Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 11

Is Sandra Tanner an "anti-Mormon"?

Hi. There is a dispute going on at White Horse Prophecy over whether to call Sandra Tanner an "anti-Mormon writer" or a "former-Mormon writer". It appears that one editor is insisting on the latter description and claiming that if we call Tanner an "anti-Mormon", we must also identify each and every Mormon as "anti-Christian". I disagree with this view, but rather than fight an edit war, I'd like to ask for additional input at Talk:White Horse Prophecy. Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of what I had to say is said in my edit summary. (I don't think she needs to be cited in that particular context, since she doesn't seem to have said what was being attributed to her...her main argument was that the "hanging by a thread" part was authentic, which is basically what everyone else says too.) On whether she was anti-Mormon or not, I don't really like the style of writing where you have to label people before presenting their views, but from what I've read, the impression that I get is that she is what most people would call anti-Mormon. I remember reading a Dialogue article sometime back where she and her husband were called "career anti-Mormons". That said, if my edit sticks, then the argument is pretty much moot, since we won't have to call her anything. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Mormonism chronology article titles

With a recent change of 20th century (Mormonism) to Mormonism in the 20th century, we now have a complete lack consistency with the naming of the following inter-related articles:

• Chronology of Mormonism (a chronology of 19th century Mormonism)
• Mormonism in the 20th century (a chronology of 20th century Mormonism)
• 21st century (Mormonism) (a chronology of 21st century Mormonism)

I tried to open a dialog on this issue at Talk:Chronology of Mormonism but there was little participation, so I thought that perhaps the conversation would fare better here. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the common sense solution would be simply to move the 19th century and 21st century articles to titles parallel with "Mormonism in the 20th century". You could propose these as a page move, or any logged-in and confirmed editor can just move them directly, if it doesn't look like it's going to be the least bit controversial. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not wholly convinced that this is the best naming schema, and would like to see what others think about the matter. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Second anointing

Members of this WikiProject and other interested parties are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:Second anointing about the validity of a self published source that has been repeatedly added to the Second anointing article in recent months. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Pagan ideals found in Mormon beliefs

Any thoughts about the recently created (10 April 2013‎) article called Pagan ideals found in Mormon beliefs? I find that it currently doesn't make a successful case for "pagen ideals" being found in Mormonism, since most of the text on that article is just wp:Coatrack, functioning as a less then useful fork of Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Mormon folklore. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Latter Day Saints in popular culture

IndigoAK200 (talk · contribs) has recently changed the name of Latter Day Saints in popular culture to Latter-day Saints in popular culture; his justification was "Latter-day Saints (with the hyphen and the lowercase "d") is the proper usage of the term. Also, it's consistent with the majority of articles..." Unfortunately his comment does not seem to indicate an understanding of the nuances of naming in the Latter Day Saint movement, as described in wp:MOSLDS & wp:NCLDS. This article has many descriptions of people in the Latter Day Saint movement that are not members of the LDS Church, and that material now no longer belongs in the article with the new name. I'd suggest changing the article name back, but cannot do so. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Except that article doesn't talk about the entire movement. The very first sentence mentions Mormons and then goes on to speak about the LDS Church specifically. The rest of the article also focused almost exclusively on the mainstream church. If this is an article about the movement in general, it's a really poor article on the movement in general. IndigoAK200 (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Big Love is about modern post-Second Manifesto polygamy by Mormon fundamentalist, and has nothing to do with the LDS Church. If you delete that material, then you would be mostly correct, but with that still found in the article you are not. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the talk page didn't get moved back to Talk:Latter Day Saints in popular culture, and is instead currently at Talk:Latter -day Saints in popular culture

African American Latter Day Saints

The following category is up for deletion, please contribute to the debate: Category:African-American Latter Day Saints--MacRùsgail (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Baptism (Mormonism)

Members of this WikiProject and other interested parties are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:Baptism (Mormonism)#Requested move about a proposal to rename Baptism (Mormonism) to Baptism in Mormonism. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

James Russell Ivie

Members of this WikiProject and other interested parties are invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Russell Ivie, discussing the article for James Russell Ivie, an early Mormon convert who was both a Zion's Camp & Mormon Battalion participant. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

A discussion has been opened - where subsequent discussion should take place - at:

Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Is_MoStudies_Review_a_publisher_of_review_articles.3F.

Neutral statement: At issue - Description of scholarly journal, turning on allowable summary/interpretations from statements from what may/may not be reliable sources)

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Members of this WikiProject and other interested parties are invited to contribute you thoughts at Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon#File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG about two directly related issue: (1) should the File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG (a fair-use image) continue to be used in that article; (2) is the fair-use justification sufficient to retain that same image in WP. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The active venue has moved to wp:Non-free content review#File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG, and all interested WP editors are welcome to participate in the discussion there. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Project participants list

There is newly added text at WP:LDS#Participants that I think needs discussion:

"User who go three or more years without making an edit anywhere on Wikipedia may be removed from this list, but they are welcome to add their name back when they return."

Is this the right timeframe? If no, should the number be increased or decreased? How should the project participant be removed (deleted vs commented out)? Note that there are are several users that are on that list who would qualify for removal at this time; I haven't analyzed & added up the numbers, but seems it might be a significant number. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

In order to help describe what the impact would be on the current list of 104 participants using different year criteria, the following information is offered. Noted that even with a 1 year criteria, this project would currently still have 61 active editors. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

The following editors names would be removed from the list using a 4 year criteria (last edit before 2 July 2009): Alai (talk · contribs) - 20 May 2009 Austinsimcox (talk · contribs) - 6 November 2008 Badbilltucker (talk · contribs) - 28 January 2007 Belly (talk · contribs) - no edits listed Billlund (talk · contribs) - 27 February 2007 Bochica (talk · contribs) - 12 May 2009 Epsiloon (talk · contribs) - 16 May 2006 FishUtah (talk · contribs) - 26 May 2008 Jgardner (talk · contribs) - 19 January 2006 JonMoore (talk · contribs) - 4 July 2007 Jorbian (talk · contribs) - 22 January 2008 Mbatman72 (talk · contribs) - 8 February 2008 Nevet (talk · contribs) - 10 January 2008 Pahoran513 (talk · contribs) - 29 January 2008 RBurns (talk · contribs) - 3 October 2005 Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk · contribs) - 8 November 2007 Sreed1234 (talk · contribs) - no edits listed Sthatting (talk · contribs) - 30 January 2008 TheScurvyEye (talk · contribs) - 1 May 2006 UbiTerrarum (talk · contribs) - 18 December 2007 Vegasbright (talk · contribs) - 12 June 2006 Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs) - 11 January 2008 Yoshiah ap (talk · contribs) - 8 August 2005 Zoporific (talk · contribs) - 14 February 2008 The following additional editors names would be removed with a 3 year criteria (last edit before 2 July 2010): Authr (talk · contribs) - 20 November 2009 Blahblah5555 (talk · contribs) - 2 July 2009 Chuckarg33 (talk · contribs) - 24 July 2009 Miagirljmw14 (talk · contribs) - 26 December 2009 MiriamKnight (talk · contribs) - 20 September 2009 Moogle (talk · contribs) - 3 April 2010 TheInfinityZero (talk · contribs) - 22 January 2010 The following additional editors names would be removed with a 2 year criteria (last edit before 2 July 2011): Brighamite73 (talk · contribs) - 27 June 2011 HankyUSA (talk · contribs) - 18 June 2011 Maintainerzero (talk · contribs) - 16 March 2011 Narnia2514 (talk · contribs) - 3 July 2010 WBardwin (talk · contribs) - 22 September 2010 Vassyana (talk · contribs) - 12 February 2011 The following additional editors names would be removed with a 1 year criteria (last edit before 2 July 2012): 74s181 (talk · contribs) - 22 July 2011 Cathryn (talk · contribs) - 17 November 2011 Kant66 (talk · contribs) - 26 May 2012 KevinM (talk · contribs) - 15 March 2012 Stekun (talk · contribs) - 5 March 2012 TomasBat (talk · contribs) - 16 June 2012 The remaining editors who have edited since 2 July 2012 are: 17adavis7 (talk · contribs) A Sniper (talk · contribs) Adjwilley (talk · contribs) Amadscientist (talk · contribs) Antley (talk · contribs) ARTEST4ECHO (talk · contribs) B Fizz (talk · contribs) BankyEdwards (talk · contribs) Bhludzin (talk · contribs) Biggins (talk · contribs) CaliforniaKid (talk · contribs) Carter (talk · contribs) Chiros Sunrider (talk · contribs) COGDEN (talk · contribs) Cookiecaper (talk · contribs) Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs) DavidBailey (talk · contribs) DavidForthoffer (talk · contribs) Davidwhittle (talk · contribs) Descartes1979 (talk · contribs) Ecjmartin (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) Gilgamesh (talk · contribs) Hathawayc (talk · contribs) Hawstom (talk · contribs) Idono (talk · contribs) Jamison Lofthouse (talk · contribs) Jgstokes (talk · contribs) John Foxe (talk · contribs) John Hamer (talk · contribs) JonRidinger (talk · contribs) Kitabparast (talk · contribs) Kristmace (talk · contribs) Leon7 (talk · contribs) Lethargy (talk · contribs) Mangoman88 (talk · contribs) Mathboy965 (talk · contribs) MrWhipple (talk · contribs) Nerd42 (talk · contribs) Nereocystis (talk · contribs) Noldoaran (talk · contribs) OneWeirdDude (talk · contribs) Paje Turner (talk · contribs) Paul D. Anderson (talk · contribs) Reaverdrop (talk · contribs) Rich jj (talk · contribs) Richwales (talk · contribs) Rojerts (talk · contribs) Ryan Reeder (talk · contribs) Storm Rider (talk · contribs) Surv1v4l1st (talk · contribs) Theseus1776 (talk · contribs) Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) Todrobbins (talk · contribs) Tomhung357 (talk · contribs) União da Juventude Mestiça (talk · contribs) Val42 (talk · contribs) Visorstuff (talk · contribs) WikiLeon (talk · contribs) Wrp103 (talk · contribs) yovinedelcielo (talk · contribs)

