![]() | 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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
![]() | 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. |
Please change "Thirteen persons identified as members of the LDS Church are serving in the 115th United States Congress" to "Thirteen persons identified as members of the LDS Church served in the 115th United States Congress" because the 115th Congress is done and nobody's serving in it anymore. 208.95.51.53 ( talk) 14:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello again, everyone! Just wanted to clarify some things here in terms of the differences between the Wikipedia style guide and the new style guidelines issued by the Church last year. The latter notes that the proper style is to refer to the full name of the Church in the first reference to it (which Wikipedia does in the very title of this article), and that subsequent references can use a shortened version of that name. And those guidelines more or less are in accordance with what Wikipedia has already tried to do: the full name of the Church appears in the first reference (which does have the word "day" in the lower case, as it should be), followed by other shorter references to the Church thereafter. If anyone has any questions on this, feel free to ask them here. In the meantime, per Wikipedia's LDS manual of style could be enlightening to some who may have any questions. Thanks. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 02:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
While some people may feel that the changes to the AP style guide should impact Wikipedia, the Wikipedia style guide section on references to the Church is the determining factor as far as Wikipedia purposes are concerned. If anyone wants to post on the discussion about possible changes to the manual of style in this respect, that would be the correct procedure to follow here. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! I agree with the community's current decision to leave church nicknames and abbreviations as currently published, but I noticed in the name and legal entities section of this article that it is phrased like the church still tolerates such nicknames. I propose we change that section to reflect the changes. Thoughts? Rollidan ( talk) 16:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
And I concur as well. Unless anyone else objects, let's get that done. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 21:49, 22 March 2019 (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. |
please change our church website to its new name of churchofjesuschrist.org Jonathanr1719 ( talk) 05:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! Just informing the community regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the bulk of the main church website, lds.org, has been moved to the new URL, churchofjesuschrist.org. In other words, I would say it is now appropriate to change references and other mentions of the website to reflect that change. Note that the church newsroom, mormonnewsroom.org, has not been moved yet and thus those references should not be changed. I appreciate any additional thoughts. Rollidan ( talk) 16:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made an announcement regarding changes to web addresses (URLs) for many of their websites. Due to these announcements, I feel the addresses listed on this page should be updated where needed. These changes are official as of March 5, 2019 (today). However, at the moment the new sites are mostly redirects to the old ones. The changes are as follows:
While these changes are due to the new guidelines set by the Church, which is different from the current Wikipedia guidelines, the websites are actually changing, and therefore I feel should be updated. However, given the conflicts between guidelines, I felt it was best to submit as a request rather than make the edits myself. Neard ( talk) 01:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I am with C.Fred on this one. The same Church statement noting these changes also states that implementing them will take time, and that until they are fully implemented, the present links will work. Until the links are officially changed, any alterations here would just result in redirects. Best to keep it as is until the changes are officialy in effect. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hwangfan, what's with removing the definite article from in from of Community of Christ, as in this edit? Are there particular grammar rules that only apply to this article? – bradv 🍁 15:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Understood, this style guide from the Mormon Historical Association Journal with its notation on Community of Christ should fill this gap. CofC's peronal website is undergoing construction and that style guide is unavailable at this time. Pay attention to pg. 5
https://mormonhistoryassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/JMH-Style-Guide.pdf
Journal of Mormon History. “Journal of Mormon History Style Guide.” Https://Mormonhistoryassociation.org/Wp-Content/Uploads/2015/02/JMH-Style-Guide.pdf, 2015, mormonhistoryassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/JMH-Style-Guide.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwangfan ( talk • contribs) 16:08, September 13, 2019 (UTC)
I hope some of that makes you feel better. I'm just trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwangfan ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 13 September 2019 (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. |
Please remove all references to "Mormons" and "LDS Church". It is not accurate. Russell M. Nelson, President of The Church has said, "What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement." Thus saying so offends people of this religion. Matthew.weller ( talk) 22:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template.
Egsan Bacon (
talk)
23:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Rorix the White ( talk) 03:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Christian - Mormon. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 00:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
In his staments on the end of ward level young men presidencies, Elder Cook made the statement that organizations would no longer be called auxiliaries, and their leaders no longer called auxiliary leaders. I am thinking we should end the use of "auxiliary leaders" in this article. I have not yet figured out the wording to reflect the new reality. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:23, 17 December 2019 (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. |
i would like to change the founder. For the founder is not Joseph Smith the true founder is Jesus Christ. Joseph smith dint restore the church through Jesus Christ and God. It is more like they restored it through him. have a great day SomeoneWhoKnowsSomething1 ( talk) 10:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia has explained its determination to keep the terms "Mormon" and "LDS Church", but there is no reason to keep using the term "LDS Church" more than one hundred times in the same article. After the initial usage and explanation, subsequent references can be reduced simply to "the Church". 2601:401:4300:5EF0:2893:263A:E981:3BC9 ( talk) 00:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has discontinued the use of the nickname “Mormons” or “Mormon church” because it misleads people about what the church believes in. 24Leditor ( talk) 09:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@ C.Fred So retain an explanation early in the article about the Church also being known as the Mormon Church and the LDS Church, but there is no reason to perpetuate an archaic form beyond that. Continuous use of "LDS Church" would be like continuing to refer to Facebook as "The Facebook," its original name. As things change, Wikipedia needs to reflect those changes or risk losing its relevance. 2601:401:4300:5EF0:2893:263A:E981:3BC9 ( talk) 00:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Jgstokes The request to use the correct name of the Church was not intended for media outlets only:
The Map of LDS presence appears to be missing at least Cambodia, which according to the Church has 29 congregations. Is this map inaccurate, or am I just missing something? Auzewasright ( talk) 17:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
There are still many uses of LDS Church throughout the article. Can those be changed to either The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or just the Church once referred to once? To coincide with previous comments on President Nelson's recommendations? Oaktree126 ( talk) 16:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree. The usage of LDS has already become archaic. Maybe in the near future that will be possible. MihaelMaxenglish1 ( talk) 06:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that when there is a link to this page in another Wikipedia article, the image it pulls up is not the official church symbol that is the main/first image on this page when it is clicked on. Instead it has a black cross on a white background. Shall we fix that? Susanna Neal ( talk) 00:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree. This should be fixed. I don't know how, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemc0 ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I also agree with this proposal. I don't see any reason why it might be rejected, and seeing as no one has opposed it. I suggest that the change be made as soon as possible. Reywas85 ( talk) 02:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
It appears that the scripting for the image parameter in the {{ Infobox Christian denomination}} template is too complex for the page preview engine to render the image from that template in the preview, so it falls through to the next available image. If the cross is not suitable to show in the preview, maybe consider removing the image parameter in the denomination infobox and instead display the official image above the denomination infobox separately. Initial attempt at implementing an alternative did not result in the expected preview image, though it is possible the preview engine caches image at the server side. I will leave further investigation of the matter for other editors.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 12:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
There are notes throughout the References section. They may appear to be quotes from sources. I separated one from its source that happens to be "inaccurate" (40.9 + 47.8 is not greater than 100). I assume another note/quote was rewording of statements in the source article. A separate Notes section should be created and the notes separated from sources/references. This is a task for a "subject matter expert" not me. User-duck ( talk) 19:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
A Request for Move on a relate article is backlogged and needs more participation. The proposal is to move Mormonism and Christianity → Mormonism and Nicene Christianity.
Please consider joining the discussion to help build consensus for or against the proposed move. If you are an uninvolved admin, please consider closing the RM. Thanks. JaredHWood 💬 06:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I have seen some rapid edits and revert over this edit in the criticism section.
During the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s, the LDS Church was criticized for its policy of excluding black men of African descent from the priesthood, and excluding black men and women from the church’s temples, a policy that the church did not change until 1978.
This addition represents true information, but is poorly written. The church website states the following here
Despite this modern reality, for much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.
I'm just not sure that this can be used as a good reference because it is a primary source. In any case, I suggest the following text (or something like it) be used for that paragraph.
The church has been criticized for past policies on race discrimination. From 1852 to 1978 church policy excluded men of black African descent from ordination to the priesthood. During the same period black men and women were not allowed to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances. These policies were criticized during the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s and continue to be criticized today in Internet forums and websites dedicated to assisting people as they withdraw church membership. On 8 June 1978, church president Spencer W. Kimball, rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination and extended temple worship to all worthy Latter-day Saint men and women.
The existing references would need to be preserved and perhaps the primary reference mentioned above added. JHelzer 💬 21:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
During the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s, the LDS Church was criticized for its policy of excluding black men of African descent from the priesthood. On 8 June 1978, church president Spencer W. Kimball, rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination and extended temple participation in endowment and sealing ordinances to all worthy Latter-day Saint men and women.
The LDS Church believes that God the Heavenly Father, the Holy Ghost and Jesus are three different Gods. ConnieBland ( talk) 20:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Do Mormons believe their Heavenly Mother is the same God as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.48.94.32 ( talk) 06:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Plurality of Gods
“I wish to declare I have always an in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods.”
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 6, p. 306
“In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.”
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 6, pp. 307, 308
“If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds.”
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 345, February 18, 1855
“Each God, through his wife or wives, raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters.... [E]ach father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever. As soon as each God has begotten many millions of male and female spirits... he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world... where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones.... The inhabitants of each world are required to reverence, adore, and worship their own personal father who dwells in the Heaven which they formerly inhabited.”
- Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, v. 1, p. 37
“Intelligent beings are organized to become Gods, even the sons of God, to dwell in the presence of the Gods, and become associated with the highest intelligencies [sic] that dwell in eternity.”
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 160, September 2, 1860
"New light is occasionally bursted into our minds, of the sacred scriptures, for which I am truly thankful. We shall by and by learn that we were with God in another world, before the foundation of the world, and had our agency; that we came into this world and have our agency, in order that we may prepare ourselves for a kingdom of glory; become archangels, even the sons of God where the man is neither without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord: A consummation of glory, and happiness, and perfection so greatly to be wished, that I would not miss of it for the fame of ten worlds."
- W.W. Phelps, Latter-day Saint Messenger and Advocate, v. 1, no. 9, p. 130, June 1835
"I will preach on the plurality of Gods. "Our text says, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." * * * My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. * * *
"Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, "In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, as others have translated it, "The head of the Gods called the Gods together." * * * "The head God organized the heavens and the earth. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. * * * The head one of the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image. I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He acknowledged I was right. * * *
"In the very beginning, the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through---Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take that view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfections of the Gods."
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 370-372, June 16, 1844
"Women are queens and priestesses but not gods. The Godhead, the 'Presidency of Heaven,' is a presidency of three male deities, similar to a stake presidency whose members each have wives who are responsible for domestic religious education but not ecclesiastical functions."
- Rodney Turner, retired BYU religion professor, Sunstone Panel Discussion, September 7, 1991.
“We don't hear about Heavenly Mother because she is only one of many wives of god.”
- Sister Maxine Hanks, Women and Authority, Ch.11, p.251
Here we can see the plurality of Gods was preached by the founder and some of his most devoted followers. ConnieBland ( talk) 17:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God [anyhow]--three in one and one in three. . .It is curious organization… All are crammed into one God according to sectarianism (Christian faith). It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God--he would be a giant or a monster. (Joseph Smith, Teachings, 372) Church president James Talmage stated, "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as distinct in persons and individualities as are any three personages in mortality." James Talmage, The Articles of Faith (Salt Lake: Deseret Book Company, 1984), p 37.
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! . . . I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. . . . He was once a man like us; yea that God himself, the Father dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did. Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 321.
This quote becomes relevant to restate, "I wish to declare I have always an in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods." Joseph Smith, Jr History of the Church, v. 6, p. 306. Belief in a multitude of Gods is all that is needed to be polytheistic, rather than monotheistic, the belief in one and only one God. ConnieBland ( talk) 05:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
"Our text says, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." * * * My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. * * * "Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, "In the beginning, the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, as others have translated it, "The head of the Gods called the Gods together." * * * "The head God organized the heavens and the earth. In the beginning, the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. * * * The head one of the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image. I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions, but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He (the learned Jew) acknowledged I was right. * * * "In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through---Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take that view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfections of the Gods." - Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 370-372, June 16, 1844. Joseph Smith is interpreting the bible as Polytheism/Polytheistic, that's not original research or original logic.
Most monotheistic religions have multiple immortal beings (angels, resurrected individuals, sentinels to heaven, etc.) Islam has the angel Gabriel and various groups in Judaism have ressurected beings and angels as well. Catholics and Orthodox Christians have Saints, and certain Protestant churches believe in angels and certainly in ressurection.
The majority of people who think the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reflects polytheism get confused by the common use of the word "God" and "gods," (both uppercase and lower. There isn't exactly a style guide haha). In effect, god means a perfected immortal being. People who get them confused conflate "god" with "God the Father" (understandibly— it's the same exact word).
The only being that is worshipped by members of the church is God the Father, often refered to as Elohim or El. All others, while important, are not "God the Father."
Now, if you want to edit the article and say Latter-day Saints are polytheistic, you're free to do that as long as you cite your sources which say such. Remember, good sources are all that matters. Have a great day, folks. MihaelMaxenglish1 ( talk) 07:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Jgstokes, when you reverted my edit about calling the Extermination Order “infamous”, you said that the cited sources did refer to it as infamous.
But, umm... there are actually no citations on that entire paragraph. Can you point me in the direction of a suitable source that we can use?
If there’s a good source, let’s put it up here. And if there’s not, I feel we shouldn’t call it infamous in the body of the text.
— Trevdna ( talk) 04:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
"there are actually no citations on that entire paragraph" If it is entirely unsourced, perhaps the paragraph should be removed instead of rephrased. These are typically signs that there is OR in an article. Dimadick ( talk) 05:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
No worries! My typical response time is a few days - and in fact the edit/revert itself happened a few days ago, so again, there’s no hurry here.
Thanks for taking the time to do a reference check, also. That’s good dedication.
I’m against removing the passage entirely for being unsourced. I know the item in question actually happened and it just needs someone to go out and find a good source. If this article deleted everything that’s unsourced right now, there would be major holes.
Anyhow, I think I’ll just clip the word “infamous” for now and leave it at that. The rest of that edit was getting a bit ambitious so I’ll wait for consensus when/if I bring back any of those other changes. Or maybe I can go find a source - and match that section to the source.
Cheers!
- Trevdna ( talk) 14:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I’m going back and forth about including a section on Jesus Christ and the Atonement under Beliefs and Practices. On the one hand, it’s a cornerstone belief - just about everyone who’s ever been in the Church knows that Joseph Smith quote that’s referenced in the article lead. But on the other hand, I can’t think of what else there is to say about it. It’s just like “yeah, Jesus died for you and your sins and was resurrected.” Not much more to say - and really, not a lot that’s different from credal Christianity’s view on it.
Oh and also, if we don’t include a section on it, I think the article lead is due for a rewrite on that. Because the article lead is supposed to offer a summary of what’s to come later in the article body itself, right?
Thoughts? — Trevdna ( talk) 04:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
So, I just reverted a good faith edit and I wanted to discuss it here. 93.193.170.30 put in the following:
Can I just vent about this graphic? It’s not a good graphic. It kind of makes the whole plan look confusing and messy. I don’t think it adds anything to the article, since anyone who is interested in the plan of salvation can easily go to the sub article and see the graphic immediately. And lastly, it introduces quite a few concepts and terms that are not discussed anywhere in the article; when shown without any context or explanation, the graphic confuses and distracts, not illuminates.
I hope you don’t take this one personally. We here really do appreciate your contributions.
— Trevdna ( talk) 02:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
There are no less than 4 different places in this article where it’s emphasized that many other Christian churches don’t see the LDS Church as Christian. I mean, I get it, but would anyone mind if I consolidated some of these? Seems excessive to me. — Trevdna ( talk) 21:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Should this nickname be removed? At List_of_religious_slurs this is referred to as a religious slur. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_religious_slurs [Special:Contributions/91.196.124.230|91.196.124.230]] ( talk) 20:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
So only came across this as was going to revert an edit while patrolling pending revisions, as they were using the Churches own website as the source which really shouldn't be allowed. Been on things like this before, where we don't take what they have to say as a reliable source. The main example I can think of is like on the controversial Proud Boys article, we don't take what they say about themselves there, so why has it been allowed here? I see it was kind of briefly raised once in the archives but it doesn't appear to have been addressed at the time. NZFC (talk) (cont) 03:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
User:NZFC Thanks for your concerns and comments. I originally disagreed with your comments. But then I took the time to review other comparable religious articles, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses or even Islam. I was struck with the very high quality of the references on those pages and, yes, their copious use of scholarly, well-researched sources. So I will take that as an opportunity and an invitation to search out and find higher quality, scholarly sources for this article.
That said, I would still like to take exception to your claim that the article relies on primary sources. I think our understanding of primary vs. secondary sources must be a little different. I was under the impression that the definition of a primary source was more narrow, and therefore that of a secondary source was more broad.
As one recent example, when discussing what a Church’s volume of Scripture contains, the Scripture itself would be inadmissible (primary source), but a Church-produced manual describing the Scripture would (secondary source). As long as the item itself in question is not being used, it is a secondary source. Church magazines and articles - although admittedly a lower quality source than scholarly publications, and perhaps susceptible to bias themselves - should be admissible under this standard, as long as the article itself is not the subject of the WP page.
Thoughts?
— Trevdna ( talk) 16:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
That is a really good point I hadn’t considered. I appreciate the new perspective.
Most of these primary sources are to fairly non-controversial items. And truthfully, most that I’ve been adding recently have been for statements that were previously unsourced entirely (but had sat on the page without controversy for many years). So I considered them “better than nothing” when I put them in. But of course, I haven’t verified that is the case for all primary sources that the article references.
— Trevdna ( talk) 21:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I will work on finding more and better sources over time. I will also tag current and future “better than nothing” primary sources with {{bsn}} tags where appropriate.
— Trevdna ( talk) 03:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad you brought this up, I noticed that too a while back. On Wikipedia we do not generally allow self-published sources (see WP:SELFPUBLISH) except for basic, noncontroversial information. I would probably consider anything from church-owned publishers as self-published.
As I understand it, if/when the church is being cited as a source, we would just need to specify that in the text so the reader is aware.
I think it's crucial we use third party sources as much as possible, even for things like the history section. Basically, anything coming from the church directly could be challenged as a conflict of interest (this is true for any type of article subject).
Still, I definitely agree that something is better than nothing at all.
-- Pythagimedes ( talk) 19:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
After reading WP:SELFPUBLISH, I also found the next section, WP:ABOUTSELF, and I want to cite it here. It takes a much more charitable view of what is acceptable from a self-published article about oneself, namely:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; 2) it does not involve claims about third parties; 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.
