![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
There is a lot of redundancy in this article, with certain elements of Mormon doctrine being repeated over and over again, as though the article seeks to place particular emphasis upon them for some reason. Whether this is because contributors have not been paying attention to what's already been written in the article or because someone is trying to make a point I'm not sure…I would like assume good faith though and give those who have edited the article the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, it needs to be majorly cleaned up, with a single mention of each significant element of church doctrine being plenty sufficient. I'll try to fix it a little bit myself. -- Antodav2007 ( talk) 22:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
A while ago, other 'external sites' were listed. The list grew and some WP editors said, "Enough!" Now, just one site reference remains and that is not enough. Here on TALK, I plan to revisit a list which I will ponder and compose for review. It is a disservice to Wikipedia readers to not see some of the available websites from the LDS Church. As another example, Lynnette and I are very active in INDEXING, part of FamilySearch.org which is very popular and could link to the upcoming 1940 Census (to be released to the public on April 2nd, 2012). That is just one of many examples. Another is the emphasis of LDS youth and the presence the LDS Church has on the web for them. I agree that the list could become too expansive, but with careful selectivity, more than just one external link will be a great addition to our superb and great Wikipedia article. Give me the weekend to ponder and produce a 'first draft' list. Others can jump in. Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 22:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to inform you that I've been trying to translate this site into our local dialect, Bicol/Bikol, and you can find such translation at this link An Simbahan ni Jesukristo nin mga Banal sa Huring-aldaw. I'm a member of the Church and this work I would love to finish because it could certainly help some of our members who Bicolanos. I need help for all links of references that the site would need. For your information, I have completely translated into Bicol the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price which were published through my blogs. And of the present, I'm still editing some of the part. My handwritten translation for the two standards of the Church were already submitted to Translation Manager (Ms. Paz) based in Manila. I need your full approval to continue my translation into Bicol, and I intend to finish it. All I need is a formal acknowledgement authorizing me to continue doing it. Thanks. Geopoet ( talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a block quote in the Media and arts section that seems out of place and undue in the article. Any objections to its removal or any suggestions how to better integrate it? — Eustress talk 13:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed when looking through this article that it has several disambiguation problems. When referring to the LDS Church, LDS WP pages should be where the links lead to, rather than general Latter Day Saint movement pages. I don't have time to fix them all myself, but I just wanted to bring it up here so that anyone who would care to can take care of this. Am I just crazy, or do you think this would be a good idea? Thoughts? -- Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable ( talk) 15:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
As you may know, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds two world conferences each year, April Conference and October Conference. Today, the statistics and financial report for 2011 were given as follows:
FYI, you can check out our complete LDS conference outline (we made ourselves) at
and you can also check the news briefs at LDS.org . . . Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 22:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this edit (which has been made and reverted twice), the statement in the cited source is this: "Emerging in an atmosphere of intense religious activity (later referred to as the Second Great Awakening), there was little indication at the time that Mormonism would eventually become the largest church to originate on American soil." In my view, this is a reasonable item to include in the article. From the context of the statement, it is overwhelmingly clear that "American soil" is being used here specifically with reference to the United States, so I would suggest replacing "on American soil" with "in the United States", but otherwise I believe the statement is appropriate. — Rich wales 22:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
It is appalling that gay people in the United States and other nations are denied the basic civil right of marriage. It is also noteworthy to point out that the largest anti-LGBT organization in North America is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is also mind-boggling that the numerous gay suicides of the Fall of 2010 as a result of Thomas S. Monson's bigoted speech at General Conference have been ignored here. Needless to say, many gay and Lesbian children of LDS couples have war-stories about the bullying, hatred and discrimination they received within the Church and more often than not in their own families. Hatred towards the Gay Community has by the very actions of the LDS Organization over many years has clearly proven to be a Modus Operandi of the entire Church. One might also consider the fact that the Church is a corporation yet still maintains a tax-exempt status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooor-Matt ( talk • contribs) 07:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone considered a section on how Mormonism and Christianity compare? It seems like that's what people come to this page are looking for. If it's Christianity, how does it differ from the Christianity of Catholics and protestants? Jasonnewyork ( talk) 02:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering out loud here, but should Mormonism be included in the Christianity portal? It seems so far removed from traditional Christianity that perhaps it warrants it's own sect name. Brain696 ( talk) 10:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
87.194.44.183 ( talk) 18:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Like it or not, by WP's definition, the LDS Church 'is' Christian. It's in the very name of the Church: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those who say it bears little resemblance to what Jesus taught speak out of ignorance of the Church's doctrines and practices. People use the phrase "The Church" because that is the correct way to refer to this organization. Within the LDS portal, that is the accepted moniker. At the end of the day, what it comes down to is this: If you don't like reading about LDS doctrines and practices, if you have nothing useful to contribute to the improvement of LDS articles, don't read or edit them. At least, that's my perspective. -- Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable ( talk) 19:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems that if any organization should be included in the below-listed category, it should by the LDS Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Organizations_that_oppose_same-sex_marriage
Admittedly, users may not feel listing this one political stance is representative, but WP can't advance on the premise that all categories/edits/pages must be produced at once in order to be included. If we feel categories should be produced for anti-abortion, etc, then that's another job to do. As for this, I'd suggest the category should be included. -- Chronotopian ( talk) 16:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
While it is true that the economy of Salt Lake City is very dependent on the actions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, both as a direct body and through the many businesses it owns (such as the Deseret News, Deseret Book, the City Creek Shopping Center and others) it is more debatable that this category applies to the Church as a body. The church expends huge amounts of money in building buildings, printing materials, and running operations. With the devolving of many operations to area presidencies and their staffs, the Church does many things far beyond Salt Lake City. The SLC economy is still heavily dependent on the actions of the Church, but categorizing a 14+ million member church under the economy of a city with less than 200,000 people just does not work. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
First gripe's first: Why is the infobox a separate template? It's supposed to be the at-a-glance for this page, so it has no need to show up anywhere else. Second, as for the actual structure, I think it's safe to say that the LDS Church is quasi episcopal in its polity. Not its doctrine. Its structure. It has bishops chosen from among the membership by the next level of the hierarchy, and each level of the hierarchy is chosen by the level above it, until you get to the top. So far as I understand, the LDS Church also claims that there was some kind of restoration of Apostolic succession for the Church, so it even mimics that. The only real difference I can discern between the LDS Church and the Catholic is that the LDS Church has no concept of Holy Orders and thus no full-time lower-level clergy. This is a very important difference on the ground of course, since it means that any sufficiently prominent Mormon can and is indeed likely to have been a bishop (to say nothing of the fact it means the title "bishop" is used for the lowest-level position in the hierarchy), but from the perspective of the overall structural analysis, it would be fair to call it "episcopal." I would argue that when discussing Christian denominations, "hierarchical" is the same thing as "episcopal;" the fact that the Church actually calls one of its levels of church leadership "bishops," and the fact that the term "episcopal" means "rule by bishops" gives strong weight. I admit I would need some sources, but I think they're out there. Lockesdonkey ( talk) 00:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see this page get unprotected because I don't think that this page will be frequently vandalised to the point that it needs protection, feel free to yell at me at my talk page. 0alx0 ( talk) 23:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Readers and Wikipedia editors are making changes unhindered; like changing the first line which was then changed back to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS Church or, informally, the Mormon Church) is a Christian primitivist church that considers itself to be a restoration of the church founded by Jesus Christ." The point I am making is that, as pointed out, there is no restriction on editing, apparently. — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 05:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm a Church member and I wanted to mention something: The picture of the "meetinghouse" you have in this article isn't a meetinghouse (ward building, in Church terminology), it's a picture of a stake center. Stake centers and meetinghouses look almost alike, but they're not the same. I have a picture of a meetinghouse to add here, but what should I categorize it under? KellyLeighC ( talk) 15:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
My mistake. I assumed it wanted a ward building. Thanks for correcting me. 50.88.218.76 ( talk) 00:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Change "Members 14,782,473[ii]" to "Members 15,000,000," per church statistics.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/15-million-member-milestone-announced-at-churchs-general-conference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agroupaccount ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Here are latest statistics for Wikipedia editors to edit and improve the Article here, as deemed appropriate. Of high interest is (1) the growth of the Church; (2) International missionary and humanitarian work; (3) new temples, like in Rome; (4) new church leaders; (5) Other.
Here are the statistics (ending December 31, 2013) reported in the 184th General (World) Conference: The number of stakes is 3,050 with 405 missions; 571 districts (within a mission but not big enough to be a stake, yet); 29,253 wards and branches, (a branch is not big enough to be a ward, yet). Total membership is 15,082,028 [adding up the files in the membership computer database. The prophet called it 15million.] The number of children of record added in 2013 was 115,486; and the number of convert baptisms was 282,945 during the year. As of December 31, there were 83,035 fulltime missionaries [young elders, young sister missionaries, and seniors] 34,032 church service missionaries “serving throughout the Church.” One temple in Honduras was dedicated during 2013, bring the total of operating temples up to 141 at the end of the year.
The statistical report was preceded by the Audit Report, “to give reasonable assurance” of funds received and disbursed in the year 2013. — Filling the needs to (1) budget, (2) avoid debt, and (3) plan ahead to save against time of need, same advice to members. [Short and sweet.]
— Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 23:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
FYI, if it helps at all in improving the article, I have recorded what was covered in the conference just ended. LDS world telecasts of conferences occur twice a year, in April and October. The views and instruction of church leaders tell a lot about the LDS church. You will find my personal notes on my TALK page. [1] The linked article to the LDS.org newsroom has 38 photos. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
From 2013 conference, statistics: [2] and for Church positions, my notes: [3] (for accuracy.) — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 03:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm a Mormon. Don't judge. Other people don't like it.I think that you should edit the parts that other people don't exactly agree with. Dance3600 ( talk) 05:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I've seen a few edits recently about this line:
"...is a Christian restorationist church that considers itself to be the restoration of the church founded by Jesus Christ."
The disagreement seems to be whether "the restoration" is NPOV. Not according to the LDS church. It's the very foundation of their religion. In their scriptures (Pearl Of Great Price, Joseph Smith History 1, verses 18 and 19), it states the following (italics mine):
"18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
Smith claimed to have restored the pure Church of Jesus Christ. While it would be NPOV to say that the LDS church IS the restoration, I don't believe it's NPOV to say the church CONSIDERS it to be the restoration.
