Talk:The Family: A Proclamation to the World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Living Christ[edit]

Is there a page like this for "the living christ"?

The Family: A Proclamation to the World[edit]

See the complete text here:,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html


It seems that there is no scholarly basis for the division of the proclamation into these three sections. I'm considering rewriting and reorganizing this article to something more appropriate. Please comment. Troy385 04:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a good logical break-down of the article. What did you have in mind? DavidBailey 11:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Although the break-down does indeed make sense, in order for this article to be of greater merit and fit into the encyclopedia format, it needs to have a scholarly basis for the break-down ideas. I have studied the proclamation and took a class on it from the editor of the main scholarly text available on the article: "Strengthening Our Families: An In-Depth Look at the Proclamation on the Family." Edited by David C. Dollahite. Published by the School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, 2000. This 400+ page text has several dozen authors— LDS and secular scholars and professors— who broke down the article into nearly every sentence and intensely analyzed it. They suggested no such break-down as in this wiki-page and therefore it may be more appropriate to touch on several of the scholarly points instead. I believe this article could be a lot more in-depth and really help people to learn what this proclamation is about. Would you be willing to help me in this endeavor? I also believe a new version of this scholarly text is now available.Troy385 16:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Status" Section[edit]

The status section desparately needs a rewrite or elimination. I'd be in favor of a sentence or two somewhere else in the article.

Copies of the proclamation as distributed by the Church do not include the signatures of the Brethren, but a statement that it was presented by President Hinckley at the general RS meeting at the bottom. Look at one. It is only addressed from the fifteen in the opening paragraph. The Living Christ testimony does, however, include signatures; I think this is where the confusion is coming from. The second paragraph speaks generally about the authority of statements like this, but I'm not sure that it really belongs here. (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No criticism section?[edit]

This proclamation is pretty controversial outside of Mormonism - I am a little surprised this article doesn't speak more about that controversy and criticism - especially against the homosexual community.--Descartes1979 (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't because you haven't added it yet (with references, of course). Ground Zero | t 19:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you are adding it, Descartes. Here's an article to use. tedder (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


...and has been addressed and discussed multiple times in General Conferences of the Church,[citation needed] and in virtually every other kind of meeting that occurs in the Church throughout the world.[citation needed]

Are these "citation needed" really necessary? I can come up with a half a dozen for each of those two (in fact, I've already added 4 to the first one, still have a few more I could add). – Ajltalk 17:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course the cites are necessary. Great work AJ1772 - awaiting the cites for the second one.--Descartes1979 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I had one quick question though. I'm okay with putting the refs all into one tag, separating them with "; ", but I think it would make it slightly more readable if they were separated with "<br />". Thoughts? – Ajltalk 18:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've added references to the online versions of the instruction manuals the teachers use in their meetings.

I've also done some searching in reference to this sentence:

The proclamation had much significance among Mormons when it was first announced,[citation needed] [...]

I was unable to find any sources, so I would suggest maybe we change this sentence to read:

The proclamation has much significance among Mormons, [...]

I think this way, we can avoid having to cite this, because it is supported by the rest of the sentence. – Ajltalk 23:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions - I went ahead and made one of the changes. Honestly though, as it relates to the multiple citations, I don't feel strongly about it - if you want to clean it up with break tags, or use a different citation style, that sounds good to me. I could even be persuaded to revert back to the multiple ref tags. Ultimately it is a cosmetic change and not a content change so I am kind of indifferent.--Descartes1979 (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've went ahead and cleaned it up with break tags, and IMO, it now looks much better. Face-smile.svgAjltalk 20:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of the term Mormon church[edit]

