Talk:Animals and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

What is this article about?

What in the world is this article about? It comes across as someone pushing a pet agenda, not as an encyclopedic article. --216.195.220.34 20:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The article's generalizations and lack of citations indictate that there may be very little truth to its contents. --24.2.75.74 21:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically this article accords with LDS theology - as I am not conversant on the subject other than peripheral knowledge that the theology supports it etc - I am asking the editors to respond to the {{db}} speedy delete request --Trödel 20:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Animals in the grand scope of Christianity need to be explored more! LDS are but one Christian church whose leaders have evidently commented on the significance of animal life, but animals are important to many more than just LDS, including non-Christian perspectives. They should be included also. The broader Christian view needs to be navigated carefully (including LDS, also a Christian church). Interestingly enough, CS Lewis devotes an entire essay in The Problem of Pain (ISBN: 0060652969) titled "Animal Pain" that parses the moral and physical intracacies of animal life, especially in their relation to humanity. Clearly, animals are important in his fiction as well. Thus, an article dealing with just the LDS view is, I think, a little too narrow in the broader scope of the issue, albeit very, very interesting...it merely needs expansion, context, and references, not deletion! I don't think we should abandon valid information, even if it doesn't appear to be timely, immediately relevant, or interesting to resident Wiki editors. Look, frankly I don't perceive this information to be in error, just that it needs more substantiation, not to mention context. It doesn't sound like you're overtly advocating a speedy deletion, Trödel, just a review. So, my vote: deleting this would be a shame.--Piewalker 16:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting this article would be an egregious case of anti-Mormon bigotry and religious persecution. Vote no on deletion. Vote yes on adding more information and documentation. Also, yes on more articles on animals in Christianity in general, and in other religions as well.Das Baz 15:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As a Latter-Day Saint, I can imagine no reason for this article to be here. I can only assume Das Baz above me is being needlessly sarcastic. However, since I can't imagine LDS views on animals being greatly varied from other Christian groups' feelings on the subject, why not make it all inclusive? There is really nothing special about treating them with kindness, much like everyone else. I'm sure if you asked a Catholic priest or Jewish rabbi whether it was okay to shoot little birds, they would both tell you no. Kalak5 02:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Now that several references and citations and an external link have been added, the proposal for deletion should itself be deleted.Das Baz 15:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I know it can be tough when an article that you like is proposed for deletion, but I hope you can realize that it's not meant as a personal attack, or as an attack on Mormonism. I think it's verifyability and notability that people are concerned about here, not anything relating to liking or disliking the LDS church. A lot of articles are nominated for these reasons. Once a AfD (articles for deletion) nomination is made, it cannot just be removed. Once the discussion on it is completed, the article will be kept, deleted, or merged into another article depending on the general consensus. If you think that the article is up to par, you're free to voice that opinion at the AfD discussion and your views will be taken into account. As you can see from the discussion already there, Wikipedians are seriously considering the issue and will not make this decision out of frivolity. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 20:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Icarus, I don't think you understand Das Baz's argument about the existence of anti-Mormon angst. There is some sensitivity to the matter because there has been a great deal of prejudice leveled against LDS on Wikipedia and throughout the church's history. Take one look at one page of LDS Church article discussion. I agree this matter will be sorted out in discussion, but one must consider potentially insidious efforts to delete information as a form of attack in the war of words and contest of religions. We here at Wikipedia do not champion the notion of deleting truth, regardless of whether or not it could be considered noise or just a kernal of truth that's limited in its verifiability, and this article is not limited in that regard. I'm sure you can come right back and say you're not on one side or the other, but you seem to be leaning one way in the sense that I get the feeling that the information in this article doesn't seem valuable to you as evidenced by your frankly cavalier criticism leveled against Das Baz above..."I know it can be tough when an article that you like is proposed for deletion." Das Baz has been around awhile and has made some valid and notable contributions to our community. Do you not think Das Baz already knows about the deletion process? If you claim to be neutral, why are you even chiming in this discussion and asserting yourself against a simple user request to have the article removed from deletion after effort has succeeded in making at least a little better than what it was by a different user? So just hold on there a minute; exactly what is your position on the content of this article? Oh, and please don't take this personally.--Piewalker 00:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, it looks like I unintentionally got in the middle of something that's much bigger than I was aware of! I wasn't intending be at all callous toward Das Baz, but instead trying to give a friendly reassurance that AfD isn't necessarily the big threat is it can appear to be. Some articles receive an overwhelming majority of "keep" votes, so it may be premature to get worried or upset. I have seen editors (especially new ones unfamiliar with the process; see next paragraph) become prematurely upset in the past, and was hoping that a quick reassurance would prevent the level drama that I've seen in the past. It looks like it did just the opposite!

