The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I started doing some editing here, and like many of the LDS movement articles it is difficult to make sure it isn't a CJCLDS only view. Like Standard Works - I changed to scripture - since I am not sure that members of denominations other than CJC call the scriptures the standard works. Trödel•talk 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there is a problem using the Salt Lake Temple in this template. It appears that the intent is to not limit to "CJCLDS" topics, however, this image is squarely associated with that group. I recommend using an image associated with the early period of the Church, such as the original Nauvoo Temple or something else. --NThurston 17:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good change, and a wise reason behind it. Tijuana BrassE@ 21:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Faith - Is about repentence in general and section on the LDS church view of faith box was too long for that section
Repentance - Is about repentence in general and doesn't have a section about the LDS church.
Since these are key parts of the LDS movement we probably need either an section, an article, or an expanded section on each of these topics so the link from the LDS template makes more sense. --Trödel 03:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There must be outspoken critics of the LDS whose articles would make sense to include within the template. Is this the case? joshbuddy, talk 08:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Criticisms are in the articles and, generally, not broken out in seperate articles per - see WP:POVFORK --Trödel 23:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of items that were culled out by User:COGDEN that I disagree with.
The Pearl of Great Price - This is a significant part of the scriptual cannon of the LDS Church and as such its omission is significant enough that it really makes the section it is listed with incomplete with its absence. While it does contain the Book of Abraham and some other documents also listed in this template, the history of the Pearl of Great Price is an incredible piece of Mormon history that needs to be told independently and clearly belongs on this template. It certainly ranks right with the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants as key foundation cannonical documents (it is part of the official cannon of the LDS Church). --Robert Horning 07:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is canon of the LDS Church, but only the LDS Church. This is supposed to be a generic template for all Latter Day Saint denominations. And it needs to be as minimal as possible. No matter what they say, size does matter in this context. COGDEN 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of this I completely and totally disagree. This is canon and as such is very significant, and while it may not be canon of the Community of Christ, there are other LDS denominations that indeed include the Pearl of Great Price, including the FLDS church. This may be something more unique, however, to the "Brighamite" branch if you can call it that. More following this comment.
Bear River Massacre - While this may seem a little out of place (and can be debated separately) it is a very signficant event for Mormon history because of the sheer number of members of the LDS Church that were directly affected by this event. Taken strictly by numbers even at the time, it involved nearly 5,000 members of the LDS Church, and affected a region that now is home to nearly half a million Mormons (Northern Utah, especially Cache Valley and S.E. Idaho). That many of these people aren't aware of this history and the fact that they are living where they are because of this event is more something of a tragedy of the teaching of this history than because of its notability. Of course this is a POV, but I would dare say that for the LDS farmers in Cache Valley, it is as signficant of an event as the Utah War or even the pioneer exodus from Nauvoo. Yes, it involved a clear anti-Mormon (from his own proclaimation) military general and a group of Shoshoni Indians directly, but the involvement of Mormon leaders certainly is infused throughout the whole detail of the event, including actions directly by Brigham Young himself. --Robert Horning 07:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is just one of tens of historical articles that could be included here. If we start including every single historical article, the template would be way too large. It's already too large as it is. This template should only include the most fundamental links. If someone wants to learn about the Bear River Massacre, they can go to History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. COGDEN 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that perhaps with the Bear River Massacre, it may be better suited to be a part of a larger section on colonization of the western USA by Brigham Young, stretching from Alberta to the Mormon colonies in Mexico and even to Hawaii. And that colonization is a very signficant part of the history of the LDS movement in general, and a poorly told history at that. --Robert Horning 07:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, I hate it when my post is broken up, as it makes reading very difficult and breaks up the context of what I was writing. While you have been culling things out, it would be useful to simply try and define exactly what your criteria is, and please seek comments ahead of time before doing a massive overhaul. In the case of some of these items that you have culled out, perhaps it would be more fitting for a themeatic "sub-template" that covers more specific items like "Military Conflicts of the LDS Movement", where Bear River Massacre and Mountain Meadows Massacre can be listed together (I consider them to be of roughly equal significance, BTW, for the LDS movement). I'll elaborate more on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. --Robert Horning 17:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A perfect example of Historical revisionism.
"Many historians who write revisionist exposés are motivated by a genuine desire to educate and to correct history."
Tinosa 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There seems to be notable controversy and criticism. I will argue the same for the templates of Christianity and Islam. Andries 16:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, over at Template_talk:ScientologySeries this has been a long running discussion. For solutions, we've tried a lot of things (pruning links, deleting the "Controversy" section, etc.), but I think we may be on to something very cool with: User:Sfacets/scb, where a controversy section can be collapsed if that's the aspect somebody wants to get to, but the user isn't visually pounded with a bunch of critical links every time somebody views a page tagged with the template. Ronabop 05:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a possibility if others want to explore it. I created a similar "topic" template at {{Scouting}} and would be willing to do the work here. However, I suspect that the majority like the template as is. --NThurston 13:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose adding a link to the criticism page. Back in December, the Mormonism, Buddhism, and Islam templates all had links to their specific criticism page, however Islam removed their citing this template as precedent. Ironically, someone wanted to include the Criticism of Christianity link on the Christianity template, and cited those as precedent. If this is going to be a matter of "Well the Jews don't have the link, so why should we" or "The Mormons have the link, so should the Muslims" etc, we should decided as a whole whether links to these criticism pages are appropriate for the parent religion templates. I believe that all religion templates should have a link to the parent criticism page (if one exists), and that is what I am proposing here. What do we think?-Andrew c 00:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I decide do erase the names of Joseph Smith III and James Strang from the Early Leaders menu because they were not part of the Latter-Day Saint movement per se. Joseph Smith III was president of the Reorganized Church, which is a different denomination. And Mr. Strang was not a significant early leader at all, and later he left the church.
