This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mormon cosmology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, or Apologetics/ Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, or Apologetics/ Polemics at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on June 10, 2007. The result of the discussion was KEEP but rename. |
This article is under scrutiny by various authors. Edits here will be patrolled. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The tone of the article needs some work. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Edit summaries like these are a disgrace:
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 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)
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 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)
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
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)
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.
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)
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 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 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. COGDEN 05:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The Pre-Mortal Life section needs some major cleanup. -- 159.182.1.4 01:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mormon cosmology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, or Apologetics/ Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, or Apologetics/ Polemics at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on June 10, 2007. The result of the discussion was KEEP but rename. |
This article is under scrutiny by various authors. Edits here will be patrolled. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The tone of the article needs some work. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Edit summaries like these are a disgrace:
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 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)
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 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)
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
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)
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.
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)
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 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 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. COGDEN 05:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The Pre-Mortal Life section needs some major cleanup. -- 159.182.1.4 01:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)