If I was unintentionally patronizing, then I apologize. As far as I know, the only way to end a AfD early is through speedy keep, which due to confusing time stamps (see note below) I thought was already impossible due to "delete" votes. As such, I thought that a user making such a request must be unfamiliar with AfD process. If I was misinterpreting Das Baz's request, or am (ironically) unaware of some other deletion policy that Das Baz was invoking, then mea culpa. I have no reason to doubt your claim that Das Baz is experienced and familiar with the process, and that any appearance to the contrary was a result of a (possibly incorrect) interpretation of his request.

(Note: Now that I have taken a closer look at the time stamps in the edit histories, and not just at the time stamps on the sigs which don't seem to correspond to the edit histories or each other due to time zone differences, I see that there were no "delete" votes when Das Baz made his request. Thus, he may have meant that he wanted the nominator to revoke the nomination and invoke Speedy Keep criterion #1.)

Again, I didn't mean "deal with it" or "quit whining" or anything else of the sort, and if it looked like that then I wish I'd used a clearer wording. Instead, I meant something more along the lines of "don't worry, the process can be trusted". If that is not true in the case of LDS-related articles, then it is a most regrettable situation. My comments, however, had nothing to do with any battles waging over LDS-related articles, and would have been the same for any user requesting the early closing of an AfD discussion.

If you still think that my motivation had to do with wanting this article to be deleted, please check the AfD discussion. I voted to keep or merge, not to delete. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this thoughtful explanation. Very thorough and sensitive in the response. And thank you for your candid assessment of your perspective followed up by what I see as good altruistic diligence to keep the moving parts, well, moving. I am very satisfied with your response and intentions here, but I cannot speak for Das Baz, who I would encourage to also vote on this issue in the AfD discussion. Cheers, Icarus. We will work well together.--Piewalker 04:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I seemed too touchy. Too often, I have seen magazines, such as as New Republic, Harper's, Biblical Archaeology Review, etc., publish the most egregious anti-LDS material and allow little or nothing to be said for the LDS position. But it seems that Wikipedia is more decent than those magazines. Das Baz 16:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment re: AfD

• The debate page was closed before I could add this response to wikipediatrix:
  • Delete. It's WP:OR to extrapolate this information from existing texts for no good reason. What's next, Food in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Trees in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Rocks in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? or People with Hebrew-sounding-yet-meaningless names in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? wikipediatrix 18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think you'd be right on the money if trees, rocks, or people with Hebrew-sounding names (meaningless or otherwise) were the express focus of extensive theological discussion on the nature of their own progression, especially in relation to humanity. The greater Christian theological discussion in general (especially beliefs of LDS, who are Christian) places far more screen-time to animals than trees and rocks, as evidenced by the Genesis account:

Genesis 1 (KJV):

21 And God created...the great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Compare that to how much theological screen time is devoted to a tree. Were trees given dominion? To dominate like the animals were (humans included)? If you want to read about trees, start off with The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein (I have some good quotes on trees on my user page, too). So, as we see, humanity suddenly jumps (out of the clear, blue sky?) onto the stage, the surface of the earth (the shores of the cosmic ocean), immediately after the appearance of the animals. I wonder if there's any significance of that? Hmmmm. And why were things done in that order? Such a discussion could be engendered on this page, or a page similar to this. True, it may not be the best name in the world for a page, but come on, how hard is it to rename something, that is, if you're into naming things, wikipediatrix. When one thinks about it, funny-sounding names are pretty much everywhere in all of history, oh history-diva-of-all-time-(ever). I wonder if anyone has ever used nomenclature as a prejudice. Does anyone know? Wait a minute, I'd say even animals have "meaningless" names, or not-so-meaningless ones if you want to begin cataloging them and differentiating them from one another. What possible use could there be for that? Why is the Hamburglar called that, anyway? What is a species, anyhow? Any other more compelling reason for deletion?. Piewalker 19:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Article name