Actually, this is why they should be included. I changed "early" to "movement" because I do agree that these aren't early, which is usually considered within Smith's lifetime. However, deciding that certain denomination leaders are not part of the movement because they "left the church" is a POV problem. Cool HandLuke 22:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a problem. Without something like "early" to demarcate time, there are lots of significant leaders that could be included - John Taylor, David O. McKay, Wallace B. Smith, and so on. Here is what we need to look for - 1) Keep the list short (fine how it is), 2) focus on the founders of the movement and the subsequent sects, and 3) limit focus to significant people. "Significant movement leaders" violates #2. In the absence of a better alternative, I would prefer "Significant early leaders." If early really is defined as pre-1844, then "early" doesn't work, but does anybody have a better word? --NThurston 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the problem, and I also agree with you on the list's focus. I'm not sure that either label is more inherently POV than the other ("significant"), but you're right that we're not really getting at "movement" or even all "early" leaders (just the founders and early sect leaders, as you point out). Perhaps we should make that discription into the heading. Cool HandLuke 17:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not worried about POV for either of these. Could we say "Founders and early sect leaders"? --NThurston 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most precise heading so far. "Founders and early sect leaders" it is. I only hesitate because it's awfully unpoetic. Cool HandLuke 04:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Let's keep looking for a more poetic way to say it. --NThurston 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, sorry. I added William Bickerton and Granville Hedrick to the list before finding this talk about it. Perhaps including them was not appropriate. I included them because they founded significant Latter Day Saint denominations. However, maybe they are too late / not early enough to be in this list? If Strang is included, it's hard not to also include Bickerton since the "Bickertonite church" (I know, I know, it's an offensive term) is now much larger than the "Strangite church". -SESmith 05:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recently there have been two major attempts by anonymous editor 84.146.xxx.xx to revert to previous versions. Reviewing the history, this editor appears to have frequently made contributions over time, so they are not a neophyte. At the same time, it would be really helpful for them to participate in the Talk page as well so we know that they are working with us on making this more useful. --NThurston 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to the (Strangite) Book of the Law of the Lord, but it was removed. Why? It was certainly an important text in early Mormonism among some of those who did not travel west. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I didn't remove it, so I can't tell you why, however, I wouldn't want it under "Sacred Texts" because it is not considered a sacred text. It might be appropriate under History, but do you think it is at the same level of importance in the history of the movement as the other articles mentioned there? Is its relevance not covered well in the articles listed there? Perhaps others could comment on this as well. --NThurston 13:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is considered a sacred text by the Strangite branch of the LDS movement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I see. This template generally refers to things that apply to the "movement," which usually has something to do with pre-1844. Perhaps this isn't included because it is branch-specific, not applying to the movement. For example, I don't think that edicts by Warren Jeffs would be included, although they could be considered sacred texts by some in a particular branch. That's just my guess, because I wasn't the one that removed it, but I think that's what's going on. --NThurston 14:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this rationale. Although we list seperate articles for the D&C and the Book of Commandments (which is considered more correct by the Temple Lot group), we don't do this as a service to the various sects. These are books that almost the whole movements accepts, at least as part of their religion's history. Post-Smith works are on much shakier ground for being of pan-movement significance. Cool HandLuke 18:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the rationale now and it does make some sense. Maybe there could be a small box at the end of the scripture section for items specific to the various other groups? Every branch (LDS, FLDS, RLDS, PLDS, Strangite, AUB, et. al.) have slightly different canons, but generally differ w/ D&C versions and, sometimes, versions of the Bible. The Strangites are somewhat unique in that they have a body of text allegedly translated from gold plates - à la the Book of Mormon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I think that pre-1844 is a good and reasonable criterion. We don't want the template to grow so big that it detracts from the articles. But if we choose that as a kind of cut-off, we would need to remove Pearl of Great Price. COGDEN 17:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I don't think removing the Pearl of Great Price is a good idea as it's a central text to many of Mormonism's branches. I know the CoC and Strangites don't regard it as canonical, but most other denominations do. 66.191.19.42 15:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on this point. We are talking cannon here and not merely interesting books by prominent LDS scholars and theologians. The arbitrary cut-off at 1844 is not sufficient, and to me introduces a POV bias to this template that would simply be unconscionable in any other Wikipedia context. I understand the desire to reduce the number of links in this template as linking all Mormon-related articles would be overwhelming, but I can't imagine the list of recognized cannon for larger denominations (using a criteria of > 10000 members, if you want a cut-off) to be that huge. --Robert Horning 21:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there's some amount of arbitrariness to 1844, but I think it's much less arbitrary than 10000. Since the constituent books are already included, leaving the Pearl of Great Price off the template might be wise independent of POV concerns. Cool HandLuke 22:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 10,000 number is a rough guideline meaning some organization that actually has some substantive number of members as opposed to a small off-shoot group consisting of a small study group. I've known LDS "apostate" groups that consist of just 5 or 6 individuals, claiming their own revelations. I would appeal to WP:NOTE as a guideline to be used here instead, but clearly the cannon of larger demoninations (including the Pearl of Great Price... isn't 10 million members notable?) should be included. 1844 is not IMHO sufficient on this point. As for the other books of the Pearl of Great Price being included or not, that certainly is something of a contention. I would argue that the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham ought to be eliminated in favor of the Pearl of Great Price, but that is a separate argument. --Robert Horning 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that it is pretty much redundant given that the JST, Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham are already there. I suppose one could add a link for AofF. Leaving it out reflects the point of this template. --NThurston 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the 1844 cut off date makes the most sense, as it would include the base denominator for all latter day saint movement denominations. Book of Abraham, Moses, JST, etc. would all fit within this, but law of the lord, pearl of great price, etc. would not. We are looking for commonalitites, not differences in the template. those, regardless of how notable they are, are not consistent through all LDSM groups as the others typically are. -Visorstuff 18:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused by this attitude. We are talking cannon here, not just some sort of random bit of text here. In other words, what is officially recognized by a specific denomination as sacred writings. The 1844 cut off makes absolutely no sense other than to cull specific writings, such as the Official Declaration #2 (the LDS Church authorizing blacks to hold the priesthood) or a specific POV that the Pearl of Great Price is not sacred writings. The only legitimate cut off I can suggest is if a denomination meets Wikipedia notability standards or not. I have seen alternative versions of the Doctrine and Covenants which have dozens of "modern" revelations, or other books that are also considered to be of a divine nature, but the groups who publish this content are so small that WP:NOTE would exclude the content. There is no other Wikipedia standard or policy that would apply here. I don't understand the absolute requirement suggested here that a particular cannonical work (or any link on this template), to be included, must be something significant to every denomination which could be included in the LDS movement. There is no Wikipedia policy to suggest this is a requirement at all, and IMHO pushes a particular POV more than anything else. --Robert Horning 14:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This template is focused primarily on the "movement" itself and not the religions or denominations. To this point we have agreed to focus primarily, although not exclusively, on the "origins" and "commonalities" of the movement. So, we have attempted to put together a set of articles that would help a reader understand the basis of the movement, and to a lesser degree what has become of it. We have intentionally avoided articles that are specific to a particular denomination or that are representative of a single denomination (such as Gordon B. Hinckley).
