Talk:Angel Moroni/Archive 1

Archive 1

merge from Moroni (Book of Mormon)

Hi,

I'm not a Mormon, so I'm gonna copy all the info about the Prophet Moroni that I'm moving here from the article Moroni (Book of Mormon), in case I don't edit things correctly:

The latter is the son of Mormon, and was the last prophet to write in the Book of Mormon. He is also identified by Joseph Smith as the angel who directed him to the Hill Cumorah, to the gold plates from which Mormons believe the Book of Mormon was translated. Moroni² lived in the fourth century AD.

... is indexed in the LDS edition as Moroni².

[main|Moroni (prophet) Moroni² is the son of Mormon², for whom the Book of Mormon is named. He was the last survivor of the Nephite nation. He made some additions to Mormon's abridgement of the record that became the Book of Mormon. The Book of Moroni, the last book in the Book of Mormon is named after Moroni².

• son of Mormon, (late 4th Century AD).

• References to Moroni² in the index to the LDS edition of the Book of Mormon.

--Ling.Nut 19:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm looking, and all I see in the above that is not in the main article is five things:

1. A link to Record of the Nephites
2. Moroni was the last prophet to write in the Book of Mormon
3. He was the last survivor of the Nephite nation.
4. References to Moroni² in the index to the LDS edition of the Book of Mormon.
5. is indexed in the LDS edition as Moroni².

I'm gonna add the first four. The last one seems like a minor detail, but if someone wants to add it, then go for it. --Ling.Nut 19:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) I converted to the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints in 1955. I have no arguments with the article nor the discussion.Ccpoodle 06:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Trademark

Has anyone checked the US trademark directory? I did and could find no trademark registered under moroni. I posted this on the moroni page and it was quickly deleted. Can someone direct me to proof of a trademark besides an article on cnn's website? Datwoody 22:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

References

Was going to post the Trademark reference, but noticed that someone beat me to it. I fixed the reference list instead.

Please, refer to Wikipedia:Footnotes for footnotes/references

To0n 17:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Image

Image:Hill Cumorah 3.JPG Hello, I've got this image of Moroni from Hill Cumorah. I just thought I'd post it here in case the article was ever expanded and needed another image.--Eva ^bd 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me in what language that uses the Latin alphabet would the word be pronounced "moronai"? This escapes me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.77.10 (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Moroni not an "angel"

This use of the term "angel" is not supported by secular dictionary definition nor even by primary LDS scriptures:[1][2] you will not find Smith using the term either. Personage and Messenger is what was used by Joseph Smith, not angel. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Except angel and messenger are the same thing.

An angel (from Greek: άγγελος, angelos, "messenger")

So it seems reasonable to use the term given the context I would think. --81.150.229.68 (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And additionally, regardless of what he was called in the past, it is clearly the most common term used today to refer to him, so what's the issue? Zoporific 12:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Moroni is an angel. Joseph Smith himself said so. He said numerous times in his testimonies that he was an angel, just like Gabriel(Noah). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.147.237 (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Moroni is referred to as an Angel. Also, it is important to understand what an "angel" is. There are four types of angels. Read the following link [[3]] An editor would be wise to research what they are sharing with others on the Internet. I agree with FyzixFighter, just as in D&C 128:20 Mahalo --DC10116 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Leads to an interesting argument that if Moroni had once been a man; how could he also be an angel? They are two different creatures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.186.7.170 (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@73.186.7.170: Not in Mormonism, they aren't. In Mormonism, angels are humans who (1) once were mortal and now minister as angels with resurrected physical bodies; (2) once were mortal and their physical bodies are dead but now minister as angels with spirit bodies; or (3) are pre-mortal spirits who will one day be born as mortal but are ministering as angels in spirit bodies prior to their birth. Since Jesus's resurrection, (1) seem to be the most common type. Moroni was a (1). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Retracting proposal due to numerous dissenting opinions. --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Why are there two articles for Moroni, here and here? They are the same person - I propose we merge them. Please vote:

• MergeNeutralMerge --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Changing my mind after reading some of the other perspectives. --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Changed my mind again - I understand what some of you are saying - but it doesn't change the fact that everyone connected with Mormonism considers them to be the same person - it would be pretty easy to merge them and talk about the issues you guys mention - and would be far less confusing for people that are unfamiliar with Mormonism. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      • "...everyone connected with Mormonism considers them to be the same person..." This isn't true. Some of the smaller Latter Day Saint sects believe the visitor who visited Smith was Nephi from the Book of Mormon, who is quite a different character from Moroni (separated by about 1000 years in the storyline, in fact). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge The sooner we minimise this sort of spam from Wp the better. I am not sure this is how you do a merge proposal however. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • According to the guidelines at WP:Merge, this is the appropriate way to propose a merge. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. In the Latter Day Saint movement, not all people agree that Angel Moroni is the same as Moroni the prophet, which a reading of Angel Moroni reveals. When Joseph Smith wrote one account of the angel coming to him, he called him "Nephi", and there is still some dispute about whether Smith claimed it was the prophet Nephi or the prophet Moroni. The LDS Church teaches that the Angel Moroni and the prophet Moroni are the same, but other groups disagree. Many think that the Angel Moroni was actually the prophet Nephi. To merge would be LDS Church-centric. It is the largest group of Latter Day Saints, but it's not the only one and more than their view should be presented. The article says "most" Latter Day Saints view the Moronis as the same person, but that's only because there are far more members of the LDS Church than any other Latter Day Saint organization. I'm not at all clear how either of the articles qualify as "spam". Snocrates 07:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - Spam? either we have an editor ignorant of the topic, incapable of self-expression, or is exhibiting the kind of intolerance that only the KKK or Nazis were capable; regardless, it makes me very concerned when I find something in common with that ilk. However,I see no reason for two articles on the same person. Snocrates does bring a valid point, but it is a point that can still be covered in a single article. Redundancy does not help readers or editors. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Godwin's law ;) --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Merge as I agree with Snocrates. Smith never referred to Moroni as an angel: Moroni was a resurrected human being and it would be similar to merging articles about Jesus into one called "Angel Jesus". In addition, Storm Rider's personal attack of another editor directly above should qualify Storm Rider for an immediate and long-term block, especially with the vicious Nazi and KKK analogy. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I would strongly oppose such a block. SR is generally civil whilst he holds strong opinions. He is not a vandal. He knows, I imagine, that what he wrote is intemperate but it's not anything I would lose sleep over. Albatross2147 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, Smith did refer to Moroni as an angel, though in a later description of the event, in D&C 128:20. --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This might identify qualities rather than a type of being. Acts 6:15 refers to Stephen as "angel" and John 12:29 refers to the voice of God as the voice of an angel. Plus, the fact Smith's use of that term (if the D&C record is correct that he did use that term) so much later indicates it was a secondary description and that the Angel Moroni article could be merged into the Prophet Moroni article but definitely not the other way around. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• I have to say no merge. The angel and the Book of Mormon writer are not necessarily the same subject (and some would argue, not necessarily the same person). Plus, the angel means much more than the man. We have angel Moroni iconography and art, as well. Merging the two would be like merging Gabriel with Noah or Michael (archangel) with Adam. COGDEN 20:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge Moroni enters American history through Joseph Smith. The distinctions pointed out by User:Snocrates are not serious enough to justify separate articles. Indeed, separate articles would, I think, mislead the naive (non-LDS) reader. The clarification written above by User:Snocrates (with references of course) should be incorporated into the merged article as a significant alternative view. Robert1947 (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merge — On the face, these would appear to be articles that should be merged. Rather than repeat, I would say that COGDEN's comments match most closely with what I would write to argue my point. However, both articles need to make clear in the introduction the points about why they are not one article. — Val42 (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge Even though Moroni and Angel Moroni are the same people, they talk about two different subjects. One is the mortal Moroni, and the other is his Celestialized form. I say that these pages need to be left alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.129.145 (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge as they are the same person. History needs to be based on facts. Moroni in the 400A.D. is still the same person (spirit) just with a different form of body. It is best for Gabriel and Noah pages to be merged along with the case of Michael the Arch Angle and Adam the first man. These are all the same types of examples. For readers to have the best actuate information on a personage the pages would be best merged to make it clear for readers on the subject. Those that have the best accurate information and have done research would know this is important where those that have not would then not know the importance. --- DC10116 (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation paragraph