I propose renaming this article, although right now I can't think of what it should be, maybe Animals and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and animals? Maybe something short if it can be managed. Peyna 01:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Mormon animal philosophy? Peyna 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest minimizing the official use of the word "Mormon," as it is a name that indicates innacurate data. although most members of the LDS church refer to themselves as Mormons, I think it would be wise to use the full name of the church or the abbreviation LDS in article titles. --Master Runner 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I made some significant edits and additions to this page today. However, I did not change the name. I strongly agree that the current name needs tweaking. Perhaps the first suggestion above is the best (Animals and TCoJCoLDS). Perhaps LDS Beliefs about Animals. Somebody somewhere else suggested something like LDS Theology of Animals, but I think that is a misuse of the word theology.Nayatwa 01:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I have proposed a merger of this page with Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Discuss there. Peyna 02:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am removing that merge suggestion - the CJC article is already much bigger than it should be. --Trödel 03:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please allow the discussion to run its course first. Perhaps it could lead to other larger sections of the LDS article being split off into subarticles and then something like this being included. It definitely needs to be included somewhere in that article besides a "See also" link. Peyna 12:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to let the merge tag remain when there is no chance for concensus - and the proposal you have made is not supported by the discussion you provided as the reason you proposed the merge. --Trödel 14:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that LDS Church article is pretty jam-packed, but I suppose that since we don't have paper constraints...um...blah blah blah. Still, I believe information anarchy/overload is certainly possible. We shouldn't completely rule out merge opportunities. The question remains, other than its obvious need for content expansion, what do we do with this article now that we've preserved it from deletion? What do you think, Trödel? Others? Piewalker 15:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to see the discussion play out, as it may bring up some good ideas for the article. A number of AfD votes were for a merge; just because they weren't to the CoJCoLDS article doesn't mean the discussion shouldn't have an opportunity to take place. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 18:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been reviewing different LDS movement articles - and I think the best fit for this article is Plan of salvation as the theology on the eternal nature of the souls (spirits) of animals fits in with the Plan of salvation's concept of eternal nature of man - the organization of intelligences etc. Any other thoughts ?? --Trödel 02:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I like that article, but...hmmm. This is a tough one. Piewalker 02:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

From The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I propose merging Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with this article. If it is as important a topic as the people supporting the page on the AfD think it is, then it has every reason to be a bigger part of this article and not just a See also link. Peyna 02:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The aforementioned Articles for Deletion discussion (which I have not read yet). --Lethargy 02:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a bad idea - this article is already much bigger than it should be additionally, none of the merge suggestions were to put it with this article --Trödel 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please allow the discussion to actually take place before unilaterally removing the merge tags. Peyna 12:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually unilaterally inserting a merge proposal that has no support on the talk page is disruptive. The the banner is ugly and unneeded on this page - I left the one on the Animals page and redirected the discussion here - However, I promise that if there is another person who supports your proposal and restores the merge notice I won't remove it. --Trödel 23:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It had plenty of support on the AfD (10 merge, 2 deletes, 1 keep), that's why I inserted the tag here. It is entirely proper to have the merge tag on both the incoming and outgoing article where they can attract enough attention to spur debate. I question your motives for wanting to remove it repeatedly from this page. Perhaps you fear that if more people find out, your POV might lose out? Peyna 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing on the merge policy page that says not to put the tag on high profile articles. You are disrupting any possible discussion more than one line at the top of the article disrupts the flow of the article. Peyna 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