Thoughts? -- Man way 16:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I am a Mormon and Joseph Smith did restore the Church, and the reason why is that the world was not being true to the commandments. Dance3600 ( talk) 05:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi I visited another wiki article written from a LDS POV and noticed it misleadingly grouped Mormons with "other Christian groups" and visited this article to find that at the end of the section on "Controversy and Criticism" the central reason why Christians do not regard Mormons as Christian is not mentioned. It is basic common sense to point out in the Controversy and Criticism section the Mormon belief in a trinity of three divine beings (and in the words of this article in another section there is also a belief that Mormons may "become divine beings or 'gods' themselves") decidedly differs from the foundational Christian belief in only one God in three divine persons. Here is what the article currently says: "Many have accused the LDS Church of not being a Christian church at all as a result of disagreements with Apostolic succession and the "Great Apostasy", the Nicene Creed and, more so, Mormon cosmology and its plan of salvation including the doctrines of pre-mortal life, baptism for the dead, three degrees of heaven, and exaltation." Something about the differences between Mormons and Christians about whether there are multiple divine beings or only one God necessarily belongs in this article. There is a Wikipiedia article on Mormon beliefs about God which might be helpful for an editor to ensure this most significant point of controversy is touched on. /info/en/?search=God_in_Mormonism Elizdelphi ( talk) 00:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move. The consensus is that this is one of exceptions listed in WP:THE No such user ( talk) 09:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints →
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – There was a recent
dust-up over whether to include (and capitalize) the word "The" in references to this church. In this context, I felt it would be helpful to have a discussion about the article name and how the guideline
WP:THE might apply to it. I want to be neutral as to the result of this discussion, but I do want the discussion to take place.
There are some preliminary points which I believe are relatively uncontroversial: (1) the official name of the church includes the capitalized "The", and for the past few decades materials that the church publishes consistently includes and capitalizes the "The", even in running text; (2) the inclusion of the capitalized "The" as part of the church's name has theological significance to the church's adherents: see this article; (3) a special Manual of Style has been developed to address some of these issues; the appropriateness of the existence of this MOS has been questioned; (4) this church claims to be the same institution as the original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but there are also a lot of other churches that claim the same thing; (5) there are a bunch of other churches, past and present, with very similar names, but this one is by far the largest and most prominent of the lot: see here; and (6) almost all non-LDS sources, on a consistent basis, when referring to the church, do not capitalize the "the" in running text. Relisted. Jenks24 ( talk) 08:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The church describes itself as Christian, furthermore, it has been studied as a NRM, as noted on the New religious movements article.
References:
Zambelo; talk 07:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how it can be described as "new" when it traces its origins to the 1830s, unless of course you are confusing it with newer versions of the same movement that have been established by others. I agree fully with Good Ol’factory. Unless the consensus overwhelmingly decides to include this category (and I don't currently see this as being the case) then this category should be left out. Thanks. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 20:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I know for Wikipedia purposes we can only say the LDS Church believes itself to be a reestablishment of the Church Christ formed when He was on the earth, but if we were to assume that was true, that would make the Church older than two hundred years and thus not eligible for inclusion under that category anyways. I don't see why you're defending this edit when you were one of the ones who reverted it. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. I would agree with that assessment. Thanks for clarifying. Sorry if I gave offense. I certainly meant none and hope none was taken. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 08:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Quote from a comment I just made on another talk page:
This article needs more outside sources, especially in its History section. I ask other editors to take a look. Shii (tock) 22:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I am posting this topic for the benefit of all well-meaning newbie editors that change this page to read that Jesus Christ was the "founder" of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While we as Latter-day Saints believe that Joseph Smith restored the original church that Jesus Christ established in his day, as Wikipedians, we must be neutral. We cannot therefore say that Jesus Christ was the "founder" of our church, even though he was. We must instead list Joseph Smith, whom we consider the restorer, as the founder. This is done to keep this article within the scope of Wikipedia's requirements to maintain a neutral point of view. While this may differ from what I personally believe, for Wikipedia purposes, that is how we deal with the issue of a founder. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
A recent set of edits has attempted to add a Wikipedia Book named Book:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the see also section of this article. In reviewing that wp:book, I find it both very incomplete and poorly organised in it's current form, and so it is not at this time of any real value to a reader. I'll discuss the improvements that can be made to that wp:book at Book talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I want the broader community of editors interested in the topic of this article to weigh in one whether it is appropriate to include a link to that wp:book (or really or any wp:book created and curated by a single editor) as a see also to this article. Note that there are currently 4 existing wp:books related to the LDS Church I can currently find: Book:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Book:LDS Church, Book:Book of Mormon, Book:Books of the Book of Mormon, Book:Book of Abraham (Mormonism). There is also a redirect, Book:Mormon Church, which leads to Book:LDS Church. — Asterisk * Splat → 19:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
What is the inclusion criteria for articles selected when creating that book? The exclusion of articles on core/main topics about the LDS Church is a primary concern of mine, and this has not been properly addressed. To quote help:books "[a] good book focuses on a certain topic and covers it as well as possible." It takes the Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1850 pages to describe that broad topic, and the individual articles included were selected and curated by academic professionals in the field of Mormon studies, based on their documented high degree of expertise. How is the articles in Book talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints anything other than a group of articles that you selected based on your own personal preferences? Without objective criteria, it appears very difficult to justify inclusion/exclusion of any article in any book. As I've been thinking this thru, its become clear to me that we can't rely solely on our own personal judgement; we need to develop community-based inclusion criteria if this book is to be in the community-maintained Books namespace; otherwise it needs to be userfied. — Asterisk * Splat → 23:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
As Asterisk does not participate in the discussion any more and does not have any constructive things to offer; I will insert the book again on the article.-- Broter ( talk) 08:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I am open for an alternative version of this book but the current alternative by Asterisk is clearly too long. As long as a book is linked to I am happy.-- Broter ( talk) 16:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Asterisk: I changed Priesthood (LDS Church) to Priesthood (Latter Day Saints), not the other way around.-- Broter ( talk) 07:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The creator of Book:LDS Church; DraculavanHelsing; created another book called Book:Mormon Texts. I think we can still make the Book:LDS Church as a small book about the church and the book Book:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was created by me, as a comprehensive, big book about the Church. But I do not find use for the Book:Mormon Texts.-- Broter ( talk) 13:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we could make the Book:Mormon Texts, as a book about Doctrine and Covenants. But I hesitate to edit it and ask the community first.-- Broter ( talk) 14:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I made now myself the Book:LDS Church as a small book about the church.-- Broter ( talk) 17:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The LDS Church officially asks for balanced tolerance: (GAY-tolerance and tolerance to Bible beliefs, to paraphrase a lot.)
Headline-1: Mormon leaders call for nationwide measures protecting both gay rights and religious liberties
QUOTE: "SALT LAKE CITY – Mormon church leaders are making a national appeal for a "balanced approach" in the clash between gay rights and religious freedom. The church is promising to support some housing and job protections for gays and lesbians in exchange for legal protections for believers who object to the behavior of others." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 19:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
Headline-2: Mormon leaders call for measures protecting gay rights
QUOTE: "It’s not clear how much common ground the Mormons will find with this new campaign. The church insists it is making no changes in doctrine, and still believes it’s against the law of God to have sex outside marriage between a man and a woman. But church leaders who held a rare news conference Tuesday said “we must all learn to live with others who do not share the same beliefs or values.” The language of the new campaign mirrors a website the church launched in 2012 instructing Latter-day Saints to be more accepting and compassionate toward gays. The church made clear then and now that it still opposes gay marriage and insists on its right to apply its own rules within church-affiliated charities, schools, businesses and properties, even those that provide services to non-Mormons." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 19:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.
View the press briefing at: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-news-conference-on-religious-freedom-and-nondiscrimination -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 20:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Headline-3: LDS leaders reemphasize protection of religious freedoms, support for LGBT nondiscrimination laws
QUOTE: "Elder Oaks asserted four principles he said were based on fairness for all and rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ:"
-- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.
Headline-4: Prominent U.S. Mormon activist appeals against excommunication
QUOTE: "Asked for comment, LDS spokeswoman Kristen Howey said in an email, "The decisions of disciplinary councils are always open to appeal and the Church will proceed accordingly." Last month, a church spokesman said Dehlin was excommunicated by local leaders who determined that he had disputed the divinity of Jesus Christ, labeled the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham as fiction, and denied the church's divine authority. Dehlin's expulsion followed that of feminist Kate Kelly, the founder of the website Ordain Women, who was excommunicated last June after church leaders also found her guilty of apostasy." -- Narnia.Gate7 ( talk) 19:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.
I find it hard to reconcile with the completeness of the lead that not a single calendar date is put forward (i.e. 1830 or any other), all the more so as this is not a short lead: it presently runs to nearly 500 words, and neither is it presently averse to quantification. — MaxEnt 15:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is the largest denomination in the Latter Day Saint movement founded by Joseph Smith during the period of religious revival known as the Second Great Awakening, a denomination having settled in Utah while it was still a Mexican territory and founded Salt Lake City under Brigham Young, 2nd President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in 1846–1847.
Done -- It's good that [brackets] are there now. --
Narnia.Gate7 (
talk)
19:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Why are the footnotes disordered and non-continuous, and does anyone know how to fix this? For example, footnote 6 at the bottom is linked with superscript 9 in the text, and some footnote numbers (such as 6) don't appear in the text at all. Some of the early numbers appear in the box to the right, but even those aren't in order right now (2, 3, 1 in one location), and those in the box don't account for all that are missing from the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.31.113.27 ( talk • contribs)
Done -- TNKS! They seem in order now, 173 footnotes followed by six bullet items. --
Narnia.Gate7 (
talk)
13:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
This article does not make it sufficiently clear that Mormonism is fundamentally different from all other Christian denominations. Its historical progression as well as its relationship with other denominations are both highly influenced by the fact that it derives itself from a large body of completely original work combined with the original teachings of Christianity, meaning that its worthiness of even being classified under the term "Christianity" is contentious. I am not expecting to have this exact sentence thrust into the opening paragraph, but the obvious difference between Mormonism and conventional Christianity must be stated in the opening sentences because it is a defining feature- perhaps the most defining feature- of Mormonism. 96.33.227.245 ( talk) 17:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
So the line in question is: " LDS theology includes the Christian doctrine of salvation only through Jesus Christ..."
Here's the basic problem: That's not what the Scriptures and GAs teach. Specifically:
2 Nephi 25:23: "... to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are save, after all we can do."
So that's a formula that reads, "Man's good works + Christ = Salvation"
Miracle of Forgiveness talks about members that "are doing nothing seriously wrong except in their failures to do the right things to earn their salvation."
That's a formula that says things have to be done = earns salvation. I'll give Spencer Kimball a pass on not mentioning Christ as part of this, but it clearly states that without works, there is no salvation.
How about the current Prophet? Thomas Monson stated in the Spring 1988 GC, "It is the celestial glory which we seek. It is in the presence of God we desire to dwell. It is the forever family in which we want membership. Such blessings must be earned."
The presence of God is salvation. According to him, it must be earned.
