Talk:All About Mormons/Archive 1

Polemic

Oy vey! Will everyone just stop using this page as a place to attack Mormons? People keep making claims and assertions that are either completely unverifiable or are demonstrably false; they're usually little more than misunderstandings, opinions, or thinly-veiled, emotional criticisms of the religion itself. E.G.: People who have not actually read the Book of Mormon and are not actually familiar with the narrative it contains, should refrain from inserting their own interpretations of what they may at one point have heard someone else say they think they heard about the book. They have no more place airing their grievances here than they do attempting to insert a rant against the finer points of halakhic law in the page for "Jewbilee," or a tirade against the Umayyad dynasty in the page about "Cartoon Wars." From what I can see, the single most biased (and usually antagonistic) pages on Wikipedia are the ones dedicated to religious traditions...It's even bleeding over into the cartoon sections! This page is dedicated to an episode of South Park, not a formal critique of (or, what is more, an apology for) Mormonism! --Awakeandalive1, May 11, 2006

• As a point of interest, I would argue that (given the historical data available) it is fair to characterize the mob that killed Joseph Smith as "anti-Mormon," since Joseph Smith was the effective head of his church, and the mob also killed his brother and shot at the two friends who were present; furthermore, anti-Mormon sentiment was particularly strong in the region at the time (cf. the Extermination Order of 1838) and such mobs had been involved in clear anti-Mormon action prior to his death. But since reverting to the former version would probably just start an edit/revert war, I'll bow out on this one.

• Not necessarily. The mob could've simply been anti-polygamy, since Smith was into that sorta thing. In fact, the Mormon church only disavowed that practice after it was made a condition of giving them statehood (Utah). Warren Jeffs also calls himelf a prophet and likes to shag with multiple "wives." 24.19.255.254 10:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem being polygamy was also a part of Mormon practice in those days. --Awakeandalive1 27 May, 2006

"The mob could've simply been anti-polygamy, since Smith was into that sorta thing." <-------- This is the sort of moronic statement that I hear all of the time. I don't believe the mob killed Smith solely because of a disagreement on Polygamy, which is absurd because Biblical evidence abounds of ancient patriarchs participating in plural marriage with divine favor when commanded. They were apparently also disagreeing with the Mormon doctrinal principles of NOT MURDERING and FOLLOWING THE LAWS OF THE LAND. Absurd absurd absurd.203.131.167.26 09:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

ha!

Did a Mormon work on this page? Do I really have to ask....

Yep, one did. Aranhamo 15:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't you know? The Mormons created Wikipedia.

-G

Mormons have far too much interest in this page. Let's make a "no mormon" rule on this page. Kritish5951 05:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So much for that. 89.145.205.223 19:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure don't hear much about "Pearl of Great Price," which sits alongside the "Book of Mormon" in the hierarchy of Mormon-related books. Wonder why?72.198.206.139 08:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is so heavily biased I don't even know where to begin. And the only rescue, the link to an allegedly "critical" analysis of the mormons is not at all critical, but biased as well. This article is now very close to propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.231.245 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about a South Park episode. It is not an article about Mormons. It should document the episode not the religious movement. — Val42 (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Quotes and corrections on Mormonism

I don't know why the section with Quotes added by 24.87.117.209 was removed. What was wrong with the quotes? Aranhamo 05:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If the quotes belong in wikiquotes, that's fine, but I've seen lots of other articles on wikipedia that have a quotes section like the one that was here before. Aranhamo 05:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The episode contains some claims about Mormonism that are blatantly and demonstrably false, so this statement is inacurrate:

"All the Mormon history explained in this episode is largely true, although some may feel it is slightly opinionated."

Although parts of Mormon history presented in the episode are correct, major portions, particularly those noted, are completely untrue. It's no big deal for people to make fun of Mormons for things that they actually believe, but it's another thing to just make things up out of whole cloth. I haven't edited the episode description in any way, nor removed anything critical of Mormons, I've just corrected the phrase that claims that the Mormon history as presented in the episode is true. Aranhamo 02:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the line that said that Joseph Smith never translated by means of a seer stone in a hat. He did in fact translate this way. Russel M. Nelson, a Mormon Apostle cited the following quote in a July 1993 Ensign article which was adapted from a speech he gave at the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah June 25 1992:

"The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote: “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)"