How in the heck do you get a vote without any input from editors from this page? More importantly how on earth does it have any validity for us. I am sure twelve people could get together and delete the article on (insert your article of choice) and it would have no impact on your favorite article. I read some of those votes for a merge, I also don't know many of the voters. Since I have been around for a while I am more than a little perplexed by the action. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you unfamiliar with AfD process? I guess I'm not sure what your concern is here. Please also review the policy statement regarding ownership. Peyna 00:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If this article is too large, that doesn't change that this probably should be mentioned somewhere in the article other than just the See also section. Additionally, perhaps larger sections could be split off into sub-articles, which would then create room for this. Peyna 12:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly why a discussion should take place and at least another supporter (and preferrably more) of the proposed merge so that there is some chance that a concensus will be found. --Trödel 02:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Merge — I don't think of that topic as important as much as unique. I don't recall anyone arguing to keep the article because it was an important feature of the church, but rather that it was notable. There are lots of things that are unique/notable within the LDS church that aren't mentioned in this article, but rather on one of the sub-articles, such as those found in the "See Also" section, and in some cases in "See Also" sections of the articles on this "See Also" list. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: As has already been said, we are in current discussions to shorten this article. The last thing we need is to add an another article, putting this one closer to 100KB. Especially an article that is so specific. --Kmsiever 15:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose; this is not the place for that article. Sounds more like a stub, but if you need to find a home, this is not it. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• The following comments are being copied here, as they were originally posted to the talk page on the animals article. Peyna 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that LDS Church article is pretty jam-packed, but I suppose that since we don't have paper constraints...um...blah blah blah. Still, I believe information anarchy/overload is certainly possible. We shouldn't completely rule out merge opportunities. The question remains, other than its obvious need for content expansion, what do we do with this article now that we've preserved it from deletion? What do you think, Trödel? Others? Piewalker 15:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been reading through some LDS articles I haven't in a while to see if there is a good place for this article - and proposed plan of salvation on the Animals ... talk page. --Trödel 02:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to see the discussion play out, as it may bring up some good ideas for the article. A number of AfD votes were for a merge; just because they weren't to the CoJCoLDS article doesn't mean the discussion shouldn't have an opportunity to take place. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 18:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you think opposed a continued discussion on the mege, but I never opposed the continued discussion - just that there was no reason to leave the merge template on this article - since that proposal would never reach concensus - BTW - that has nothing to do with WP:OWN but everything to do with watching this article for 2 years and knowing the tendencies of the editors here - and given the discussions to split this article above - the idea of adding multiple paragraphs of new material did not make any sense. The appropriate place for that discussion was the article's talk page itself - with a notice here - or on the LDS movment wikiproject to get broad input of many editors --Trödel 02:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge—or link; I oppose the opposers here not merely because the subject matter is relevant (and somewhat controversial, even among LDS—which would be a great reason to allow debate on honing its content, placement, and expansion), but because one of the few quasi-valid arguments above that flies in the face of a merge is the article length guideline; but honestly, how in the world does length parameters dictate content...especially online? It's the Internet, man, not ink on paper. And Wikipedia isn't gonna be like some capricious Zeus character throwing out bolts of lightning as punishment for exceeding 100K. A "See also" section + link is conceivable, but I agree with Peyna that these beliefs should at the very least be mentioned somewhere here. Give me a sentence, reference it, and me and my camp will be happy. The argument of specificity, obscurity, or isolated novelty is subjective regardless. Tell me you've never considered the spiritual nature of pets, or that you don't know where juicy T-bone's come from, regardless of whether or not the cow itself was a vegetarian. I suppose one could ignorantly say "Who cares that Adam and Eve named the animals of the Garden?" or "Who cares about Noah and the Ark, anyway?" or "Who cares that Christ was born in a stable?" or "Who cares Christ rode into Jerusalem on an ass?" or "Who cares about animal sacrifice from Adam to the Last Supper?" There are many specific/novel points of LDS doctrine already listed on this page, and their importance varies from user to user. Come on, even with a length "recommendation," do we seriously want there to be absolutely no mention that LDS believe animals will be resurrected? That animal life is important here and in heaven (pick a spot, any spot in the Book of Revelation). And lacking that information on the religion's most front and center article, no less? I'd go so far as to say that it would be a disservice to those beliefs. Yes, there have been other LDS-related target articles proposed for merge...Mormonism is one of them, but this place is the logical first choice. If you haven't checked out the previous discussion, it's fascinating:[1]. Piewalker 23:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are looking for a sentence and a link there would be no argument; however, what is being proposed is a merge. I view that as completely different. It is the deletion of one article while adding the information of the deleted article into this article; I oppose that action.