The disambiguation paragraph at the top of this article has become rather large. Can't we come up with some way to shorten this? — Val42 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think an {otheruses} to Moroni and a {seealso} to Moroni (prophet) should be sufficient. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it. — Val42 (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Morons

So why aren't the LDS people called "Morons" if his name was Moroni? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to be funny? Mormon was Moroni's father. Mormon compiled most of the book from multiple records, including the large plates of Nephi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archf 1 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It was non-members of the church that invented the name "Mormons". I guess they themselves were just too moronic to miss the obvious joke of calling them "Morons". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 17:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Ol'factory should be blocked as they should be helping to give facts for readers on Wiki, not cutting down and making indecent comments about others believes. It was those not of the faith of the LDS Church that refers to members of the Church as Mormons. Please get the facts correct when posting, or do not post. --DC10116 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What? Lighten up, my friend, it was a joke. I presented correct information—I did say it was non-Mormons who first invented the name "Mormons" as being applied to Latter Day Saints, so according to you, my facts are correct. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a really old conversion, but this has bothered me for a while, so I though I could clarify. The term "moron" as meaning a degree of intelligence post-dates the publication of the Book of Mormon by 80 years. Henry H. Goddard introduced the word with that meaning as a technical term in 1910, based on the Greek mōros, meaning stupid or foolish. Only later in the 20th century did "moron" become a synonym for idiot in common parlance. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Touché; and interesting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and we might therefore ask: What then was the significance of the term "moron" in Joseph Smith's time? The answer: a salamander. It is interesting to note that this term appears in several forms in the Book of Mormon and is treated similarly to a Hebrew root word, with Hebrew-like suffixes being added. "Moroni"="My Salamander" Mark Hofmann's famous forged letter puts a "white salamander" in the role of Moroni, yet I have scoured the internet and found no source which connects Moroni's name with the word "moron" in its "salamander" sense. It seems an obvious candidate for explaining the origin and construction of the name, but no one has published anything on it. Kent Heiner 10:10, 22 January 2012

Two words: False etymology -- 174.22.253.45 (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Angel's Name and Identity