Hence the major sections of the template:
The Movement
History of the Movement
Sacred texts of the Movement
Founders of the Movement
Beliefs
Controversies
There is no requirement that any article included here be accepted by every domination. There has been just one criterion (which until this point didn't need to be stated explicitly) - Does the article provide depth and understanding of the origins and commonalities of the Latter Day Saint Movement? It makes a good deal of sense to those that put this set of articles together to use 1844 as a factor in evaluating this criterion. To use your example, the Pearl of Great Price (as a collection of sacred writings) is used pretty much by just one denomination. It is post-1844 and generally not directly related to the origins and commonalities of the movement. Note, however, that the articles about its components - Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, Articles of Faith, Joseph Smith History, and the JST (which are all pre-1844) in fact do relate to the origins and commonalities of the movement. You also mention the Doctrine and Covenants. The article is included here because the article does a reasonable job of not only explaining the book, but also of covering how it has evolved differently in the various denominations of the movement. Note the relevance to the origins and commonalities of the movement in that article.
This said, NOBODY here would object to the creation of a portal, navigation template, etc. that focuses more broadly. The general feeling, however, was that wasn't was this template is intended to be. Make sense? --NThurston 17:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture above depicts the First Vision describing accounts by Joseph Smith and others. I am not here to argue with the validity of those writings. There are other accounts found written by the hand of Joseph Smith -- see Personal Writings by Joseph Smith claiming only one personage (that of Christ). This is a hotly debated topic for many within the Restoration and Latter Day Saint movements. Such a hot issue should not blatently be on display showcasing one (the Utah Mormon) opinion of the subject. That would be a POV issue, not that I am an expert on the WIKI policy. Clearly the controversy should not favor one side and all groups should be treated with equal respect. Maybe no picture should be there, or some other picture like one with different group's printed Book of Mormon. That way all groups are represented in a non offensive way within the box on the right hand side of the Links to the Latter Day Saint movement. This intitial representation of the Latter Day Saint movement should not be represented with a controversy.Jcg5029 23:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. I'm pushing to include the Community of Christ into this space, and I'd hate to alienate them because of a picture. Might I suggest one of the following:
Those both look good to me, even a picture of Joseph Smith would probably work fine. Just so long as all groups would feel represented through the picture. Jcg5029 03:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We used to use the old Nauvoo Temple picture, and I was actually fine with that. It sort of established a "line in the sand" indicating that this is about the movement (pre-1844). --NThurston 14:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a reason why the Nauvoo Temple was taken out? Did someone have issues with it to make it change?? We certainly would not want to rub on a previous issue...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcg5029 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 17 April 2007.
It was done on 15:44, 3 February 2007 by User:84.146.203.60 with no comment. Nobody said anything at the time. We did have a discussion earlier that the picture should not be clearly associated with one group or another (Previously, the SL Temple was used.) and agreed that the Nauvoo Temple was an OK replacement. You're ok to revert to the Nauvoo Temple. --NThurston 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Since there was previous consensus for the old version, and no discussion or comment regarding the new image, and because the new image is controversial, we should revert to the longstanding discussion and let those who want to include the new image build consensus on talk first.-Andrew c 16:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed the Nauvoo Temple picture was taken out just because the first vision picture is prettier and also public domain. I agree that we should guard against sectarian bias though. I welcome the return of this picture. Cool HandLuke 21:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the change from the Nauvoo temple to the First Vision stained glass photo was a good thing, mainly because the Nauvoo temple wasn't completed until after the succession crisis. In fact, there were already schisms before the Nauvoo period.
Anyway, if there is controversy within the LDS movement over the First Vision, specifically, whether one or two personages appeared, then I agree that it needed to be changed. I just don't think the Nauvoo temple is the best symbol, especially since the ordinances practiced by CoJCoLDS but not by CoC were introduced there, and some groups don't have or believe in temples. How about one of these?
I think the Moroni emblem is nicely 'iconic', but I guess either of these might be a bit troublesome for CoC. Or, I can't find it on wikipedia, but I would think that the restoration of the priesthood, with Peter, James and John would be public domain by now, surely that would be ok. I have also seen several artistic renderings of the April 6th organization of the church, if one of those is public domain it might be the best candidate, least controversial doctrinally, yet tying all the different denominations back to a common point of origin. 74s181 03:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who in this discussion is a member of TCoJCoLdS, but if you are, or if you can get hold of it, there is a publication called "Our Heritage: A Brief History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". The front cover is a reproduction of a painting of the First Vision that depicts Joseph, kneeling, facing the viewer, with the light overhead shining down on him. Personage or Personages are out of view. I looked in the book, there is no attribution for this image, maybe that means it is out of copyright. On page 12 there is an unattributed image of Peter, James and John confering the Melchizedek priesthood. Either of these would be good if they can be used. 74s181 23:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are some groups within this movement that do not uphold the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods. I cannot speak for every group, but The Church of Jesus Christ with Headquarters in Monongahela, PA do not uphold that revelation. Maybe the First Vision picture of Joseph Smith kneeling, or even the picture of the copy of the original BoM. I had even suggested earlier a copy of all group's various publications of the BoM -- showing how the groups have common origins, but still are different. The Navoo Temple is nice, maybe even the Ohio Temple would be fitting. Just a couple thoughts...Jcg5029 23:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, all paintings of the first vision showing just "light" are still under copyright. (I've looked pretty extensively, because I had that same idea.) If we're still concerned about the Nauvoo temple, why not this image of Moroni giving Smith the plates? The plates and the BoM, really, are the foundation for the whole movement, more so than the first vision. I don't really like the idea of depicting the 1830 church organization, because it isn't iconic enough and doesn't tell a story or say anything recognizable about the movement. COGDEN 01:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My preferences (in order): 1) free image of first vision, non-denominational depication, 2) Kirtland Temple photo, 3) Nauvoo temple, 4) something B of M related. I'm going to be gone for a while, so best of luck on this. --NThurston 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with the past few statements. Since there may be issues with the CoC and Navoo's Temple. A free image of the first vision non denom depication, Kirtland Temple, or BoM picture would all work fine. COGDEN's picture would work fine unless someone else has some thoughts.Jcg5029 18:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These do seem to be some good suggestions, as opposed to this edit where the Salt Lake Temple was put onto the template. The Kirtland Temple may be a good suggestion, or perhaps the PD drawing of "General Joseph Smith" in his Nauvoo Legion uniform. This image may be a good suggestion as well. --Robert Horning 22:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally the template had no image. The Salt Lake Temple was the first image to appear (via this edit). This happened while the template was still titled "Latter Day Saints" and looked like it would cover everything related to Latter Day Saints. Over time, the focus of the template narrowed to the "movement." Around that time, the picture was replaced by Nauvoo temple. --NThurston 14:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the Joseph Smith profile. It is clear without being controversial. I don't like the above image of Joseph and Moroni for various reasons. 