Hmmm, I'm not sure how other projects handle this kind of thing, but another option (in addition to deleting or commenting out the names) would be to divide them into two sections: Active/Inactive as of... That way you can still get a feel for how many active editors are on the project, while the inactive ones won't be removed should they decide to return. I dunno. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A second "inactive" list should work fine for most of these, but I think that anyone that hasn't edited in more than maybe 2 years, and has only 50 or fewer total edits on WP should just be removed. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to remove me from the project. I don't edit anymore because this has been my experience. --MrWhipple (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

My "inactivity" has been due to threats of physical harm to me and my family. I still keep an eye on things and will occasionally edit, but it is unfortunate that this happens. I don't see a need to remove people, and I'd vote for an "inactive" list. Visorstuff (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I would think that if even User:Hawstom is active enough to be considered for retention, the criterion is very generous. :-D Tom Haws (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Line charts for population graphs

Hey folks, I discovered some articles on the Church by region, such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in California and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Colorado. These articles have nice little tables which list Church membership in these regions over time (like here). While certainly informative, I thought they'd be more useful as line graphs. We could make them side-by-side, like this:

Year LDS Membership 1846 230 1920 3,800 1930 21,254 1940 44,800 1950 102,000 1960 217,600 1970 349,000 1980 541,000 1991 721,000 1999 740,000 2008 755,747 2012 777,061

The only problem with it is that the data points aren't equal, so the membership growth is a little skewed. Any thoughts? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 00:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I like it: it would be a useful addition, provided there was a consistent dataset to graph. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

AFD - Perfection (Latter Day Saints)

Members of this WikiProject and other interested parties are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfection (Latter Day Saints) about the merits of the Perfection (Latter Day Saints) article -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Johnepage.jpg

image:Johnepage.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Cornelius Lott.jpg

image:Cornelius Lott.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture

Members of this WikiProject and other interested parties are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture about the merits of the Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture article. Note that this AFD was lodged approximately 22 hours after the article was created. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

AfD notification

See List of publications critical of the Latter Day Saint movement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Mormonism and history

Members of the project and other interested parties are invited to the conversation at Talk:Mormonism and history#OR/SYNTH issues with image caption. It would seem to be devolving to a wp:ILIKEIT/wp:IDONTLIKEIT level, and could use more participants in the discussion, hopefully bringing fresh insights to the table. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I was a participant in the discussion, but have recused myself for now, as I keep getting angry/frustrated with one of the participants, recently to the point of making nonconstructive comments there. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

AfD - Larry L. Richman

Members of this WikiProject and other interested parties are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry L. Richman about the merits of the Larry L. Richman article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

New articles needing attention

There are a couple of new articles related to this WikiProject that could use some attention: Joseph Smith and the criminal justice system and Attempted assassination of Lilburn Boggs. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Alert: "Wikipedia may say that Mormons are deluded" at Talk:Book of Daniel

The subject of Mormons and the question of whether or not it is "neutral" to attack and diminish the LDS Church has suddenly come up at Talk:Book of Daniel#Debate_or_remove_tags, at the bottom of the debate. [ Diff of LDS-relevant discussion so far ]. The assertion in the subject line above is from User:Tgeorgescu. I'm keeping this 100% neutral here, and simply letting you know of a discussion now going on about you, that may concern you.

With regards, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

New General Women's Meeting

According to this article, a new semiannual meeting will be held for all women and girls 8 years of age and older. This information needs to be incorporated into all the relevant pages ASAP. I'd do it myself, but I don't know all the pages that would need the update, so I post here in hopes that someone else will take care of it. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Kirtland Safety Society

Okay. I am pretty fed up with anonymous editors who keep reverting the name of the Church in the above-named article without explanation. Before the 1838 revelation naming the Church (and there are disputes among Latter Day sects about how that name is written), the Church established by Joseph Smith had many names, including The Church of Christ and The Church of the Latter-day Saints. That is why it appears this way in that article. And I've had just about enough of anonymous editors who keep changing it to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" when that is inaccurate. So I would like to request that this page be protected, and further that the editors who keep changing this be blocked. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Community of Christ Infobox

Someone has put the Community of Christ infobox up for deletion because he feels that we shouldn't be using an infobox on more then one page, (see here). This template is used the same way that {{Infobox LDS Church}} and his reason for deletion could very easily be applied to that page. I think that perhaps some more editor of Later Day Saint pages need to chime in, of we are going to find that this will happens to a number of LDS Related infobox templates.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has expanded in that direction: see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 2#Template:Infobox LDS Church. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

LDS hymnwriters by nationality

Several categories that are of interest to this WikiProject are being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 1#More LDS hymnwriters by nationality & Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 1#Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Christ

God in Mormonism exists. Where should Christ in Mormonism redirect? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mormonism and race

It would be helpful if someone learned in church history who does not approach Mormonism from a theological perspective could look over the primary articles (not biographies) in Category:Mormonism and race. Black people and Mormonism isn't too bad but Black people and early Mormonism and Black people in Mormon doctrine need a lot of work. They need to be written for an audience who is not Mormon and not from a faith-based perspective.