The sources at issue generally fulfill at least the first 4 requirements here. 5 is still an issue in some places however.
— Trevdna ( talk) 19:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I would like to reopen this discussion. The section where the tag remains - and the article in general - is much improved from March/April when this discussion was active. I've spent a good amount of time tracking down secondary and tertiary sources to integrate them into the article. And many more primary sources (links to the faith's scriptures or words of Church leaders) I've converted into what I will call "quasi-secondary" sources - that is, sources published by a Church subsidiary. That has typically been where better secondary sources have not been available. Very few overtly primary sources remain. Lastly, I believe that all the items that remain cited by "quasi-secondary" sources are entirely non-controversial (for instance, straightforward beliefs of the Church), although I may have missed something.
I would also like to point out that the article on Jehovah’s Witnesses has a decent number of their own “quasi-secondary” sources like that. Their magazines are cited rather often in describing their beliefs, and it is not tagged. To the contrary, it is cited as a Good Article.
In light of that, and the guidelines under WP:SELFPUBLISH which I discussed in April above, I'd like to remove the {{Primary sources}} tag in the Beliefs and Practices. NZFC and Pythagimedes, do you agree, or do you think this section still needs more work? —— Trevdna ( talk) 21:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I plan to nominate this article for Good Article status in the next few days or weeks. I think it's been much improved over the last several months. No cleanup tags remain. Sources - while not perfect - are plentiful and come from a variety of neutral, secondary sources. In the cases where it has been unavoidable to rely on primary (Church-produced) sources, the items in issue are non-controversial, and therefore fulfill the requirements listed under WP:ABOUTSELF. All major aspects relating to the Church are explained in appropriate, neutral summary style. In short, I believe this article now meets the criteria for GA status.
However, if anyone here disagrees or has other comments, please let me know. — Trevdna ( talk) 17:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello again, everyone! I can't believe we have to go over this again, but apparently it is necessary. The church originally established by Joseph Smith in 1830 went by several names until a revelation in 1838 gave the church its' name that is still used today. One of the previously-used name prior to 1838 was the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints). After the revelation in question was received, all other names previously used were discontinued. By contrast, following the 1844 succession crisis following Smith's death, one of the offshoots therefrom was established as the RLDS Church, later renamed the Community of Christ. Having again reiterated these points, it was necessary to do so because an anonymous editor made an incorrect and inaccurate assertion that the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) was the name used by the offshoot started by Smith's posterity. Based on what I have laid out here, I hope it's clear that the edit in question (by the anonymous editor) was both inaccurate and incorrect. Thank you all.–– Jgstokes ( talk) 23:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this edit.
The source says that the word of wisdom is a requirement to be in good standing, so it makes since to word the text that way. Is there a source that supports @ Awilley's changes? –– FORMALDUDE( talk) 21:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
If both of you are satisfied with the current version of the content in question, I am happy to concur with this consensus decision. Thank you both. Also, FormalDude, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints forbids the recreational usage of more harmful drugs, so other editors unfamiliar with you might take issue with you referring to the Church members as " LSD members". You might want to employ the terms "member of the LDS Church" or "member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Much more refined. But I guess my mentioning that makes me the nitpicker now, so I can wear that badge proudly. Thanks again to you both. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 23:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
User:Epachamo recently reverted my edits regarding women's use of Priesthood power in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, saying: "This needs a secondary source for sure and/or a better explanation. The nuance with this is absolutely lost on the average Wikipedia reader." I'd appreciate people's input on this one, since the fact that women have Priesthood authority in the Church is a fundamental doctrine, yet as Epachmo rightly stated, one that is widely misunderstood (even by many Latter-day Saints). What do people think would constitute a good secondary source? Thanks. TheOtter ( talk) 02:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I actually have been able to find a couple other resources not directly affiliated with, supported by, or governed through the Church or its' subsidiary entities. There is this book, by Sheri L. Dew. There are the following pages, which include resources outside of remarks from Church leaders, which can be found here, and here. The second of those two links is from the Gospel Topics essays. Altough those essays are endorsed by and made available through the Church, they have been written by a variety of scholars of Latter-day Saint history, not all of whom are members of the Church. Anoter article from LDS Living (which is not directly owned or governed by the Church) showed up in te search as well. Additionally. Fair Latter-day Saints is anoter entity not directly affiliated with or governed by the Church, and one of their many topics covered is women and the priesthood. I hope these resources are helpful to the matter at hand. Thanks. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I strongly oppose saying women hold priesthood authority. (Sorry I didn't come check here before making my edits.) But as I said in my edit summary: if women can't give priesthood blessings, be ordained to the priesthood (outside of some oblique and unclear references that are literally done in the temple in private and are therefore inadmissible on Wikipedia), hold priesthood callings, or hold or leadership positions - what are we even trying to say with "priesthood authority"? Also, if the idea is (supposedly) misunderstood by many of the Church members itself, is Wikipedia really the place to try to set the record straight? If we can't show what we mean by "priesthood authority" from a more-or-less secular perspective, then it's just words.
I'd also like to point out that Pres. Oaks' talk 1) simply stated that priesthood authority and blessing *pertains* to women, not that they actually hold them, and 2) should not be enough to nullify the actual fact that women are not ordained to the priesthood in the same way that we speak of it elsewhere in the article - that is, a current priesthood holder or holders actually place their hands on the recipient's head and says you have the Priesthood now.
Also, per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. That means that
The main problem with links to GA quotes is that they can be simply the GA's opinion, and not necessarily representative of the Church's doctrine as a whole. Therefore we should be careful when using GA quotes - even 1st Pres quotes in General Conference - to say "the Church believes such and such" when that is arguably outside the mainstream beliefs of the Church as a whole. (See also WP:MAINSTREAM.)
— Trevdna ( talk) 16:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Another problem with saying uncritically in Wikipedia that women hold priesthood authority is that it *implies* that they hold the priesthood. Which is not the case. The average Wikipedian simply would not understand the distinction between holding the priesthood and (arguably) holding priesthood authority. Including it quite simply confuses the issue. If we are going to say they hold priesthood authority at all, it should probably be in an efn (thus deemphasizing it to the casual reader), and we should explain exactly what it means: what they are allowed to do/not do with authority, what blessings they are taught they will receive by it, and who specifically taught what about the whole thing.- Trevdna ( talk) 16:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I would support that only if 1) the body of the text were written in an efn so the main article text remains compliant with WP:SUMMARY and WP:UNDUE, 2) it’s condensed significantly from what you have - that’s an essay and this Wikipedia article is not a collection of essays on Gospel topics, for many reasons, and 3) it includes references to who, exactly, said what. (Eg “President Oaks, a member of the First Presidency, stated that xxxxx. It’s my view that these things are still outside the mainstream of what most Church members believe, or what is emphasized in most mainstream church teaching. Therefore it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to categorically and uncritically state that these are doctrines that “the Church” teaches. Trevdna ( talk) 15:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I mean, you get why this article can’t have a 500 or 1000 word essay on how women hold priesthood power, right? If we accept that, we’d have to accept similar length essays on various other gospel topics. And in fact, we’d have to accept essays of that length on every criticism or controversy the church has been involved in since 1820. And then the article would be a 100 page assortment of disjointed essays that no one would ever be interested in reading. It’s much better to share basic, simple truths than to overwhelm newcomers with detailed doctrinal exposition. Trevdna ( talk) 15:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify where I stand on this issue, I am not in anyway propsoing that any of the sources I mentioned in my last comment be quoted extensively in this article. That would make the article much too lengthy, which is never a good thing if it's unnecessary. My suggestion was more that soee key elements on the subject from those sources could be incorporated here on Wikipedia in our own words so there is better information on that in the artice. So I don't think we ened to be overy detaied on specifics in each of those sources. Having a framework from the sources to incorporate contnet here would be similar to how tat's been done on other subjects relevant to the Church and articles about it. Just wanted to clarify that on my end. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 19:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I took a few days to cool off. Sorry if I was overly contentious. I think we can get this resolved cordially.