74s181 16:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is fair, would any be opposed to having the picture be the JSmith profile? I think it would look good.Jcg5029 02:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody seemed to disapprove of the photo of Joseph Smith, Jr. In order to be fair to groups that broke off before the Navoo Temple this picture was added. This wasn't meant as a final decision if others still have thoughts or ideas for a fitting picture.Jcg5029 19:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new picture for this template. It looks good and is fair to all groups in the movement. Chiros Sunrider 21:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like it too. It focuses on Smith, and also shows him preaching from a Bible or Book of Mormon, which is very appropriate. It's also primitive art, which plays into the frontier spirit. COGDEN 23:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed this edit by an anon IP, thought it okay, then thought surely it is somewhere else in the article Mormon already. Didn't see it though, though I checked the LDS template expansion also. Is there a reason the portal isn't mentioned in the template? Further, is there a reason the portal wasn't already in the article? (Is the portal a "good thing"?) Shenme 18:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The portal is denomination-specific, the template is not, so it shouldn't be in the template. No comment on whether it's a good thing. --NThurston 20:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the portal mentions denominations, but I don't know enough to comment, though comment is now needed. Is there a better place? I'll mention/ask on the wikiproject talk page. Shenme 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the portal is consistent with the focus and use of this template. At best, the portal could be used as a destination for a specific denomination, if we were to start listing denominations in the template. At present, it creates a significant imbalance. I don't have a problem if someone want to include the portal on individual articles, but it is out of place on this template. --NThurston 13:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the portal is a usefull addition to the template. It makes the template better.Daniel3 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain your feeling in a little more detail. "Better" is a subjective term, and if you explain the reasoning behind your feelings, it's easier for other editors to reply to your comments, and you may even convince others of your position.-Andrew c 16:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The portal shows a more comprehensive overview of the LDS religion than the template. People who want to know current news of the LDS can go to the portal, for example. So I think the portal should stay in the template.Daniel3 18:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is exactly why it shouldn't be included. The template links articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, not the LDS church (or "religion" as you call it).
My recommendation is that the portal link be included on denomination-specific articles. Unfortunately, this template isn't the right way to do that. The appropriate way to do that would be to include {{portal|Latter-day Saints}} on each of the pages related to that portal. This should properly be included near the bottom of the page, in the See Also section. This code will add the following. --NThurston 18:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC) {{portal|Latter-day Saints}}[reply]
I'm really confused about this concept, and this is an exclusionary POV. One of the reasons for building a template of this nature is to provide short-hand common links to other parts of Wikipedia that would provide additional information about this broad general topic. In essence, this is a link-exchange for articles who want to "advertise" their existance on other pages without having to go through the path of going through two clicks into a category and back out. A link to a portal page would clearly be one of these kinds of links, and indeed would be significant. BTW, I don't understand why you think the portal page is exclusionary for other denominations within the LDS movement either, but that is a discussion that can be done elsewhere. --Robert Horning 23:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exclusionary, yes. There have to be some limits if anything is going to be workable. We could include links to all movement-related denominations and, for that matter, any article that has any relationship to the movement. But, would that be workable? Of course not.
POV, no. In fact it is quite the opposite. The purpose of this template is to allow a reader interested in *the movement* to navigate between several relevant articles on the movement. It is specifically not to promote interest in any one denomination. Including the LDS Church portal link in this template would require us to include lots of other links to remain NPOV, and it becomes unworkable. As a practical matter, many of the articles in the template already have the portal link. So, interested readers can navigate there easily if they want to. --NThurston 13:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm not entirely sure where this discussion that you are referring to here was at where this issue was decided, regarding the idea that this template could not have any links regarding any specific denomination. I did provide an alternative proposal that "sub-templates" perhaps could be made that would be topical in nature, such as a template that would be LDS Church specific, one about biographies, another about LDS settlements, but using a common "theme" with a limited number of links that were of a general nature, as you have indicated. I know this would be a much more complicated "template", but it might better deal with some of the objections you are raising here about filling this template with too many links.
The POV objection here is the idea that any specific denomination, particularly the LDS Church, is irrelevant in a discussion about people within the LDS movement and that all denominations ought to be treated equally regardless of size. I'm not suggesting that the LDS Church POV ought to be emphasized, but this template (and many of the LDS-related articles) tend to run in the opposite direction: The LDS Church is the mother of all harlots and its influence (and POV) needs to be minimized when possible. I'm suggesting this is a POV just as any other may be. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, and this is an exaggeration, but it is an observation that has been mentioned by more than one member of the LDS church in regards to Wikipedia articles about the LDS movement. --Robert Horning 21:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The portal shows much of the LDS church but it does also show things that are important for the entire LDS movement. For example, the article about Joseph Smith.Daniel3 19:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've been discussing changing the image to encourage use of this template on non-LDS Church-related sites, but linking to the LDS Church's portal (as if it were a movement-wide portal) works agaist that goal. Do we want this template to be included on non-LDS Church-specific pages or not? If not, let's make it a template about the LDS Church. That would mean, of course, that we would probably have to delete this template from such pan-movement sites as Joseph Smith, Jr. and Book of Mormon. Or better yet, we can have two templates: one that links to the LDS Church's portal and is included only on LDS Church-specific pages, and another that doesn't, and links only to pages of interest to all denominations. COGDEN 01:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A CoJCoLDS template would be a possibility, however, the portal link already addresses that. It is already included on many articles, and could be included on more. Portal links are correctly included in the See Also section. Despite my personal preferences for one denomination, I think that balance requires this template to stay true to its function of facilitating study of the movement. I also think that pre-1844 is a well-defined cut-off that makes perfect sense for this purpose. --NThurston 13:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The LDS portal is not denomination specific. Look at the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, Jr. articles. Furthermore, 90 percent of all Mormons are members of the LDS church, so I think this portal is necessary in this template.Daniel3 17:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While some of the articles in the portal may be generic, the portal itself is denomination specific. Evidence: 1) The name itself "Latter-day Saints" is specific to one denomination, 2)The very first paragraph at the top of the portal is: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes referred to as the LDS Church or the Mormon Church, describes itself as the restoration of the original church established by Jesus Christ. It claims to be a Christian church, but separate from the Catholic or Protestant traditions." This is again denomination specific. 3) There is no mention on the portal of other denominations. In other words, it is very clear that the portal is about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and about no other denomination in the movement. Regarding your "furthermore" statement - It's exactly this type of exclusionary thinking that we want to avoid in this template. --NThurston 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the LDS Church has enforced copyright or ownership on the LDS portal, or why it can't be expanded to include more of the LDS movement as you are indicating. As it is, the portal page does include some links to other LDS denominations besides the LDS Church, but I would agree that it isn't as obvious as perhaps this template is at the moment. If you are objecting about the POV of this portal, that is something that can be fixed, as can anything here on Wikipedia. Perhaps you should try to help work on that portal and work for a more neutral setting about the LDS movement. See also WP:SOFIXIT
I also don't understand why this template would have to be deleted from "pan-movement" articles by the inclusion of links about a specific denomination on this template. This assertion doesn't even make sense at all other than as a means to keep from having dozens of templates like this, where each one would "claim" that article as their own. I do think there are solutions to this if you absolutely insist, but the inclusion of the portal does seem to be reasonable on this template. --Robert Horning 22:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow. I definitely need to clarify. This template is about the *Latter Day Saint movement.* It is not about *Latter Day Saint denominations.* Denominations are properly included already in the template by a link to Category:Latter Day Saint denominations. Given the focus of the template, I object to the inclusion of the portal link for two reasons: 1) Propriety - the portal link is already included on most of the articles in the template. It would be redundant. Also, I believe that it would be inappropriate, because portal links are supposed to be included in the See Also section, not on topic templates. 2) Focus - I don't think the portal is really about the Latter Day Saint *movement*. It's about a denomination. I've looked all through the portal, and find very little about the movement that isn't expressed better in articles included in the template, rather I find almost everything to be about the LDS Church and its practices today.