It seems the episode in question was very accurate compared to nearly any other non LDS produced account of Joseph Smith's claims.--bigjarom 01:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that there was a single quote above the Trivia section, so I moved the other quotes up together with that one and tried to format the others like the first one. Aranhamo 02:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I added links to relevant Wikipedia articles. Also, I found the hat idea comes from a statement made by Emma Smith, so I removed that one. As presented in the episode it's a little misleading, but critical satire doesn't have to be totally accurate. Aranhamo 03:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

In the trivia section, it says:

"This episode's falsified descriptions of Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a whole, was very controversial and caused a lot of upset from Mormons and non-Mormons alike"

I'm wondering if there might be a more neutral way of putting this. Perhaps:

"This episode's descriptions of Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was disputed by many, causing controversy and emotional upset to Mormons and non-Mormons alike."

Joe 17:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Corrected for grammar:

"This episode's description of Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was disputed by many, causing controversy and emotional upset to Mormons and non-Mormons alike."

However, I'd say just take out the whole thing. It seems like stating the obvious. Obviously an anti-Mormon parody is going to upset some people. Aranhamo 17:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with taking out the whole thing. Anyone have a problem with that...? Joe 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously a very sensitive subject, but why is there so much commotion about this episode? South Park has poked fun at Afganistan, Canada, Iraq, as well as celebrities such as Mel Gibson. Matt Stone and Trey Parker make a living from making fun of people! Even racial jokes, particularly in the episode 'With Apologies to Jesse Jackson', barely got a reply. So, I think this a loy of fuss over a relatively non-contrivertial topic! 89.145.205.223 20:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"While the episode says no one but Smith saw the plates, eleven persons besides Smith claimed in published declarations to have seen (in the case of eight, to have touched) the plates. The Testimony of Three Witnesses; The Testimony of Eight Witnesses" Could we get some npov sources for this?--71.97.147.120 19:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Rice Krispies Squares?

Rice Krispies squares are a popular dessert in Mormon culture? That's news to this Mormon. I grew up in LA (not exactly a Mormon-dominated town), and you could buy Rice Krispies Treats in the grocery store. Also, it was big news here in Utah several years ago when Hawaii surpassed Utah in Jello consumption. Aranhamo 21:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Jello molds, with random fruit in it, right (ooh, lime jello with carrot shavings! How daring!)? :-D For the rice krispies, I think it sort of fits with the general themes of the socials, full-family meals, and LDS diet, where most treats are super-high in sugars (jello, rice crispies, ice cream), super low in nutritional value (jello, rice crispies, ice cream), and super cheap (jello, rice crispies, ice cream)... but maybe that's just a UT/AZ/CO thing (I grew up in AZ). WRT refs, no, I don't have/know of citations yet either, but I do remember an amusing article about LDS sugar consumption being unusually high, countering unusually low caffiene intake).. I'll look for ref's, or at least some explanation of *why* the crispies are in the show. Ronabop 07:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

They're supposed to be depicted as a family snack. Besides, the family made them themselves, remember the microwave/oven ringing? (then again they could have been bought to cook and eat) It's not really anything to do with Mormons, I don't think. 89.145.205.223 20:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Mormon defense

I've trimmed this section. I understand that some people may be offended by the episode, but taking up a third of the article to refute the charges is unnecessary, and some portions of this defense are either subjective or irrelevant. I took out the paragraph about the proper name of the Church (which shouldn't be an issue) and the satire of Smith's acceptance by the community (yes, he was rejected, but South Park is doing a satire and doesn't show the town embracing Smith either).--Idols of Mud 23:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm responsible for a large portion of that, and it wasn't intended as a "defense" of Mormons. I study and teach about religions and, while my particular focus is on Second Temple Judaism, I like to keep abreast of the various religious traditions operating in the world. Most of that was intended to correct frequent edits which asserted that South Park's portrayal of Mormonism was accurate, and also to support the view that the writers have only a superficial familiarity with actual Mormon beliefs and practices. Oh, and the episode does appear to show the townsfolk accepting Smith. They repeatedly assert that his claims must be true, arguing "Why would he lie?" Also, I would argue that the name of the Church is relevant, as the family is clearly intended to represent members of the LDS denomination, and there are other sects of Mormonism. Sorry if it rubbed some of you the wrong way. I made some similar edits for the summary of the episode "Jewbilee" that you might want to edit as well. --Awakeandalive1