Hey there - in an attempt to avoid an edit war... I have read the LDS MOS, and it does not preclude using the term "Mormon chuch" to add clarification and context for the reader. See for example The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Joseph Smith, Jr.. In those articles, the official name of the church is given, but for those that aren't familiar with it, some clarification is given so they can make the connection to the widespread use of the term "Mormon". This is perfectly appropriate and done on hundreds of Mormon related articles. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I’m sorry but it is not done on "hundreds of Mormon related articles". If you looked at Search "Mormon Church", except of the term "and colloquially referred to as the Mormon Church" at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term "Mormon Church" is only used as "Redirects" and within Direct Quotes and Reference (such as book title). Since, Mormon Church applies to a large number of other sect in the Latter day Saint movement, the term "Mormon Church" is inappropriate unless your referring to all sects. I don't see why this partial article should be an "Exception" to the MOS and Naming convention. Additionally Joseph Smith, Jr. only uses it in references as it relates to a book title.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
ARTEST, it seems you are the most vocal about your dislike of the term "Mormon", and part of the reason it doesn't exist much on the 'pedia is because you've been active about removing it, including from quotes. Perhaps the "Mormon" term should remain on that article and you should take it back to MOS for consensus? Arguing about "LDS refers to a specific sect, Mormon is more general" was refuted fairly decisively several times on the MOS talk page. tedder (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't dislike the term. If you looked at MOS:LDS a long debate on this subject was just done (6 April 2011), and the consensus was still “Suggested abbreviation for church”: "LDS Church" and "Mormon" applies to "Suggested short name for adherent" (people) such as "fundamentalist Mormon".--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I looked at MOSLDS, as I liked. I'm not seeing a consensus against "Mormon"; indeed, there is support in the linked section for usage of the term. Can you give a diff showing the consensus showing it must not be used? tedder (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
You appartly aren't looking very hard. It say "avoid the informal appellation Mormon church outside of directly quoted material" and "Suggested abbreviation for church": "LDS Chruch": "Suggested short name for adherent": "Mormon". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTEST4ECHO (talkcontribs)
I'm not talking about what is on MOSLDS, I'm talking about what is on the talk page to MOSLDS as you were referencing. "The bottom line is that the argument that the Mormon Church is a more ambiguous than the LDS Church has not been substantiated.", "the MOS should describe the English usage found in scholarly and journalistic sources .. "Mormon church" generally = "LDS church" and vice-versa; and: "LDS Church" / 'Mormons' generally = "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and vice-versa.", (on the other hand) "2. "Mormon Church" is generally avoided when referring to any Latter Day Saint movement church", (preferred, not required) "However, avoid the informal appellation Mormon church, outside of directly quoted material – following a convention of Utah newspapers, the abbreviation LDS Church is preferred.", "Members of the LDS Church may accurately be referred to as Latter-day Saints or as Mormons. Although the former is arguably more specific and less ambiguous, following the predominant form found in the sources to a particular Wikipedia article is not incorrect.", "the church now encourages Mormon at least once in articles, along with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to enable people to find these articles through search engines...because people both in- and outside the church tend to use Mormon in their searches", (counter, but again, 'prefers') "prefers that the compound Mormon church not be used for the organization of the church, itself". So yes, I can read. Again, there is no consensus that the term Mormon or Mormon church cannot be used on articles. There's a range of opinions, with your opinion being at one end of the extremes. tedder (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Your search doesn't include many instances where the phrase "Mormon" without the word "church" is also used to clarify and make the connection. Sure I was exaggerating in saying "hundreds" but I have indeed seen this on many articles.
  • "Joseph Smith, Jr. only uses it in references as it relates to a book title." - not true. This is what it really says: "...he organized branches of the Church of Christ, a church whose adherents were later called "Latter Day Saints," and popularly, "Mormons." - yes it talks about the Book of Mormon, but clearly this is an attempt to clarify the connection between the popular term Mormon.
  • The posit that "Mormon church" only refers to all sects in the the Brighamite branch of the Latter Day Saint movement is patently false. You yourself have seen it in the main COJCOLDS article where it clearly (and quite correctly) shows that the term is in widespread use on a colloquial basis to refer to ONLY THAT church, and no other. There are 13 million LDS church members - and millions more that are familiar with the church - that would refute your argument and all of them refer to the church as the Mormon church - colloquially mind you - obviously not officially.
  • Once again, the MOS does not preclude us from using the term to clarify. To cite the MOS to be nitpicky instead of trying to make things clear for the reader is just not the right way to approach this. And with respect, your arguments are just wrong. Will get some more editors to chime in.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't dislike the term, I understand how to appropriately used it.
  • To do a search of "Mormon" and say "See it used on hundreds of article" is patently false. That search includes "any" use of the term, which including all those that use the term appropriately, such are referring to Mormons as adherent. You are suggesting the inclusion of "Mormon Chruch" when referring to that sect, so the search should be limited to that.
  • Your own quote on Joseph Smith, Jr. backs my side. "adherents were later called "Latter Day Saints," and popularly, "Mormons.". his means that it is appropriate according to the MOS when you are referring to the adherents of JSjr, not the LDS Church as "Mormon Church".