Since I see that we may not be coming to a consensus on the include/not include discussion, I put forward the following: Proposed actions - 1) Use the portal link where how it is supposed to be used - inclusion in the See Also section of related articles. 2) Create a navigational template on Latter Day Saint denominations. This could be a sub template of this one. I'm very OK with that idea and would help to develop it. 3) If someone wants, they could also create another sub-template for The CoJCoLDS. To answer two of Robert Horning's questions - in case you missed it, the portal is Latter-day Saints (note the capitalization pattern). This means LDS Church, so it probably should be a portal about a denomination. If you want, you could start a Latter Day Saint portal. Good luck with that. Also, do you think that Community of Christ editors would (or should) want a template on that article that is filled mostly with links to articles about CoJCoLDS? --NThurston 13:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add that the christianity template has also a christianity portal included.Daniel3 15:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the conventions of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement the naming indicates that the Portal is specific to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not the entire movement. Just like the Jewish Portal and the Christianity Portal can both refer to the articles on Moses, the Latter-day Saint Portal refers to Joseph Smith, even though he would also be in other Portals related to other denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement. It was decided to make the Template for Latter Day Saint movement instead of a single denomination since so many of the pages it would appear on would be shared across denominations it just made sense that way --Trödel 05:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it! I mean that, seriously. Rename the portal page to reflect the naming convention you are talking about or create a portal page for the general LDS movement (which may be useful). As indicated in the above discussion about the image, this template had a similar origin of being more generally about the LDS Church (with an image of the Salt Lake Temple!) but has become something more generalized about the LDS movement. I don't have a problem with that, but the implication here is that the current state of things is immutable for of all things Wikipedia! This is not an external link we are talking about, and the LDS Church does not "own" this portal page. In addition, there is not any other sort of possible "general LDS Movement" portal page to use as a replacement, nor do I see anybody currently maintaining the LDS portal page that strongly insists that it must remain explicitly for the LDS Church only.
This arguing about minutae like this seems to be an effort to dismiss the LDS Church from the more general LDS movement as if it doesn't exist at all. This current portal page is set up by proponents of the Utah-based church only because that is all the people who put it together were familiar with. That doesn't mean it has to stay that way. It is also not a valid argument IMHO for removing this portal page from this template, as this portal page is a significant jumping off point to learn about some important pieces about the philosophies and history of the LDS movement. Arguing that this is denomination-specific doesn't make sense. --Robert Horning 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's move this to "LDS movement" and make an LDS Church-specific template[edit]
This portal dispute is yet another symptom of an apparent split over what this template ought to be. I think we clearly can't put LDS Church-specific templates on important pan-movement subjects like Joseph Smith, but there's apparently strong sentiments in favor of including LDS-specific links. Therefore, let's create an LDS Church-specific template which will only be suitable for LDS-specific topics. It would also embrace articles like the Pearl of Great Price. Such a template could easily have a link to the LDS portal.
So long as this is a pan-movement template, I strongly believe the portal has no place on this template. Cool HandLuke 18:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Is there not already a CoJCoLDS nav template? Seems like there should be. If not, one is easily created. However, given that there will be many articles in common, some thought should be taken to coordinate the two templates so they work together and do not compete with each other. --NThurston 19:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose recycling {{Latter-day Saints}} as the denomination-specific nav template. --NThurston 19:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of this as a basic framework. Obviously there are many more articles that need to be added.--NThurston 20:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-Note: Example moved to bottom of discussion.
Yes, I think we should recycle {{Latter-day Saints}}. I'm not so sure about the formatting, but I think it's a good idea to co-ordinate. Maybe we could turn {{LDS}} into a template that includes both the Latter-day Saints and the LDS movement templates as a shorthand. Many articles will need both, but we would retain the option of using only one.