LDS believe that all things are spiritual in nature, i.e. that everthing exists on a spiritual plane. If you can see it with mortal eyes, then it exists in the spiritual plane. There is nothing here in this world that did not exist in the preexistence. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you oppose? And yes, LDS are taught all things are created spiritually before they were created physically. Does anyone know the source of that? Piewalker 01:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Moses 3:5,7,9 --Trödel 02:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes! Many thanks, Trodel. ..."And man became a living soul." Piewalker 02:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is already way too long and adding a section on animals hardly qualifies as a major point of doctrine or church practices. If the were merged, where would it be put? I would like to know, because it doesn't seem to be "cut out" to stand under the beliefs section. --Pahoran513 03:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we done this exercise yet? --Kmsiever 01:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the hurry to short circuit the discussion? So far all we have are both sides stating their opinions and no attempt to reach any kind of consensus. Peyna 01:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - As mentioned in the AfD, by myself and others, this article has very little to expand upon. Theology relating to animals has never been a topic of significance in the CoJCoLDS, and what little has been said about it is summarized in this article. What we have here is essentially four sentences, then a long (and unnecessary) quote by Joseph F. Smith, and a final sentence of speculation which pertains to the Word of Wisdom article. Four sentences does not an article make, and turning down a merge because "the target article is too long" or "we've already got too much to work on there" just avoid the issue. Alternatively, I would also support merging this into an articles that combines a number of lesser points of theology in the CoJCoLDS. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 11:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Question if we merge to CJC - how can we fit it into the discussions there to reduce the size of that article? I am especially concerned because the only section there I can see that it would fit under is "major beliefs," and it is not a major belief. At best it is a interesting part of the stewardship of the earth theology, which also is not a "major belief". --Trödel 13:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • What if we created a minor beliefs article? A number of interesting, lesser beliefs of the CoJCoLDS could fit well there along with this one... for example, Kolob, the concept of Heavenly Mother, theories of (paraphrasing here) "youth in this age being the generals in the war in Heaven" and "those born with mental handicaps are protected by Heavenly Father due to Satan cursing them in their premortal life"... I could see Minor beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being a very successful article. Has this already come up in the discussions on the main LDS Church page? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 17:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge targets

Suggested Targets:

• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Plan of salvation
• Mormonism
• others??

Should we consider this as the beginning of an article on Mormonism and Environmental Stewardship? Lots of doctrinal tie ins and statements by church leaders. Could be controversial, however. Anyone know of a modern work covering the topic? WBardwin 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

While I'm undecided on whether a merge is appropriate, I think that it needs to be agreed upon what doctrine presented here is unique to the CoJCoLDS, and what is accepted by Mormon denominations in general. The links provided here are all CoJCoLDS biased, and most of the statements are from leaders of the Brighamite church. To me, that suggests that if a merge should happen, it needs to happen on an article pertaining to their denomination, rather than the more general Plan of Salvation or Mormonism articles. Make sense? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tijuana. Until some source tying in the Animals article to another of the larger, denominations of the Latter Day Saint Movement, this article should be part of a CoJCoLDS based article. Clearly, these options are more general to all of the LDS denominations. Which is why I propose keeping this article exactly as it is. It doesn't fit into the main CoJCoLDS article, doesn't belong in any of the more general articles, but certainly is an important enough topic to warrant its own discussion. The current "see also" link on the bottom of the main article is presently adequate enough for the needs of those who wish to read about animals in the Church, and we shouldn't subject any reader to an even longer version of an article that is clearly too long. --Pahoran513 17:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Which statements are from leaders of the Brighamite church? I am suddenly curious. I know some of the references go various places, but the content looks fine doctrinally. I'm undecided on the merge thing, too. I'm leaning towards keeping the article as is (linkability, that is, not that the article shouldn't evolve...it should). Piewalker 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Brighamites = CoJCoLDS = Rocky Mountain Saints = faction which followed Brigham Young West. During the schism -- almost all the leaders names were used with "-ites" (i.e. BOM) in general reference, as in "Rigdonites", "Brighamites", etc. But this has fallen out of general usage today. Was that your question? WBardwin 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't my question, but thanks. You sort of screwed up the page. It's choosing the right...right...right Piewalker 00:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC) That's better.

