "Church of Jesus Christ" part of its name, but if that's the issue, "LDS" is just as bad as "Mormon."

As for the point that there is more than one church which regards the Book of Mormon as scripture, that's certainly true. The same thing can be said, however, about Catholicism, yet people understand that the term "Catholic" by itself refers to the religion whose formal name is the "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church."

I'm not going to insist un undoing BoNoMoJo's reversion of my edit, because it's really not very important to me. However, I think he should think carefully before accusing other people of being "incorrect" or "insensitive." Furthermore, there is one good reason to prefer my editorial choice over his. Many readers of this article will be people who are accustomed to using the term "Mormon," and I think some of them will find it rather off-putting to be told that their accustomed usage is "incorrect." Why offend people needlessly? Sheldon Rampton Jan 4, 2004


 * Sheldon, a couple of things: First, sign your posts please. Second, add your comments to the bottom of the talk page (or at least where it is relevant) rather than the middle of the talk page where it has no obvious relevance to any other comments. Third you have completely missed the point. The issue isn't about "Mormon" or "Mormonism" but "Mormon Church". There isn't a "Mormon Church"...never has been. Please pay attention and don't make sloppy edits...it makes the entirety of your comments just blah blah blah... B 09:33, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * I made a change that hopefully you can both agree on. If not, you can revert it. Also, I have removed some text from the introduction. While it is true and very relavent, I think such a detailed explanation needs to go under the Scripture heading. Here too, feel free to disagree. Q


 * Quintessent's change is OK with me. As for saying I have completely "missed the point," no I haven't. If the term "Mormon" is OK as a both a noun and an adjective, the term "Mormon Church" is OK as an popular nickname for the church. It's pedantry to pretend that "Mormon Tabernacle" is an acceptaple and friendly description of a building owned by the church, but "Mormon Church" is "insensitive" and "incorrect." When you say that I have "missed the point," you seem yourself to have refused to read what I wrote. I never stated that the "Mormon Church" is its official name. But "Catholic Church" isn't an official name either, and you don't see Catholics acting all huffy and offended whenever anyone uses that term. Don't you have something more important to get nasty about, like the question of whether it's okay to drink Mountain Dew? Better yet, maybe you should take a class in anger management, so you can lose your habit of throwing around gratuitous insults ("completely missed the point," "sloppy," "blah blah blah"). --Sheldon Rampton 19:13, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Q. Long time, no see. Nice to have you around. I've some concerns about your recent changes to the intro, but more so with the overview. You've added some good material to the overview including reference to the Great Apostasy that wasn't there before, but in the process you deleted references to chosen people, continuous revelation and modern prophets. I think these need to be included in the overview because they are key points that wholly or somewhat distinguish Mormonism from the rest of Christianity. (Although the chosen people article needs a rewrite with a broader perspective.) In regards to the &quot;Mormon Church&quot; in the intro, given it's wide use, folks looking for &quot;Mormon Chuch&quot; in wikipedia and land at this article might be lost as to why they've showed up there and so reference to it should be more immediate. I think we agree here that it should be in the opening/intro of the article. But given the controversy of using &quot;Mormon Church&quot;, it makes sense to briefly point that out too whether it states something like many or most members don't like it or that the Church doesn't like it AND while on that point also briefly reference that using Latter-day Saint is preferred to using Mormon. Then it can be discussed later in the article why members or the Church don't like it and why Latter-day Saint should be preferred to Mormon. For these reasons, I'm changing the intro back to my last edit. B 17:40, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * You mean gratuitous and bigoted insults like "you should take a class in anger management" and "whether it's okay to drink Mountain Dew?" From the beginning you misconstrued the issue as:
 * it's silly to claim that the term "Mormon" is "incorrect"; and
 * If the AP Style Guide still considers "Mormon" OK, it's not really "incorrect." It's just "informal".
 * But no one was claiming that "Mormon" was incorrect; the issue was that "Mormon Church" was incorrect. Perhaps "incorrect" is a poor term, but it should be made clear that Latter-day Saints don't like their Church being called the "Mormon Church". The issue is whether that reference overshadows the official name and what that implies...members of the Church don't claim to be merely Mormons who follow the prophet Mormon or the Book of Mormon...they claim to be Latter-day Saints who are disciples of Jesus Christ. There's potential for offense because of the meaning that gets disguised by use of "Mormon Church" over the use of the official name...and this becomes especially crucial given that most people don't know the official name of the Church...in this respect your "hired hand" example is a poor analogy...AND at least Catholic Church has far more semblance to "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church" than "Mormon Church" has to the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". There is no problem using "LDS Church" in a wikipedia article AFTER stating the full name of the church in the article...in that way the meaning in the name is not lost by using figurative language. Please see Naming conventions (Mormonism) as to how we are trying to work through this issue. If you have anything insightful to add there, please do. B 21:51, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I meant gratuitous insults like the ones you slung at me. If you treat me with disrespect, you can expect the same in return. There's nothing "bigoted" about saying you should take a class in anger management after you've behaved like a jerk, and my comment about Mountain Dew wasn't bigoted either. It's an apt characterization of the unpleasant, officious, self-righteous preoccupation with trivia that you've displayed throughout this exchange (and in other places where I've seen you insult others besides myself). Not all Mormons are unpleasant, officious, self-righteous and preoccupied with trivia, but that's the way you've behaved. As for the claim that "Latter-day Saints don't like their Church being called the 'Mormon Church,'" you're being presumptuous in claiming to speak for all Mormons. I grew up in a multi-generational Mormon family, and none of the members I grew up with found the term "Mormon Church" offensive. In any case, the question of whether some Mormons find the term offensive has no bearing on whether it is correct. Some women find the word "women" offensive and prefer "womyn," but that doesn't entitle them to claim that the usual spelling is "incorrect." Ditto for African-Americans who don't like being called "black," or Latin Americans and Canadians who are sometimes offended that "Americans" is popularly used as a synonym for "U.S. citizens." For that matter, some people might find it offensive for you to call yourself a "saint," but that doesn't entitle them to claim that the term "Latter-Day Saint" is incorrect. Dictionaries define language on the basis of actual usage, not the prescriptive demands of special interests. "Mormon Church" has been used as a nickname for the LDS church for so long that the AP Style Guide and the American Heritage Dictionary consider it correct. What, other than your inflated sense of your own righteousness, entitles you to say you're correct and they're not?