It would be a great accomplishment if some editor was willing to take this on and improve these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

John Whitmer Historical Association

Members of this WikiProject and other interested parties are invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Whitmer Historical Association of the merits of the article about the John Whitmer Historical Association. This AfD was opened 24 January 2014. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in <state>

The articles of the Church in states (such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Colorado or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in California) have membership history sections (such as this and this). Anyone know what the source of that data is? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd wager the information came from the latest Church Almanac. As the Church didn't put out an Almanac for 2014, we'll have to find another source to make the numbers more current. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It may be from "International Resources for Latter-day Saints". The Cumorah Project. Retrieved 26 February 2014.. However, that is just a guess.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Wherever the data comes from, we need to add it as a reference. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Gilbert Arizona Temple

I have uploaded several photos of the Gilbert Arizona Temple I took on 2 March 2014 at the dedication to commons:Category:Gilbert Arizona Temple. I updated the photo on the template with the one that seems to look best as a thumbnail, but feel free to switch out to another one, or even a modified copy (I didn't do any color correction, or even simple cropping). -- Argon233 (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Missionary schedule

There is a discussion going on over on the Missionary talk page about adding a graphic for a missionary's typical day. Hop on over if you want to chime in! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Mia Love

I just put Mia Love in Category:Black Mormons. I really think she should be put in the more specific category Category:African-American Latter Day Saints, but my attempts to do so have been opposed by one editor who is very insistent that people of Haitian descent are not African-American. The fact that NPR and other sources have referred to Love as African-American seems to not sway this editor. The whole thing is getting close to an edit war, so I was hoping I could get more people to come comment on the talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Kevin J. Worthen, new BYU President

According to this article, Kevin J. Worthen will replace Cecil O. Samuelson as BYU President later this year. This change should be mentioned in all the appropriate articles, and an update to BYU's main WP page will be in order as well once the change is in effect. Exciting news! --Jgstokes (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Missionary schedule, again

It's been a few weeks and we've gotten almost no input from editors on this topic, so I'm raising it here in hopes of more input. I suggested adding a graphic for a missionary's typical day to the LDS Missionary article. It already has a section on their schedule; the image (actually a table in wikimarkup) would just show it as a graphic. It would look something like this:

Sample schedule of missionaries serving in their native language

	Time
Activity	6		7		8		9		10		11		12		1		2		3		4		5		6		7		8		9		10
Exercise
Eat
Shower and dress
Personal study
Companion study
Proselytize
Plan and pray

We've received feedback from four editors so far. I've made edits and they are incorporated in the table above. Two editors are in support of it, one objects. My main argument for it is that I absorb information more easily graphically; this seemed a natural representation of what's already included in prose in the article (here). The main objections have been that it will give undue weight to a section of the article that is rather minor and that a missionary's day isn't all the different from a typical person's day, with the exception of studying two hours a day. Also, an editor objected to the fact that it doesn't represent a missionary's day who is teaching in a foreign language.

Could other editors please chime in with either Support or Oppose below? Thank you. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with a sample schedule, but I question how we are going to support this. I don't know how strict they are about the missionaries schedules, so I don't know if we can ever cite this. Are there sources that support this schedule or is this all original research? If it is original research then it cannot be included in WP. Additionally how universal is this schedule? --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It's the schedule put forth by various Church missionary publications. They're used as refs in the article. All missionaries are supposed to follow it, but I don't think the Mission President or anyone else "enforces" it. Missionaries are expected to follow the direction of their leaders, which this is. It is "universal" as far as missionaries serving in their native language. An exception for missionaries teaching in a foreign language is mentioned in the prose. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

ARTEST4ECHO, given my response, can I count this as a Support from you?

Really, no one else? I had no idea this project was so dead. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Right now I am neither for it or against it. It's a good idea, but I still don't see how accurate it is. You say there is citations, for it, but I don't see them. However, I've never had direct experience with LDS Missionaries scheduling. If you can cite it and are willing to support any backlash then be WP:BOLD and put it in.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, ARTEST4ECHO. The citations are here at the end of the Schedule section. I'd really like a Support or Oppose. Thanks again! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The best I can give you is I support the idea of it and I wouldn't object to it. I just don't have the knowledge here. I will say again WP:Be bold. If you think it is go, then add it. At worst, someone will remove it and then you will have to discuss it on the Talk page. You would probably get more input there then here.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

ldschurchnews.com references are deadlinking

Looks like we're going to have another set of unstable references caused by the Deseret News, like we previously had for Mormon Times articles, but this time with the more venerable and more widely used ldschurchnews.com domain (see: Olsen, Burke (April 2, 2014), "LDSChurchNews.com has moved to DeseretNews.com", Deseret News). A quick look with the External Links Search tool found 1,515 instances of that domain used all over pages at en.WP. The worst part is there are no article soft-redirects from content formerly at ldschurchnews.com that is now housed at ldschurchnewsarchive.com, so the articles are essentially lost if you don't know to change the URL to use the ldschurchnewsarchive.com domain, which itself is apparently only temporary, until the material is eventually put on deseretnews.com, whenever that is completed. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

(Latter-Day Saints) vs (LDS Church) Parentheticals

There is a discussion on (Latter-Day Saints) vs (LDS Church) Parentheticals going on at Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) caused by an issue with President of the Church vs. President of the Church (LDS Church) (caused by Talk:President_of_the_Church#Page_move). I would suggest that those people who work on Latter-Day Saints pages, chime in.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:lds question

I've been trying everything I can think of to get template:lds to work for D&C 107:64-65, 91-92 ( https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/107.64-65,91-92#63 ) but I can't figure it out. This is the closest I can come:

{{lds|Doctrine and Covenants|dc|107|64-65|,91-92|||x}}

→ Doctrine and Covenants 107:64-65,91-92

→ https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/107.64-65,91-92?lang=eng#-2

As you see if you go to the link, it highlights the right verses, but doesn't jump down to the first highlighted verse. Anyone have any ideas, or is this a bug with the template? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Is one of the links supposed to work? Neither jump to the highlighted verses for me. Do you have an example that works? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The external link in the first sentence works for me, and is what I was trying to model the use of the template on. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like what's screwing it up is the 64-65 in the fifth parameter ( {{lds|Doctrine and Covenants|dc|107|64-65|,91-92|||x}} ). You can see for yourself, if you use it w/o 65, it works fine (Doctrine and Covenants 107:64,91-92). I tried using 65 as an "and", but that doesn't render correctly (Doctrine and Covenants 107:64,65). So I think you found a real issue. I'd bring it up on the template's Talk page. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You can use the following syntax:

{{lds|Doctrine and Covenants|dc|107|64|-65,91-92|||x}}

to get Doctrine and Covenants 107:64-65,91-92

I realize it is rudimentary, but the verse# is also used to specify the jump to text. The end verse# automatically adds the "-" before the number (so it goes 64-65 normally); however, if you include the x at the end then it doesn't do anything special but just appends the text in the end verse# slot to the verse# (i.e. without the ex it makes it "verse#-end verse#" by adding the hyphen, if the x is included it goes "verse#end verse#" - nothing added - so you have to put the dash before the 65 for it. The template could use some tweaking but it would take a lot of effort to handle all the possibilities - I tried to keep it generic enough to work with weird stuff by just ignoring the formatting if the "X" is in the 8th parameter. --Trödel 19:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was exactly what I was looking for! -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Article needs to be created for Randall L. Ridd

It hardly seems fair to me that all auxiliary presidency members should have a Wikipedia article about them except Randall L. Ridd, second counselor in the Young Men General Presidency. Biographical information about him is sparse, but it is available on lds.org. And a more complete biography about him appeared in the November 2013 Ensign, when he was officially sustained. I have looked at it, but it doesn't contain birth year and month, so age is still approximated. If/when the Young Men General Presidency is organized and he is retained, they might do a more extensive biography on him. I don't know much about creating Wikipedia articles, or I'd take care of it myself. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles need to be created for currently serving members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy that have no article.