So I have two Prophets, and one BoM reference towards earning salvation. I could go on. Any objection to deleting the passage in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Villaged ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Mormons believe they must not only have faith and repent but also be baptized (by immersion and by a Mormon priesthood holder) and bring forth good works.[81] Mormons consider their weekly Eucharist (the Sacrament) as a means of renewing their baptism and being repeatedly cleansed from sin. Although the grace of Jesus plays a role in salvation, each Mormon must "work out his own salvation".[82] Mormons believe that people not baptized during their lifetime may accept salvation in the afterlife through the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead.[36] Although the Book of Mormon rejected the doctrine of universal reconciliation, Smith later taught that damnation was a temporary state from which the wicked would ultimately escape after they had paid for their sins, to be resurrected into one of the two lesser kingdoms of glory.[35] Villaged ( talk) 18:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
For editing purposes (especially for statistics and social issues) you may be interested to know that I am keeping brief notes and putting them on my personal TALK page: User_talk:Charles_Edwin_Shipp#LDS_April_Conference.2C_world_broadcast.2C_April_4-5.2C_2015_.28Sat.2FSun.2C_10am.2F2pm_MT.29 -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 02:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) -- PS: I'll add official references later.
Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, currently a redirect to Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has been nominated at redirects for discussion (RfD). The redirect has a complex history and the discussion would benefit from the input of editors with relevant subject knowledge. Please comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 8#Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Some of these links are dead. Just thought you might want to know. MagmaBit ( talk) 00:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The LDS differs from mainstream Christianity in a number of ways. Perhaps the most fundamental is that it is non-Trinitarian (and technically not even monotheistic, believing that God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three separate Gods). This doctrinal difference is critical, and I would have thought that it would have been mentioned in the article. At the moment there are only the vague references to mainstream Churches not accepting that the LDS are Christians. Royalcourtier ( talk) 23:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, with all due respect, I feel like the line "The LDS church, or informally, The Mormon Church" should have the latter part removed, becoming ("The LDS Church"). The official title of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the LDS church for short, but "Mormon" is a title used when referring informally to members of the church, not the church in question. The church is named after Jesus Christ, not after Mormon, and so it should be referred to as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not the Mormon church. Thanks!!
205.118.81.24 ( talk) 01:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree. (1) When people say 'Mormons' they (and we) are talking about the members. (2) Secondly, it doesn't really matter and the way the article reads now, as referring also to the church, That's OK. Watch for how the word is used elsewhere in the article here. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk)
For the editors who are interested, there are notes and links on my personal TALK page:
My favorate link is to "notable quotes" with artful pictures from the Provo, Utah, newspaper:
The message of the newly called, set apart, and sustained Apostles of the Quorum of the Twelve was to serve the individual and the needy throughout the world. Enjoy; see what you think. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 04:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
FYI, at the bottom of my personal TALK page, I have notes on the 2016 "Spring general conference" [11] and the stats are already in this article. [12] -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 04:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Having been reverted by ChristensenMJ, I'm bringing the discussion to the talk page in line with WP:BRD. WP:TEXTASIMAGES clearly states, "Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image." To do otherwise needlessly hampers accessibility. And it is certainly not abnormal for to use the name field in an infobox when a logo contained therein includes the name – see, e.g, nearly every article about an organization whose logo includes their name and whose article uses {{ Infobox organization}} (or {{ Infobox company}}, {{ Infobox political party}}, {{ Infobox publisher}}, etc.).
As well, I'm wondering whether ChristensenMJ intended to undo the other changes made or if he or she simply blanketly reverted everything. The other changes were, namely, the removal of a non- bidirectional sidebar and the removal of the image size from the infobox. Cheers, Graham ( talk) 17:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I understand other circumstances of an organization or business where there is an associated logo that may/may not always directly show the name.
I have to say that I side with ChristensenMJ here. His reasons for reverting are sound, while the arguments against the revision are very weak. At least, that's my two cents, for what it's worth. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 23:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
New user Truth-in religion ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly tried to insert content that is incomplete, poorly written, and in the wrong place. This has been discussed by multiple other editors on the user's talk page. I invite User:Truth-in religion to discuss their edit here on the talk page. Bahooka ( talk) 14:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Sacred Clothing Added: This is an important component to the Mormon Church:
Mormons believe in the wearing of specific undergarments. LDS scriptures contain references to the wearing of special garments. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints do not publicize the fact that they wear sacred, symbolic undergarments but the garments are required for significant rites of passage to enter into one of their Temples and to receive their “Endowment” a term which means “gift”. As part of that commitment /covenant making process, "active" members of the LDS Church receive a symbolic garment (purchased at the stores on LDS Temple grounds) that they wear as a reminder of the covenants they have entered into. This practice is similar a Roman Catholic priest and the clerical clothing they wear once they have taken holy orders. Catholic priests wear their clerical collars on the outside; Mormon’s wear their garments underneath their clothing. But the concept though is not dramatically different.[1] ^ Gaskill, Alonzo. "Clothed Upon With Glory Sacred Underwear and the Consecrated Life" (PDF). www.irdialogue.org. Inter Religious Dialogue.
Beesmill ( talk) 17:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a fact, Joseph Smith wrote in his memoirs that African Americans are cursed with the "mark of cain". This is an extremely important part of history and is highly controversal. It's most likely a subject, objective readers would like to know. And it comes directly from the source, the LDS Church. Please do not white wash the Wikipedia Article about the LDS Church. If you do not like the way it's written, then improve it. But by deleting it, means that there are editors either ashamed of the facts and truths or are not very good at editing, either way, don't let the public be misled because you have a personal challenge with the articles content, and a personal relationship with the subject. The editors who are deleting the contact obviously, have a "Conflict of interest (COI) which involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. (The word interest refers here to something in which a person has a stake.)[n 1] (NOT A CHURCH STAKE but a STAKE in the subject) Here is the link, please respect Wikipedia. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
Shortcuts:
WP:COI WP:CONFLICT
Beesmill (
talk)
01:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Blacks and the LDS Church; In a speech given by LDS President Brigham Young to the Joint Session of the Legislature in Salt Lake City, on Thursday, February 5, 1852, President Young discusses why African Americans should not receive the priesthood. Adam and eve had two sons Cain and Able, Cain, “given more to evil practices than able.” The Lords punishment of Cain was to put a mark upon him which according to Young, “will see it on the countenance of every African upon the face of the earth”. Once the mark is put upon Cain, he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood. According to Young, “people that are commonly called Negroes are the children of Cain.” [1] Today African Americans can receive the priesthood as the practice was overturn in 1978.
OK, I understand.....This Page,we are referring to; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is the Front Page for the church. It's design is to capture anyone who does a Google or other Engine search. It's paged ranked to the top, and is written with such care and decorative order that not a sole is to touch it. For all the other facts, these are for other pages because, the crown jewel page is sanitized. It's purpose is a LDS approved page, the other pages you refer to are buried in the engine. It's clever that the
Black people and Mormonism is no where to be found, linked to or even slightly hinted anywhere on your main church approved page that sits at the top of all web crawlers. Anyway, what the heck is BY? I am not familiar with Mormon acronyms and lingo.
Beesmill (
talk)
04:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Your right Olfactory, there is a section of the article on controversies and criticism about "blacks were barred from the priesthood"....That was my edit. So far there are 3 editors and you are 1 of them. Not too sure which one is Mormon, non-Mormon, ex-Mormon, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't matter in the world of objective information. The LDS Church has so much Americana history that it's truly important that the whole story is told. Lets discuss it. It's the #2 ranked item in Google when LDS is typed. You are absolutely right about the careful pin point precision in writing it. It's a clever piece using a piggy back platform to cast words with relatively little meaning contrasted against 90 percent common vernacular. Without Wikipedia, the Species Specific LDS words would not reach the general public in a common internet search. So again you are correct. The Article was written with one goal. All I suggest is that we weave in some educational components. Thanks for your understanding.
Beesmill ( talk) 06:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Beesmill: I'm not sure I understand fully your reasoning for the recent edits. Based on the edit summaries, I would say I disagree with the rationale for the edits and so reverted them, but maybe I'm missing something. Since edit summaries are inherently low bandwidth, I wanted to be a bit more detailed in why I reverted the edits.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your reasoning based on just reading the edit summaries. If so can you clarify your rationale here on the talk page, per WP:BRD, to reach consensus on these changes before reinserting. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 10:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Beesmill ( talk) 02:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Reverting edits, simply because you can, does not align with Wikipedia. The edits I've made are reasonable. There are words in the article misspelled. Not all edits need explanation. Because the my edit agrees with a broader spectrum of individuals, makes for a better wikipedia. Because 3 others do the same as you, just reaffirms that a total of 4 need to brush up on Wikipedia Policy. Read Wikipedia, "articles should be well-written and consistent with the core content policies—Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability." As I stated to you before, stay true to Wikipedia policy, "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors." I will hold the article to policy and edit to avoid its riddled, "loaded language", lets stick to,(the neutral term) not the articles Value-laden labels. This is MY article to edit. If you wish to make it yours, then make your edits, as I will make mine. Focus on the article content, not its message, its about content. Please refer to my argument listed above. Your are just ?knee jerking" the article to fit your faith. Please refrain and use good Wikipedia Policy judgment. Thanks Beesmill ( talk) 02:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | Catholic Church |
---|---|
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS Church or, informally, the Mormon Church) is a
Christian
restorationist church that is considered by its followers to be |
The Catholic Church teaches that it is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ, [2] [note 1] [5] that its bishops are the successors of Christ's apostles, and that the pope is the successor to Saint Peter. [6] |
References
References
It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.
Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect Koinonia with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church. … "The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection—divided, yet in some way one—of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach."
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
Beesmill ( talk) 05:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)I have a right to edit the article, as my edits fit the Wikipedia parameters and policies. You reverting them with such vigor just affirms your personal connection with the article, who else would go through SUCH EXTREMEs to revert reasonable edits. It's OK to be a member of the LDS Church, probably not OK to be a member and not acknowledge it? You are way to connected to the article and subject. No worries Beesmill ( talk) 05:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The lede currently states that Jesus and his Atonement are the "central tenet" of the LDS Church, citing a non-scholarly compilation of Joseph Smith sayings and a speech by Thomas Monson in the LDS magazine when Monson was not the church's leader. Both of these are primary sources, and not very authoritative or current. I have heard various Mormon leaders express the opinion that the Atonement is the one central tenet of Mormonism, but I don't think there is anything sufficiently authoritative to make this an unqualified statement in the lede, because there are several contrary, authoritative opinions on this subject. For example, the church recently stated on its website that the "central tenet of Latter-day Saint belief" was the First Vision. When the church lists its " Basic Doctrinal Principles," the atonement of Jesus is only number 3 on the list, after "Godhead" and "Plan of Salvation." In the church's 13 Articles of Faith, the Atonement is listed #3. And as recently as 2010, Dallin Oaks, one of the more senior LDS leaders, expressed his opinion that the three fundamental premises of LDS faith are (1) the nature of God, (2) the purpose of life, and (3) the three-fold sources of truth, being science, scriptures, and revelation. Moreover, despite the existence of the Articles of Faith, there are some authoritative LDS sources (especially early ones) that say the church doctrine is non-credal, which would put the idea the church has any one "central tenet" on shaky ground. (See, e.g., D&C 19:31 ("And of tenets thou shalt not talk...))