It didn't rub me the wrong way -- it's just a very, very, very long digression in an article about an episode of South Park, to the point where it overwhelms the plot summary. The Smith segments of the episodes are meant to be satirical -- an in-depth discussion of LDS belief is clearly not what the producers are attemping to do. The segments on Smith wear their irony on their sleeve. I find it highly unlikely that anyone would take its depiction of Smith and his surrounding community seriously. The point of the show is that even those with unusual religious beliefs can still be good and caring people -- and while the creators of South Park don't show any respect for their beliefs, they're not particularly keen on Catholicism or Scientology, either.--Idols of Mud 13:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the Smith part largely because A) the Smith parts of the episode are clearly meant to imply that Mormons have little to no understanding of their own religion's history, and B) many people, having seen nothing but the episode, believe Mormons are unaware of Smith's subsequent troubles and eventual murder because the Mormons in the episode speak as though everyone accepted him and he lived a relatively happy, uneventful life. Frankly I think more of the summaries for religious episodes of South Park need similar "corrective" sections, although few of the episodes are as intentionally polemical as the "All About Mormons", "Red Hot Catholic Love" and the Scientology episode. --Awakeandalive1

It is not the place of an encyclopedia article to refute the claims made in the subject matter the article is about. THat would be like making an encyclopedia entry regarding Hillary Clinton and adding a lengthy aside refuting her positions on various issues. It's not this article's job to educate people on the religion of Mormonism,. it's the job of this page to educate people about what this South Park episode is about. If there's a mention that this episode sparked a great deal of controversy (which I don't believe it has) then that would be worth including, but I think the See Also section contains links to places people can go if they want a serious overview of the religion, that information does not belong on THIS page. Nor should the other religious themed episodes have similar tangents.

That's just an opinion of someone reading over this whole thing, I'm not changing any thing in the article just giving my two cents. 24.128.53.252 (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename page?

I think this page should be renamed to "All About Mormons (South Park)". Having never done this before, the warnings were enough to scare me out of it (I'm thinking unintended consequences). Any one up to it? Thanks. Leon7 19:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that it's necessary. Is there another article with the title "All About Mormons"? If not, there's really no point in changing the designation unless we're going to alter the other episode articles as well (which might not be that bad an idea but would take a long time). --Awakeandalive1, 15 June 2006

I don't know about the other episode titles, but "All About Mormons" probable has little to do about Mormonism and a great deal more to do with the show. Unless one is familiar with South Park, I can see how most others (the great majority, including myself), would never even think that it was connected with the show. Well, thanks for considering the change anyway. I still think it should change.--Leon7 06:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this article's title gives the impression it is "all about mormons", rather than an episode of South Park. Is anyone opposed to the move? --Lethargy 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Support but only because of the potential confuseion --Trödel 03:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think there is any possibility of confusion, if the article starts out with ""All About Mormons" is episode 712 of the Comedy Central series South Park". Everyone who takes the time to read the first sentence will not be confused.

I am not sure, maybe we should look this up in the WP-Guidelines, but it has been my experience that articles only get clarifying additions to their title to set them apart from another article. If there is no more basic article without the remark, that will confuse those who are familiar with Wikipedia not using remarks in the title for a purpose other than disambiguation.

Long story short: Oppose. If there is an article called "All about Mormons" that deals with a different subject, we can add this. Right now: No reaseon.

Oh, and by the way: It is alse set apart from a hypothetical article about Mormons, because all three words are capitalised, indicating it is the title of something called that way, not in fact all about Mormons. — Mütze 04:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My point was not that people will be confused about the information contained in the article itself, I was saying people will come to the article expecting it to be something else. --Lethargy 21:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would they? I can imagine two ways anybody is going to see this article: He has clicked a link in another article (one of these), in which case the context should have made it clear beforehand, what the article was about; or he has typed in "All About Mormons" in the article search, which he has done either to find the South Park episode, or to learn about mormons. And frankly, if somebody types "All About Mormons" in the article search, because he wants to learn about mormons, he has not understood the workings of an encyclopedia. Articles are Identified somply by the main subject, but by the way in which they present it, or the amount of information they imagine themselves to present about it.