If the templates will often be used in conjunction, it might be a good idea to formate the similarly so that they look as if they're part of the same navigation box. Cool HandLuke 03:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this formatting is rapidly growing on me. I like how additional articles don't eat space. Cool HandLuke 03:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Space was my main concern in setting something up for Latter-day Saints. The problem is that there are dozens of articles that rightfully could be included, so the current format of LDS movement was not a tenable solution for this use. If we wanted, we could create a movement template that could be stacked on this one. Differentiate with color variations. This style of template is almost always included at the bottom of the article. LDS could join the two automatically so that every article only has one template: LDS, Latter-day Saint, or LDS movement - depending on the scope and relevance of the article. --NThurston 14:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what they two templates would look like if stacked. --NThurston 14:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to understand the whole idea here...Would the Latter Day Saint movement template still be on the LDS site with the new template or does this merge the two, eliminate one. I'm new and getting a feel for it -- think it could be a good thing.Jcg5029 02:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These would actually be two separate templates Latter Day Saint movement and Latter-day Saints. Any given article could have one or the other or both. There is a current suggestion to create a third "meta-template" (LDS)) that would include and stack both. I could also imagine other denomination-specific templates as needed. If so, LDS could be programmed with parameters or switches to make it easy to include or exclude components. I'm ready to go forward on this in the next couple of days if there are no objections.--NThurston 14:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because "LDS" implies the LDS Church, why don't we move this to Template:Latter Day Saint movement? It's in its own namespace, so we don't have to worry about naming conflicts, and it's not ambiguous. COGDEN 23:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see that. But "LDS" could still be a combined template for both, yes? Templates ought to be given short names whenever possible, and I imagine most articles would use both because they're LDS Church-specific. Cool HandLuke 00:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just hoping, eventually, to make the template palatable to the editors from the Community of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ, who I think would resist including any template that said "LDS".COGDEN 01:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. Today I will move the blue segment to {{Latter Day Saint movement}} and the green segment to {{Latter-day Saints}}. I will wait on the "meta-template" until we have some further discussion. I propose {{LDS}}, but am willing to listen. --NThurston 13:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template looks sharp, but using the Joseph Smith picture for the top level and each subsection is a bit repetitive. Any ideas for subsection pictures we could use that would be just as fair to all sects as the JS one? Chiros Sunrider 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. I think everyone knows the score on movement vs. denomination as far as images are concerned, so I propose that if anyone has an idea, just do it (WP:BOLD). --NThurston 17:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually very nice as a sidebar, but not it looks like crap. This monstrosity needs to be reverted. Bytebear 17:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to say it, but I have to agree. I liked the sidebar much better. I've read thru the discussion on the change and I don't really understand what is accomplished by the wide format that couldn't have been accomplished by changes to the old sidebar format. 74s181 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that many articles have been edited to move the template to the bottom, and if we decide to stay with the sidebar those articles will have to be re-edited. 74s181 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to put down anyone's efforts, and I understand the desire to split up "LDS Church" infobox and "Latter Day Saint" infobox, but I think we should sandbox any efforts before we go ahead and change things so dramatically. I would say use { { LDS } } for a sidebar for the LDS Church, { { Community of Christ } } for the Community of Christ, etc. And then have a bottom box for Latter Day Saint Movement that could include common articles. Remember these infoboxes are just a way to navigate to critical articles as "part of a series" on the topic. If we think of the templates as a series, it will help in the organization. They are not to just throw in every article we can think of. Bytebear 03:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see that more people are now interested in this discussion. Here's the current lay of the land - there is a nav template for the LDS church {{Latter-day Saints}}. There is also a template for the movement (this one). {{LDS}} is currently used on articles on LDS church related articles that *also* link to the movement. It seems there is some interest in discussing side-bar versus nav-bar templates. Here are the pros & cons - sidebars kind of look nicer, but they take up a lot of space, especially when the number of articles involved grows. At present, it wouldn't be practical to have an LDS church sidebar version due to the large (and growing) number of articles. The movement sidebar was, in fact, functional as a sidebar. However, we invited discussion a while ago about the need to coordinate the movement sidebar with denomination templates to avoid the inevitable "over-nav" problem. The current effort is the best we could come up with at the time. If you have suggestions for improvement, bring them forward. P.S. both of these were sandboxed before implementation. --NThurston 15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting side note here..... Bear River massacre, which has had the {{LDS}} template on the page for over a year, had this template removed by an editor doing general cleanup of Wikipedia articles, and has been very confused by the distinction of the {{Latter-day Saints}} and {{Latter Day Saint movement}} templates. So much so that the general LDS movement template has been simply deleted. I don't know how widespread this activity is, but it obviously is confusing to people who have not been reading this talk page.
I also think that changes to this template (ignoring the name changes at the moment) should not require editing individual pages that use this template.... as you have done recently. This has been used as a sidebar, and it is under that context that IMHO it should return. This is not to suggest that your changes don't have merit, but it shouldn't damage Wikipedia either. From a general stylistic viewpoint as well, this template is being compared not just to other templates within the LDS movement articles, but also with {{Christianity}} and {{Judaism}}. In comparison to these templates, this one falls flat and IMHO does not look as visually appealing. --Robert Horning 13:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert - Seriously. Prior to these changes {{LDS}} was a redirect to the movement template {{Latter Day Saint movement}}. With the recycling of {{Latter-day Saints}} to be a *new* template for LDS Church related articles, {{LDS}} is now the stacked version. Since all three should be at the bottom of the article, there was a need and an opportunity to review all articles with the legacy {{LDS}} template to determine which one template is most appropriate, using the criteria outlined above. I made the change on Bear River massacre to what I perceive to be the correct navigational template - {{Latter-day Saints}}. This article is totally unrelated to the movement and has only to do with the history of the LDS church. If you honestly believe that this article has anything to do with the movement, you can add the stacked template by including {{LDS}}. It may be the case that nobody else would object, although I wouldn't think that's the right one. Try the talk page to find out.
P.S. There is an on-going discussion of returning to the sidebar version below. At this point, there does not seem to be a consensus brewing for going back. --NThurston 21:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about your changes to this article, but to changes by User:Gaius Cornelius, who is not an active participant for most LDS-related articles but instead has been involved with general Wikipedia cleanup. The current situation is so completely confusing that this particular editor could not figure out what exactly this format is that you have come up with and instead removed one of the templates that you, NThruston, added to this particular article. I would suggest that you go back through the edit history of this article and see what has been changed if you don't believe me. I understand that you meant to review each article, and I'm not commenting on your decision to perform this article review.... other than I think it was a process that should have been unnecessary in the first place. I would also point out that the change from {{LDS}} to {{Latter Day Saint movement}} is quite recent, not something that happened four years ago. The changes you made are nearly contemporary to this naming change. --Robert Horning 00:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as this particular article's relationship to the history of the LDS movement.... the article and the talk page go into depth on this topic. I would rather not repeat that here. --Robert Horning 00:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Issues to be discussed (by NThurston 16:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)):[reply]
Should the movement template be a sidebar or "see also" box?
I becoming more and more convinced that the sidebar version is unappealing because: i) it distracts from the articles, ii) it is likely to be mis-used, and iii) it is restricted in how it could handle a growing number of articles. --NThurston 21:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What articles should include the movement nav-box?
No opinion here. --NThurston 21:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the best way to deal with the LDS church nav box?
I first thought the sidebar should be church specific (i.e. {{LDS}} for the LDS Church, {{Community of Christ}} for the Community of Christ. Then a bottom navbar can be used for general Latter Day Saint articles, but used very sparingly and only in Latter Day Saint articles.