Therefore, I'm editing the lede to say that the atonement is an "important element" of the faith, rather than the unqualifiedly asserting that this is its central tenet. COGDEN 18:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It's important that this topic page be written with fact based citations. This article does a fine job promoting a religion. The article should share and discuss facts about the religion. One example is tithe. Tithe is not optional, rather, when a member fails to tithe than that member cannot participate on all church activity. There are numerous research based articles that support this topic, JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION.
Because the Article cites the Ensign, the LDS church magazine, it is neither a Scientific Journal, nor a Trade Journal. Wikipedia states, The best "sources" have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. The Ensign has none of these characters. The Article is not subject to scrutiny, yet various contributors wish the disrupt scrutiny, thus minimizing the reliability of the article. The Ensign which permeates the entire article is a promotional piece, and puts the article into the category of:
WP:NEO WP:NOTNEO
This type of, "reference" doesn't fit the Wikipedia criteria for respected mainstream publications or reliable sources. Reliable sources should include, not just promotional material designed for church readers and its members. Acceptable sources are as follows:
• University-level textbooks • Books published by respected publishing houses • Magazines • Journals • Mainstream newspapers
The Article should follow the D&C which qualifies the rule of tithe. D&C 19:5. The principle is hardly voluntary, rather mandatory if one were a devout / active member. For the church article to offer partial fact, rather than commit to it's truths bring to question the propose of the article. Lets keep the article true and factual.
Sincerely Beesmill ( talk) 08:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
24.241.133.108 ( talk) 03:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Perfect Bahooka, then this would include other articles and publications that offer detailed explanation of church doctrine and practices. Please see policies relevant to sourcing under Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Your clarification helps others like me contribute balanced articles that share information regarding LDS Doctrine. Beesmill ( talk) 05:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia; (Proposed text.) As for any article in Wikipedia, facts and not opinions are appropriate. religious doctrine is of opinions, and can neither be proved nor disproved as facts. Because it's written somewhere neither makes it fact or opinion, all it does is to share a perspective, which in a unbiased forum is subject to additional information from multiple sources. Since a religion believes certain things (with reliable sources to establish that this is the case) is a fact. The actual belief, unless objectively verifiable and sourced, is not. Also, it's important for a reader to read JUST THE FACTS without an attempt to be persuaded.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
WP:VAGUE WP:W2W WP:WTW WP:WORDS MOS:WTW
"Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms. Use clear, direct language. Let facts alone do the talking." Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
This page includes world that fit the Words to Watch list, i.e. legendary, great, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, renowned respected, notable, honorable, sacred, brutally, substantially...
Articles written with such language can be rewritten to correct the problem, or may be tagged.
"Peacockery is the use of positive loaded type language. Please stick to JUST THE FACTS. Beesmill ( talk) 06:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Beesmill (
talk)
07:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Beesmill
Neologisms
See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) § Neologisms and new compounds Policy shortcuts:
WP:NEO WP:NOTNEO
It is important that Articles adhere to WP:NEO policy. Examples of articles on neologisms are ones that have little or no usage in reliable sources. Typically these Articles brandish words not commonly found and common articles and references thus are commonly deleted. These articles use the strength of Wikipedia to web crawl or page rank certain articles through the use of verb-age/words that have only specific reference to one faction of the article. Said articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. Care should be taken, rather than continue, one should contribute an entry of neologism to the Wiktionary instead.
Examples of words from this article include: atonement, seer, revelator, excommunicating, active churchgoers, ordination, Quorum, eternities, sealing...
Policy shortcuts:
WP:NEO WP:NOTNEO
Beesmill ( talk) 07:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Beesmill ( talk) 15:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)It appears that some editors have a close relationship to the subject of the article. Per Wikipedia guidelines, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: Wikipedia's Conflict of interest (COI) involves the contribution to a Wikipedia Article about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, financial and / or other relationships. Any relationship may trigger a conflict of interest. (The word interest refers here to something in which a person has a stake.)[n 1]
After reading some of the editors talk pages, it appears that there is a close relationship to the subject / article.
Shortcuts:
WP:COI WP:CONFLICT
According to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: COI editing is strongly discouraged. It undermines public confidence in Wikipedia,
According to Wikipedia's Conflict of interest: COI, "Wikipedia is a encyclopedia with the goal to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably."
This article should be written independently of the subject, not a platform for advertising and self-promotion. Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers first. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: COI
Beesmill ( talk) 15:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Added citations for reasons for dubious membership count, both into info sidebar and introduction. In short, the method the LDS church uses to reach it's 15 million is difficult to resolve with the actual number of people attending services, people who actually consider themselves adherents, and historical incidences of mass baptisms. [1] Deaddebate ( talk) 05:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Disparity between definitions of member, adherent, baptized, active, etc.
The LDS definition of membership is:
[2]
Compared with ARDA definitions
[3]
[4]
Adherent: 1) A person who identifies with some religious tradition. It is a broader term than "member" because the latter refers to an official status that varies according to congregation or denomination. 2) Note that in ARDA's online Maps & Reports, “adherent” has a more specific meaning: “All members, including full members, their children and the estimated number of other participants who are not considered members; for example, the ‘baptized,’ ‘those not confirmed,’ ‘those not eligible for communion,’ ‘those regularly attending services,’ and the like,” according to the Religious Congregations and Membership Study, 2010 (Grammich et al. 2012: xvi).
Member: 1) A member is a person belonging to a congregation and/or denomination. Rules concerning membership vary by religious tradition. For example, there may be confessions, behaviors, rituals or other requirements for becoming a full member. 2) Sometimes people use the word "member" to mean that they simply attend a congregation, whether they are full members of the congregation or denomination. In this sense, "member" is similar to adherent. 3) Note that on the ARDA's Maps & Reports, "members" are defined as "All individuals in a religious group with full membership status," based on the definition of a "member" from the Religious Congregations and Membership Study (Grammich et al. 2012: xvi).
Deaddebate ( talk) 16:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Just to explain the rationale for a minor change I just made: the first sentence of the section "Humanitarian Services" previously read "The ... Church is well known for its humanitarian services" which is rather a marketing formulation. The sources quoted to support the statement are both Mormon sites, so not objective. I am very familiar with the Mormons (including some of their positive characteristics) and was not aware of their humanitarian work. Even if many people are, it is a value judgement: are they more well known for humanitarian work than other Christian Churches, or indeed certain other religions? It is not quantifiable, so does not belong in a neutral Wikipedia article.
-- Northtowner ( talk) 23:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
There was a picture of a church, and it had this subtitle:
I changed this to: "an iconic image of the church."
Someone has changed it back to "one of the most iconic images of the church."
I believe that iconic is like UNIQUE. You cannot have MORE unique or ESPECIALLY unique.
An image is either iconic ( a wonderful buzz word, BTW ) or it is not iconic.
Chambers Dictionary agrees with me on that. I will therefore change it back tomorrow. Alanobrien ( talk) 13:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I have again removed the classification as Christian from the infobox. Please note that this action is not an assertion that LDS are 'not Christian'. It is not the purpose of the classification parameter in that template to state that the Christian group in question is Christian. At best, it is redundant. But at worst, it may come across as an inappropriate POV assertion that a) the group cannot be classified within Christianity beyond 'Christian' and b) it is 'more Christian' than other Christian groups. This is especially the case for restorationist groups that assert that theirs is the 'true' form of 'Christianity', often to the 'exclusion' of other denominations.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 07:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Antinomianism seems to be the characterizing measure for a non-christian religion. Unfortunately, nobody knows about that phenomenon nowadays...-- 78.50.197.255 ( talk) 05:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
The intro covers lots of details, which to me feel unnecessary for an introduction, and many of which are covered later. I have begun to simplify it a bit, feedback and input welcome. TantraYum ( talk) 08:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 01:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints → Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – Per WP:THE. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 16:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
So, I have noticed that there have been many edits made to the main article stating that the name of the Church should be its full name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As a member, I can say that that is what the church's official name is. Also, the Church has released a style guide, which can be found here: Style Guide — The Name of the Church (from MormonNewsroom.org). So I believe the infobox of the main article should be updated to reflect some of the key points from the style guide. Some of the key points are:
So by posting this, I know that I am inviting comments from other editors. This is my purpose, and the point of this post. I welcome comments from other editors. I also hope to reach consensus with any and all editors involved as far as the infobox and wording throughout the main article is concerned. Please feel free to reply to this topic. Charlesaaronthompson ( talk) 21:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt: I don't support removing other names from this article, and don't support any changes at all based on this announcement (regardless of whether it is ex cathedra or not) until there is a full discussion which has obtained consensus. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Reasons that acronyms such as "LDS", "Mormon", and others should be removed:
1) The Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has asked that members of the church call the church by its true, full name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". I would encourage listening to this message from the President of the Church about why it is important for the church to use its full and true name: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/10/media/session_4_talk_11/5845645176001?lang=eng
2) What gets posted on Wikipedia is viewed by large numbers of people, and as users of Wikipedia we need to be more careful about what we are presenting to the world and to think about how it affects other organizations and entities. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints doesn't want acronyms portrayed, especially acronyms like "Mormon" and also not to use "LDS", then shouldn't that be respected? Yes, the church does not have any ownership over Wikipedia. However, if someone were to post something that was considered humiliating or unwanted towards another person on Wikipedia, how would that be handled? I'm sure that would get taken down by Wikipedia immediately. Consider this: Are words like "Mormon" potentially unwanted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? That used to be used with a negative connotation towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And now the President of the Church has made it clear that he would rather not have acronyms such as "Mormon" or "LDS" used on internet sites.
If there's a process for getting a discussion and consensus going, we should get that going on this topic. Let's hear what everyone has to say on this. JasonPhelps ( talk) 00:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The LDS Church dose not belong in the " Category:Josephite sects in the Latter Day Saint movement". Josephite sects is a term used by historians (See Example)that is defined as followers of Joseph Smith III not Joseph Smith Jr., such as the RLDS Church. Whoever changed it from Category:Rocky Mountain Saints sects in the Latter Day Saint movement was incorrect. Category:Rocky Mountain Saints sects in the Latter Day Saint movement is a term historians use for Latter Day Saint sects that went from Jophen Smith Jr. to Brigham Young and beyond.
The definitions are even on the respective category pages.
Otherwise ALL sects would fall into the same category as ALL sects claim to follow Joseph Smith Jr., making any distinction impossible-- 12.10.71.189 ( talk) 13:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "LDS Church" to be "restored Church of Jesus Christ" to match the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stylistic guidelines (2nd point). https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide Rgettys ( talk) 20:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This document should delete the mention that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is also known as the Mormon Church, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would not like to be referred to as Mormons or the Mormon Church. THANKS! 24.116.54.6 ( talk) 00:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
01:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
changes needed to fit the new media style guidelines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide)
Change references to "Mormon" and "LDS Church" to either "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", "the Church of Jesus Christ", or "the restored Church of Jesus Christ".