Please take a look at what I’ve written. I hope it should satisfy everyone. I would appreciate it if you would give some citations to the part that you wrote. Likewise, if you think that anything I wrote needs a citation - or additional editing - let me know and I’ll get on it. Trevdna ( talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Erm… hmm…
What does everyone else think of these edits? Trevdna ( talk) 03:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Was the new logo introduced in 2019 or 2020? NW1223( Howl at me/ My hunts) 16:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
This revision, putting the subsection under "politics" has some basis but also some problems. For one thing, liberal LDS members might socialize more with gentiles and on a less-judgmental basis, and vice-versa. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the Washington Post article mainly focuses on LGBQ issues. The churches my Christian denomination are in communion with have mostly decided that those sexual orientations should not be a barrier to full participation. I think the more significant issue is that family life is at the center of LDS culture and theology; while, the lower classes in America are often no longer forming families. That is not necessarily true of BGBQ people. So, if if matter is political it is because the politics is being driven by changes in culture. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, that's the questions I came here for, what "Intellectual Reserve Inc" is and why most LDS stuff is copyrighted to them. // [NomadicVoxel] [ talk\ ctbs] 22:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm struggling with how to handle polygamy. I feel like it deserves its own section under controversy - it most certainly was the largest controversy in the Church's first 100 years! - but so much of the material is already handled under the "History" section. Should one or the other be pruned? Should we keep the information in both places although it's redundant? Am I mistaken and should we take the section under controversy back out? Not seeing a great resolution here - thoughts from anyone? Trevdna ( talk) 18:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Some users on Wikipedia insist on replacing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the phrase "LDS Church". Our leadership has clearly requested that those in the media respect our desire to be referred to by more accurate shortened names of the church, like "The Church" or "The Church of Jesus Christ". Here is a link where a prominent church leader explains the reasoning behind this: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng May you help Wikipedia respect this? I think it would be better to refer to all religions by their preferred title, than to disrespect good people of the faith. May we please remove any references such as "LDS Church" and "Mormon Church" from this article? We worship Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, not the prophet Mormon.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue. 128.187.112.18 ( talk) 02:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
From what I have heard, the AP Style guide/stylebook has been updated out of respect for our religion. If the Associated Press, a solid, well-respected institution used by virtually all major news sources, can respect our faith, couldn't Wikipedia do it too? I believe it can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.112.18 ( talk) 04:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the media. Anyone who says otherwise is mistaken. The guidelines therefore are not as applicable here, and even if the Church said they were, that would have no bearing on the matter. Insisting immediate compliance with the guidelines violates what has been said in relation to the guidelines themselves. There is a right and a wrong way to go about this. All articles about the Church fall under the Latter Day Saint movement project, as regulated by MOS:LDS. So the right way to go about this is working within Wikipedia guidelines to change the MOS, which will lead to changes at the project level, and only then should changes to articles within the project be considered and implemented. Please take the opportunity to be part of that correct process. Otherwise, the changes won't be possible. Jgstokes ( talk) 04:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The source given for the claim that LDS is a Christian Denomination is from the Unitarian Universalists, who do not speak for the vast majority of Christians. Can we find a source that would be accepted by most Christians/Denominations? Lincoln1809 ( talk) 20:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
(As a separate note, I can personally attest that I and other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus Christ as our literal Lord and Savior, and are therefore very much Christians - followers of and believers in - Jesus Christ. If you would like to learn more about our beliefs in Jesus Christ, we even have a website or two about that. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist Representatives from the Church would be happy to visit you and show you more. -Mike Olson) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.112.18 ( talk) 04:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
This article has grown extensively even since it passed GA 2 years ago. Does anyone mind if I put it up for a peer review? One to bring in third parties to evaluate the changes, but two to see if the wider community thinks it may be approaching - dare I say it - Featured Article level? Trevdna ( talk) 04:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) NasssaNser talk 06:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints → Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – This article should be moved in light of the recent Request for Comment that determined that "the" should not be capitalized in running text for this topic, and in accordance with WP:THE that states: "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the Wikipedia article name. Otherwise, do not". Rreagan007 ( talk) 22:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Supplemental note: I will also note that Encyclopedia Britannica lists this subjects title as "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Rreagan007 ( talk) 02:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a request for comment about mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC on mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church. Please contribute there. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I fell like the LDS church has more articles about criticism than other religions. I don’t think that we need an article about every bad thing this religion has done. Also I don’t think 8 septet articles about why the Book of Mormon is historically inaccurate is needed. It looks like people took every possible anti-Mormon source and put it in. I just don’t see why Wikipedia needs so many different articles. I can see one for criticism and one for historical accuracy but Wikipedia has so many articles while other religions don’t seam to have as many. LuxembourgLover ( talk) 22:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Someone else rewrote the criticism and controversy section on black people. I’d just like to note that, as it now stands, it doesn’t actually discuss any explicit criticism or controversy. It just seems to list a bunch of stuff that a perfectly reasonable observer could probably disagree with. I think this section is supposed to actually discuss the “criticism” or “controversy” associated with it. Could we include things like “the NAACP protested this on xx date” or “Mr. Critic said this is discriminatory.” Not to be obtuse about it, but I think an important part of the encyclopedia’s NPOV policy is that there are no assumptions made about what represents the “correct” thing to think about any of this. Trevdna ( talk) 22:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
What should we do about the spoken article here? It's from 2007, so the article was almost 100% different than it is now. It seems to me like it's time for a refresh.
Renamed user 4vFDb7ehvo I notice you were the one who originally recorded this article: could I perhaps convince you to update it with the last 16 years of article edits included? Trevdna ( talk) 03:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The name changed from "Church of Christ" to "Church of the Latter-Day Saints", and remained as such for six years before "of Jesus Christ" was added back to it. That name is still printed on one of the earlier temples (Nauvoo or Kirtland?). The current revelation in the D&C was altered from its original form in the Book of Commandments to state the name in its final form. One or more early Church leaders left the church when the name changed the first time, interpreting the change as the church falling into apostasy from the original command (and as commanded in the BoM) that it should be called "The Church of Christ". I'm leaving this here for someone else to find the correct references to corroborate this info. 2601:602:D100:2990:A5ED:752:BA4E:8E08 ( talk) 22:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I just found this SL Trib headline which speaks of a $44 million humanitarian donation by the Church. Which would surpass last year’s $32 million by quite a bit and would qualify as the church’s new “largest one-time” contribution. But reading the article, it turns out that $44 million is to several different groups, which makes it seems much less impressive to me. As long as it’s going to several different groups, it seems like it’s not one single contribution, but rather several contributions grouped under one headline.
So my point is, I was going to include it, but now I’m leaning against it, but I want community input about it too. What does everyone think? Trevdna ( talk) 02:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
A section of the text quoting the historian Sydney E. Ahlstrom was deleted, even if the wikipedia article on Mormonism has the same quote and wasn't deleted. Also, Mormonism calls itself a Christian denomination but it's not accepted by the other historical Christian denominations that are all trinitarian and only follow the Bible and not 3 extra doctrinal books like the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price all written in the 19th century. So the only way to call the LDS Church or Mormonism "a Christian denomination" is to add "it calls itself a Christian denomination" since no other historical, trinitarian, mainstream Christian group calls the LDS Church "Christian". Ninhursag3 ( talk) 19:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Can I get a consensus here to change the protection status of this article, from Pending Changes review, to semi-protected? There have been a huge number of disruptive IP address edits, mostly focused on either the name of the Church or it’s founder, which have been hashed and rehashed here already. Meanwhile, I can’t think of a single substantial edit that has been made by an IP address since… well I’m not sure when. Additionally, the Joseph Smith article has been semi-protected for years and has seen a huge improvement in these disruptive edits over edit wars of yesteryear. And finally, I will just mention I’ve already tried to go and get it done, but when I went to the request for protection page, they said “already protected”. So I’d like to gain consensus here before I go back and re-request.
Thanks, all. Trevdna ( talk) 21:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
This is too spicy to just put up as an edit, so I'm putting it here instead. The current article reads:
...Relations with the United States markedly improved after 1890, such that Utah was admitted as a U.S. state in 1896. Relations further improved after 1904, when church president
Joseph F. Smith again
disavowed polygamy before the United States Congress and issued a "
Second Manifesto"...
As written, the article implies that the LDS Church had been stamping out polygamy starting in 1890. To be blunt, this is this is historical revisionism. Church leadership was complicit in continuing polygamous marriages in secret. For example, during the hearings, Apostle Marriner W. Merrill testified under oath that he had married Hilda before 1890, despite the committee having evidence that he married her in 1901 in the Logan Temple. Most serious historians consider the 1890 Manifesto to be a smokescreen to hide the continued practice of polygamy in order to avoid the dissolution and seizure of church assets under the Edmunds-Tucker act of 1887. Further, the timing of the schisms that lead to the fundamentalist branches make no sense if the the church leaders had not been continuing to promote polygamy in secret for 20 years in between the First and Second Manifestos. The fundamentalists have a much more accurate accounting of the church teachings during those 30 years than the current LDS narrative since their entire existence revolves around that dispute.
I understand that LDS believers won't like language like "lied under oath" when describing the actions of the apostles and prophet of the LDS Church. But it is also not acceptable to present a whitewashed version of history. I propose the section be edited as follows:
...Relations with the United States markedly improved after 1890, such that Utah was admitted as a U.S. state in 1896. However, during the 1904
Reed Smoot hearings, it was revealed that at least some church leaders had continued to practice polygamy in secret. Following the hearings,
Joseph F. Smith again disavowed polygamy and issued a "
Second Manifesto" which resulted in the excommunications of high-ranking church leaders who continued to conduct polygamous marriages in secret...
This language leaves Joseph F. Smith's role ambiguous, which it was, allowing readers to interpret the facts as they may.
Frogontrombone (
talk)
18:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I just did a detailed review on the pending changes added by Leavittja and ultimately reverted them (aside from one sentence that I partially restored), but I would like to note a few things that deserve further discussion.
Leavittja removed that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both made statements in support of Black enslavement and replaced it by saying they both supported abolition of slavery. I was able to verify that they both made statements in support of slavery, and that Smith later supported the abolition of slavery in his 1844 presidential campaign. I could not find where a source says Young supported the abolition of slavery. Takeaway: we should probably add somewhere that Smith supported the abolition of slavery in his presidential campaign.
Leavittja additionally added a sentence directly after their statement that they both supported abolition, saying "This often led to massive outrage among pro-slavery advocates in the 1800s.
" I was unable to verify this with the book source used (The Mormon Church and Blacks: A Documentary History) as I do not have access to it, but it doesn't look like the book says that from what I can gather using Google Book's preview.
Leavittja also changed that slavery was legalized in Utah when Brigham Young was governor to say that it was legalized by him amidst national political tension. I could not verify this with the sources used, but it sounds plausible.