In support of the "resurrected" angel being Nephi, it should be added that Moroni, like us all, must wait until the "First Resurrection" before obtaining his resurrection, therefore he could not have been a resurrected being. BOMC (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me. How could Nephi be resurrected but not Moroni if we have to wait until the "first resurrection"? How could Peter, James, John, and John the Baptist be resurrected (to give J.S. the priesthood)? Based on these facts, my understanding is that the "first resurrection" is ongoing, and that it stretches from Jesus's resurrection until the start of the Millennium. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The "First Resurrection" references in TBOM do refer to the one that occurred when Jesus appeared - that is when Nephi came forth. The NT reference places the "First Resurrection" later and is when Moroni and all of us will come forth. Your statement of an "ongoing resurrection" however is not supported by scripture. They will not come forth until the trump is sounded. (See Mormon 9:13) BOMC (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That certainly is an interesting interpretation, but I don't think Mormon doctrine is as clear cut on the issue as you make it out to be. If it were, then of course Latter Day Saints could not claim that the angel was Moroni and that he was a resurrected person. And yet they do. And they claim Peter, James, and John are resurrected, all of whom died well after Jesus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Mormon doctrine does not support individual resurrections before the trump sounds. Mormon legend does. To be neutral, all positions may be pointed out to allow the reader the opportunity to draw their own conclusions, including the possibility that Moroni was a translated being - a doctrine Joseph did not know yet. Thus, the only way he could describe this physical immortal being was in terms of him being resurrected. BOMC (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OR to me (or do you have sources that discuss this?). So what you're saying is the Mormon Church teaches two doctrines (that is was Moroni and that Peter, James, and John were resurrected beings in 1829) that directly contradict another (timing of resurrection), with the second being based on a somewhat questionable interpretation of ambiguous scriptures from two different books of scripture (Bible and Book of Mormon) that involves interpreting the same phrase ("first resurrection") in different ways depending on the book in which it is found? I find that a bit hard to swallow. Obviously, neither you nor I are the final arbiters of Mormon doctrine, but the LDS Church scriptures I'm referring to clearly state (1) it was Moroni, (2) he was a resurrected being, and (3) it was 1827. Ergo, he must have been resurrected between 421 and 1827. So unless the church is internally inconsistent in its teachings (something it strives fairly scrupulously not to be, even if it means abandoning Occam's razor in certain interpretations), it seems to be the current doctrine of the church that at least one person has been resurrected in the past 1600 years or so, and at least 4 in the past 2000 (not including Jesus). If Mormons believe something, it really becomes de facto doctrine anyway, so the point is somewhat moot. Not to say that your position may be believed or taught by some Mormons in or outside of the LDS Church; we would just need a source, that's all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to accuse WP:OR just because you have not heard this before. Exposing another LDS inconsistency was not my idea, but since you brought it up, yes, they have occurred. The scriptures are not ambiguous on this subject - there are no resurrections until Jesus returns, period. That is hardly an original thought. Because the name of the angel is in dispute, anything that can shine light on the subject is useful. To know which person accurately aligns with the scriptures is a valid point IMO. BOMC (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So I take it there is no source? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I already gave the verse.BOMC (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We need a source for the interpretation of the verse that you posited, since this very conversation makes it clear that the interpretation is ambiguous on its face. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing unambiguous are the many "exceptions to the rule" that Mormon's have. Because they claim exceptions whenever they want (current prophets outweigh ancient ones) the point is indeed mute. [This is not a Mormon Wiki and other views do count.] Case in point is the statment by Bruce McConkie: "We have no knowledge that the resurrection is going on now or that any persons have been resurrected since the day in which Christ came forth." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 639) A view compatible with scripture; a view contrary to Joseph Smith. To those who follow scripture and not Joseph Smith, this is an important point for understanding who the messenger was - Nephi or Moroni, or both; and should be included IMO. BOMC (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It can't be without a source. Otherwise it's WP:OR. WP doesn't publish original thought or research that hasn't been reported elsewhere in a reliable source. That's what blogs on the internet are for. What you've demonstrated here by pulling LDS scripture, the Bible, McConkie, and Smith all together to demonstrate the point is a great example of WP:SYN, which WP does not allow. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Including Mormonism under Christianity in light of Majority Consensus

Please make no mistake, I do not believe Mormons are "bad" and do not wish to attack them. I simply believe that the Mormon pages should not be listed under the category of "Christian" in light of most other "Christian" sects lacking recognition of the legitimacy of Mormonism as "Christian". Granted, I'm new to all of this and I'm not entirely sure if I should reference my sources here or not (I'm more than willing to if needed). I invite any other users to do their own objective research and discuss their opinion here. --Srke3 (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC}