Change "Mormons" to "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "members of the church of Jesus Christ" or "members of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ" Rgettys ( talk) 04:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Danski454 (
talk)
06:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
There is a lot of redundancy in this article, with certain elements of Mormon doctrine being repeated over and over again, as though the article seeks to place particular emphasis upon them for some reason. Whether this is because contributors have not been paying attention to what's already been written in the article or because someone is trying to make a point I'm not sure…I would like assume good faith though and give those who have edited the article the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, it needs to be majorly cleaned up, with a single mention of each significant element of church doctrine being plenty sufficient. I'll try to fix it a little bit myself. -- Antodav2007 ( talk) 22:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
A while ago, other 'external sites' were listed. The list grew and some WP editors said, "Enough!" Now, just one site reference remains and that is not enough. Here on TALK, I plan to revisit a list which I will ponder and compose for review. It is a disservice to Wikipedia readers to not see some of the available websites from the LDS Church. As another example, Lynnette and I are very active in INDEXING, part of FamilySearch.org which is very popular and could link to the upcoming 1940 Census (to be released to the public on April 2nd, 2012). That is just one of many examples. Another is the emphasis of LDS youth and the presence the LDS Church has on the web for them. I agree that the list could become too expansive, but with careful selectivity, more than just one external link will be a great addition to our superb and great Wikipedia article. Give me the weekend to ponder and produce a 'first draft' list. Others can jump in. Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 22:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to inform you that I've been trying to translate this site into our local dialect, Bicol/Bikol, and you can find such translation at this link An Simbahan ni Jesukristo nin mga Banal sa Huring-aldaw. I'm a member of the Church and this work I would love to finish because it could certainly help some of our members who Bicolanos. I need help for all links of references that the site would need. For your information, I have completely translated into Bicol the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price which were published through my blogs. And of the present, I'm still editing some of the part. My handwritten translation for the two standards of the Church were already submitted to Translation Manager (Ms. Paz) based in Manila. I need your full approval to continue my translation into Bicol, and I intend to finish it. All I need is a formal acknowledgement authorizing me to continue doing it. Thanks. Geopoet ( talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a block quote in the Media and arts section that seems out of place and undue in the article. Any objections to its removal or any suggestions how to better integrate it? — Eustress talk 13:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed when looking through this article that it has several disambiguation problems. When referring to the LDS Church, LDS WP pages should be where the links lead to, rather than general Latter Day Saint movement pages. I don't have time to fix them all myself, but I just wanted to bring it up here so that anyone who would care to can take care of this. Am I just crazy, or do you think this would be a good idea? Thoughts? -- Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable ( talk) 15:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
As you may know, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds two world conferences each year, April Conference and October Conference. Today, the statistics and financial report for 2011 were given as follows:
FYI, you can check out our complete LDS conference outline (we made ourselves) at
and you can also check the news briefs at LDS.org . . . Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 22:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this edit (which has been made and reverted twice), the statement in the cited source is this: "Emerging in an atmosphere of intense religious activity (later referred to as the Second Great Awakening), there was little indication at the time that Mormonism would eventually become the largest church to originate on American soil." In my view, this is a reasonable item to include in the article. From the context of the statement, it is overwhelmingly clear that "American soil" is being used here specifically with reference to the United States, so I would suggest replacing "on American soil" with "in the United States", but otherwise I believe the statement is appropriate. — Rich wales 22:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
It is appalling that gay people in the United States and other nations are denied the basic civil right of marriage. It is also noteworthy to point out that the largest anti-LGBT organization in North America is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is also mind-boggling that the numerous gay suicides of the Fall of 2010 as a result of Thomas S. Monson's bigoted speech at General Conference have been ignored here. Needless to say, many gay and Lesbian children of LDS couples have war-stories about the bullying, hatred and discrimination they received within the Church and more often than not in their own families. Hatred towards the Gay Community has by the very actions of the LDS Organization over many years has clearly proven to be a Modus Operandi of the entire Church. One might also consider the fact that the Church is a corporation yet still maintains a tax-exempt status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooor-Matt ( talk • contribs) 07:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone considered a section on how Mormonism and Christianity compare? It seems like that's what people come to this page are looking for. If it's Christianity, how does it differ from the Christianity of Catholics and protestants? Jasonnewyork ( talk) 02:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering out loud here, but should Mormonism be included in the Christianity portal? It seems so far removed from traditional Christianity that perhaps it warrants it's own sect name. Brain696 ( talk) 10:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
87.194.44.183 ( talk) 18:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Like it or not, by WP's definition, the LDS Church 'is' Christian. It's in the very name of the Church: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those who say it bears little resemblance to what Jesus taught speak out of ignorance of the Church's doctrines and practices. People use the phrase "The Church" because that is the correct way to refer to this organization. Within the LDS portal, that is the accepted moniker. At the end of the day, what it comes down to is this: If you don't like reading about LDS doctrines and practices, if you have nothing useful to contribute to the improvement of LDS articles, don't read or edit them. At least, that's my perspective. -- Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable ( talk) 19:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems that if any organization should be included in the below-listed category, it should by the LDS Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Organizations_that_oppose_same-sex_marriage
Admittedly, users may not feel listing this one political stance is representative, but WP can't advance on the premise that all categories/edits/pages must be produced at once in order to be included. If we feel categories should be produced for anti-abortion, etc, then that's another job to do. As for this, I'd suggest the category should be included. -- Chronotopian ( talk) 16:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
While it is true that the economy of Salt Lake City is very dependent on the actions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, both as a direct body and through the many businesses it owns (such as the Deseret News, Deseret Book, the City Creek Shopping Center and others) it is more debatable that this category applies to the Church as a body. The church expends huge amounts of money in building buildings, printing materials, and running operations. With the devolving of many operations to area presidencies and their staffs, the Church does many things far beyond Salt Lake City. The SLC economy is still heavily dependent on the actions of the Church, but categorizing a 14+ million member church under the economy of a city with less than 200,000 people just does not work. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
First gripe's first: Why is the infobox a separate template? It's supposed to be the at-a-glance for this page, so it has no need to show up anywhere else. Second, as for the actual structure, I think it's safe to say that the LDS Church is quasi episcopal in its polity. Not its doctrine. Its structure. It has bishops chosen from among the membership by the next level of the hierarchy, and each level of the hierarchy is chosen by the level above it, until you get to the top. So far as I understand, the LDS Church also claims that there was some kind of restoration of Apostolic succession for the Church, so it even mimics that. The only real difference I can discern between the LDS Church and the Catholic is that the LDS Church has no concept of Holy Orders and thus no full-time lower-level clergy. This is a very important difference on the ground of course, since it means that any sufficiently prominent Mormon can and is indeed likely to have been a bishop (to say nothing of the fact it means the title "bishop" is used for the lowest-level position in the hierarchy), but from the perspective of the overall structural analysis, it would be fair to call it "episcopal." I would argue that when discussing Christian denominations, "hierarchical" is the same thing as "episcopal;" the fact that the Church actually calls one of its levels of church leadership "bishops," and the fact that the term "episcopal" means "rule by bishops" gives strong weight. I admit I would need some sources, but I think they're out there. Lockesdonkey ( talk) 00:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see this page get unprotected because I don't think that this page will be frequently vandalised to the point that it needs protection, feel free to yell at me at my talk page. 0alx0 ( talk) 23:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Readers and Wikipedia editors are making changes unhindered; like changing the first line which was then changed back to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS Church or, informally, the Mormon Church) is a Christian primitivist church that considers itself to be a restoration of the church founded by Jesus Christ." The point I am making is that, as pointed out, there is no restriction on editing, apparently. — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 05:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm a Church member and I wanted to mention something: The picture of the "meetinghouse" you have in this article isn't a meetinghouse (ward building, in Church terminology), it's a picture of a stake center. Stake centers and meetinghouses look almost alike, but they're not the same. I have a picture of a meetinghouse to add here, but what should I categorize it under? KellyLeighC ( talk) 15:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
My mistake. I assumed it wanted a ward building. Thanks for correcting me. 50.88.218.76 ( talk) 00:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Change "Members 14,782,473[ii]" to "Members 15,000,000," per church statistics.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/15-million-member-milestone-announced-at-churchs-general-conference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agroupaccount ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Here are latest statistics for Wikipedia editors to edit and improve the Article here, as deemed appropriate. Of high interest is (1) the growth of the Church; (2) International missionary and humanitarian work; (3) new temples, like in Rome; (4) new church leaders; (5) Other.
Here are the statistics (ending December 31, 2013) reported in the 184th General (World) Conference: The number of stakes is 3,050 with 405 missions; 571 districts (within a mission but not big enough to be a stake, yet); 29,253 wards and branches, (a branch is not big enough to be a ward, yet). Total membership is 15,082,028 [adding up the files in the membership computer database. The prophet called it 15million.] The number of children of record added in 2013 was 115,486; and the number of convert baptisms was 282,945 during the year. As of December 31, there were 83,035 fulltime missionaries [young elders, young sister missionaries, and seniors] 34,032 church service missionaries “serving throughout the Church.” One temple in Honduras was dedicated during 2013, bring the total of operating temples up to 141 at the end of the year.
The statistical report was preceded by the Audit Report, “to give reasonable assurance” of funds received and disbursed in the year 2013. — Filling the needs to (1) budget, (2) avoid debt, and (3) plan ahead to save against time of need, same advice to members. [Short and sweet.]
— Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 23:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
FYI, if it helps at all in improving the article, I have recorded what was covered in the conference just ended. LDS world telecasts of conferences occur twice a year, in April and October. The views and instruction of church leaders tell a lot about the LDS church. You will find my personal notes on my TALK page. [1] The linked article to the LDS.org newsroom has 38 photos. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
From 2013 conference, statistics: [2] and for Church positions, my notes: [3] (for accuracy.) — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 03:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm a Mormon. Don't judge. Other people don't like it.I think that you should edit the parts that other people don't exactly agree with. Dance3600 ( talk) 05:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I've seen a few edits recently about this line:
"...is a Christian restorationist church that considers itself to be the restoration of the church founded by Jesus Christ."
The disagreement seems to be whether "the restoration" is NPOV. Not according to the LDS church. It's the very foundation of their religion. In their scriptures (Pearl Of Great Price, Joseph Smith History 1, verses 18 and 19), it states the following (italics mine):
"18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
Smith claimed to have restored the pure Church of Jesus Christ. While it would be NPOV to say that the LDS church IS the restoration, I don't believe it's NPOV to say the church CONSIDERS it to be the restoration.