  • NO I have not see that it "refer to ONLY THAT church, and no other". I have argued repeatedly that it applies to all sect, for example Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) refer to themselves as "The Mormon Church" also, but I was overruled and the consensus I have to live with "related organizations originating in Utah." It has been and still is used by MANY other sects, which is why the MOS still and correctly refers that to refer to that sect as "LDS Church" and "Mormons" as the people.
  • You still have not given any reason whey the MOS should be ignored in this case.
If you looked at MOS:LDS a long debate on this subject was just done (6 April 2011), and the consensus was still "avoid the informal appellation Mormon church outside of directly quoted material", "Suggested abbreviation for church": "LDS Church" and "Mormon" applies to "Suggested short name for adherent" (people) such as "fundamentalist Mormon". If you read Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Latter_Day_Saints)#My_edit the very last comment on this consensus, by User:Good Olfactory says "For instance, using "Mormon" as an adherent of the LDS Church is probably more appropriate than using "Mormon Church" as the short form of this church.", exactly what I have been saying.
The consensus, as of April 6th 2011 (2 days ago) is “LDS Church” for the sect, "Mormon" for the adherents.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
"avoid" and "preferred" are different than "do not use". Again, there's a lack of consensus for the latter, and there's a lot of hedging on the former. tedder (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree that there being a "lack of consensus", since the current format was written by those who wish to use "Mormon" instead of "Latter-Day Saints". There were even Requests for mediation. It was argued on both sides for weeks, and the MOS was moved closer to your argument then what was originally there (which is the way I viewed this issue). Yet now you aren’t willing to follow the very consensus, which was agreed upon, when I am following it as it was changed to on April 6th by your side of this argument?
Additionally, I still don't see why this particular article should be the "Exception". Yes it says "Avoided" and it is "preferred", but why then should this article be an “Exception” to "Avoided" and “preferred"? What make it any different then all the others that do follow the MOS?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
How does this not follow the consensus? You mean what is on the MOS page itself? There's a significant difference between "must" and "prefer". Rationale has been given why it should be on this page: because it improves the reader's understanding of the article. Pure and simple. tedder (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
So, let’s completely throw out the MOS and NC since that can be said about every LDS Church Article. In that case, I’m going to change every Community of Christ to Community of Christ (Mormon Church) and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon Church) since we have no MOS consensus anymore and both these sect claim to be the “True” continuation of the Church of Christ whose adherents call themselves Mormons, which makes them the “Mormon Church” right? Wait… that is why your side created the current MOS in the first place? You can’t have it both ways.
I argue that it makes it more confusing, since per the MOS the term "Mormon Church" applies to every "Utah Sect", so which Utah "Mormon Church" are you referring to? Your side made this call, not mine. It is your opinion that it improved the article. It is my opinion it doesn’t. That is why a MOS is created, to clarify thing when "opinions" differ.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Slippery slope is a difficult position to take. The MOS doesn't strongly take a "side" on this, there is room for interpretation. tedder (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The MOS dose take a side however, and that that is that "Mormon Church" should be "Avoid" and the "Prefered" title is "LDS Chruch". The interpretation is that there needs to be a reason better then "I think it would be ggood here", which is all you have said.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Good Lord ARTEST4ECHO - do you really feel that strongly about this? Why is this even controversial? I lost interest in your response after about 3 sentences when I realized you didn't even think about my arguments, and you were going to rehash yours. Tedder is right - we are not "ignoring" MOS - there is no strong take - and for the 3rd time I will say, this does not deviate from the MOS to say this. Take a step back dude. I propose Lets add "colloquially known as the Mormon church". Think about it - people who don't know the church by any other name (i.e. 99% of people in the world) will be lost in this article without that connection. The article suffers HEAVILY because of the omission. That is a REALLY good reason to include it. I would think this is a slam dunk edit. Also disappointed that you brought this discussion back here when we could have ironed out our differences on your talk page where I started it.--Descartes1979 (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Why do you feel so strongly about including it? I have read your argument and disagree with them. You think “If this article suffers HEAVILY because of the omission”, I disagree. You say "we are not "ignoring" MOS”. I say you are clearly choosing to ignore it, or you would be “avoid the informal appellation ‘’’Mormon church’’’ outside of directly quoted material” and using there “Preferred” LDS Church”.
I’m entitled to disagree with it and I think its clear that “avoid the informal appellation Mormon church outside of directly quoted material" is strong enough to say that there better be a good reason why it should be included, not because you or Tedder think it would make this one article better.
Since there is a link to the LDS Church page, the word “Mormons” is correctly used (as related to Mormon adherent) in the article, and all other LDS type terms are correctly linked, it is not “Confusing” and so there is no justification for this ONE article to ignore the MOS.
If this article suffers HEAVILY because of the omission, then there would be no need for a MOS or NC since the MOS would only say The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (The Mormon Church) was the way to go. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I notice rather than wait for my response and the reaching of a consensus, you again unilaterally changed it and even removed the "Abbreviated as LDS Church" part of the main LDS Church page. Sorry, I still disagree since you have not convinced me the "The Mormon Church" is even needed. However, rather than simply undo it again to (LDS Church), I will make counter change to " a 1995 statement issued by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), whose adherents are known as the Mormons....