I am posting a bit of a gripe here. It bothers me to see so many Second Quorum of the Seventy General Authorities without an article. I don't understand the reason why they don't warrant an article. Is it because they are not prominent enough? I also note that an article was created for Elder Martinez shortly after his call simply because he was the first Caribbean General Authority. I don't think it's fair to assume that one General Authority deserves an article because he's the "first" of his region while we have no articles for brethren who are honorably filling assignments throughout the Church and around the world. It makes no sense to me to have articles for some prominent or famous Area Seventies but not for all General Authorities. It certainly isn't for lack of information. The Church News always runs articles on new General Authorities. The Ensign always has biographies of newly called leaders. I would gladly create new articles for each Second Quorum member that currently has none, but I have neither the time nor the know-how for such an ambitious project. I feel we need to get this done and soon. If it were up to me, I would want to see an article for all currently serving General Authorities by the end of May. I think that would be plenty of time, given that there are only currently 10 members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy without an article. An experienced editor who cared enough to do the research could write a well thought out article for each of the 10 by the end of May easily. And if more than one editor cared to work on the project, it would go even faster. So that's my proposal. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Book of Mormon

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Book of Mormon#Inclusion of portals in template. Thanks. 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A different "parenthetical" question

I have a "parenthetical" question unrelated to the ones I've seen here in the past. I noticed a really interesting edit (here) by Good Olfactory and it got me thinking. He has a point about the parenthetical not being part of the name. Perhaps a number of Latter Day Saint pages need to be changed. For example, perhaps the first sentence in Church of Christ (Temple Lot) should read:

The Church of Christ is a denomination....

After all we don't use:

John Taylor (Mormon) (November 1, 1808 – July 25, 1887) was the...

It seems that we are treating the parenthetical as part of the official name, not just using them to distinguish one sect from the other. Just of the top of my head this would apply to a number of sects.

1. Church of Christ (Fettingite)
2. Church of Christ (Hancock)
3. Church of Christ (Temple Lot)
4. Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite)
5. True Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite)
6. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)
7. Church of Jesus Christ (Zion's Branch)
8. and many more.

I am not saying that we should change the name of the page, just remove the parenthetical from the offical names in bold. For example, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) should read something like:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (often refereed to as Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)), is...."

or leave if off all together

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is...."

I noticed that this is already done on some pages like Primitive Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) and Church of Jesus Christ (Toneyite).

However I admit, that this means alot of changes to alot of pages. I didn't want to make such a large amount of changes without at least talking about it first. What do all of you think?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it may be fine in some cases, but shouldn't be attempted when it will cause confusion. For example, I think changing Church of Christ (Temple Lot) to Church of Christ will cause confusion, because there are probably hundreds of churches which refer to themselves as such. Just my $.02. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I think ARTEST4ECHO is on to something here. I think what he sets out should be the default way of approaching the lede. In all other cases of articles that are disambiguated, it's not usual to use the parenthetical as part of the bolded name. This is how it's done, for instance, in Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints). Surely there's a guideline out there that has codified the common practice? I don't think doing so would cause much confusion in the cases of orgs that are named "Church of Christ" (1) because the article name will already be disambiguated, and (2) the explanation of the disambiguation can be given in the leading paragraph, even in the second sentence.

(As a side note regarding the Temple Lot church—I need to find a source for the statement that "(Temple Lot)" is not part of the name. Once I saw a meetinghouse for the Temple Lot church and the sign actually said "Church of Christ (Temple Lot)", so even the church tends to use the disambiguation at times. In the Temple Lot Case of the 1890s, the church was called the "Church of Christ at Independence, Missouri". I'm not sure if the "at ..." part is part of the registered legal name or if the court documents just used it as a type of disambiguator.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I did some looking around the Manual of Style after making the comments above, and it turns out that ARTEST4ECHO's sense is right on the money according to the MOS. From WP:LEADSENTENCE: "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms. Similarly, if the title has a parenthetical disambiguator, the disambiguator should be omitted in the text." Boom. So I say go for it—these changes should be made! (I should learn to always do my looking around first before I comment with an uninformed opinion.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm coming to this discussion a few days late, but I would like to make a suggestion here. Certainly from a point of view of formal correctness, the parenthetical information should be left off in the first sentence (and thereafter) of the article. With that I won't argue. However, there is a potential for mass confusion if we don't include something immediately after to designate, say, the Cutlerite church from the Bickertonite, since both carry precisely the same name. What I might suggest is something like this: "The Church of Jesus Christ, commonly denominated "Cuterlerite," is a Latter Day Saint church..." What do you think of that? - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. I agree that the disambiguating terms should be in the lead sentences. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 02:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Lacking IPA pronunciation in some List of names, places, etc. of TBoM

I've just found "Lamanitish" (servants of Lamoni) in Alma 17:26, that doesn't has its proper pronuntiation, either in the Pronunciation guide of The Book of Mormon or in Wikipedia. There's also a wrong redirection in the search box from "Lamanitish" to "Lamanites" (descendants of Laman). IgnominiouZ (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by IgnominiouZ (talk • contribs)

Dictionary collaoration proposal

Over at wikisource there is a PD reference source on the Book of Mormon which could be proofread and broken up into separate pages for each entry, maybe making access to such a source more easily available to all. FWIW, the Book of Mormon itself, and the Pearl of Great Price, are similarly available there.

I have nominated the dictionary as a possible collaboration of the month at wikisource:Wikisource talk:Proofread of the Month#A dictionary of the Book of Mormon. Anyone who would be willing to help in this is encouraged to indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Melbourne Australia Temple

Hello. Would anyone be interested in improving Melbourne Australia Temple with inlined references? Also, the address would be good. I may be able to take more pictures of the grounds. Please reply on my talkpage if interested. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

LDS Notability Guidelines

Does this group have any notability guidelines? It seems there's been a lot of back and forth recently regarding the notability of Seventies. I suggest the adoption of guidelines similar to the guidelines for the Catholic Church. That said, I don't think the guidelines for the Catholic Church are binding, but if the guidelines genuinely reflect Wikipedia's rules for notability, then there would be less debate about which people qualify and which don't. Just a thought. Vojen (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Goodbye and Hello

Longtime stable editors that have edited topics related to this WikiProject using 208.81.184.4 (talk · contribs) have been migrated (by our benevolent corporate overlords) to now use 155.95.80.242 (talk · contribs). -- 155.95.80.242 (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Some discussion on this topic has been moved to User talk:155.95.80.242#Goodbye and Hello, as that is a better location for the discussion.-- 155.95.80.242 (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

New article: William Henry Chamberlin (philosopher)

Hi all,

I've recently started an article on William Henry Chamberlin (philosopher), an LDS scholar and theologian involved in a controversial period of BYU history. However, I am not very familiar with theology, philosophy, or even the LDS movement, and would welcome any additions or improvements in the aim of creating a comprehensive biography that clearly explains the philosophical contributions of Chamberlin, and fairly describes the controversy. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Former Latter Day Saints

I'm interested in how to clarify List of former Latter Day Saints. Input is welcome over at Talk:List of former Latter Day Saints#Restart: Criteria for inclusion. ——Rich jj (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Mailbox (film)

Members of this WikiProject and other interested parties may note that an Article for Deletion entry has been created for The Mailbox (film). -- 155.95.80.241 (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Portal badges

I just noticed the following edits[1][2] which affixed to various articles the badges for Portal:Latter-day Saints and Portal:Book of Mormon. I disagree with some of these:

Not related to the Book of Mormon:

• Pioneer Day (Utah)
• The Last Leaf
• Mr. Krueger's Christmas
• The Phone Call
• The Mailbox (film)
• Cipher in the Snow
• Pioneers in Petticoats
• The Windows of Heaven (film)
• The Search for Truth
• List of Latter Day Saint periodicals
• Latter-day Trumpet
• Beehive Standard Weekly

Only marginally related to the Book of Mormon (may occasionally discuss BOM, though not predominantly):

• On the Way Home (film)
• Together Forever (film)
• Man's Search for Happiness
• Interpreter (journal)
• International Journal of Mormon Studies
• Sunstone (magazine)
• Dialogue (journal)
• Gospel Reflector
• Mormon Studies Review
• BYU Studies Quarterly
• Church News
• The Contributor (LDS magazine)
• Woman's Exponent
• Journal of Discourses
• The Seer (periodical)
• Deseret News
• Nauvoo Neighbor
• The Wasp (newspaper)
• The Instructor
• Relief Society Magazine
• Juvenile Instructor
• Improvement Era
• Young Woman's Journal
• The Prophet (newspaper)
• Millennial Star
• Times and Seasons
• Elders' Journal
• Messenger and Advocate
• The Evening and the Morning Star

Plus these edits to the LDS template are related: [3][4]

And this Christian music quote (used on Portal:Christian music) was changed for the first time in 2 years to Praise to the Man. Probably not what they had in mind.

