Talk:Theodemocracy

Where does Smith use the word?

So, in what source does Joseph Smith actually use the word "theodemocracy"? The article says he first used the term in 1844, but it doesn't refer the reader to where. Did Smith indeed use the term or is this a word coined afterwards to describe his beliefs? –SESmith 09:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Smith is quoted in the Times and Seasons, a Nauvoo newspaper. This reference is given in the end notes.Panbobor 12:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Panbobor

POV

I'm afraid that I think that this piece is biased. I hear that people criticised the Mormons and their politics but you don't give us these complaints so that we can judge for ourselves if those criticisms were valid or not.

It would also be great if the tone could be changed to a more neutral and non judgemental one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyBurgess (talk • contribs) 19:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a read through this one and the tone isn't anti-Mormon. There is no glorification or declaration of the Mormon stance being right or wrong. There's a bit much Mormon history and less examination of the government structure than is really appropriate for this article. The criticism of Nauvoo being a theocracy is explained without judgement - where is the rest of the criticism of the Mormons? What are your expectations here? Mdw0 (talk)

Mdw0, I re-added the POV tag to the article. The article is full of unsupported opinion. I tried to delete some of the opinion, but did not begin to complete the process. As you review at the article, most of thee opinion items can be deleted and your assistance is requested. Wikipedia must never be put in the position of making a deductive or declarative statement; only a reputable expert can make such a statement. When articles, such as this one, make deductive statements Wikipedia moves from being an encyclopedia to being an opinion piece or blog. This entire article, as you already alluded to above, should be focused on the topic -- who, what, when, where, why. In addition, this really is a fringe topic. I suspect if you asked 1,000 LDS what is theodemocracy and who taught it you would find 999 LDS who would not have a clue. It simply is not a pertinent topic of Latter Day Saint history or the history of Joseph Smith. What is important to both LDS history and Smith's history is the concept of the Kingdom of God. Cheers.--^StormRider 02:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading this as a form of government article, not a general Mormon history or a general Mormon philosophy or a history of Joseph Smith. It really needs to refocus on the form of government and how its supposed to work in terms of function and powers. There's a big section discussing the details of whether Smith was saying the Kingdom of God had to be established before the Secong Coming and exactly what this might entail, and even what the different terms Kingdom of God/Church of God/Daniel's prophecy, all of which has pretty much zero to do with the nature of theodemocracy. I'd like to get this worked out because there's no point in me trying to read and edit it as a government article and you as a history of Mormon organisation in which these details have more relevance. I agree not everything is referenced properly - especially the section that asserts Smith believed the Kingdom of God would never be achieved through insurrection - but I was responding to an accusation of bias. My search and destroy mission pulled up at the search stage. If the major complaint is now the unreferenced opinion then that's a lesser charge, and a different tag - hence the different tag. If you still think the article is biased, please indicate where that is because I'm struggling to see it. Mdw0 (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Reading this as a form of government article is correct, but it only makes sense if explained within a religious context. Outside the topic of Kingdom of God, this article becomes meaningless. Another way of saying this is that the LDS Church, or the Latter Day Saint movement as a whole, does not advocate a specific form of secular government. However, as with most of Christianity it anticipates the Kingdom of God and within its short history of 180 years is committed to the reign of the Jesus. Does this make sense to you?

The POV tag is not focused on bias, but more on opinions expressed. The article draws conclusions or makes deductions and makes declarations that express a position. I don't know if I would call it bias; just opinion.

What is clear to me is that this is a fringe concept within the Latter Day Saint movement. The vast majority of LDS and the members of other churches within the movement would know nothing of this topic simply because it was a fringe concept to Joseph Smith himself. The Kingdom of God and its coming is the principle concept of importance and not theodemocracy. --^StormRider 17:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Kingdom of God might be the principle concept for the church, but in the theodemocracy article its theodemocracy which has to be paramount. I don't mind a bit of context but its taken over the article. I'm a bit torn though, between savagely editing back the History section to what would be appropriate for a form of government article, or just lightly because its interesting. I reckon I could edit this article so it never even mentions 'Kingdom of God.' The religiously committed might not think much of that but it would improve the article by expressly setting its limitations.

I had a look through the POV and NPOV guidelines and they state that being neutral does not necessarily mean NO point of view. Sometimes opinion is not just inevitable but necessary to explain motivations of opposing groups. So long as its adequately referenced and that if there are opposing viewpoints that they are adequately mentioned, overall NPOV is maintained. Here its the references that are lacking, so I think the current banner is appropriate. The POV banner does indicate bias. Mdw0 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh³!

But what is it? Is it just a buzzword? Everything in the article indicates that it is strictly equivalent to "Jacksonian democracy", but "given by God"... the difference "given by God" makes no sense, unless one boldly claims that "Jacksonian democracy" was given by someone else. The flowery descriptions of the "Theodemocracy" is more like a beautiful (?) decoration. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 10:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Can a term first coined in the 19th-century be considered a buzz-word now in the 21st-century? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

From the article:

However, if consensus could not be reached, then Smith would "seek the will of the Lord" and break the deadlock through divine revelation.

Doesn't sound like "Jacksonian democracy"... --Loremaster (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity?