Thoughts? -- Man way 16:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I am a Mormon and Joseph Smith did restore the Church, and the reason why is that the world was not being true to the commandments. Dance3600 ( talk) 05:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi I visited another wiki article written from a LDS POV and noticed it misleadingly grouped Mormons with "other Christian groups" and visited this article to find that at the end of the section on "Controversy and Criticism" the central reason why Christians do not regard Mormons as Christian is not mentioned. It is basic common sense to point out in the Controversy and Criticism section the Mormon belief in a trinity of three divine beings (and in the words of this article in another section there is also a belief that Mormons may "become divine beings or 'gods' themselves") decidedly differs from the foundational Christian belief in only one God in three divine persons. Here is what the article currently says: "Many have accused the LDS Church of not being a Christian church at all as a result of disagreements with Apostolic succession and the "Great Apostasy", the Nicene Creed and, more so, Mormon cosmology and its plan of salvation including the doctrines of pre-mortal life, baptism for the dead, three degrees of heaven, and exaltation." Something about the differences between Mormons and Christians about whether there are multiple divine beings or only one God necessarily belongs in this article. There is a Wikipiedia article on Mormon beliefs about God which might be helpful for an editor to ensure this most significant point of controversy is touched on. /info/en/?search=God_in_Mormonism Elizdelphi ( talk) 00:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move. The consensus is that this is one of exceptions listed in WP:THE No such user ( talk) 09:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints →
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – There was a recent
dust-up over whether to include (and capitalize) the word "The" in references to this church. In this context, I felt it would be helpful to have a discussion about the article name and how the guideline
WP:THE might apply to it. I want to be neutral as to the result of this discussion, but I do want the discussion to take place.
There are some preliminary points which I believe are relatively uncontroversial: (1) the official name of the church includes the capitalized "The", and for the past few decades materials that the church publishes consistently includes and capitalizes the "The", even in running text; (2) the inclusion of the capitalized "The" as part of the church's name has theological significance to the church's adherents: see this article; (3) a special Manual of Style has been developed to address some of these issues; the appropriateness of the existence of this MOS has been questioned; (4) this church claims to be the same institution as the original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but there are also a lot of other churches that claim the same thing; (5) there are a bunch of other churches, past and present, with very similar names, but this one is by far the largest and most prominent of the lot: see here; and (6) almost all non-LDS sources, on a consistent basis, when referring to the church, do not capitalize the "the" in running text. Relisted. Jenks24 ( talk) 08:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The church describes itself as Christian, furthermore, it has been studied as a NRM, as noted on the New religious movements article.
References:
Zambelo; talk 07:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how it can be described as "new" when it traces its origins to the 1830s, unless of course you are confusing it with newer versions of the same movement that have been established by others. I agree fully with Good Ol’factory. Unless the consensus overwhelmingly decides to include this category (and I don't currently see this as being the case) then this category should be left out. Thanks. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 20:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I know for Wikipedia purposes we can only say the LDS Church believes itself to be a reestablishment of the Church Christ formed when He was on the earth, but if we were to assume that was true, that would make the Church older than two hundred years and thus not eligible for inclusion under that category anyways. I don't see why you're defending this edit when you were one of the ones who reverted it. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. I would agree with that assessment. Thanks for clarifying. Sorry if I gave offense. I certainly meant none and hope none was taken. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 08:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Quote from a comment I just made on another talk page:
This article needs more outside sources, especially in its History section. I ask other editors to take a look. Shii (tock) 22:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I am posting this topic for the benefit of all well-meaning newbie editors that change this page to read that Jesus Christ was the "founder" of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While we as Latter-day Saints believe that Joseph Smith restored the original church that Jesus Christ established in his day, as Wikipedians, we must be neutral. We cannot therefore say that Jesus Christ was the "founder" of our church, even though he was. We must instead list Joseph Smith, whom we consider the restorer, as the founder. This is done to keep this article within the scope of Wikipedia's requirements to maintain a neutral point of view. While this may differ from what I personally believe, for Wikipedia purposes, that is how we deal with the issue of a founder. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
A recent set of edits has attempted to add a Wikipedia Book named Book:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the see also section of this article. In reviewing that wp:book, I find it both very incomplete and poorly organised in it's current form, and so it is not at this time of any real value to a reader. I'll discuss the improvements that can be made to that wp:book at Book talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I want the broader community of editors interested in the topic of this article to weigh in one whether it is appropriate to include a link to that wp:book (or really or any wp:book created and curated by a single editor) as a see also to this article. Note that there are currently 4 existing wp:books related to the LDS Church I can currently find: Book:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Book:LDS Church, Book:Book of Mormon, Book:Books of the Book of Mormon, Book:Book of Abraham (Mormonism). There is also a redirect, Book:Mormon Church, which leads to Book:LDS Church. — Asterisk * Splat → 19:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
What is the inclusion criteria for articles selected when creating that book? The exclusion of articles on core/main topics about the LDS Church is a primary concern of mine, and this has not been properly addressed. To quote help:books "[a] good book focuses on a certain topic and covers it as well as possible." It takes the Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1850 pages to describe that broad topic, and the individual articles included were selected and curated by academic professionals in the field of Mormon studies, based on their documented high degree of expertise. How is the articles in Book talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints anything other than a group of articles that you selected based on your own personal preferences? Without objective criteria, it appears very difficult to justify inclusion/exclusion of any article in any book. As I've been thinking this thru, its become clear to me that we can't rely solely on our own personal judgement; we need to develop community-based inclusion criteria if this book is to be in the community-maintained Books namespace; otherwise it needs to be userfied. — Asterisk * Splat → 23:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
As Asterisk does not participate in the discussion any more and does not have any constructive things to offer; I will insert the book again on the article.-- Broter ( talk) 08:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I am open for an alternative version of this book but the current alternative by Asterisk is clearly too long. As long as a book is linked to I am happy.-- Broter ( talk) 16:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Asterisk: I changed Priesthood (LDS Church) to Priesthood (Latter Day Saints), not the other way around.-- Broter ( talk) 07:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The creator of Book:LDS Church; DraculavanHelsing; created another book called Book:Mormon Texts. I think we can still make the Book:LDS Church as a small book about the church and the book Book:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was created by me, as a comprehensive, big book about the Church. But I do not find use for the Book:Mormon Texts.-- Broter ( talk) 13:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we could make the Book:Mormon Texts, as a book about Doctrine and Covenants. But I hesitate to edit it and ask the community first.-- Broter ( talk) 14:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I made now myself the Book:LDS Church as a small book about the church.-- Broter ( talk) 17:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The LDS Church officially asks for balanced tolerance: (GAY-tolerance and tolerance to Bible beliefs, to paraphrase a lot.)
Headline-1: Mormon leaders call for nationwide measures protecting both gay rights and religious liberties
QUOTE: "SALT LAKE CITY – Mormon church leaders are making a national appeal for a "balanced approach" in the clash between gay rights and religious freedom. The church is promising to support some housing and job protections for gays and lesbians in exchange for legal protections for believers who object to the behavior of others." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 19:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
Headline-2: Mormon leaders call for measures protecting gay rights
QUOTE: "It’s not clear how much common ground the Mormons will find with this new campaign. The church insists it is making no changes in doctrine, and still believes it’s against the law of God to have sex outside marriage between a man and a woman. But church leaders who held a rare news conference Tuesday said “we must all learn to live with others who do not share the same beliefs or values.” The language of the new campaign mirrors a website the church launched in 2012 instructing Latter-day Saints to be more accepting and compassionate toward gays. The church made clear then and now that it still opposes gay marriage and insists on its right to apply its own rules within church-affiliated charities, schools, businesses and properties, even those that provide services to non-Mormons." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 19:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.
View the press briefing at: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-news-conference-on-religious-freedom-and-nondiscrimination -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 20:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Headline-3: LDS leaders reemphasize protection of religious freedoms, support for LGBT nondiscrimination laws
QUOTE: "Elder Oaks asserted four principles he said were based on fairness for all and rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ:"
-- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.
Headline-4: Prominent U.S. Mormon activist appeals against excommunication
QUOTE: "Asked for comment, LDS spokeswoman Kristen Howey said in an email, "The decisions of disciplinary councils are always open to appeal and the Church will proceed accordingly." Last month, a church spokesman said Dehlin was excommunicated by local leaders who determined that he had disputed the divinity of Jesus Christ, labeled the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham as fiction, and denied the church's divine authority. Dehlin's expulsion followed that of feminist Kate Kelly, the founder of the website Ordain Women, who was excommunicated last June after church leaders also found her guilty of apostasy." -- Narnia.Gate7 ( talk) 19:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.
I find it hard to reconcile with the completeness of the lead that not a single calendar date is put forward (i.e. 1830 or any other), all the more so as this is not a short lead: it presently runs to nearly 500 words, and neither is it presently averse to quantification. — MaxEnt 15:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is the largest denomination in the Latter Day Saint movement founded by Joseph Smith during the period of religious revival known as the Second Great Awakening, a denomination having settled in Utah while it was still a Mexican territory and founded Salt Lake City under Brigham Young, 2nd President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in 1846–1847.
Done -- It's good that [brackets] are there now. --
Narnia.Gate7 (
talk)
19:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Why are the footnotes disordered and non-continuous, and does anyone know how to fix this? For example, footnote 6 at the bottom is linked with superscript 9 in the text, and some footnote numbers (such as 6) don't appear in the text at all. Some of the early numbers appear in the box to the right, but even those aren't in order right now (2, 3, 1 in one location), and those in the box don't account for all that are missing from the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.31.113.27 ( talk • contribs)
Done -- TNKS! They seem in order now, 173 footnotes followed by six bullet items. --
Narnia.Gate7 (
talk)
13:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
This article does not make it sufficiently clear that Mormonism is fundamentally different from all other Christian denominations. Its historical progression as well as its relationship with other denominations are both highly influenced by the fact that it derives itself from a large body of completely original work combined with the original teachings of Christianity, meaning that its worthiness of even being classified under the term "Christianity" is contentious. I am not expecting to have this exact sentence thrust into the opening paragraph, but the obvious difference between Mormonism and conventional Christianity must be stated in the opening sentences because it is a defining feature- perhaps the most defining feature- of Mormonism. 96.33.227.245 ( talk) 17:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
So the line in question is: " LDS theology includes the Christian doctrine of salvation only through Jesus Christ..."
Here's the basic problem: That's not what the Scriptures and GAs teach. Specifically:
2 Nephi 25:23: "... to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are save, after all we can do."
So that's a formula that reads, "Man's good works + Christ = Salvation"
Miracle of Forgiveness talks about members that "are doing nothing seriously wrong except in their failures to do the right things to earn their salvation."
That's a formula that says things have to be done = earns salvation. I'll give Spencer Kimball a pass on not mentioning Christ as part of this, but it clearly states that without works, there is no salvation.
How about the current Prophet? Thomas Monson stated in the Spring 1988 GC, "It is the celestial glory which we seek. It is in the presence of God we desire to dwell. It is the forever family in which we want membership. Such blessings must be earned."
The presence of God is salvation. According to him, it must be earned.