Is this mischief? I may jump in and undo all this, but just in case I'm wrong I'm posting here. ——Rich jj (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I now see that ‎ARTEST4ECHO is already reverting these. ——Rich jj (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't attribute mischief when it's easier to recognize a less than well thought-out series of edits from a well intentioned editor. I also reverted several of these. -- 155.95.80.241 (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Cool. But why did you restore the BoM portal to The Windows of Heaven, especially since the central scripture in that film is from the Old Testament? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't: I restored portal:Latter-day Saints which is a separate portal all together than portal:Book of Mormon. -- 155.95.80.241 (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the only person reverting these. I think it was a good faith edit by an IP editor, but I agree they are not appropriate usesage of the articles the badges. -- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that I should Assume Good Faith. I think the Praise to the Man quote threw me off, since general Christian music isn't particularly known for its praise of Joseph Smith. But in reflection I can even see how that could be in good faith.
Incidentally, the LDS template was taken back to the BOM and LDS badges. Is that desirable to have both relevant portals inserted into the footer, or to use the previous USVA headstone image? ——Rich jj (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Either image is fine with me, but I don't think the BoM portal should be in the template. Yes, the BoM is central to LDS beliefs, but the BoM portal tag doesn't belong on every LDS page, or in the LDS template. Do we include the Holy Bible portal on every article on Christianity? And if we include the BoM portal, should we include the D&C portal and the PoGP portal tags as well (if they exist)? The BoM portal tag should only be included where it is pertinent, and not every article on LDS movement is BoM centric. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll revert it back to the way it was before July 27, with a link in the talk back here. The recent change has been supported by two different IPs [5][6], so I'm concerned that this change may have been decided somewhere that I haven't seen. ——Rich jj (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already reverted it back: the VA symbol of the Angel Moroni works better visually at the smaller size. I also think it is actually more representative than Thorvaldsen's Christus, which isn't inherently Mormon. -- 155.95.80.241 (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles categorized as templates

Can someone look at an article like Quetzaltenango Guatemala Temple, among others, that are showing up in Category:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement temple templates? These are articles and not templates. Thanks.Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

They are actually both articles and templates. For example, if you go to the Wiki search engine at the top right of the screen and type in, let us say, Template: LDS Temple\Quetzaltenenango Guatemala Temple, that will take you to the template specific to the Quetzaltenango Guatemala Temple, which has all the information you will see about that temple when you go to List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, go to dedicated 2010s, and look at #135. So it's both. Does that make sense? I hope so. If not, let me know and I will try again. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Mormon Youth Symphony and Chorus

If anyone has reliable sources to add to Mormon Youth Symphony and Chorus, please help by adding them. It's been tagged for notability for over six years now. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of several LDS articles that apparently don't meet Wikipedia policy.

This is to inform those who are interested that some LDS articles have been deleted, are being considered for deletion, and may be deleted in the future. It appears that the nominated articles don't meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. I have spoken out in defense of all the articles, to no avail. I just wind up having another Wikipedia policy thrown in my face. Many of the 10 articles I created for currently-serving members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy have been nominated. I have a feeling that all articles about Second Quorum members, past and present, will be nominated for deletion as long as they don't meet GNG. Also nominated for deletion is the article about John M. Madsen, an emeritus general authority who is still considered to be serving. I have a feeling that all articles about emeritus general authorities will be nominated for deletion as long as they seem to not meet GNG. Just alerting everyone to this so that, if possible, the articles in question could be focused on to help them meet GNG. I have made it my practice of just leaving one comment on the relevant AfD page, and would encourage others involved in the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement to comment as well, whatever your position might be on the issue of deletion. I don't intend to engage in debate, so if the consensus doesn't want these articles, there's not much more I can do to save them. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if these articles could be saved, but the deletion nominators do make good points: there are no references outside of closely-related LDS media (e.g. Desert News, New Era, The Ensign). After all, this isn't LDSpedia. I think the only way to save them would be to get third-party refs for at least some of the facts in the articles. These leaders are important to LDS members; not really to the public at large. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A user has presented a new argument on this issue that has resulted in one failed deletion motion and no other further deletion motions for articles about Second Quorum of the Seventy members. So the question remains, given the new argument (which can be found here), would it be appropriate to suggest that the deleted articles about currently serving members be restored/recreated? I had thought of just being bold and making such a motion, but given the arguments that were put up against the existence of such articles previously, I wanted to get some feedback on whether it would be wise to make a motion that they be recreated or restored. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I decided after consideration to go ahead and be bold and leave a message with each administrator that closed the AfD discussions for the articles in question that were deleted. Some have already responded, and steps are being taken to get some kind of consensus as to whether, based on Vojen's new argument (presented here) previously deleted articles about currently serving members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy could be reinstated. We will see what happens as discussion is renewed and as time goes on. In the meantime, anyone is welcome to post feedback here. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Official Auxiliary Titles

Up until recently the titles for the LDS General Relief society and Young Women and other Axillary were standardized across the leaders. Such as "XXth General President of the Relief Society" and "Second Counselor in the general presidency of the Relief Society". However recently User:ChristensenMJ has been changing them to titles such as 15th Relief Society General President.

I understand his desire. The LDS church often refers to them in both formats, however, I am under the impression that "General President of the Relief Society" and "Counselor in the general presidency of the Relief Society" are the official and correct way of doing this. So my question is, shouldn't "XXth General President of the Relief Society" and "First/Second Counselor in the general presidency of the Relief Society" be the standardized across the board title, so that all pages use the same official LDS title in the infobox.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 17:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, not only for initiating the discussion but for all your efforts across WP. I agree completely with efforts to standardize, or provide consistency, across the info or succession boxes. This is what I have been trying to do as I saw a number of edits being made or boxes added. You are right that there are several different usages employed when identifying the assignments/titles. I disagree that the manner of identification provided above is the official way. When providing a source, if one were to view the church's website for a leader's profile (Linda K. Burton) or a talk associated with General Conference/General Women's Meeting (Bonnie L. Oscarson), those sources each use "Young Women General President" and so forth. The auxiliary counselors are not as standardized (in print) and in that instance I think it becomes as much about being succinct or providing ease of reading. To show "Counselor in the general presidency of the Relief Society" can be more direct by showing something such as "XX Counselor, Relief Society General Presidency" or "XX Counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency" (with the latter being consistent with the leader profiles or conference-related addresses noted previously). So, those are my thoughts and rationale toward the recent edits. ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Coming a little late to this discussion, but wanted to put my two cents in. I am basing my comments and thus my opinion on what we should do upon what I observed in the most recent General Conference Ensign and on what I've observed on the Church website. From the Ensign, on page 15, a talk by Linda S. Reeves introduces her as "Second Counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency". On page 56, a talk by Randall L. Ridd introduces him as "Second Counselor in the Young Men General Presidency." On page 81, a talk by Jean A. Stevens introduces her as "First Counselor in the Primary General Presidency." Talks in the General Women's Meeting introduce each speaker as "[Auxiliary] General President." Tad R. Callister's biography on page 143 introduces him as "Sunday School General President" and the subsequent page introduces his counselors as "First/Second Counselor in the Sunday School General Presidency." The biographies for these leaders are much the same. The presidents are referred to as "[Auxiliary] General President" while the counselors are referred to as "First/Second Counselor in the [Auxiliary] Presidency." Since that is the preferred method the Church uses, that should be our method as well. At least, that's my opinion. Other thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I was asked on my talk page to add my two cents here. The ordinal numbers in something like "15th Relief Society General President" are descriptive text, and not part of any official title. The LDS Church doesn't use regnal numbers, or anything like that, within official titles to indicate order of historical succession within any particular position. There are however ordinals used in titles that do not indicate historical succession, but instead a form of rank/position/differentiation in the church hierarchy at any one point in time; e.g.: "First Elder" for the President of the Church & "Second Elder" for the Assistant President of the Church (though that usage was discontinued after the death of Joseph and Hyrum); 1st and 2nd Counselors (etc...) in various presidencies; 1st and 2nd Quorums (etc...) of the Seventies. Even at a local level, if there are enough young men to require more one Deacons quorum in a ward, there is a 1st Deacons quorum, 2nd Deacons quorum (etc...). This is the only way I'm aware of that the LDS Church actually uses ordinal numbers in official titles; unfortunately I do not currently have a ref that independently proves this observation. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 16:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is really what we are talking about here. It's not the numbering that is at issue. As far as I've seen, when referring to the 1st and 2nd Councilor of an Auxiliary, it's official title is (Using the Relief Society as an example), First Counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency, not Relief Society First Counselor. The issues is which form is correct.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 19:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct, numbering is not at issue in this discussion. The issue raised also needs to be kept consistent. In the opening comments for this section, an example such as "First/Second Counselor in the general presidency of the Relief Society" was given as the official way, but the comment above then shows the example as "First Counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency." Use of "Relief Society First Counselor" noted in the same comment has not been suggested or used. ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding what was being asked. The LDS Church's official webpages about General Auxiliaries leadership positions currently list the titles as follows:

• Relief Society General President[7]
• First Counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency[8]
• Second Counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency[9]
• Young Women General President[10]
• First Counselor in the Young Women General Presidency[11]
• Second Counselor in the Young Women General Presidency[12]
• Primary General President[13]
• First Counselor in the Primary General Presidency[14]
• Second Counselor in the Primary General Presidency[15]
• Sunday School General President[16]
• First Counselor in the Sunday School General Presidency[17]
• Second Counselor in the Sunday School General Presidency[18]
• Young Men General President[19]
• First Counselor in the Young Men General Presidency[20]
• Second Counselor in the Young Men General Presidency[21]

I'll have to look at other resources to see if there is consistency to this naming convention in secondary sources. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 22:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with those who have suggested that probably the closest thing to formal titles are "General President of the Relief Society" and "1st/2nd Counselor in the general presidency of the Relief Society". I agree would should have consistency across infoboxes etc. for presidency members across all the auxiliaries. As far as I can see, there have been some slight deviations from these standard usages (such as the "First Counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency"), but these seem minor and relatively unimportant to me. I doubt that there is an actual "official" title for the counselors that the church has adopted, but I think it's fine if we want to adopt a convention for them for Wikipedia naming purposes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• As I stated before, the Church has a particular naming convention (as capably outlined above by AsteriskStarSplat, and that should be the guideline we should follow. ie: [Auxiliary] General President and First/Second Counselor in the [Auxiliary] General Presidency. Any other conventions should be ignored, because that's not the way the Church does it. The sources available bear this out. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • We don't absolutely have to follow conventions that the LDS Church establishes or prefers. For instance, if secondary sources consistently used a different format, it would make more sense from a Wikipedia standpoint to use what the secondary sources always use. In these cases of the varying titles, the differences are slight—it's really just a difference of word placement—and I can't imagine that it will make a big difference which approach was adopted. (The difference in "General President of the RS" and "RS General President" is essentially equivalent to the difference between "President of the Church" and "Church President". I see nothing wrong with any of these four.) I'd prefer to use whatever is commonest in the secondary sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

And that is...what, exactly? I'm not sure what you're proposing. Thanks for clarifying. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't really explicitly propose anything. My overall point is that the differences are so slight that I don't think it matters much which format is selected. But I was kind of awaiting AsteriskStarSplat's survey of secondary sources, since it sounded like he was going to do that eventually. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. I guess we await for his survey of secondary sources, then? --Jgstokes (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That's going to take me a a few days; definitely will not be today. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 00:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Take your time. No need to feel rushed or anything. At the end of the day, it's not a pressing issue that needs immediate attention. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Jmheer's edits on Mormon cosmology.

In looking over the Mormon cosmology Wikipedia page, I noticed that several edits had been done by a new user named Jmheer. These edits appear to have been well thought out and all explained, but I always worry when a newbie editor makes a series of changes to a single page. It's as if a warning light goes off in my head and my automatic inclination is to revert the page back to where it was before such edits were made. I don't want to do so, however, if all the edits are considered necessary and helpful. So I thought I'd raise the issue for discussion here, then act or not based upon whatever the consensus decides. Mentioning this user by name in this topic will give him/her a chance to come here and defend his/her edits. What worries me is that many of them were tagged with the getting started template thingy that most new users are introduced to. And I don't know if his/her explanations are sufficient. So I wanted to post here and discuss it. Am I being overly protective of the page and unjustly suspicious of this new editor? Or am I justified in feeling this way? Please be honest. I prefer a well-intentioned truth to a kind lie any day of the week. What do you say, fellow Wikipedians? Thanks in advance for discussing this. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. They look generally OK to me, though the references provided are not ideal, since they are scriptures (primary sources) rather than secondary sources. But I suppose having those references is better than having no reference at all. Apart from the references, the only content added was the statement, "The earth that God the Father dwelt on as a mortal was not, however, created by Jehovah or subject to his atonement, but existed previously." It's uncited, but I have no objection to it being added as I think such a statement would be uncontroversial to most Mormons doctrinally, however esoteric and removed from everyday religious consideration the topic might be. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I trust your judgment. As long as they look all right to you, as far as I'm concerned, they can remain. I just was a little troubled that a new editor was adding new material without explaining it as thoroughly as he should, and I wondered if the sources cited were all right. Unless anyone has any strenuous objections to this edit, I will consider this matter honorably closed. (Btw, sorry about forgetting to sign my comment above. Added a proper signature to it just barely, but it makes the comments appear out of sync.) --Jgstokes (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a little essay I have found helpful in dealing with newcomers. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Adjwilley. That was most helpful and informative. I had to cringe at some of the things the article warns against, though, as I have been guilty of some of them in my interactions with newcomers. I will try to remember what I've learned from that article. Thanks again for pointing me to it!--Jgstokes (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I tend to reject such statements as you cited above as opinion and having nothing to do with official doctrine of the Church. The entire concept of God having a mortal existence is not well understood and not part of official doctrine for that reason. Gordon B. Hinckley even said he did not think it was taught in the Church. This is not to say that individuals do not offer opinions on the subject or attempt to do so. It is something that I would delete until such time as an editor gave an official reference identifying it as doctrine, which does not exist to my knowledge. --^StormRider 08:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If they're sourced, though, and attributed to a reputable, authoritative source, that means they would be eligible, right? Not trying to be contentious here, just trying to make sure that we don't unduly or unjustly upset this new editor by undoing some or all of his edits simply because we may personally take issue with what he's cited. Lorenzo Snow has been quoted as saying, "As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be." So the concept of God being mortal once is not entirely foreign to adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement. I wanted to be very cautious before reverting some or all of this user's edits. That's why I started this topic. I could go either way at this point. That's why I wanted to discuss this issue and let the consensus decide. That's why I'm glad Adjwilley pointed me towards that article about interacting with new editors. If it were not for my initial reservations on the issue and for him directing me to that article, I might have reverted all the edits already, driving away this editor and doing irreparable damage. --Jgstokes (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note that we're not just talking about what the LDS Church teaches or considers official doctrine. Mormon cosmology is also made up of folk beliefs and also the teachings of Mormon fundamentalists, so the range of potential sources is not as limited as Storm Rider suggests. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any problem as long as there is a distinction made between what is actual doctrine and what is not. There are folk beliefs, there are opinions, and there are past teachings. This can be quite complicated for an individual who is not well studied in LDS Church teachings.