I don't understand this also. Trinitarianism, for instance, is lacking in the LDS faith. Christians do not believe we can all become gods. Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Mormons" or "Latter-Day Saints" (or just 'LDS'), while they/(we) do consider them/(our)selves to be "Christians", since we consider Jesus being the one and only promised "Christ" (Anointed One), or "Messiah", is the same as for most all other 'Christians', we do NOT consider ourselves to be the same as 'traditional Christians'. This is in much the same light as early Christians (the early apostles and disciples) of Jesus of Nazareth considered their religion to be that of the Jews, only 'restored', since it is evident from the NT that the Jews otherwise had corrupted much (though not all) of it, and lacked, as Jesus evidently didn't, authority from God. The Jews of their day also generally "cast" the Christians out of their religion/s euphemistically as they did also literally out of their synagogues. And yet, even Jesus proclaimed to the Samaritan woman that, "Salvation if of the Jews!", while he and his followers were 'drop kicked' out of Judaism by a majority of Jews.

Regarding "Trinitarianism", Latter-Day Saints hold, as is taught in the Bible, that the 'godhead' (a Bible word) consists of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. That we do not hold that they are three manifestations of the same being is not necessarily at variance with the Bible, but rather with 'traditional Christian' (re-)interpretation of the Bible.

Also, I would add that Latter-Day Saints also do not forcibly either believe that all people can become gods. We believe, though, that those who WILL, CAN. There are many implications of the doctrine that men can become gods throughout the Bible, from man being made in the image of God (surrounded by numberless 'beasts' who reproduce, likewise, after their "own image and likeness") as told in Genesis, to Jesus not merely recommending, but apparently commanding his disciples to, not merely be the best you can be, but, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." Godhood would certainly seem to lie within the parameters of becoming "perfect" like God the Father!˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diligentdave (talk • contribs) 20:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Mormons self-identify as Christians, which is pretty much the system WP has adopted in categorizing religions. To take any other approach is to unnecessarily reopen disputes about petty naming issues. (Incidentally, some of the Church Fathers taught the deification of man, but that's another story...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My only dispute now remains then with the unofficially adopted system itself. All respect due to my Mormon friends out there, I am only seeking after true neutrality on this issue, which I believe would consist of a portion of the page discussing the debate. As a (rather poor) example, I could self-identify as being from Kansas all I want, but no Kansan would consider me as such since my accent would give me away. In other words, I cant see how self identification is equivalent to accepted identification. --Srke3 (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC):

It all depends on what standard you adopt for inclusion. I agree that the example you cite is not a good one, because a person can be objectively "from" a place; we can't adopt this sort of objective definition for belief or faith without favoring one religious point of view over another. The central issue is: who defines what is a "Christian"? The WP approach is: no one does. If a person says they are a Christian, they are. If we require belief in some creed to qualify someone as a "Christian", we're not being terribly neutral, which we are striving to be. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for the clarification! I received a far more sour welcoming to my first edit earlier on. You've been more than helpful! --Srke3 (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally—the issue you raise is discussed on WP, as you've suggested it should be—see Mormonism and Christianity, for example. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but we don't actually always accept self-identification. I am NOT (sorry to shout) saying that Mormons are a hate group, but we wouldn't include Stormfront, for instance (picking this because it's a real debate) in say a category called integrationists if the website somehow claimed to be integrationist. I'm sure you can find better examples. Maybe a convicted fraudster who self-identifies as a legitimate businessman (again, not a comment on Mormons, only on self-identification for categories). But if there's an exception for religions, fine. Or maybe I just don't know enough about categories. Interesting about the Church Fathers. By the way, I'm not a Christian. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying self-identification is a universal standard adopted for categories. But I think with broad issues of where a religion is categorized, we kind of do. We certainly do for biographical articles—if a person claims they are a Christian, we categorize them as a Christian—we don't get into detailed studies of whether or not what they believed about any doctrine was orthodox or heterodox. In any case, most neutral academic sources place the Latter Day Saint movement within the Restorationism (or "primitivism") branch of Christianity, so I don't think we even really need to rely on self-identification in this case anyway, because there's not really a conflict between where the group self-identifies and where academics place it in the broad context. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I know we do it for people, I've had 'discussions' with editor who think they can categorise someone into a religion different to the one they actually professed. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to Probability

I've noticed that under the section about the name of the angel Moroni, the text reads that those attributing the name to Kidd's writings are using the logical error of an appeal to probability. The text then goes on to say that Smith probably had no access to those materials. I have several problems with that assessment.