So I have two Prophets, and one BoM reference towards earning salvation. I could go on. Any objection to deleting the passage in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Villaged ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Mormons believe they must not only have faith and repent but also be baptized (by immersion and by a Mormon priesthood holder) and bring forth good works.[81] Mormons consider their weekly Eucharist (the Sacrament) as a means of renewing their baptism and being repeatedly cleansed from sin. Although the grace of Jesus plays a role in salvation, each Mormon must "work out his own salvation".[82] Mormons believe that people not baptized during their lifetime may accept salvation in the afterlife through the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead.[36] Although the Book of Mormon rejected the doctrine of universal reconciliation, Smith later taught that damnation was a temporary state from which the wicked would ultimately escape after they had paid for their sins, to be resurrected into one of the two lesser kingdoms of glory.[35] Villaged ( talk) 18:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
For editing purposes (especially for statistics and social issues) you may be interested to know that I am keeping brief notes and putting them on my personal TALK page: User_talk:Charles_Edwin_Shipp#LDS_April_Conference.2C_world_broadcast.2C_April_4-5.2C_2015_.28Sat.2FSun.2C_10am.2F2pm_MT.29 -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 02:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) -- PS: I'll add official references later.
Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, currently a redirect to Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has been nominated at redirects for discussion (RfD). The redirect has a complex history and the discussion would benefit from the input of editors with relevant subject knowledge. Please comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 8#Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Some of these links are dead. Just thought you might want to know. MagmaBit ( talk) 00:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The LDS differs from mainstream Christianity in a number of ways. Perhaps the most fundamental is that it is non-Trinitarian (and technically not even monotheistic, believing that God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three separate Gods). This doctrinal difference is critical, and I would have thought that it would have been mentioned in the article. At the moment there are only the vague references to mainstream Churches not accepting that the LDS are Christians. Royalcourtier ( talk) 23:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, with all due respect, I feel like the line "The LDS church, or informally, The Mormon Church" should have the latter part removed, becoming ("The LDS Church"). The official title of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the LDS church for short, but "Mormon" is a title used when referring informally to members of the church, not the church in question. The church is named after Jesus Christ, not after Mormon, and so it should be referred to as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not the Mormon church. Thanks!!
205.118.81.24 ( talk) 01:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree. (1) When people say 'Mormons' they (and we) are talking about the members. (2) Secondly, it doesn't really matter and the way the article reads now, as referring also to the church, That's OK. Watch for how the word is used elsewhere in the article here. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk)
For the editors who are interested, there are notes and links on my personal TALK page:
My favorate link is to "notable quotes" with artful pictures from the Provo, Utah, newspaper:
The message of the newly called, set apart, and sustained Apostles of the Quorum of the Twelve was to serve the individual and the needy throughout the world. Enjoy; see what you think. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 04:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
FYI, at the bottom of my personal TALK page, I have notes on the 2016 "Spring general conference" [11] and the stats are already in this article. [12] -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 04:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Having been reverted by ChristensenMJ, I'm bringing the discussion to the talk page in line with WP:BRD. WP:TEXTASIMAGES clearly states, "Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image." To do otherwise needlessly hampers accessibility. And it is certainly not abnormal for to use the name field in an infobox when a logo contained therein includes the name – see, e.g, nearly every article about an organization whose logo includes their name and whose article uses {{ Infobox organization}} (or {{ Infobox company}}, {{ Infobox political party}}, {{ Infobox publisher}}, etc.).
As well, I'm wondering whether ChristensenMJ intended to undo the other changes made or if he or she simply blanketly reverted everything. The other changes were, namely, the removal of a non- bidirectional sidebar and the removal of the image size from the infobox. Cheers, Graham ( talk) 17:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I understand other circumstances of an organization or business where there is an associated logo that may/may not always directly show the name.
I have to say that I side with ChristensenMJ here. His reasons for reverting are sound, while the arguments against the revision are very weak. At least, that's my two cents, for what it's worth. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 23:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
New user Truth-in religion ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly tried to insert content that is incomplete, poorly written, and in the wrong place. This has been discussed by multiple other editors on the user's talk page. I invite User:Truth-in religion to discuss their edit here on the talk page. Bahooka ( talk) 14:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Sacred Clothing Added: This is an important component to the Mormon Church:
Mormons believe in the wearing of specific undergarments. LDS scriptures contain references to the wearing of special garments. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints do not publicize the fact that they wear sacred, symbolic undergarments but the garments are required for significant rites of passage to enter into one of their Temples and to receive their “Endowment” a term which means “gift”. As part of that commitment /covenant making process, "active" members of the LDS Church receive a symbolic garment (purchased at the stores on LDS Temple grounds) that they wear as a reminder of the covenants they have entered into. This practice is similar a Roman Catholic priest and the clerical clothing they wear once they have taken holy orders. Catholic priests wear their clerical collars on the outside; Mormon’s wear their garments underneath their clothing. But the concept though is not dramatically different.[1] ^ Gaskill, Alonzo. "Clothed Upon With Glory Sacred Underwear and the Consecrated Life" (PDF). www.irdialogue.org. Inter Religious Dialogue.
Beesmill ( talk) 17:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a fact, Joseph Smith wrote in his memoirs that African Americans are cursed with the "mark of cain". This is an extremely important part of history and is highly controversal. It's most likely a subject, objective readers would like to know. And it comes directly from the source, the LDS Church. Please do not white wash the Wikipedia Article about the LDS Church. If you do not like the way it's written, then improve it. But by deleting it, means that there are editors either ashamed of the facts and truths or are not very good at editing, either way, don't let the public be misled because you have a personal challenge with the articles content, and a personal relationship with the subject. The editors who are deleting the contact obviously, have a "Conflict of interest (COI) which involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. (The word interest refers here to something in which a person has a stake.)[n 1] (NOT A CHURCH STAKE but a STAKE in the subject) Here is the link, please respect Wikipedia. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
Shortcuts:
WP:COI WP:CONFLICT
Beesmill (
talk)
01:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Blacks and the LDS Church; In a speech given by LDS President Brigham Young to the Joint Session of the Legislature in Salt Lake City, on Thursday, February 5, 1852, President Young discusses why African Americans should not receive the priesthood. Adam and eve had two sons Cain and Able, Cain, “given more to evil practices than able.” The Lords punishment of Cain was to put a mark upon him which according to Young, “will see it on the countenance of every African upon the face of the earth”. Once the mark is put upon Cain, he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood. According to Young, “people that are commonly called Negroes are the children of Cain.” [1] Today African Americans can receive the priesthood as the practice was overturn in 1978.
OK, I understand.....This Page,we are referring to; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is the Front Page for the church. It's design is to capture anyone who does a Google or other Engine search. It's paged ranked to the top, and is written with such care and decorative order that not a sole is to touch it. For all the other facts, these are for other pages because, the crown jewel page is sanitized. It's purpose is a LDS approved page, the other pages you refer to are buried in the engine. It's clever that the
Black people and Mormonism is no where to be found, linked to or even slightly hinted anywhere on your main church approved page that sits at the top of all web crawlers. Anyway, what the heck is BY? I am not familiar with Mormon acronyms and lingo.
Beesmill (
talk)
04:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Your right Olfactory, there is a section of the article on controversies and criticism about "blacks were barred from the priesthood"....That was my edit. So far there are 3 editors and you are 1 of them. Not too sure which one is Mormon, non-Mormon, ex-Mormon, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't matter in the world of objective information. The LDS Church has so much Americana history that it's truly important that the whole story is told. Lets discuss it. It's the #2 ranked item in Google when LDS is typed. You are absolutely right about the careful pin point precision in writing it. It's a clever piece using a piggy back platform to cast words with relatively little meaning contrasted against 90 percent common vernacular. Without Wikipedia, the Species Specific LDS words would not reach the general public in a common internet search. So again you are correct. The Article was written with one goal. All I suggest is that we weave in some educational components. Thanks for your understanding.
Beesmill ( talk) 06:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Beesmill: I'm not sure I understand fully your reasoning for the recent edits. Based on the edit summaries, I would say I disagree with the rationale for the edits and so reverted them, but maybe I'm missing something. Since edit summaries are inherently low bandwidth, I wanted to be a bit more detailed in why I reverted the edits.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your reasoning based on just reading the edit summaries. If so can you clarify your rationale here on the talk page, per WP:BRD, to reach consensus on these changes before reinserting. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 10:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Beesmill ( talk) 02:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Reverting edits, simply because you can, does not align with Wikipedia. The edits I've made are reasonable. There are words in the article misspelled. Not all edits need explanation. Because the my edit agrees with a broader spectrum of individuals, makes for a better wikipedia. Because 3 others do the same as you, just reaffirms that a total of 4 need to brush up on Wikipedia Policy. Read Wikipedia, "articles should be well-written and consistent with the core content policies—Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability." As I stated to you before, stay true to Wikipedia policy, "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors." I will hold the article to policy and edit to avoid its riddled, "loaded language", lets stick to,(the neutral term) not the articles Value-laden labels. This is MY article to edit. If you wish to make it yours, then make your edits, as I will make mine. Focus on the article content, not its message, its about content. Please refer to my argument listed above. Your are just ?knee jerking" the article to fit your faith. Please refrain and use good Wikipedia Policy judgment. Thanks Beesmill ( talk) 02:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | Catholic Church |
---|---|
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS Church or, informally, the Mormon Church) is a
Christian
restorationist church that is considered by its followers to be |
The Catholic Church teaches that it is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ, [2] [note 1] [5] that its bishops are the successors of Christ's apostles, and that the pope is the successor to Saint Peter. [6] |
References
References
It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.
Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect Koinonia with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church. … "The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection—divided, yet in some way one—of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach."
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
Beesmill ( talk) 05:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)I have a right to edit the article, as my edits fit the Wikipedia parameters and policies. You reverting them with such vigor just affirms your personal connection with the article, who else would go through SUCH EXTREMEs to revert reasonable edits. It's OK to be a member of the LDS Church, probably not OK to be a member and not acknowledge it? You are way to connected to the article and subject. No worries Beesmill ( talk) 05:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The lede currently states that Jesus and his Atonement are the "central tenet" of the LDS Church, citing a non-scholarly compilation of Joseph Smith sayings and a speech by Thomas Monson in the LDS magazine when Monson was not the church's leader. Both of these are primary sources, and not very authoritative or current. I have heard various Mormon leaders express the opinion that the Atonement is the one central tenet of Mormonism, but I don't think there is anything sufficiently authoritative to make this an unqualified statement in the lede, because there are several contrary, authoritative opinions on this subject. For example, the church recently stated on its website that the "central tenet of Latter-day Saint belief" was the First Vision. When the church lists its " Basic Doctrinal Principles," the atonement of Jesus is only number 3 on the list, after "Godhead" and "Plan of Salvation." In the church's 13 Articles of Faith, the Atonement is listed #3. And as recently as 2010, Dallin Oaks, one of the more senior LDS leaders, expressed his opinion that the three fundamental premises of LDS faith are (1) the nature of God, (2) the purpose of life, and (3) the three-fold sources of truth, being science, scriptures, and revelation. Moreover, despite the existence of the Articles of Faith, there are some authoritative LDS sources (especially early ones) that say the church doctrine is non-credal, which would put the idea the church has any one "central tenet" on shaky ground. (See, e.g., D&C 19:31 ("And of tenets thou shalt not talk...))