Nothing I said above should have been interpreted as limiting references; the distinction is Church doctrine versus everything else. Do you see a problem with distinguishing between Church Doctrine and opinions, statements, folk beliefs, etc? If so, what is the objective of the article? I find it difficult to not separate actual Church doctrines from everything else. --^StormRider 13:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And I believe the user in question was citing official church doctrine and using scripture to back up his stated opinion. The only one he didn't have a reference for was the statement already noted: that God was once as we are now. But even that can be referenced by the Lorenzo Snow statement I cited in my last post. While it would have been far better for him to use secondary references not so closely connected to the LDS Church, I see no reason why we cannot keep his edits. Unless there is a specific objection you're making, that is. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue I was getting at is that because "Mormon" ≠ LDS Church, so "Mormon cosmology" ≠ "LDS Church official doctrine of cosmology". You refer to "Church Doctrine" as if it is a monolithic body that everyone agrees upon, but that is not the case, simply because there are multiple "church"es in the idea of "church doctrine". So the article can't exactly divide stuff into two categories, church doctrine and not church doctrine.

And even just within the LDS Church, as you probably know, there's plenty of teachings that used to be regarded as doctrine that are now widely questioned or outright rejected today by the leadership or general membership, so it's not even a clear cut way to divide things within the teachings of the single church body. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point. "Mormon" is a term that can be applied to many sects. The sources cited seem to be mostly related to the LDS Church, but I agree they are open to interpretation depending on contextual statements and evidence presented. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

re:Template:Christianity

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list#"LDS Church (Mormon)" instead of "LDS movement" about Template:Christianity & Template:Christianity footer that could use a more diverse set thoughts, and where members of this project and other interested parties might want to chime in. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 17:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Mormon's aren't Christians talk, again

There are recent, ongoing discussions at Talk:Jesus & Talk:Christianity about how Mormons (and other non-trinitarians) are not really Christians. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 01:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Political designations in blp infoboxes; or, "Is Orson Scott Card a genuine Democrat?"

The question turns on the use of the political party field in the infobox at blp's for individuals notable as political commentators. If that person is independent, would it be misleading to give his political affiliation, eg, a libertarian-leading conservative who voted for Obama as nonetheless affiliated as a Republican or a Lieberman-supporting commentator who ended up supporting Bush, McCain and Romney but who nevertheless prides himself as a member of the Democratic party? See the RfC @ Talk:Orson_Scott_Card#RFC:_Should_we_include_his_political_party_in_the_infobox.3F.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Template talk: LDS70pres

A conversation is currently taking place in Template talk:LDS70pres that affects how the template will work in the future. At the moment, only a handful or less of editors are involved in the discussion. We invite all interested parties to visit this topic and weigh in on this important discussion. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion

All the info on Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Navbox is available here, but this page isn't just limited to Navboxs. Therefore, I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Navbox should be merged to here.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 14:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This merge seems to be "non-controversial" so, I have done it.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 17:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

General Conference (LDS Church)

In one topic on Talk:General Conference (LDS Church), a discussion has started about potential sources that may be used to improve the article. But discussion has seemed to peter out, with original participants losing interest. As I don't feel comfortable with the idea of being bold and making the proposed changes myself, I thought I would post here and ask all interested parties to weigh in with comments on that talk page. Thanks for your efforts to help improve Latter Day Saint movement related articles! --Jgstokes (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Andrew E. Unsworth AfD

Members of this WikiProject, and other interested editors may be interested to know that there is an AfD open for Andrew E. Unsworth at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew E. Unsworth. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 23:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Book of Mormon weights and measures AfD

Members of this WikiProject, and other interested editors may be interested to know that there is an AfD open for Book of Mormon weights and measures at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book of Mormon weights and measures. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 01:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:LDS Women

A few people are interested in donating time to flesh out the info about Mormon women. I'm starting this discussion section for coordination and Q and A. Off the top of my head, the first issue that needs to be addressed if any new articles are started is WP:Notability. I may not stick around, but I wanted to make a welcoming place for any WP:Newcomers to land. Tom Haws (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Orson Scott Card racist?

Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: "Orson Scott Card#Politics"?

(Also see a 2013 blogpost by M Aspan citing this from Card in 2000 rgding allegedly non-racist use of nigga'.)

See discussion here: Talk:Orson Scott Card#RfC: Subject of blp racist?

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Afd on Newport Beach California Temple

As this AfD is related to this WikiProject, you may want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newport Beach California Temple. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Christianity

There is currently a discussion about whether/how to include Latter Day Saint movement and Jehovah's Witnesses on Template:Christianity here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:LDS sects/Mormon fundamentalist

I've been thinking of doing a modification of Template talk:LDS sects/Mormon fundamentalist. However it being such a big change, I though I would seek some input before making the change. If anyone is interested in commenting, I would love to here from anyone at Template_talk:LDS_sects/Mormon_fundamentalist#Unweildy.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 22:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Book:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Members of this WikiProject and other interested parties may be may be interested to know about the discussion taking place at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Related Wikipedia Books and Book talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 19:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:JSJ navfooter

Would anyone have an issue with Template:JSJ navfooter being deleted? It doesn't appear to be in use, and is redundant to Template:Joseph Smith anyway. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 02:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible wikisource activity

If anyone were interested in doing the final proofreading/verifying of the books at s:Index:A dictionary of the Book of Mormon.pdf and s:Index:Pearl Of Great Price (1851).pdf, in accord with the guidelines over there for "verifying" texts, I could have both of them finished. Unfortunately, I am myself unable to do anything more with finishing them as the person who brought them through the "proofread" stage over there, except perhaps for breaking the various subsections into separate pages, which I would be more than willing to do at the end of the verification. Particularly for the first one, it might be useful to have separate pages somewhere in the WMF for all the major characters and topics of the Book of Mormon, particularly material in the public domain which can be used here verbatim if necessary with the proper attribution. "Verifying" actually isn't all that hard, but it would be of course good to familiarize oneself with the s:Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource and particularly s:Help:Beginner's guide to validation first. And I would particularly ask that the redlinks in the pages be kept, as those are what I will link to the various separate pages for each article which I will create when the final verification is done. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Dubious image of Miriam Works Young

Miriam Works Young was Brigham Young's first wife. I have posted several problems with her image over at File talk:Miriam A. Works.jpg#Dubious. This is admittedly original research on my part, and not even very good research, but I would appreciate any direction on this. I think there are pretty clear reasons why this is not an image of Miriam Works Young, and I don't know what should be done about that. Thanks! ——Rich jj (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Are so-called LeBaronites

--most generally self-described members in specific of "The Church of the Firstborn" (viz., "------ of the Fulness of Times)? Do any editors hanging about here know whether fundamentalist polygamists (including family members who happen to be non-practitioners of plural members but believe in it "in Principle" etc etc) of Colonia LeBaron, Chihuahua, belong to the schism "the Ch. of the 1stborn..." (/Fulness of Times)? Kindly editorial comments are requested @ Talk:Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times#Current status.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mormons in the United States Military

As Buddhists in the US Military was deemed notable, than I highly suggest that a new article Mormons in the United States Military should be created. Using the logic used to defend the kept article, an article about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the United States Military will clearly pass notability requirements.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Share a source

I thought I would share a source for both Public Domain images (using the licence {{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1940}} and {{Creator:Frank Ellwood Esshom}}) and biographical information on the Prominent men of Utah.

• Esshom, Frank Ellwood (1913). Pioneers and prominent men of Utah (1913). Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah pioneers book publishing company. Retrieved 7 April 2015.

This book dose appear in some places, but really isn't used much. However, there are so many images I could spend months uploading images from this source and linking biographical information. So if your missing a photo for an LDS Church members who lived around 1913, you probably can find it here. For an example of how to format the image summery see File:Frank Ellwood Esshom.jpg--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 14:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion - Harold B. Lee

Should users associated with this project have an interest, a talk page discussion has been initiated at the ariticle on Harold B. Lee, primarily related to information currently included in the article about potential impact or influence Lee may, or may not, have had on the LDS Church's previous priesthood restrictions. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

On-going IP edits

I have posted this on the Admin noticeboard, but also including here, as I believe several other editors have encountered and tried to deal with this...... including AndyTheGrump and Bahooka today.