However, that seems inconsistant, as the Joseph Smith, Jr. article would just have a bottom nav bar, and it really should have a comprehensive sidebar nav bar. So now I say, go back to the old way, or have sidebar nav for the LDS Church on church specific articles, and Latter Day Saint for non specific articles. But the more navs you have, the harder to maintain. And you will get in fights over what should be contained. Maybe have two sidebar navs that stack, one for Latter Day Saint Movement, and another for the specific denominations.
I am not opposed to a bottom nav, but the current design looks horrible. I prefer a sidebar however. Bytebear 22:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To add to my comments, I would say use a sidebar, but have flags that define which sections to show or hide based on the denomination. This is fairly easy to do. So do something like this {{LDS | LDSChurch=1 | CommunityOfChrist=0}} or something like that. I am just throwing out ideas here. Bytebear 22:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to add that I prefer a sidebar over a see-also template. Not only are other religious templates (like the {{Christianity}} template) in a sidebar format, but it also fits with how this template has been used typically in most of the articles. I see that you, NThruston, have been moving this around with some articles, but that isn't too hard to move back in terms of repositioning as a sidebar. --Robert Horning 00:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really think we should revert to the old sidebar, and use a sandbox to test new ideas. Bytebear 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is easily enough done if you really want to be bold and do it. I have a few other ideas for how this template perhaps ought to be put together as well, but let's see how this one will go for now. Certainly the formatting of this template leaves quite a bit of room for improvement. --Robert Horning 20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the template as it is now (although not the colors). Often times for smaller pages a side bar becomes the central focus instead of the page itself. Having this template as it currently stands allows editors to place the template in proper sections of a page, like the history section in this case. I would like to see this and a denomination specific template for each major group. This way the templates that really slap you in the face are about the organizations temselves.Jcg5029 13:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think reverting would be appropriate without some attempt at discussion and consensus. Please review the discussion above that got us to this point to begin with. --NThurston 20:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did revert it, but that revert was reverted. So, I cannot be bold here, because I will be shot down. I am in a no-win situation. I think the new template is ugly. I think the old template was very good. I also worked on the Christianity template, and designed the Disney rides template from scratch. I also did extensive work on the LDS temples templates, and temple list (which uses that template. My biggest concern is that the template has been changed from a sidebar to a bottom nav. This makes it very difficult to change as it affects many pages in look and location. I would rather have had you do a template called "LDS-nav" or something and not changed LDS so drastically. Bytebear 22:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No new templates please. A sidebar and navigation template for each would be redundant and unmaintainable. At the same time, we need to retain our ability to separately manipulate LDS and pan-movement listings. That's been a point of friction throughout the template's history. I think NThurston's template does the job. It's alleged to be ugly, but I suspect this reflects a preference for sidebars. In either case, it's a fair question. We should probably strive to get more comments on it because I do not want to see four or more templates to support both formats. Cool HandLuke 23:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I see the creation of a new template to be the only real solution here, as the current group of editors is insisting that it absolutely must be a bottom navigation bar. NThruston's template clearly does not do the job, because each page that the template has been used on has to be rewritten and reformulated. That to me speaks that this current change does not properly reflect the current usage of this template or templates like it on Wikipedia, and is forcing a fork in how this template is being used. And the declaration of war against the LDS Church (metaphorically speaking... to dismiss content exclusive to the LDS Church) is also pushing for a template fork that has already happened.
I believe these to be very legitimate and honest objections. --Robert Horning 23:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the LDS Church template and movement template must be separate. LDS-specific links should not be on the navigational menus of pages like Joseph Smith, Jr. However, we should not have two versions of both for a sidebar and navigational template (four total). The content should be forked, not the formatting. Cool HandLuke 02:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not do two tempates. 1) History of the movement (inclusive of all groups) and 2) doctrines of the church (specific to the LDS Church - or Community of Christ). I liked the original sidebar template as a historical template. Then you can do either another sidebar or a bottom infobox for specific doctrinal issues. By defining History from Doctrine you can easily separate the various articles. Bytebear 00:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but I still think 1844 is the best cut-off for any template we'd want to apply to early history. I also agree about the sidebar. It seems to be a bit more popular in Wikipedia usage, so that's the form we should adopt (or retain). Basically then we'd want the old template restored for "Latter Day Saint movement" and a new template (or fancy switch-controlled template) for LDS pages, right? Cool HandLuke 00:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After some consideration, I have decided that I like the approach described in the above two posts. The sidebar is somewhat more standard and was already the established format until recent changes occurred. What ideas are out there with regard to the design of the LDS-specific template? 1844 is the logical choice for the cutoff date if the historical approach is implemented. However, I wish there were some way of linking in articles related to the historical development of the various Latter Day Saint sects in the post-Joseph period. I think we can all agree that Mormonism as a movement didn't end with the death of Joseph Smith, although his followers split into various groups, each with its own interpretation of Smith's teachings. What do you think? Chiros Sunrider 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the history of the universe ends at 1844? I understand that the various denominations within the LDS Movement diverge considerably after 1844 from a historical context, but you can't say that no significant historical events occurred after 1844 that did not have an impact upon the whole LDS Movement... or even a very signifcant portion of those involved. Certainly notability issues are going to be more significant for post 1844 events . I would say the "exodus to Salt Lake valley" would be one of these or the reorganization of the Church of Christ with Joseph Smith III. Do you really think the Mountain Meadows Massacre has no significance to members of the Community of Christ? By denying these significant events, you are forcing a forking of all of these historical events that are post 1844 into still more separate templates. Or for that matter, dismissing even the need to have this template at all. --Robert Horning 15:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mountain Meadows Massacre doesn't relate to the other denominations much more than, say, extending blacks the priesthood. The template does not deny the notability of these events by excluding them, it's just that they're not topical. I think you continually misunderstand what we're trying to accomplish here. Excluding a topic because it's LDS-specific does not demonstrate a bias against the LDS Church. A template for the whole movement must be quite general in either case. It makes sense editorially to have an LDS-specific template. Not a fork, a compliment. Cool HandLuke 03:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the organizations who are a part of the Latter Day Saint movement have no association with the "exodus to Salt Lake valley" and including them on the template would exclude those other groups and their histories. It absolutely should be a template for the whole movement but events in specific denominations after 1844 would not be relevant except on a denomination specific, and complimentary, template as talked about above.Jcg5029 04:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some disagreement whether {{Latter Day Saint movement}} should be sidebar or nav-box (but colors of nav-box could be changed). However should be one or the other, not both.