Okay, if there is no further discussion, I am in favor of removing the merge tag. It appears we have consensus, people, so why keep discussing this? ``Pahoran513 02:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There are still several comments being added within 24 hours of when you signed this — this discussion is still ongoing. Why the rush? Give it a few days, the merge tag isn't hurting anything. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 11:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree - I don't think we have concensus to merge to a Mormonism and Environmental Stewardship article yet. Additionally, I know of no references/quotes from other Latter Day Saint movement denominations, so it may not be accurate to include the information in an article that is about the movement as a group. --Trödel 13:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Peyna

Peyna - that you would accuse another editor of suppression because I don't want unnecessary metadata on a high profile article that is undergoing discussion on how to split off information is unbelievable. This is the proper place to at least reach some kind of support first - then proposing it on the target article's page with the merge templates would make it much more likely to succeed.

I'm sorry that your feelings are hurt because not one other editor on the CJC article would restore the merge notice - as you know (assuming you read the dicsussion on the Afd), I opposed the deletion of the material - and am personally undecided on whether a merge is even necessary - though I think it is clear that if there is a merge it should be on a doctrine related article.

Moving merge notice to talk page

I plan to move the merge notice from the article page to this talk page until some concrete proposal emerges from the discussion above, unless someone besides you opposes it here --Trödel 04:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do this. Merge notices are placed on article pages partially because editors don't always think to look at the talk page. This is the same reason I asked above to let the discussion play out; removing a merge tag from the article means that less editors will become aware that the discussion is actually taking place. I don't consider this any question of you claiming ownership of the article, as you've always been active in LDS topics, so if I made the implication, forgive me. I do feel strongly about keeping the tag up, though. It's not doing any harm to do so. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 23:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon

That bit about "meaningless" names is bigotry and ignorance. LDS scholars have shown that every name in the Book of Mormon is meaningful - though not all are Hebrew. Zarahemla = Zara Hemla = "Seed of Mercy" in Hebrew. Paanchi= "The living one" - name of a king of Nubia and Egypt. Shiblon= From the Arabic shibl, "lion cub." Related to the jaguar cub imagery of the ancient Olmec people. Mormon= From the ancient Egyptian Mor ("Love") and Mon ("Firmly established").

We could, and should, fill up several Wikipedia articles about Book of Mormon names, but you will not find a single meaningless one. Das Baz 16:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating; I did not know that. It'd be more than interesting to see an article on the etymology of LDS nomenclature. Piewalker 17:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I think an article concerning this would go over well — although care should be taken to avoid questions of cruft, WP:OR, and WP:V. It may also fit in well at Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 18:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Trees

Trees are very important in Shinto and in the religions of ancient Greece, Germany and Scandinavia. Articles in trees in those religions would certainly be relevant and interesting. Das Baz 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The point that was being made I believe, is that although there is some doctrinal philosophy regarding the souls of animals, it is such a minor topic that it does nto warrent it's own article. I suggest merging it with Word of Wisdom in the section about 'meat sparingly'. As for trees, since Mormons don't worship trees (or animals for that matter), it seems this topic is moot. I see this article a prime candidate for deletion. In the realm of Mormonism, the souls of trees and animals are interesting on a speculative level, but not more than a bit of trivia, at best. When have you ever heard a talk at a General Conference on the nature of the soul of anything other than man? 66.151.81.244 18:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that there are clear and distinct writtings on this subject. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism included an article on animals. Possibly we could move the article to the subject title hunting, but I think that would be narrower.Johnpacklambert (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Merging

The article on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is already long enough as it is, so it would not be a good idea to merge more articles with it. I propose removing the "merge" tag from all related articles. Das Baz 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, reluctantly. Let's get a vote to remove the merge tag. This article will have to stand on its own, but I think it's substantial enough as a stub for now. Piewalker 18:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

New merge target

After thinking about this for a time and doing some research, I have a new proposal for target article to merge Animals into: Spirit influence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or something like that(not satisfied with the name). Reasons:

1. All the information I have seen about Animals stems from a discussion that Animals have spirits and that their spirits were, like human spirits, organized from intelligences.
2. Such an article could cover a broad range of topics of which this one could be part
3. It would provide context for the concept that man should be kind to animals, as they have spirits also, etc.