 * I don't want to get involved in any personal issues, but on the point of terminology, I agree with Sheldon. Mormons don't seem to find the name Mormons offensive. The only real problem is that LDS Mormons, quite reasonably, want to distinguish themselves from non-LDS Mormons. And that is fine too. JeMa 20:52, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, don't presume to tell me where I should post my comments. If you insult me on this page, this is where I'll respond. --Sheldon Rampton 01:19, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. Whatever. Time to go visit your therapist again, Sheldon. You mean like the way "you've behaved like a jerk" and your "unpleasant, officious, self-righteous preoccupation with trivia"? You may want to reconsider whether you gave reason for offense first. If you've got some more mud you want to sling at me, why don't you just ask me for my email or something rather than waste every one else's time here. If you had read carefully, you would've observed that I already conceded that "incorrect" may not be the best word in framing the issue...so why continue to rant on that point? So somehow as a "multi-generational" (did you want to compare pedigrees or something?) are you presuming that you are in a better position than me to state whether or not most Mormons do not like the term "Mormon Church"? B 16:01, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

Please, can we stop arguing over whether someone was insulted and focus on the article itself? Life is too short to waste it taking offense at insults, whether real or imagined. For starters, can anyone summarize the specific text in the article now that should be changed, with a suggested replacement? Wesley 17:16, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, the focus on whether someone was insulted is a waste of everyone's time. However, BoNoMoJo has asked me to reconsider whether I gave reason for offense first. I have, and in my review of our exchange, I find that he gratuitously insulted me on two separate occasions before I got fed up and began responding in kind. At this point, however, I consider the matter ended. If he can manage to show better manners in the future, I'll do the same. If he wants to discuss this further via email, that's fine too. He can email me through my Wikipedia user page. (Since he chose not to include his own email address when he registered as a user, my only current option for responding to him is publicly.) --Sheldon Rampton 19:05, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Another option for responding would be through his "user talk page": http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoNoMoJo. You can find any user's Talk page by first clicking on their name as found in their signature, then from that person's User page, click on the "Discuss this page" link to get to their talk page. Peace, Wesley 19:34, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)