There are many, many cases, in which a title of something has another meaning, and in all those cases it does not get a remark added to its title, escept to differentiate it from another article with the same title. And this article immediately clarifies what it is about. It even links to important LDS articles during its course, so I can imagine no way in which it could be misleading to anybody who has any understanding of an encyclopedia. — Mütze 21:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd totally agree with you Mütze but someone has been linkspamming this page to Mormon articles on sporadic but consistent basis - with a different title it would be clear that it was a tv episode and not a quick guide to mormons --Trödel 22:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not percieve this as me trying to push my point, I am honestly just asking: If I understood you correctly, this simply constitutes as vandalism. In that case, shouldn't the person in question simply be dealt with directly instead of several users going to great lengths in order to accomodate him? – Mütze 22:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Added a Goof

I guarantee that it is 100% accurate. - mikecucuk 10:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just added another one. It's a continuity error, and, like always, it's 100% accurate. mikecucuk 18:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who took out my previous posting in the Goofs section, but I would never post something that I knew wasn't correct. That just flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. So, I restored the goof. Please discuss this with me first before making changes. Thank You.mikecucuk 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mormon conversion

Under the inaccuracies heading, it says that though it takes the family only a few days to convert to Mormonism, in real life it would take 'a couple of weeks to a few months'. The timeframe here is nothing to do with Mormons, and more to do with the stupidity and susceptibility of Randy Marsh (I'm not saying that you have to be stupid to become a Mormon, just that it was stupid to convert with so little information).--Jcvamp 03:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Article is about South Park episode

This article documents the South Park episode, so I've removed all external commentary. I've added some "See also" links and fixed one of the "External links". Now, you South Park supporters had better get your act together and find some references or one of those people who like to delete articles without references with have all of Wikipedia policy on their side. Even articles condeming this episode for its inaccurate portrayals would save it from deletion. (Hint: This is where I think you'll find the most references.) — Val42 04:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Article title is incorrect

The full title of this episode is "All About the Mormons?" [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalrobot (talk • contribs) 04:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Title should be changed to "All About The Mormons?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackay64 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm that this is the actual title of this episode? I have never watched even one episode of South Park, so I wouldn't know. But I would like the title to be correct. — Val42 (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

TV Guide says 'All About Mormons', for what that's worth. 24.128.53.252 (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Their official website (www.southparkstudios.com) confirms that the exact title is "All About the Mormons?" 88.164.176.225 (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Title still needs to be changed to "All About the Mormons?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCno10 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncited material

Cite?

Sharon calls Randy "Clubber Lang", the name of Mr. T's character in Rocky III.

Alastairward (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Orgazmo

Wasn't the main character a Jehovah's Witness, not a Mormon?

• Nope. He was supposed to be a Mormon. Although they don't really know all that much about that religion, so they got a lot of the details wrong. EG: the whole premise for the movie (him needing money to get married in a Mormon temple) was flawed, since marriage in Mormon temples is free. --Awakeandalive1 27, May 2006

Have you seen the south park episode? They never mention mormon merriages, although up until the late 19th century, they might have had a point. 02:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.227.161 (talk)

Dumb

Good point, I forgot about that. The opposite of "Smart" is indeed "Dumb", not "Dum". :P Cirt (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Title variations

What is the official, set in concrete, title for this episode? The DVD set lists it as "All About Mormons?" and this is the title used in TV guides also. Until I saw this Wikipedia page I had never seen it referred to as "All About The Mormons?" Pete3194 (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[2] = official website of South Park episodes available online. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard this episode referred to as "All About the Mormons?" and the DVD lists it as "All About Mormons" so the episode title on this article should be changed. (70.176.184.44 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)).

And what do you think of southparkstudios.com ? Cirt (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I Think it says All About Mormons and should thus be changed. 142.167.209.181 (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, per southparkstudios.com. -- Cirt (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That was quick, nice work. The info box on the side still says the old title though. The list of episodes in season 7 I mean. I'd do it myself but I don't know how.142.167.218.150 (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, -- Cirt (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's my explanation for my edit: You're quoting southparkstudios.com as a source for the real title - note that on this very page you can find both versions of the title, "All About Mormons" (in the episode guide) and "All About the Mormons?" (in the info box beneath the video when watching the episode). Since both versions of the title can be found on the same source I think it's the right decision to add "also known as "All About the Mormons?"" to the article. --F4LL0UT (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, per above explanation on talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The final link

The final link about the LDS Church's response to the episode is actually a link to an article about HBO's "Big Love". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.101.171.148 (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed it. Fails WP:V. -- Cirt (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)