No there is no violation of the MOS or NC and you get your “Mormons” in the lead, and it even makes it clear that, even though the LDS Church is the biggest "Mormon Church" there are other "Mormons" out there (in the Mormons link)--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 22:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand you disagree about Mormon, but I agree with you that "LDS" needs to be in the lede, since it is referred to many times as such later in the article. tedder (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that in most contexts it is safest to avoid "Mormon Church". That is not to say that using it is wrong or anything. But it's such a minor issue that has caused such major conflict in the past on Wikipedia, it hardly seems worth the effort of including it, as it adds little to most articles. As long as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is linked to, any interested reader will have no problem learning that TCOJCOLDS = the Mormon Church. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment diff - I edited the lede to wp:RESTORE the explanationary phrase "whose adherents are known as Mormons," as had been contributed originally by ARTEST4ECHO in this edit. (See also the discussion on the MOS:LDS talkpage here.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think mentioning "Mormons" is necessary here; 99.5% of everyone who hits this particular page knows what the LDS Church is, and the remainder can hit the link. As Good Ol’factory says, it's a minor issue that's caused major conflicts. Let sleeping Saints lie.--John Foxe (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
John, Good Ol'factory was referring to the edits that included the term "Mormon church"; he made no reference to ARTEST4ECHO's edit including the word Mormon. Also, "99.5% of everyone who hits this particular page knows what the LDS Church" is wp:OR/wp:SYNTH and a conclusion that is highly suspect IAC. Let's follow the RSes, the MOS:LDS, and talkpage consensus.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I read the MOS guidelines and remain unconvinced that the use of the term "Mormon" is required here. But it's not a big deal to me either. I just prefer simplicity and good literary style when I can get them.--John Foxe (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, John, I think this edit of yours is very good; thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