Therefore, I'm editing the lede to say that the atonement is an "important element" of the faith, rather than the unqualifiedly asserting that this is its central tenet. COGDEN 18:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It's important that this topic page be written with fact based citations. This article does a fine job promoting a religion. The article should share and discuss facts about the religion. One example is tithe. Tithe is not optional, rather, when a member fails to tithe than that member cannot participate on all church activity. There are numerous research based articles that support this topic, JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION.
Because the Article cites the Ensign, the LDS church magazine, it is neither a Scientific Journal, nor a Trade Journal. Wikipedia states, The best "sources" have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. The Ensign has none of these characters. The Article is not subject to scrutiny, yet various contributors wish the disrupt scrutiny, thus minimizing the reliability of the article. The Ensign which permeates the entire article is a promotional piece, and puts the article into the category of:
WP:NEO WP:NOTNEO
This type of, "reference" doesn't fit the Wikipedia criteria for respected mainstream publications or reliable sources. Reliable sources should include, not just promotional material designed for church readers and its members. Acceptable sources are as follows:
• University-level textbooks • Books published by respected publishing houses • Magazines • Journals • Mainstream newspapers
The Article should follow the D&C which qualifies the rule of tithe. D&C 19:5. The principle is hardly voluntary, rather mandatory if one were a devout / active member. For the church article to offer partial fact, rather than commit to it's truths bring to question the propose of the article. Lets keep the article true and factual.
Sincerely Beesmill ( talk) 08:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
24.241.133.108 ( talk) 03:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Perfect Bahooka, then this would include other articles and publications that offer detailed explanation of church doctrine and practices. Please see policies relevant to sourcing under Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Your clarification helps others like me contribute balanced articles that share information regarding LDS Doctrine. Beesmill ( talk) 05:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia; (Proposed text.) As for any article in Wikipedia, facts and not opinions are appropriate. religious doctrine is of opinions, and can neither be proved nor disproved as facts. Because it's written somewhere neither makes it fact or opinion, all it does is to share a perspective, which in a unbiased forum is subject to additional information from multiple sources. Since a religion believes certain things (with reliable sources to establish that this is the case) is a fact. The actual belief, unless objectively verifiable and sourced, is not. Also, it's important for a reader to read JUST THE FACTS without an attempt to be persuaded.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
WP:VAGUE WP:W2W WP:WTW WP:WORDS MOS:WTW
"Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms. Use clear, direct language. Let facts alone do the talking." Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
This page includes world that fit the Words to Watch list, i.e. legendary, great, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, renowned respected, notable, honorable, sacred, brutally, substantially...
Articles written with such language can be rewritten to correct the problem, or may be tagged.
"Peacockery is the use of positive loaded type language. Please stick to JUST THE FACTS. Beesmill ( talk) 06:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Beesmill (
talk)
07:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Beesmill
Neologisms
See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) § Neologisms and new compounds Policy shortcuts:
WP:NEO WP:NOTNEO
It is important that Articles adhere to WP:NEO policy. Examples of articles on neologisms are ones that have little or no usage in reliable sources. Typically these Articles brandish words not commonly found and common articles and references thus are commonly deleted. These articles use the strength of Wikipedia to web crawl or page rank certain articles through the use of verb-age/words that have only specific reference to one faction of the article. Said articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. Care should be taken, rather than continue, one should contribute an entry of neologism to the Wiktionary instead.
Examples of words from this article include: atonement, seer, revelator, excommunicating, active churchgoers, ordination, Quorum, eternities, sealing...
Policy shortcuts:
WP:NEO WP:NOTNEO
Beesmill ( talk) 07:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Beesmill ( talk) 15:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)It appears that some editors have a close relationship to the subject of the article. Per Wikipedia guidelines, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: Wikipedia's Conflict of interest (COI) involves the contribution to a Wikipedia Article about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, financial and / or other relationships. Any relationship may trigger a conflict of interest. (The word interest refers here to something in which a person has a stake.)[n 1]
After reading some of the editors talk pages, it appears that there is a close relationship to the subject / article.
Shortcuts:
WP:COI WP:CONFLICT
According to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: COI editing is strongly discouraged. It undermines public confidence in Wikipedia,
According to Wikipedia's Conflict of interest: COI, "Wikipedia is a encyclopedia with the goal to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably."
This article should be written independently of the subject, not a platform for advertising and self-promotion. Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers first. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: COI
Beesmill ( talk) 15:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Added citations for reasons for dubious membership count, both into info sidebar and introduction. In short, the method the LDS church uses to reach it's 15 million is difficult to resolve with the actual number of people attending services, people who actually consider themselves adherents, and historical incidences of mass baptisms. [1] Deaddebate ( talk) 05:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Disparity between definitions of member, adherent, baptized, active, etc.
The LDS definition of membership is:
[2]
Compared with ARDA definitions
[3]
[4]
Adherent: 1) A person who identifies with some religious tradition. It is a broader term than "member" because the latter refers to an official status that varies according to congregation or denomination. 2) Note that in ARDA's online Maps & Reports, “adherent” has a more specific meaning: “All members, including full members, their children and the estimated number of other participants who are not considered members; for example, the ‘baptized,’ ‘those not confirmed,’ ‘those not eligible for communion,’ ‘those regularly attending services,’ and the like,” according to the Religious Congregations and Membership Study, 2010 (Grammich et al. 2012: xvi).
Member: 1) A member is a person belonging to a congregation and/or denomination. Rules concerning membership vary by religious tradition. For example, there may be confessions, behaviors, rituals or other requirements for becoming a full member. 2) Sometimes people use the word "member" to mean that they simply attend a congregation, whether they are full members of the congregation or denomination. In this sense, "member" is similar to adherent. 3) Note that on the ARDA's Maps & Reports, "members" are defined as "All individuals in a religious group with full membership status," based on the definition of a "member" from the Religious Congregations and Membership Study (Grammich et al. 2012: xvi).
Deaddebate ( talk) 16:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Just to explain the rationale for a minor change I just made: the first sentence of the section "Humanitarian Services" previously read "The ... Church is well known for its humanitarian services" which is rather a marketing formulation. The sources quoted to support the statement are both Mormon sites, so not objective. I am very familiar with the Mormons (including some of their positive characteristics) and was not aware of their humanitarian work. Even if many people are, it is a value judgement: are they more well known for humanitarian work than other Christian Churches, or indeed certain other religions? It is not quantifiable, so does not belong in a neutral Wikipedia article.
-- Northtowner ( talk) 23:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
There was a picture of a church, and it had this subtitle:
I changed this to: "an iconic image of the church."
Someone has changed it back to "one of the most iconic images of the church."
I believe that iconic is like UNIQUE. You cannot have MORE unique or ESPECIALLY unique.
An image is either iconic ( a wonderful buzz word, BTW ) or it is not iconic.
Chambers Dictionary agrees with me on that. I will therefore change it back tomorrow. Alanobrien ( talk) 13:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I have again removed the classification as Christian from the infobox. Please note that this action is not an assertion that LDS are 'not Christian'. It is not the purpose of the classification parameter in that template to state that the Christian group in question is Christian. At best, it is redundant. But at worst, it may come across as an inappropriate POV assertion that a) the group cannot be classified within Christianity beyond 'Christian' and b) it is 'more Christian' than other Christian groups. This is especially the case for restorationist groups that assert that theirs is the 'true' form of 'Christianity', often to the 'exclusion' of other denominations.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 07:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Antinomianism seems to be the characterizing measure for a non-christian religion. Unfortunately, nobody knows about that phenomenon nowadays...-- 78.50.197.255 ( talk) 05:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
The intro covers lots of details, which to me feel unnecessary for an introduction, and many of which are covered later. I have begun to simplify it a bit, feedback and input welcome. TantraYum ( talk) 08:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 01:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints → Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – Per WP:THE. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 16:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
So, I have noticed that there have been many edits made to the main article stating that the name of the Church should be its full name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As a member, I can say that that is what the church's official name is. Also, the Church has released a style guide, which can be found here: Style Guide — The Name of the Church (from MormonNewsroom.org). So I believe the infobox of the main article should be updated to reflect some of the key points from the style guide. Some of the key points are:
So by posting this, I know that I am inviting comments from other editors. This is my purpose, and the point of this post. I welcome comments from other editors. I also hope to reach consensus with any and all editors involved as far as the infobox and wording throughout the main article is concerned. Please feel free to reply to this topic. Charlesaaronthompson ( talk) 21:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt: I don't support removing other names from this article, and don't support any changes at all based on this announcement (regardless of whether it is ex cathedra or not) until there is a full discussion which has obtained consensus. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Reasons that acronyms such as "LDS", "Mormon", and others should be removed:
1) The Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has asked that members of the church call the church by its true, full name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". I would encourage listening to this message from the President of the Church about why it is important for the church to use its full and true name: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/10/media/session_4_talk_11/5845645176001?lang=eng
2) What gets posted on Wikipedia is viewed by large numbers of people, and as users of Wikipedia we need to be more careful about what we are presenting to the world and to think about how it affects other organizations and entities. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints doesn't want acronyms portrayed, especially acronyms like "Mormon" and also not to use "LDS", then shouldn't that be respected? Yes, the church does not have any ownership over Wikipedia. However, if someone were to post something that was considered humiliating or unwanted towards another person on Wikipedia, how would that be handled? I'm sure that would get taken down by Wikipedia immediately. Consider this: Are words like "Mormon" potentially unwanted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? That used to be used with a negative connotation towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And now the President of the Church has made it clear that he would rather not have acronyms such as "Mormon" or "LDS" used on internet sites.
If there's a process for getting a discussion and consensus going, we should get that going on this topic. Let's hear what everyone has to say on this. JasonPhelps ( talk) 00:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The LDS Church dose not belong in the " Category:Josephite sects in the Latter Day Saint movement". Josephite sects is a term used by historians (See Example)that is defined as followers of Joseph Smith III not Joseph Smith Jr., such as the RLDS Church. Whoever changed it from Category:Rocky Mountain Saints sects in the Latter Day Saint movement was incorrect. Category:Rocky Mountain Saints sects in the Latter Day Saint movement is a term historians use for Latter Day Saint sects that went from Jophen Smith Jr. to Brigham Young and beyond.
The definitions are even on the respective category pages.
Otherwise ALL sects would fall into the same category as ALL sects claim to follow Joseph Smith Jr., making any distinction impossible-- 12.10.71.189 ( talk) 13:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "LDS Church" to be "restored Church of Jesus Christ" to match the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stylistic guidelines (2nd point). https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide Rgettys ( talk) 20:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This document should delete the mention that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is also known as the Mormon Church, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would not like to be referred to as Mormons or the Mormon Church. THANKS! 24.116.54.6 ( talk) 00:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
01:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
changes needed to fit the new media style guidelines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide)
Change references to "Mormon" and "LDS Church" to either "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", "the Church of Jesus Christ", or "the restored Church of Jesus Christ".
Change "Mormons" to "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "members of the church of Jesus Christ" or "members of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ" Rgettys ( talk) 04:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Danski454 (
talk)
06:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)