First of all, the appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, not an actual error in logic. The logic itself is sound--if something is possibly true then it is, by its nature, possibly true. In this case, the logic goes like this: Kidd's writings and the names of the angel Moroni contain logical consistencies of content, and Smith, as the terrestrial "namer" of the angel, knew of Kidd's writings, so the possibility exists that the writings had an impact upon Smith's name for the angel. There IS (for emphasis, not volume) a problem with using it as proof of something (i.e. something is not true simple because it is probably or possibly true). In this case, the true logical path qualifies the possibility of the connection by stating that a correlation does not prove causation, e.g. the names being similar does not prove that one came from the other. What dissenters are saying is therefore an error in the use of logic, not in its formation. In other words, their logic is sound, but the conclusion they draw from it may not be (at least it cannot be proven by the logic they have presented according to this article). This is a small difference, I admit, but an important one. The idea is entirely solid in and of itself (Smith COULD have named the angel after something he read); the error lies in its application (just because he COULD have, doesn't mean he DID). That makes it a fallacy, not a logical error. This is also not specifically an appeal to probability. It's proper name is a fallacy of false cause, a type of non sequitur that involves believing that correlation proves causation.

That being said, the dismissal of the dissenter's claims because of the probability of Smith's access to the works falls into the same trap. The logic in this case works both ways. Just as it is possible that Smith had no access to Kidd's writings, by the same token it is possible that he did. If WP is going to list this fallacy of logic as a defense for the dissenters, it should, in the interest of neutrality, present the side of the argument that may show faults in the dissenter's arguments as well.

I'll wait a few days to see if anyone has anything to say on the subject, then I'll make the change myself. Relleka (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I follow you, the only problem I see with doing as you propose is that the claim that the error of an appeal to probability is being made is cited to a source. Granted, it's not a great source, because it's an apologist online-only Wiki. We should have a source if we want to present the other side of the argument that you present above; otherwise, it is original research. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it's necessarily original research at all, actually. If a source is being used to support information that is technically false, it shouldn't be used as a source at all, in which case I take issue with the citation itself, rather than with its content. The argument I've made is not based on common sense, but on the rules of logic as defined by Plato through Socrates. I'm not trying to sound arrogant (I didn't come up with this). If this source is cited in support of this text, then the source is supporting untrue evidence, and has no place in an encyclopedia. It's akin to someone saying that Barrack Obama is not the current president of the United States--there is no mitigating factor for considering the veracity of the conclusion because it's false on its face. I understand the need for dissenting opinions, but the realm of the intricacies of logical reasoning is far enough outside the purview of the average person to at least warrant close inspection by an expert. I would say this goes doubly when dealing with something like a fallacy of false cause, because it can often be mistaken for an actual error in logic (which the author of the dissenting opinion did).

Taking the presidency question as an example: Why can we not accept a source claiming that Obama is not the president? Because the fact that he is the president is, by its nature as a fact, true. That makes the statement "the president of the United States is not Barrack Obama" false by reason of a true negation (its opposite, the statement "the president of the United States is Barrack Obama" is true). Therefore, no source would be accepted in defense of the false statement that "the president of the United States is not Barrack Obama." The same reasoning can be applied to the naming argument we have here; the only difference is that the proof of the assertion being false is slightly more complex, logically speaking, than a true negation. The mark of an encyclopedic fact is the inability to prove that fact to be false. Calling the Kidd theory an exercise in an appeal to probability and an error in logic can be proven false just like the assertion that Obama is not the president of the United States. Relleka (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

...Er, yes, it's not a perfect analogy, but I get your drift. I'm more into verifiability than truth myself—per WP:V—but as I said, the source is not a great one, so I don't see why it couldn't just be removed. To me, that would be preferable to pointing out why the source is wrong without providing a source that actually criticises the other source. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability means being able to prove something true lol. I doubt the framers of WP had providing support for untrue statements in mind when they came up with the verifiability requirement. That being said, I'd much rather just remove the information than go hunting across the internet for something that negates the specific source. Anyway I'd be much more likely to find proof that the reasoning the source supports is false.