History (2)[edit]

An edit by John Foxe (here) removed this sentence ("It is common for Mormons to frame the proclamation for display in Church buildings and the homes of church members.") and replaced it with this one ("Mormons have framed the proclamation for display in church buildings and in homes of members.").

In my opinion, the feeling I get from the second sentence makes me want a citation, but unless some news agency goes around (or has already gone around), I think the sentence should be change back to the original, which make me less inclined to throw a citation needed tag on it (even though the second sentence is factually true).

Thoughts/opinions? – Ajltalk 22:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the second is factually true and easier to find a cite for. There must be some evidence for both versions. Optimally it'd be nice to find a cite for the former version or simply revert it to the former version, which is a little stronger-worded. Unfortunately the rationale for preferring the former version has a lot of WP:OR involved! tedder (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Page protection request[edit]

I just thought I would mention that this page has been submitted for full protection. – Ajltalk 22:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not "full protection" which would permintly lock the page, "Tempory Full Proction". If this isn't and edit war, which is the situation where "Tempory Full Proction" is needed, then by hevens when is there "Edit Wars"?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 06:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of HRC source[edit]

This article from the Human Rights Campaign is currently used as a source for the following two assertions:

  • "[the proclamation] has been heavily criticized by the gay rights advocacy groups."
  • "The Human Rights Campaign has noted that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are marginalized in the LDS Church, and cited the proclamation as one source of this antagonistic view."

However, neither of these statements is clearly supported by the source.

Regarding the first point, the HRC article does state that "Support of such ballot measures brought wide-spread criticism both from outside and inside the church" referring to the church's political involvement with the issue around the years 1998-2000 in Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, etc. It makes no mention of direct criticism of the proclamation. I'm sure there is criticism of the proclamation by gay rights advocacy groups, but this source doesn't really support it. The adjective "heavily" seems like original research and/or peacockery rather than an objetive measure.

Regarding the second, the HRC article never uses the word "marginalized" or anything of the sort that I can see. The closest it gets is this paragraph:

...leaders expect of gays and lesbians the same celibacy they require of unmarried heterosexuals. Gay and lesbians can participate fully in church activities as long as they abide by the rule of celibacy, with some restrictions. For example, while a heterosexual adult would be expected to date, gays and lesbians would be viewed with suspicion for similar activities. Leaders counsel gay and lesbian members to avoid associations with LGBT groups and individuals, lest they succumb to the temptation of sexual activity.

It does say "with some restrictions", but never uses wording that suggests that this is a significantly "bad thing", as the wording "marginalized" suggests. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with the particular words you chose in the wording change you introduced here, but I agree that "marginalized" needed to be removed. I'm not really sure on how to further improve the particular wording though... – Ajltalk 07:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I tried to pull the rhetoric down a bit more. Someone with a better grasp of LGBT issues might know where to find an appropriate quotation.--John Foxe (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Foxe has more than adequately addressed the two issues I raised, and improved upon the wording Ajl was concerned about. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Edited reference in last section[edit]

I changed the reference from this:

Sympathetic articles and books published in response to "The Proclamation" include : "Strengthening Our Families: An In-Depth Loom at the Proclamation on the Family" available at or "Helping and Healing our Families: Principles and practices inspired by 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World'" available at

To read the following:

Sympathetic articles and books published in response to "The Proclamation" include : "Strengthening Our Families: An In-Depth Loom at the Proclamation on the Family" available at Deseret Book or "Helping and Healing our Families: Principles and practices inspired by 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World'", also available at Desert Book

However, I'm still not happy with it. Perhaps we can change the links to a {{cite web}} template? Or something along those lines? Anyone else have thoughts on this? – Ajltalk 07:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The links shouldn't be inline, they should be refs only, and that will be a magnet for spam- I mean, I'm betting the other Mormon bookstores sell it, as well as Amazon, so advertising availability isn't the best. tedder (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, providing the ISBN is preferable to saying "available at Bookstore X" so that the reader can decide for herself where to get it. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Living Christ[edit]

The question was asked before and not answered about the existence of an article on "The Living Christ." I have done a search and found no article on the document, "The Living Christ" which was another key document presented to the LDS Church during Hinckley's presidency deserves some mention here at WP. Is there anyone interested in taking this one on?--Canadiandy talk 07:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Just so it's known. This was done in August 2011 by User:Good Olfactory. See The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)