If anyone can provide sources to verify these claims, that would be much appreciated. Even better if you can provide a quote from a source that directly verifies it. –– FormalDude (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2023 (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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
![]() | 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. |
Please change "Thirteen persons identified as members of the LDS Church are serving in the 115th United States Congress" to "Thirteen persons identified as members of the LDS Church served in the 115th United States Congress" because the 115th Congress is done and nobody's serving in it anymore. 208.95.51.53 ( talk) 14:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello again, everyone! Just wanted to clarify some things here in terms of the differences between the Wikipedia style guide and the new style guidelines issued by the Church last year. The latter notes that the proper style is to refer to the full name of the Church in the first reference to it (which Wikipedia does in the very title of this article), and that subsequent references can use a shortened version of that name. And those guidelines more or less are in accordance with what Wikipedia has already tried to do: the full name of the Church appears in the first reference (which does have the word "day" in the lower case, as it should be), followed by other shorter references to the Church thereafter. If anyone has any questions on this, feel free to ask them here. In the meantime, per Wikipedia's LDS manual of style could be enlightening to some who may have any questions. Thanks. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 02:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
While some people may feel that the changes to the AP style guide should impact Wikipedia, the Wikipedia style guide section on references to the Church is the determining factor as far as Wikipedia purposes are concerned. If anyone wants to post on the discussion about possible changes to the manual of style in this respect, that would be the correct procedure to follow here. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! I agree with the community's current decision to leave church nicknames and abbreviations as currently published, but I noticed in the name and legal entities section of this article that it is phrased like the church still tolerates such nicknames. I propose we change that section to reflect the changes. Thoughts? Rollidan ( talk) 16:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
And I concur as well. Unless anyone else objects, let's get that done. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 21:49, 22 March 2019 (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. |
please change our church website to its new name of churchofjesuschrist.org Jonathanr1719 ( talk) 05:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! Just informing the community regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the bulk of the main church website, lds.org, has been moved to the new URL, churchofjesuschrist.org. In other words, I would say it is now appropriate to change references and other mentions of the website to reflect that change. Note that the church newsroom, mormonnewsroom.org, has not been moved yet and thus those references should not be changed. I appreciate any additional thoughts. Rollidan ( talk) 16:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made an announcement regarding changes to web addresses (URLs) for many of their websites. Due to these announcements, I feel the addresses listed on this page should be updated where needed. These changes are official as of March 5, 2019 (today). However, at the moment the new sites are mostly redirects to the old ones. The changes are as follows:
While these changes are due to the new guidelines set by the Church, which is different from the current Wikipedia guidelines, the websites are actually changing, and therefore I feel should be updated. However, given the conflicts between guidelines, I felt it was best to submit as a request rather than make the edits myself. Neard ( talk) 01:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I am with C.Fred on this one. The same Church statement noting these changes also states that implementing them will take time, and that until they are fully implemented, the present links will work. Until the links are officially changed, any alterations here would just result in redirects. Best to keep it as is until the changes are officialy in effect. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hwangfan, what's with removing the definite article from in from of Community of Christ, as in this edit? Are there particular grammar rules that only apply to this article? – bradv 🍁 15:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Understood, this style guide from the Mormon Historical Association Journal with its notation on Community of Christ should fill this gap. CofC's peronal website is undergoing construction and that style guide is unavailable at this time. Pay attention to pg. 5
https://mormonhistoryassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/JMH-Style-Guide.pdf
Journal of Mormon History. “Journal of Mormon History Style Guide.” Https://Mormonhistoryassociation.org/Wp-Content/Uploads/2015/02/JMH-Style-Guide.pdf, 2015, mormonhistoryassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/JMH-Style-Guide.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwangfan ( talk • contribs) 16:08, September 13, 2019 (UTC)
I hope some of that makes you feel better. I'm just trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwangfan ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 13 September 2019 (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. |
Please remove all references to "Mormons" and "LDS Church". It is not accurate. Russell M. Nelson, President of The Church has said, "What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement." Thus saying so offends people of this religion. Matthew.weller ( talk) 22:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template.
Egsan Bacon (
talk)
23:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Rorix the White ( talk) 03:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Christian - Mormon. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 00:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
In his staments on the end of ward level young men presidencies, Elder Cook made the statement that organizations would no longer be called auxiliaries, and their leaders no longer called auxiliary leaders. I am thinking we should end the use of "auxiliary leaders" in this article. I have not yet figured out the wording to reflect the new reality. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:23, 17 December 2019 (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. |
i would like to change the founder. For the founder is not Joseph Smith the true founder is Jesus Christ. Joseph smith dint restore the church through Jesus Christ and God. It is more like they restored it through him. have a great day SomeoneWhoKnowsSomething1 ( talk) 10:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia has explained its determination to keep the terms "Mormon" and "LDS Church", but there is no reason to keep using the term "LDS Church" more than one hundred times in the same article. After the initial usage and explanation, subsequent references can be reduced simply to "the Church". 2601:401:4300:5EF0:2893:263A:E981:3BC9 ( talk) 00:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has discontinued the use of the nickname “Mormons” or “Mormon church” because it misleads people about what the church believes in. 24Leditor ( talk) 09:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@ C.Fred So retain an explanation early in the article about the Church also being known as the Mormon Church and the LDS Church, but there is no reason to perpetuate an archaic form beyond that. Continuous use of "LDS Church" would be like continuing to refer to Facebook as "The Facebook," its original name. As things change, Wikipedia needs to reflect those changes or risk losing its relevance. 2601:401:4300:5EF0:2893:263A:E981:3BC9 ( talk) 00:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Jgstokes The request to use the correct name of the Church was not intended for media outlets only:
The Map of LDS presence appears to be missing at least Cambodia, which according to the Church has 29 congregations. Is this map inaccurate, or am I just missing something? Auzewasright ( talk) 17:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
There are still many uses of LDS Church throughout the article. Can those be changed to either The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or just the Church once referred to once? To coincide with previous comments on President Nelson's recommendations? Oaktree126 ( talk) 16:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree. The usage of LDS has already become archaic. Maybe in the near future that will be possible. MihaelMaxenglish1 ( talk) 06:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that when there is a link to this page in another Wikipedia article, the image it pulls up is not the official church symbol that is the main/first image on this page when it is clicked on. Instead it has a black cross on a white background. Shall we fix that? Susanna Neal ( talk) 00:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree. This should be fixed. I don't know how, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemc0 ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I also agree with this proposal. I don't see any reason why it might be rejected, and seeing as no one has opposed it. I suggest that the change be made as soon as possible. Reywas85 ( talk) 02:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
It appears that the scripting for the image parameter in the {{ Infobox Christian denomination}} template is too complex for the page preview engine to render the image from that template in the preview, so it falls through to the next available image. If the cross is not suitable to show in the preview, maybe consider removing the image parameter in the denomination infobox and instead display the official image above the denomination infobox separately. Initial attempt at implementing an alternative did not result in the expected preview image, though it is possible the preview engine caches image at the server side. I will leave further investigation of the matter for other editors.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 12:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
There are notes throughout the References section. They may appear to be quotes from sources. I separated one from its source that happens to be "inaccurate" (40.9 + 47.8 is not greater than 100). I assume another note/quote was rewording of statements in the source article. A separate Notes section should be created and the notes separated from sources/references. This is a task for a "subject matter expert" not me. User-duck ( talk) 19:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
A Request for Move on a relate article is backlogged and needs more participation. The proposal is to move Mormonism and Christianity → Mormonism and Nicene Christianity.
Please consider joining the discussion to help build consensus for or against the proposed move. If you are an uninvolved admin, please consider closing the RM. Thanks. JaredHWood 💬 06:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I have seen some rapid edits and revert over this edit in the criticism section.
During the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s, the LDS Church was criticized for its policy of excluding black men of African descent from the priesthood, and excluding black men and women from the church’s temples, a policy that the church did not change until 1978.
This addition represents true information, but is poorly written. The church website states the following here
Despite this modern reality, for much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.
I'm just not sure that this can be used as a good reference because it is a primary source. In any case, I suggest the following text (or something like it) be used for that paragraph.
The church has been criticized for past policies on race discrimination. From 1852 to 1978 church policy excluded men of black African descent from ordination to the priesthood. During the same period black men and women were not allowed to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances. These policies were criticized during the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s and continue to be criticized today in Internet forums and websites dedicated to assisting people as they withdraw church membership. On 8 June 1978, church president Spencer W. Kimball, rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination and extended temple worship to all worthy Latter-day Saint men and women.
The existing references would need to be preserved and perhaps the primary reference mentioned above added. JHelzer 💬 21:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
During the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s, the LDS Church was criticized for its policy of excluding black men of African descent from the priesthood. On 8 June 1978, church president Spencer W. Kimball, rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination and extended temple participation in endowment and sealing ordinances to all worthy Latter-day Saint men and women.
The LDS Church believes that God the Heavenly Father, the Holy Ghost and Jesus are three different Gods. ConnieBland ( talk) 20:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Do Mormons believe their Heavenly Mother is the same God as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.48.94.32 ( talk) 06:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Plurality of Gods
“I wish to declare I have always an in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods.”
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 6, p. 306
“In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.”
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 6, pp. 307, 308
“If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds.”
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 345, February 18, 1855
“Each God, through his wife or wives, raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters.... [E]ach father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever. As soon as each God has begotten many millions of male and female spirits... he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world... where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones.... The inhabitants of each world are required to reverence, adore, and worship their own personal father who dwells in the Heaven which they formerly inhabited.”
- Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, v. 1, p. 37
“Intelligent beings are organized to become Gods, even the sons of God, to dwell in the presence of the Gods, and become associated with the highest intelligencies [sic] that dwell in eternity.”
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 160, September 2, 1860
"New light is occasionally bursted into our minds, of the sacred scriptures, for which I am truly thankful. We shall by and by learn that we were with God in another world, before the foundation of the world, and had our agency; that we came into this world and have our agency, in order that we may prepare ourselves for a kingdom of glory; become archangels, even the sons of God where the man is neither without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord: A consummation of glory, and happiness, and perfection so greatly to be wished, that I would not miss of it for the fame of ten worlds."
- W.W. Phelps, Latter-day Saint Messenger and Advocate, v. 1, no. 9, p. 130, June 1835
"I will preach on the plurality of Gods. "Our text says, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." * * * My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. * * *
"Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, "In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, as others have translated it, "The head of the Gods called the Gods together." * * * "The head God organized the heavens and the earth. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. * * * The head one of the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image. I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He acknowledged I was right. * * *
"In the very beginning, the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through---Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take that view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfections of the Gods."
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 370-372, June 16, 1844
"Women are queens and priestesses but not gods. The Godhead, the 'Presidency of Heaven,' is a presidency of three male deities, similar to a stake presidency whose members each have wives who are responsible for domestic religious education but not ecclesiastical functions."
- Rodney Turner, retired BYU religion professor, Sunstone Panel Discussion, September 7, 1991.
“We don't hear about Heavenly Mother because she is only one of many wives of god.”
- Sister Maxine Hanks, Women and Authority, Ch.11, p.251
Here we can see the plurality of Gods was preached by the founder and some of his most devoted followers. ConnieBland ( talk) 17:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God [anyhow]--three in one and one in three. . .It is curious organization… All are crammed into one God according to sectarianism (Christian faith). It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God--he would be a giant or a monster. (Joseph Smith, Teachings, 372) Church president James Talmage stated, "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as distinct in persons and individualities as are any three personages in mortality." James Talmage, The Articles of Faith (Salt Lake: Deseret Book Company, 1984), p 37.
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! . . . I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. . . . He was once a man like us; yea that God himself, the Father dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did. Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 321.
This quote becomes relevant to restate, "I wish to declare I have always an in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods." Joseph Smith, Jr History of the Church, v. 6, p. 306. Belief in a multitude of Gods is all that is needed to be polytheistic, rather than monotheistic, the belief in one and only one God. ConnieBland ( talk) 05:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
"Our text says, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." * * * My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. * * * "Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, "In the beginning, the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, as others have translated it, "The head of the Gods called the Gods together." * * * "The head God organized the heavens and the earth. In the beginning, the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. * * * The head one of the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image. I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions, but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He (the learned Jew) acknowledged I was right. * * * "In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through---Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take that view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfections of the Gods." - Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 370-372, June 16, 1844. Joseph Smith is interpreting the bible as Polytheism/Polytheistic, that's not original research or original logic.
Most monotheistic religions have multiple immortal beings (angels, resurrected individuals, sentinels to heaven, etc.) Islam has the angel Gabriel and various groups in Judaism have ressurected beings and angels as well. Catholics and Orthodox Christians have Saints, and certain Protestant churches believe in angels and certainly in ressurection.
The majority of people who think the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reflects polytheism get confused by the common use of the word "God" and "gods," (both uppercase and lower. There isn't exactly a style guide haha). In effect, god means a perfected immortal being. People who get them confused conflate "god" with "God the Father" (understandibly— it's the same exact word).
The only being that is worshipped by members of the church is God the Father, often refered to as Elohim or El. All others, while important, are not "God the Father."
Now, if you want to edit the article and say Latter-day Saints are polytheistic, you're free to do that as long as you cite your sources which say such. Remember, good sources are all that matters. Have a great day, folks. MihaelMaxenglish1 ( talk) 07:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Jgstokes, when you reverted my edit about calling the Extermination Order “infamous”, you said that the cited sources did refer to it as infamous.
But, umm... there are actually no citations on that entire paragraph. Can you point me in the direction of a suitable source that we can use?
If there’s a good source, let’s put it up here. And if there’s not, I feel we shouldn’t call it infamous in the body of the text.
— Trevdna ( talk) 04:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
"there are actually no citations on that entire paragraph" If it is entirely unsourced, perhaps the paragraph should be removed instead of rephrased. These are typically signs that there is OR in an article. Dimadick ( talk) 05:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
No worries! My typical response time is a few days - and in fact the edit/revert itself happened a few days ago, so again, there’s no hurry here.
Thanks for taking the time to do a reference check, also. That’s good dedication.
I’m against removing the passage entirely for being unsourced. I know the item in question actually happened and it just needs someone to go out and find a good source. If this article deleted everything that’s unsourced right now, there would be major holes.
Anyhow, I think I’ll just clip the word “infamous” for now and leave it at that. The rest of that edit was getting a bit ambitious so I’ll wait for consensus when/if I bring back any of those other changes. Or maybe I can go find a source - and match that section to the source.
Cheers!
- Trevdna ( talk) 14:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I’m going back and forth about including a section on Jesus Christ and the Atonement under Beliefs and Practices. On the one hand, it’s a cornerstone belief - just about everyone who’s ever been in the Church knows that Joseph Smith quote that’s referenced in the article lead. But on the other hand, I can’t think of what else there is to say about it. It’s just like “yeah, Jesus died for you and your sins and was resurrected.” Not much more to say - and really, not a lot that’s different from credal Christianity’s view on it.
Oh and also, if we don’t include a section on it, I think the article lead is due for a rewrite on that. Because the article lead is supposed to offer a summary of what’s to come later in the article body itself, right?
Thoughts? — Trevdna ( talk) 04:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
So, I just reverted a good faith edit and I wanted to discuss it here. 93.193.170.30 put in the following:
Can I just vent about this graphic? It’s not a good graphic. It kind of makes the whole plan look confusing and messy. I don’t think it adds anything to the article, since anyone who is interested in the plan of salvation can easily go to the sub article and see the graphic immediately. And lastly, it introduces quite a few concepts and terms that are not discussed anywhere in the article; when shown without any context or explanation, the graphic confuses and distracts, not illuminates.
I hope you don’t take this one personally. We here really do appreciate your contributions.
— Trevdna ( talk) 02:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
There are no less than 4 different places in this article where it’s emphasized that many other Christian churches don’t see the LDS Church as Christian. I mean, I get it, but would anyone mind if I consolidated some of these? Seems excessive to me. — Trevdna ( talk) 21:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Should this nickname be removed? At List_of_religious_slurs this is referred to as a religious slur. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_religious_slurs [Special:Contributions/91.196.124.230|91.196.124.230]] ( talk) 20:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
So only came across this as was going to revert an edit while patrolling pending revisions, as they were using the Churches own website as the source which really shouldn't be allowed. Been on things like this before, where we don't take what they have to say as a reliable source. The main example I can think of is like on the controversial Proud Boys article, we don't take what they say about themselves there, so why has it been allowed here? I see it was kind of briefly raised once in the archives but it doesn't appear to have been addressed at the time. NZFC (talk) (cont) 03:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
User:NZFC Thanks for your concerns and comments. I originally disagreed with your comments. But then I took the time to review other comparable religious articles, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses or even Islam. I was struck with the very high quality of the references on those pages and, yes, their copious use of scholarly, well-researched sources. So I will take that as an opportunity and an invitation to search out and find higher quality, scholarly sources for this article.
That said, I would still like to take exception to your claim that the article relies on primary sources. I think our understanding of primary vs. secondary sources must be a little different. I was under the impression that the definition of a primary source was more narrow, and therefore that of a secondary source was more broad.
As one recent example, when discussing what a Church’s volume of Scripture contains, the Scripture itself would be inadmissible (primary source), but a Church-produced manual describing the Scripture would (secondary source). As long as the item itself in question is not being used, it is a secondary source. Church magazines and articles - although admittedly a lower quality source than scholarly publications, and perhaps susceptible to bias themselves - should be admissible under this standard, as long as the article itself is not the subject of the WP page.
Thoughts?
— Trevdna ( talk) 16:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
That is a really good point I hadn’t considered. I appreciate the new perspective.
Most of these primary sources are to fairly non-controversial items. And truthfully, most that I’ve been adding recently have been for statements that were previously unsourced entirely (but had sat on the page without controversy for many years). So I considered them “better than nothing” when I put them in. But of course, I haven’t verified that is the case for all primary sources that the article references.
— Trevdna ( talk) 21:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I will work on finding more and better sources over time. I will also tag current and future “better than nothing” primary sources with {{bsn}} tags where appropriate.
— Trevdna ( talk) 03:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad you brought this up, I noticed that too a while back. On Wikipedia we do not generally allow self-published sources (see WP:SELFPUBLISH) except for basic, noncontroversial information. I would probably consider anything from church-owned publishers as self-published.
As I understand it, if/when the church is being cited as a source, we would just need to specify that in the text so the reader is aware.
I think it's crucial we use third party sources as much as possible, even for things like the history section. Basically, anything coming from the church directly could be challenged as a conflict of interest (this is true for any type of article subject).
Still, I definitely agree that something is better than nothing at all.
-- Pythagimedes ( talk) 19:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
After reading WP:SELFPUBLISH, I also found the next section, WP:ABOUTSELF, and I want to cite it here. It takes a much more charitable view of what is acceptable from a self-published article about oneself, namely:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; 2) it does not involve claims about third parties; 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.