This article presents theological propositions as if they are objectively true. I have attempted to insert material that qualifies the tone. 174.89.177.67 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Such propositions are identified as beliefs of certain people. How the government system would operate as per its exponents is described. If you can find a sentence that does NOT indentify the theological elements as beliefs of the Mormons, or of postulations by Smith or Young, please identify and correct. Mdw0 (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the article was a problem until I inserted the 'purports to' part. 204.92.65.10 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Good call but it might get disputed. --Loremaster (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Asserting that theodemocracy combines democracy and theocracy is to assert the impossible. If it is impossible, it is obviously not verifiable. 204.92.65.10 (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that disagree with your personal opinion, and adding weasel words to the article doesn't help (see wp:CLAIM). Please also see wp:Verifiability, not truth to better understand an important WP guideline on this topic. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well then, (1) What are these reliable sources? (2) Purporting is not a weasel word, it is a more accurate description of a CLAIM made about theodemocracy than asserting that claim as if it were true. (3) How could a claim regarding an impossibility be verified? 204.92.65.10 (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions of doubt. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this use of 'purported' runs afoul of the non-mandatory guidance of the style guide. In fact, I think it is a perfect example of why the style guide is non-mandatory. I think it is preferable to asserting an unverifiable impossibility as if it were true. (BTW, I'm the same person as 204.92.65.10).174.91.146.116 (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that you might be adding two and two here and getting five. Try checking 'theology' in a dictionary, because it in no way assumes the power, worth or even existance of God. Theology is the study of religion, so that opening line says that theodemocracy combines religious elements with democracy. How is that impossible to verify? The article merely describes the writings and assertions of certain people who were religious and wanted to combine their religion into a system of government, and how that system might work. In describing the system formulated by these believers, there may be the odd sentence that may assume the existance and nature of God, but only in the context of describing the system of government. The article is not about whether God exists or not, which in this case is irrelevant. Look at it this way - when someone thanks God, the thanking still exists, even if the God being thanked doesn't. Same with the system of government. While you're checking the definition of 'theology' you might another look at 'purport', because the ones I've checked all say that 'purport' often has a negative element that means the claims or assertions are deliberate dissemination of misinformation. That sometimes-its-negative, sometimes-its-not definition instantly makes 'purport' a red-flag word - one to be avoided in an encyclopedia. Mdw0 (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, the line in question says that theodemocracy combines democracy with "theocracy", not "religious elements". The point is that democracy and theocracy are irreconcilable and so by definition it cannot be true to assert that something actually combines them. Accordingly, one uses "purports to" in order to describe what 'theodemocracy' is without making an impossible claim.204.92.65.10 (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

And for further clarity, this has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. Either way, democracy and theocracy would still be incompatible by definition.204.92.65.10 (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about it further and to acknowledge the general style guidance I have written a new beginning that avoids the use of 'purported'. 204.92.65.10 (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, the line said 'elements of theocracy' which means elements of religious study - although what's there now is fine. I dont know how you can say that religious elements are irreconcilable with democracy - just look at the Republicans falling over themselves to be the most religious, in order to appeal to a religious electorate. If you define the two as irreconcilable then of course by YOUR definiton they are irreconcilable, but if there's no agreement that they are irreconcilable, then your personal definition is not an argument for anything. Especially since you've failed to mention WHY they are irreconcilable. Smith obviously thought they could and should be combined, as do others. I've made assumptions that you think this is because God is impossible, but I could be wrong because you've never come out and said that. In fact you've given no reasoning for your 'irreconcilable' argument - only assertion. Rather than use a weasel word like purports to try to discredit the concept, why dont you just be clearer about what it is you do or dont believe? Mdw0 (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Brigham quote confuses the issue.

Although the quote below from the existing article does express what Brigham Young thought theocracy WAS NOT, it does not suggest what Brigham thought theodemocracy was.

I propose we replace:

LDS President Brigham Young taught in 1859, "What do the world understand theocracy to be? A poor, rotten government of man, that would say, without the shadow of provocation or just cause, 'Cut that man's head off; put that one on the rack, arrest another, and retain him in unlawful and unjust duress while you plunder his property and pollute his wife and daughters; massacre here and there'..." "I believe in a true republican theocracy..."

With this quote from the same cited speech:

LDS President Brigham Young expressed his understanding of a theodemocracy when he taught in 1859, "The kingdom that the Almighty will set up in the latter days will have its officers, and those officers will be peace. Every man that officiates in a public capacity will be filled with the Spirit of God, with the light of God, with the power of God, and will understand right from wrong, truth from error, light from darkness, that which tends to life and that which tends to death.... '[T]he Lord does not, neither will we control you in the least in the exercise of your agency. We place the principles of life before you. Do as you please, and we will protect you in your rights....'"

FreedomWorks! (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, I will make it so. FreedomWorks! (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of a Comparison to other "Religious/Theological/Theocratic Democracies/Republics"?

I propose that a comparison to "Islamic Democracy" , particularly the path taken by the Islamic Republic of Iran, be included for comparison due to the arguments that I have stated:

Apparently uniquely among "religious democracies", and unlike Mr. Smith's Theodemocracy, the current Iranian system has actually been applied for a significant length of time to a very large and heterogeneous society (Iran), not merely a rather small and more or less ideologically homogeneous religious movement (which the LDS were during the early and mid 19th centuries), so we have a much larger and complex system in Iran to see how theodemocracy might work if it were scaled up to a large, heterogeneous socieity (like Brigham Young's largest proposal for the State of Deseret would have inevitably ended up being able to be actualized.)

Also, Iran's system is similar to what could have arisen from an long(er)-lived and more enduring Deseret in that both the LDS Movement and Islam are Abrahamic Religions, which makes the comparison more relavant than a comparison with a "Buddhist Theodemocracy" (perhaps Bhutan is an example?), and furthermore does have the republican elements that were effectively lacking in the "Taiping Heavenly Kingdom" (Christian) or various other Islamic and Christian autocracies.

I would be interested to hear the opinions of my fellow Wikipedians. 自教育 (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't. More opinion would be utterly useless. Get a source and you can put this stuff in, but a source that compares Smith's theodemocracy with Iran? Rather like theodemocracy itself, I'll believe it when I see it.Mdw0 (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)