My problem is that I don't have an issue with the dissenters' actual argument--I believe that the fallacy of false cause supports their claim that it cannot be proven that the name Moroni came from Kidd. My issue is with the reasons they give for that dismissal. It's a fine line, but I think that if the argument is valid, it deserves to be supported by a source that can verify it on a factual and logically sound level. The current source cannot do this, so another should be found, or the information should be removed for lack of sound verification. I'd be happy to look for another source that would support the dissenting opinion, but that gave logically sound evidence. Such a source probably exists, should one have the inclination to look, which I have not thus far. Should I do that instead? Relleka (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

We could certainly try. It seems to me that I looked for better sourcing on this issue once, but came up empty. At the time, I didn't specifically understand the problem you've highlighted above, but I was essentially looking for a non-Wiki-based source that discusses the matter from the other side. That must have been over a year ago, though, so perhaps there is something better now. (I suppose if you're really keen, the administrators of that Wiki could also be contacted directly and told their posting there needs to be tweaked ... it is a Wiki, but it's not open to public editing.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Why 2 articles?

If this has been dealt with I apologize, but I can't see a difference between Angel Moroni and Moroni (Book of Mormon Prophet) to warrant 2 different articles. They are the same person. It's like having and article on Winston Churchill (Member of Parliament) and Winston Churchill (Prime Minister). These might be subsections of a larger article on Winston Churchill, but not independent articles. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think part of the issue (at least originally) was that it's not clear that the angel and the prophet are the same person. In one narration, Joseph Smith originally wrote that the angel's name was "Nephi". This was changed later on, and some Latter Day Saints say this was essentially a typo. Other groups aren't so sure: the Community of Christ seems to take no position on whether it was Nephi or Moroni, and simply says that sources conflict. I don't think the Winston Churchill analogy works very well. One article is about a prophet who is suggested to have lived in the 5th century. The other is about an angel that is said to have appeared multiple times as a resurrected being in the 19th century, who may or may not have claimed to be the same person as the 5th century prophet. It's therefore possible that "Angel Moroni" was in fact separate multiple angels under different names that the tradition has consolidated into one being. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to move section here

I was considering moving Captain Moroni#Theorized origin of the name to this article, replacing the similarly named section here. On the other article, I have raised the concern that the section is only tangentially related to the subject. In particular, the Quinn quote is about the angel Moroni. I looked through the Huggins reference and didn't find anywhere were he directly states the theory that JS got the names "Moroni" or "Cumorah" from the treasure-hunting stories of Kidd. Maybe I'm missing it though, so if anyone can point it out, I'd appreciate it. The Quinn quote seems to be the best that could be found from the discussion on the other page - although it still needs an actual citation, I believe it might be from "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" but cannot verify. Can anyone verify this? Thoughts on the proposed move? --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Angel Moroni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060901233302/http://relarchive.byu.edu/19th/descriptions/biographical.html to http://relarchive.byu.edu/19th/descriptions/biographical.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angel Moroni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120090052/http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/ to http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angel Moroni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328012427/https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=6800&linkURL=41.3WalkerKatharine-d04673b3-bcfb-4bb7-b3bf-dcf52e06fef5.pdf to https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=6800&linkURL=41.3WalkerKatharine-d04673b3-bcfb-4bb7-b3bf-dcf52e06fef5.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angel Moroni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100624035252/http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/dalemorgan/cover.htm to http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/dalemorgan/cover.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)