See New article proposal. Comments, suggestions?? --Trödel 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not seem a very good solution to merge the article with an article that does not even exist yet. Let us just remove the tag and forget about merging. 20:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Das Baz 20:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Curelom?

Here's another merge possibility: Why not merge this article with the Curelom article, and have it discuss the following:

1. Latter Day Saint theology regarding animals having souls and animal salvation.
2. Smith's interpretation that the many-eyed/winged, etc. beings in the Book of Revelations were intelligent animals.
3. The strange-named animals discussed in the Book of Mormon like cureloms and cumoms.
4. References to horses and elephants in the Book of Mormon.
5. LDS view that it was not actually a serpent that tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden, etc.

Also, why not call the article either Animals and Mormonism or Animals and Latter Day Saint theology. COGDEN 17:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like the best idea yet. I would support Animals and Latter Day Saint theology as we would include JSmith's views and BofM issues. WBardwin 22:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We've been having these merge discussions for months now. Merging efforts are stalled. For this article's credit, it has survived on its own as a stand-alone thus far! It was not accepted at the main LDS Church page, nor anywhere else. Nonetheless, in its present form, work still needs to be done on it, including revising the title. On the title: Animals and _______ ? It should instead be something like "Theological perspectives of animal life and death," or "Mormon/LDS Beliefs of Animal Life." Let me tell you why. A titl phrased "Animals in ______" could potentially be misunderstood by the casual reader that Mormon's themselves are the animals...or that Animals are in the LDS church as members, or something crazy like that. The title is very important to communicating LDS beliefs, or the beliefs of any other theology regarding the significance of animal life. We should just rename this page to be something a little more apropos. Piewalker 19:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

So that you know where I'm coming from, I think that this article should be merged with some other article. But since it has survived this long (as pointed out above), I would suggest that you find some other such article and use a similar name. Val42 04:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with WBardwin in favoring the name Animals and Latter Day Saint theology. Any other comments on merger with Curelom? COGDEN 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well, move this to Animals and Latter Day Saint theology or perhaps Animals in Latter Day Saint theology. --Lethargy 03:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is preposterous to propose "mergers" with red letter articles that do not even exist. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the comments you refer to were made 18 months ago --Trödel 01:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree merging with non-existant articles does not make sense. If you want to add things to the article, do so. However I think we should keep this article specifically focused on the theological views of animals. The discussion of Animals in the Book of Mormon should be under such a title, because it is a whole different topic.Johnpacklambert (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a side note - Animals in the Book of Mormon are given considerable treatment in the Archaeology and the Book of Mormon and Linguistics and the Book of Mormon articles. Lets be honest here - isn't this topic nothing more than a footnote in Mormon theology as a whole? I see about two sentences that might be worthy of mention. Again, just want to reiterate that this page should really be deleted and those two sentences put in an appropriate article. I think this article is a serious waste of space and time. --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent move

Why was this article moved recently (to Theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints relating to animals) without any discussion or proposal being put forward? I see there's a very old discussion above, but it seems that it would have to be reopened again to gain a consensus. It's not exactly an uncontroversial move, and I think the previous name was better as it was less wordy. I've moved it back, not to suggest that a move could not be done, but rather that I just think it would be appropriate for someone to propose it and open it for discussion before it's performed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't do the move, and don't care much one way or the other on the name, but just want to point out that consensus is not always needed, especially for uncontroversial edits. Remember the Wikipedia guidance of ignore all the rules and being bold. Besides, I suspect the only reason this page is getting any traffic at all is because of the merge tag at the top of the main LDS article. Once that discussion is closed, this page will fade back into obscurity... --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Old Delete Vote

I went back and looked at the deletion vote - and I am a little puzzled - there was only one person who wanted to keep the article, everyone else wanted delete, merge, or merge/keep. Should the conclusion really have been no consensus? I also noted that someone tried to close it unilaterally as no delete despite the overwhelming trend away from keep. I wonder if it would be a good idea to open the vote again for a real and balanced discussion. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)