The sources at issue generally fulfill at least the first 4 requirements here. 5 is still an issue in some places however.
— Trevdna ( talk) 19:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I would like to reopen this discussion. The section where the tag remains - and the article in general - is much improved from March/April when this discussion was active. I've spent a good amount of time tracking down secondary and tertiary sources to integrate them into the article. And many more primary sources (links to the faith's scriptures or words of Church leaders) I've converted into what I will call "quasi-secondary" sources - that is, sources published by a Church subsidiary. That has typically been where better secondary sources have not been available. Very few overtly primary sources remain. Lastly, I believe that all the items that remain cited by "quasi-secondary" sources are entirely non-controversial (for instance, straightforward beliefs of the Church), although I may have missed something.
I would also like to point out that the article on Jehovah’s Witnesses has a decent number of their own “quasi-secondary” sources like that. Their magazines are cited rather often in describing their beliefs, and it is not tagged. To the contrary, it is cited as a Good Article.
In light of that, and the guidelines under WP:SELFPUBLISH which I discussed in April above, I'd like to remove the {{Primary sources}} tag in the Beliefs and Practices. NZFC and Pythagimedes, do you agree, or do you think this section still needs more work? —— Trevdna ( talk) 21:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I plan to nominate this article for Good Article status in the next few days or weeks. I think it's been much improved over the last several months. No cleanup tags remain. Sources - while not perfect - are plentiful and come from a variety of neutral, secondary sources. In the cases where it has been unavoidable to rely on primary (Church-produced) sources, the items in issue are non-controversial, and therefore fulfill the requirements listed under WP:ABOUTSELF. All major aspects relating to the Church are explained in appropriate, neutral summary style. In short, I believe this article now meets the criteria for GA status.
However, if anyone here disagrees or has other comments, please let me know. — Trevdna ( talk) 17:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello again, everyone! I can't believe we have to go over this again, but apparently it is necessary. The church originally established by Joseph Smith in 1830 went by several names until a revelation in 1838 gave the church its' name that is still used today. One of the previously-used name prior to 1838 was the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints). After the revelation in question was received, all other names previously used were discontinued. By contrast, following the 1844 succession crisis following Smith's death, one of the offshoots therefrom was established as the RLDS Church, later renamed the Community of Christ. Having again reiterated these points, it was necessary to do so because an anonymous editor made an incorrect and inaccurate assertion that the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) was the name used by the offshoot started by Smith's posterity. Based on what I have laid out here, I hope it's clear that the edit in question (by the anonymous editor) was both inaccurate and incorrect. Thank you all.–– Jgstokes ( talk) 23:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this edit.
The source says that the word of wisdom is a requirement to be in good standing, so it makes since to word the text that way. Is there a source that supports @ Awilley's changes? –– FORMALDUDE( talk) 21:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
If both of you are satisfied with the current version of the content in question, I am happy to concur with this consensus decision. Thank you both. Also, FormalDude, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints forbids the recreational usage of more harmful drugs, so other editors unfamiliar with you might take issue with you referring to the Church members as " LSD members". You might want to employ the terms "member of the LDS Church" or "member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Much more refined. But I guess my mentioning that makes me the nitpicker now, so I can wear that badge proudly. Thanks again to you both. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 23:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
User:Epachamo recently reverted my edits regarding women's use of Priesthood power in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, saying: "This needs a secondary source for sure and/or a better explanation. The nuance with this is absolutely lost on the average Wikipedia reader." I'd appreciate people's input on this one, since the fact that women have Priesthood authority in the Church is a fundamental doctrine, yet as Epachmo rightly stated, one that is widely misunderstood (even by many Latter-day Saints). What do people think would constitute a good secondary source? Thanks. TheOtter ( talk) 02:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I actually have been able to find a couple other resources not directly affiliated with, supported by, or governed through the Church or its' subsidiary entities. There is this book, by Sheri L. Dew. There are the following pages, which include resources outside of remarks from Church leaders, which can be found here, and here. The second of those two links is from the Gospel Topics essays. Altough those essays are endorsed by and made available through the Church, they have been written by a variety of scholars of Latter-day Saint history, not all of whom are members of the Church. Anoter article from LDS Living (which is not directly owned or governed by the Church) showed up in te search as well. Additionally. Fair Latter-day Saints is anoter entity not directly affiliated with or governed by the Church, and one of their many topics covered is women and the priesthood. I hope these resources are helpful to the matter at hand. Thanks. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I strongly oppose saying women hold priesthood authority. (Sorry I didn't come check here before making my edits.) But as I said in my edit summary: if women can't give priesthood blessings, be ordained to the priesthood (outside of some oblique and unclear references that are literally done in the temple in private and are therefore inadmissible on Wikipedia), hold priesthood callings, or hold or leadership positions - what are we even trying to say with "priesthood authority"? Also, if the idea is (supposedly) misunderstood by many of the Church members itself, is Wikipedia really the place to try to set the record straight? If we can't show what we mean by "priesthood authority" from a more-or-less secular perspective, then it's just words.
I'd also like to point out that Pres. Oaks' talk 1) simply stated that priesthood authority and blessing *pertains* to women, not that they actually hold them, and 2) should not be enough to nullify the actual fact that women are not ordained to the priesthood in the same way that we speak of it elsewhere in the article - that is, a current priesthood holder or holders actually place their hands on the recipient's head and says you have the Priesthood now.
Also, per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. That means that
The main problem with links to GA quotes is that they can be simply the GA's opinion, and not necessarily representative of the Church's doctrine as a whole. Therefore we should be careful when using GA quotes - even 1st Pres quotes in General Conference - to say "the Church believes such and such" when that is arguably outside the mainstream beliefs of the Church as a whole. (See also WP:MAINSTREAM.)
— Trevdna ( talk) 16:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Another problem with saying uncritically in Wikipedia that women hold priesthood authority is that it *implies* that they hold the priesthood. Which is not the case. The average Wikipedian simply would not understand the distinction between holding the priesthood and (arguably) holding priesthood authority. Including it quite simply confuses the issue. If we are going to say they hold priesthood authority at all, it should probably be in an efn (thus deemphasizing it to the casual reader), and we should explain exactly what it means: what they are allowed to do/not do with authority, what blessings they are taught they will receive by it, and who specifically taught what about the whole thing.- Trevdna ( talk) 16:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I would support that only if 1) the body of the text were written in an efn so the main article text remains compliant with WP:SUMMARY and WP:UNDUE, 2) it’s condensed significantly from what you have - that’s an essay and this Wikipedia article is not a collection of essays on Gospel topics, for many reasons, and 3) it includes references to who, exactly, said what. (Eg “President Oaks, a member of the First Presidency, stated that xxxxx. It’s my view that these things are still outside the mainstream of what most Church members believe, or what is emphasized in most mainstream church teaching. Therefore it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to categorically and uncritically state that these are doctrines that “the Church” teaches. Trevdna ( talk) 15:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I mean, you get why this article can’t have a 500 or 1000 word essay on how women hold priesthood power, right? If we accept that, we’d have to accept similar length essays on various other gospel topics. And in fact, we’d have to accept essays of that length on every criticism or controversy the church has been involved in since 1820. And then the article would be a 100 page assortment of disjointed essays that no one would ever be interested in reading. It’s much better to share basic, simple truths than to overwhelm newcomers with detailed doctrinal exposition. Trevdna ( talk) 15:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify where I stand on this issue, I am not in anyway propsoing that any of the sources I mentioned in my last comment be quoted extensively in this article. That would make the article much too lengthy, which is never a good thing if it's unnecessary. My suggestion was more that soee key elements on the subject from those sources could be incorporated here on Wikipedia in our own words so there is better information on that in the artice. So I don't think we ened to be overy detaied on specifics in each of those sources. Having a framework from the sources to incorporate contnet here would be similar to how tat's been done on other subjects relevant to the Church and articles about it. Just wanted to clarify that on my end. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 19:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I took a few days to cool off. Sorry if I was overly contentious. I think we can get this resolved cordially.
