Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transgression (Latter Day Saints)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Sr13 09:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Transgression (Latter Day Saints)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not clear at all that this is an actual doctrine in Latter Day Saint theology that is distinct from "sin" (as presented in the article). Article provides no sources. Internet research on topic yields two quotes from historical LDS leaders which can be interpreted as generally supporting the article's contentions, but these quotes are contradicted by quotes from other leaders and sources. No indication on lds.org that this is an official doctrine of the LDS Church. Cannot find any other information that other smaller Latter Day Saint denominations have adopted this doctrine either. Sounds like the editors may have been inspired by the legal distinction between malum in se crimes and malum prohibitum crimes. No one has disputed placement of notability tag on discussion page. Very few of the articles dealing with Latter Day Saint beliefs link to it. SESmith 02:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll research this a bit before casting a !vote. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - I was raised LDS (I've long since left the religion) and I've never heard the term differentiated this way. When I poked around on the web, I find a curious number of anti-LDS sites arguing the same points the article makes, but no real LDS sites.  It seems like an attempt to muddy the theological waters to gain traction in some anti-LDS arguments.  Wikipedia is not the place for that. - Richfife 03:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are no cited sources in the article giving evidence whether this is actual Latter-Day Saint doctrine.  TheInfinityZero 05:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not for things made up in a school day I concur with Richfife on it not being refered to like that by the religion, however I think it would be wise to seek comment from the LDS WikiProject for their comments before taking action. I also concur that there seems to be a sense of WP:COPYVIO with this entry as well. Thewinchester (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. While my research is strictly colloquial, to quote somebody who was born and raised hardcore LDS, it is "when you fucked up royally against someone!".  In short, what's here is not even correct in the slightest.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 07:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fix or Delete. The article is poorly written and unsourced, but it does identify why LDS don't believe that the fall of man was a sin.  In its current form, it should be deleted, but I see the potential for it to be a valid article. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 12:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was raised in the LDS church and never heard anything to this effect - the term transgression was used synonymously with sin.  My memory might always be flawed - but a check for info turns up the same lack of anything verifiable.  Nothing here to fix or merge as it appears to be totally unverifiable at best, patently false at worst.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a current member of the Latter-Day Saint church, and having checked a few sources to make sure I was correct on this, this is utterly non-doctrine within the LDS Church.Maintainerzero 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge &mdash; Unless someone can come up with some references to the contrary, the only transgression that is not a sin that has been given doctrinally is the fall of Adam and Eve. Therefore, merge this portion into the sin article then delete this article.  Val42 19:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed I am a CURRENT AND FAITHFUL member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have added a reference to an address given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, one of the Twelve Apostles, who the original author of the article under question blatantly plagiarized. Roughly 70% of the original article is a paraphrase/quote from Elder Oaks.   Nemesis135
 * I would consider this to be one reliable source. If there is nothing else to corroborate this, though, my !vote will stand.  Anyone else on this?
 * Corrolary: This is one secondary reliable source. Need a primary though - the contents of Ensign, if I remember right, aren't necessarily considered to be actual doctrine.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Still for Delete: Contents of Ensign are not necessarily doctrine, nor are statements of one apostle of the church. Still not convinced. -SESmith 11:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - with the addition of a source this article is now putting far too much undue weight on a single turn of phrase used in a single instance. If anything that quote is about the fall of Adam and in no way intended to create a second class of "spiritual infractions".  Taking the fact that one man said the fall is a transgression and not a sin and subsequently putting your own spin on the word is silly.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.