Movement template content should be restricted to "history" or "genesis" of the movement
Content of denomination nav-boxes not restricted at this point
I feel that William Bickerton should be added to this template under early sect leaders. The Church of Jesus Christ - commonly known as Bickertonites - are one of the largest Latter Day Saint churches. He was under the historical Rigdonite banner, but later reorganized. It is after the 1844 sucession crisis, but still I feel both he and Joseph Smith (3rd) have equal rights to be in the template. Jcg5029 01:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, actually, it should probably head the other way. Was JS3 a founder or early sect leader? I am thinking not, rather he was a later successor to Strang, so that link should probably be removed. Similarly, Bickerton was a successor to Rigdon, and the way the article reads, it doesn't portray him in a significnat role as a founder or leader of the early movement. --NThurston 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, for my clarification - when we say 'early' it just means before 1844? That seems to be a general consensus of previous discussions. If so then I agree neither JS3 or Bickerton should be on here. JS3 was around 1860 correct? Bickerton reorganized the church in 1862. Both of these men were early sect leaders, the question is do we have a cutoff date of 1844 before all the groups split (making it before there were significant sects and therefore the name on this section incorrect)? OR is it both about the significant leaders in the movement when it was united and the groups that have come from its splintering?
I hate to point out an error in your understanding, but William Bickerton did not succeed Sidney Rigdon, he actually broke off and reorganized the organization. So he was an early sect leader, not successor.
My opinion is that this is about both the movement and early sect leaders. JS3 did succeed into the position of LEADERSHIP. Thus making both JS3 and Bickerton rightfully on the template. If there is a cutoff I suggest it would be after all the significant organizations had organized so before roughly 1865 because all of those groups are historically a part of the movement, so their history and leaders are important. Either that or 1844, whatever everyone decides. Jcg5029 19:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it makes sense to have a firm 1844 cutoff, because some post-1844 founders such as JS3 are more significant than some pre-1844 founders such as James Strang. I think the list ought to include major 19th century founders or co-founders (to include Oliver Cowdery) of denominations. And if James Strang is there, we probably should also include William Bickerton, and Granville Hedrick. I don't think anybody else, though. COGDEN 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that both William Bickerton and Granville Hedrick should be added to this template. Jcg5029 22:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new proposal seems reasonable - 1) movement founders, and 2) early leaders of 19th c. sects. I think we were trying to avoid a comprehensive list of everyone that ever led a sect, and the "early" tag on sect leaders was to avoid a long list of modern era break-off leaders. --NThurston 19:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a very harsh critic of the 1844 cut off for this template, and I think it is wrong to impose such arbitrary standards in the discussion of a topic like this. I understand the desire to avoid adding the plethora of LDS Church leaders of note, but in terms of other groups within the general umbrella of the LDS movement some general leeway should prevail... even for a 21st Century leader. The discussion as to adding somebody here ought to be based on notability standards alone. In this case, Gordon B. Hinkley would fail (even though he is certainly notable for a Wikipedia article) because he isn't a foundational leader. Of course the problem that also exists here is a question over the notability of the denomination which was lead by this same individual.
My grandfather was ex-communicated from the LDS Church and did lead a separate congregation of believers in what could be called another denomination of the LDS movement. Only in his case the congregation never got more than about 30 people and he only met for about 10 years before the group was disbanded and my grandfather was re-baptized in the LDS Church. While interesting personal family history, he does not qualify as being notable in terms of the size of the denomination or his impact upon the LDS movement as a whole.
In this regard, I support the inclusion of William Bickerton and Granville Hedrick. A case could be made, however, to include John Y. Barlow (of note to the FLDS) if somebody would even start the article in the first place. Beyond that, I don't know what else would fit the notability standards here. --Robert Horning 21:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are you a harsh critic of the 1844 issue, you also haven't seemed to be comfortable with the distinction between the "movement" and the "denominations." As a general rule, the discussion has suggested that the focus ought to be on "pan-LDS" topics, not the specifics of any denomination. That's why 1844 seems to have bubbled up - it's sort of the natural date before which the movement was mostly united. Concepts or topics that arose after 1844 are (not always, but usually) specific to a denomination. I mildly support Bickerton's inclusion because in spite of the fact that he was not a movement founder, he does figure prominently in the schism, which is arguable a notable element of the movement. 20th C. sect leaders almost as a rule have less to do with the movement than influence or disagreement about the direction of particular denominations. --NThurston 18:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A relatively recent addition to this template was the addition of three new "sacred texts". While I don't necessarily disagree with most of these, the one about the Book of Jasher (Sefer haYashar (midrash)) is perhaps the most troubling of them in terms of its validity in this "cannon" of sacred texts.
I do acknowledge that many of the "bretheren" of the LDS Church regarded this book as sacred scripture, particularly around the turn of the 20th Century (1870's - 1940's), even if it has not been formally expressed as cannon in the LDS Church. Its influence can be found in Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine and has influenced LDS scholarship on topics like Melchizedek and Abraham. It is also quite commonly found in LDS-oriented bookstores, including Deseret Books. Outside of the LDS Church, there are some other references to this book, although I'd be curious what the other denominations of the LDS Movement think about this book and its doctrines/"historical events".
My question I'm raising here is if this is a book that is appropriate to be included in this template, or is it something that is better left alone and removed from here? My primary argument against its inclusion is that it is not recognized as cannon by any group within the LDS movement. --Robert Horning 17:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm a bit confused about {{Latter Day Saints}}, {{Latter-day Saints}} and {{Latter Day Saint movement}}. Perhaps someone can explain it to me. Just to be clear, I understand that "Latter Day Saints" is the general Latter Day Saint movement and "Latter-day Saints" is the LDS Church specifically, but the templates don't seem to be working that way.
{{Latter-day Saints|{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}|{{{3}}}|{{{4}}}|{{{5}}}|{{{6}}}}}<noinclude>
{{Latter Day Saint movement}}
[[Category:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement templates]]
</noinclude>
With the <noinclude> before the {{Latter Day Saint movement}} all {{Latter Day Saints}} dose is redirect to {{Latter-day Saints}}, and the variables are ignored. Additionally, I cannot see how the variables (1-6) are used on {{Latter-day Saints}} as they are not called out on that page.
I cannot seem to understand how these templates link to each other and how they work. What am I missing? --- ARTEST4ECHO(talk) 20:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm flummoxed. I haven't had much at all to do with these, but now that I look at it, it all seems a bit jury-rigged. Maybe we should come up with a proposal to reform/simplify these somehow. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