Please take a look at what I’ve written. I hope it should satisfy everyone. I would appreciate it if you would give some citations to the part that you wrote. Likewise, if you think that anything I wrote needs a citation - or additional editing - let me know and I’ll get on it. Trevdna ( talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Erm… hmm…
What does everyone else think of these edits? Trevdna ( talk) 03:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Was the new logo introduced in 2019 or 2020? NW1223( Howl at me/ My hunts) 16:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
This revision, putting the subsection under "politics" has some basis but also some problems. For one thing, liberal LDS members might socialize more with gentiles and on a less-judgmental basis, and vice-versa. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the Washington Post article mainly focuses on LGBQ issues. The churches my Christian denomination are in communion with have mostly decided that those sexual orientations should not be a barrier to full participation. I think the more significant issue is that family life is at the center of LDS culture and theology; while, the lower classes in America are often no longer forming families. That is not necessarily true of BGBQ people. So, if if matter is political it is because the politics is being driven by changes in culture. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, that's the questions I came here for, what "Intellectual Reserve Inc" is and why most LDS stuff is copyrighted to them. // [NomadicVoxel] [ talk\ ctbs] 22:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm struggling with how to handle polygamy. I feel like it deserves its own section under controversy - it most certainly was the largest controversy in the Church's first 100 years! - but so much of the material is already handled under the "History" section. Should one or the other be pruned? Should we keep the information in both places although it's redundant? Am I mistaken and should we take the section under controversy back out? Not seeing a great resolution here - thoughts from anyone? Trevdna ( talk) 18:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Some users on Wikipedia insist on replacing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the phrase "LDS Church". Our leadership has clearly requested that those in the media respect our desire to be referred to by more accurate shortened names of the church, like "The Church" or "The Church of Jesus Christ". Here is a link where a prominent church leader explains the reasoning behind this: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng May you help Wikipedia respect this? I think it would be better to refer to all religions by their preferred title, than to disrespect good people of the faith. May we please remove any references such as "LDS Church" and "Mormon Church" from this article? We worship Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, not the prophet Mormon.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue. 128.187.112.18 ( talk) 02:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
From what I have heard, the AP Style guide/stylebook has been updated out of respect for our religion. If the Associated Press, a solid, well-respected institution used by virtually all major news sources, can respect our faith, couldn't Wikipedia do it too? I believe it can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.112.18 ( talk) 04:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the media. Anyone who says otherwise is mistaken. The guidelines therefore are not as applicable here, and even if the Church said they were, that would have no bearing on the matter. Insisting immediate compliance with the guidelines violates what has been said in relation to the guidelines themselves. There is a right and a wrong way to go about this. All articles about the Church fall under the Latter Day Saint movement project, as regulated by MOS:LDS. So the right way to go about this is working within Wikipedia guidelines to change the MOS, which will lead to changes at the project level, and only then should changes to articles within the project be considered and implemented. Please take the opportunity to be part of that correct process. Otherwise, the changes won't be possible. Jgstokes ( talk) 04:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The source given for the claim that LDS is a Christian Denomination is from the Unitarian Universalists, who do not speak for the vast majority of Christians. Can we find a source that would be accepted by most Christians/Denominations? Lincoln1809 ( talk) 20:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
(As a separate note, I can personally attest that I and other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus Christ as our literal Lord and Savior, and are therefore very much Christians - followers of and believers in - Jesus Christ. If you would like to learn more about our beliefs in Jesus Christ, we even have a website or two about that. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist Representatives from the Church would be happy to visit you and show you more. -Mike Olson) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.112.18 ( talk) 04:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
This article has grown extensively even since it passed GA 2 years ago. Does anyone mind if I put it up for a peer review? One to bring in third parties to evaluate the changes, but two to see if the wider community thinks it may be approaching - dare I say it - Featured Article level? Trevdna ( talk) 04:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) NasssaNser talk 06:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints → Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – This article should be moved in light of the recent Request for Comment that determined that "the" should not be capitalized in running text for this topic, and in accordance with WP:THE that states: "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the Wikipedia article name. Otherwise, do not". Rreagan007 ( talk) 22:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Supplemental note: I will also note that Encyclopedia Britannica lists this subjects title as "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Rreagan007 ( talk) 02:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a request for comment about mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC on mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church. Please contribute there. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I fell like the LDS church has more articles about criticism than other religions. I don’t think that we need an article about every bad thing this religion has done. Also I don’t think 8 septet articles about why the Book of Mormon is historically inaccurate is needed. It looks like people took every possible anti-Mormon source and put it in. I just don’t see why Wikipedia needs so many different articles. I can see one for criticism and one for historical accuracy but Wikipedia has so many articles while other religions don’t seam to have as many. LuxembourgLover ( talk) 22:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Someone else rewrote the criticism and controversy section on black people. I’d just like to note that, as it now stands, it doesn’t actually discuss any explicit criticism or controversy. It just seems to list a bunch of stuff that a perfectly reasonable observer could probably disagree with. I think this section is supposed to actually discuss the “criticism” or “controversy” associated with it. Could we include things like “the NAACP protested this on xx date” or “Mr. Critic said this is discriminatory.” Not to be obtuse about it, but I think an important part of the encyclopedia’s NPOV policy is that there are no assumptions made about what represents the “correct” thing to think about any of this. Trevdna ( talk) 22:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
What should we do about the spoken article here? It's from 2007, so the article was almost 100% different than it is now. It seems to me like it's time for a refresh.
Renamed user 4vFDb7ehvo I notice you were the one who originally recorded this article: could I perhaps convince you to update it with the last 16 years of article edits included? Trevdna ( talk) 03:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The name changed from "Church of Christ" to "Church of the Latter-Day Saints", and remained as such for six years before "of Jesus Christ" was added back to it. That name is still printed on one of the earlier temples (Nauvoo or Kirtland?). The current revelation in the D&C was altered from its original form in the Book of Commandments to state the name in its final form. One or more early Church leaders left the church when the name changed the first time, interpreting the change as the church falling into apostasy from the original command (and as commanded in the BoM) that it should be called "The Church of Christ". I'm leaving this here for someone else to find the correct references to corroborate this info. 2601:602:D100:2990:A5ED:752:BA4E:8E08 ( talk) 22:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I just found this SL Trib headline which speaks of a $44 million humanitarian donation by the Church. Which would surpass last year’s $32 million by quite a bit and would qualify as the church’s new “largest one-time” contribution. But reading the article, it turns out that $44 million is to several different groups, which makes it seems much less impressive to me. As long as it’s going to several different groups, it seems like it’s not one single contribution, but rather several contributions grouped under one headline.
So my point is, I was going to include it, but now I’m leaning against it, but I want community input about it too. What does everyone think? Trevdna ( talk) 02:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
A section of the text quoting the historian Sydney E. Ahlstrom was deleted, even if the wikipedia article on Mormonism has the same quote and wasn't deleted. Also, Mormonism calls itself a Christian denomination but it's not accepted by the other historical Christian denominations that are all trinitarian and only follow the Bible and not 3 extra doctrinal books like the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price all written in the 19th century. So the only way to call the LDS Church or Mormonism "a Christian denomination" is to add "it calls itself a Christian denomination" since no other historical, trinitarian, mainstream Christian group calls the LDS Church "Christian". Ninhursag3 ( talk) 19:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Can I get a consensus here to change the protection status of this article, from Pending Changes review, to semi-protected? There have been a huge number of disruptive IP address edits, mostly focused on either the name of the Church or it’s founder, which have been hashed and rehashed here already. Meanwhile, I can’t think of a single substantial edit that has been made by an IP address since… well I’m not sure when. Additionally, the Joseph Smith article has been semi-protected for years and has seen a huge improvement in these disruptive edits over edit wars of yesteryear. And finally, I will just mention I’ve already tried to go and get it done, but when I went to the request for protection page, they said “already protected”. So I’d like to gain consensus here before I go back and re-request.
Thanks, all. Trevdna ( talk) 21:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
This is too spicy to just put up as an edit, so I'm putting it here instead. The current article reads:
...Relations with the United States markedly improved after 1890, such that Utah was admitted as a U.S. state in 1896. Relations further improved after 1904, when church president
Joseph F. Smith again
disavowed polygamy before the United States Congress and issued a "
Second Manifesto"...
As written, the article implies that the LDS Church had been stamping out polygamy starting in 1890. To be blunt, this is this is historical revisionism. Church leadership was complicit in continuing polygamous marriages in secret. For example, during the hearings, Apostle Marriner W. Merrill testified under oath that he had married Hilda before 1890, despite the committee having evidence that he married her in 1901 in the Logan Temple. Most serious historians consider the 1890 Manifesto to be a smokescreen to hide the continued practice of polygamy in order to avoid the dissolution and seizure of church assets under the Edmunds-Tucker act of 1887. Further, the timing of the schisms that lead to the fundamentalist branches make no sense if the the church leaders had not been continuing to promote polygamy in secret for 20 years in between the First and Second Manifestos. The fundamentalists have a much more accurate accounting of the church teachings during those 30 years than the current LDS narrative since their entire existence revolves around that dispute.
I understand that LDS believers won't like language like "lied under oath" when describing the actions of the apostles and prophet of the LDS Church. But it is also not acceptable to present a whitewashed version of history. I propose the section be edited as follows:
...Relations with the United States markedly improved after 1890, such that Utah was admitted as a U.S. state in 1896. However, during the 1904
Reed Smoot hearings, it was revealed that at least some church leaders had continued to practice polygamy in secret. Following the hearings,
Joseph F. Smith again disavowed polygamy and issued a "
Second Manifesto" which resulted in the excommunications of high-ranking church leaders who continued to conduct polygamous marriages in secret...
This language leaves Joseph F. Smith's role ambiguous, which it was, allowing readers to interpret the facts as they may.
Frogontrombone (
talk)
18:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I just did a detailed review on the pending changes added by Leavittja and ultimately reverted them (aside from one sentence that I partially restored), but I would like to note a few things that deserve further discussion.
Leavittja removed that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both made statements in support of Black enslavement and replaced it by saying they both supported abolition of slavery. I was able to verify that they both made statements in support of slavery, and that Smith later supported the abolition of slavery in his 1844 presidential campaign. I could not find where a source says Young supported the abolition of slavery. Takeaway: we should probably add somewhere that Smith supported the abolition of slavery in his presidential campaign.
Leavittja additionally added a sentence directly after their statement that they both supported abolition, saying "This often led to massive outrage among pro-slavery advocates in the 1800s.
" I was unable to verify this with the book source used (The Mormon Church and Blacks: A Documentary History) as I do not have access to it, but it doesn't look like the book says that from what I can gather using Google Book's preview.
Leavittja also changed that slavery was legalized in Utah when Brigham Young was governor to say that it was legalized by him amidst national political tension. I could not verify this with the sources used, but it sounds plausible.
If anyone can provide sources to verify these claims, that would be much appreciated. Even better if you can provide a quote from a source that directly verifies it. –– FormalDude (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)