• 166.170.52.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Two of these specific IPs have already been acted on by Gilliam, but I am wondering if a range block is needed. Over the past couple of weeks, there has been similar activity that has continued from each of these seemingly-related IPs: 166.173.248.192 166.170.52.203 166.175.57.187 166.175.57.81 166.173.251.71 166.137.252.32 166.170.54.193 166.175.184.157 166.175.56.38 166.175.58.195 166.175.185.10 166.175.184.21 166.175.185.251 166.175.58.158 Thanks! ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the lastest one: 166.177.121.2

Early life of Joseph Smith

I have nominated Early life of Joseph Smith for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Misunderstanding about LDS currently serving apostles' seniority.

Lately there have been misunderstandings and even pseudo edit wars about the seniority of currently serving apostles in the LDS Church. To obviate this difficulty, I have placed on each Wikipedia page for the current apostles (including those in the First Presidency) a reference about how apostolic seniority is determined and viewed in the LDS Church. I thought that, rather than opening a new discussion on each of the now 13 currently serving apostles' talk pages, I would bring it here and see what you all think of what I've done. I welcome any and all comments on this matter, and would prefer that such comments be added here rather than on any or all of the 13 relevant talk pages or my user talk page. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the footnote that you added. We should find a secondary source that explains this in more detail so it can be included it at the end of the explanation otherwise there will be allegations of original research --Trödel 14:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Trödel, for the feedback. I agree with you about finding a source to verify all this. I was thinking that the "Succession in the Presidency" document might be a good one to fill the bill, as that explains what happens when a Church president dies. The only thing we then would have to find is a source stating the President of the Church is always the senior apostle. For that, President Boyd K. Packer's April 2008 Sunday Morning talk entitled "The Twelve" might serve to verify the needed details. Any biography of a Church president that talks about his ascension to the Presidency of the Church would do well as well. We could also consult the Church-produced manual "Teachings of the Living Prophet." That might also have some good quotes. These are just rough ideas. I forgot about a source needing to be cited. My main concern was to get something up on the Wikipedia pages of the now 13 currently serving apostles to stop those who claim that apostolic seniority only includes the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. With my thanks to ChristensenMJ for fine-tuning the wording for these notes, I was hoping for some good comments on the issue. That's why I posted this issue after posting the notes. Whatever source we need to find is fine with me. But if we do add a source or several sources, we may want to make my refe rence an official part of the articles so that we avoid having a reference within a reference. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

How about this Dialogue article on succession Notes on Apostolic Succession from Volume 20, Number 2, Summer 1987- it has the advantage of being a true secondary source. What was the misunderstanding re seniority of currently serving apostles - as I missed that discussion. --Trödel 16:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Trödel, with needed changes in seniority "numbering" - originally due to the death of L. Tom Perry and of course followed by Boyd K. Packer, there were a lot of well-intended, but often brand new or IP users who were insistent on adjusting the seniority designation specific to - or only including - members of the Quorum of the Twelve. For instance, with Dallin H. Oaks, the article would be changed to show he was "second" among the ranks of the church, rather than "third" as he is in the overall view. It got more askew when getting to David A. Bednar and the rest of the Quorum, since they have a "gap" of 3 in their place among 15 apostles, rather than just 12. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I see - wanting to just number people within the quorum rather than include the 1st presidency as members of the quorum for seniority purposes. Thx! The article I quote above deals with that as well as many other issues that haven't happened in a long time (order is by ordination not by age, what happens to ordained of apostles who aren't members of the quorum and their seniority, seniority of apostles previously ordained that later become a member of the quorum, how counselors are treated with respect to seniority after the death of the president, counselors did not have to be formally accepted back into the quorum, etc.)

It also is probably the best source that the current president of the quorum of twelve apostles is the successor; however, it discusses the tradition that the quorum meets and that the (usually) second senior apostle nominates the first senior apostle to be the new prophet/president and then he is sustained and set apart by the (usually) second senior apostle with all apostles laying their hands on the head of the new prophet/president (symbolically yielding their right to exercise the keys of the kingdom to him). The prophet/president then calls (and requests the agreement of all apostles) and sets apart his counselors and the new president of the quorum of twelve (and acting president if needed). It is summarized best I think under the Snow succession. --Trödel 17:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are a couple more articles about some of the historical development of how succession came to be interpreted. Bergera, Gary James (1992). "Seniority in the Twelve: The 1875 Realignment of Orson Pratt". Journal of Mormon History. 18 (1): 19–58. (Discusses when seniority came to include continuous service, in which suspension would reset seniority.) Compton, Todd (Winter 2002). "John Willard Young, Brigham Young, and the Development of Presidential Succession in the LDS Church" (PDF). Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. 35 (4): 111–134. (Discusses when seniority came to exclude other Apostles who had never been members of the Quorum.) ——Rich jj (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI - I edited the note to make it shorter and added the reference above and a link to the President of the Church (LDS Church)#Succession to the presidency. See this edit to Richard G. Scott if you agree lets put it everywhere else it's needed. --Trödel 18:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Trödel. I made a couple small adjustments to the ref note on the Richard G. Scott article. I don't think we need both "generally" and "normally" - particularly in the same sentence. I included a dab about filling the current vacancies. Then I also did what I had actually intended to do in the original edits - provide more spacing to make it easier to read. Not all that "pretty" in the ref section, but at least to me, it's easier to read when hovering over the ref identifier. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the changes if @Jgstokes agrees lets implement on all the apostle pages. --Trödel 22:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for your efforts! ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I knew when I endeavored to make these changes that they would be subjected to future revisions by other editors. I can see the merits of the way it was originally, as well as with the improvements made with each edit. I have no conscientious objections to editing all the notes to match the format of that in the Richard G. Scott article. My original purpose in adding the notes was to clarify what true apostolic seniority was, and to establish that point beyond argument, so that the edit warring that was going on would stop. So anything we can do to improve these edits and make them easier to read and more conforming to Wikipedia policy I would be in favor of. I propose therefore that the note, as formatted in the Richard G. Scott article be implemented immediately into the articles for the other currently-serving apostles. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Orson Hyde 1846 disfellowshipment

The Orson Hyde page says that after his famous falling out and then return in 1839, he was later disfellowshipped in 1846, this time for only 3 days. This sounds interesting, but I cannot corroborate it in any sources. I think it is an error, and my thoughts are here: Talk:Orson Hyde#1846 disfellowshipment. I would like to remove it from the article, but it's been there for years and I thought I'd check for others' feedback first. ——Rich jj (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The information is accurate and is a matter of record. Consult, for example, the History of the Church volumes, which discuss Hyde's disfellowshipment. Church History in the Fulness of Times also corroborates this information. Hope that helps. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and suggestion. I checked these sources, but unfortunately I still can't find anything about this 1846 disfellowshipment. The chapters in Church History in the Fulness of Times for this time period are Chapter 24. Nauvoo under Apostolic Leadership (early 1845 - mid 1846), and Chapter 25. The Trek across Iowa (Feb-late 1846). The index under "Hyde, Orson" shows brief mentions of the 1839 disfellowshipment (pp. 199, 212, 226), but nothing about being disfellowshipped in 1846. In the History of the Church Hyde is only mentioned in passing during January 1846, when he participates in meetings and temple work. Browse around the surrounding pages here: https://archive.org/stream/historyofchurcho07robe#page/562/mode/2up/search/hyde . I went ahead and added these to my list of sources where I can't find mention of this incident (found in the link in my original post). ——Rich jj (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

One source you might look at is the historical fiction series "The Work and the Glory" by Gerald N. Lund. Though it is historical fiction, it does give sources about events that actually happened. I believe Volume 7: No Unhallowed Hand might hold the answer. The series has many apostole-related events that are not generally known, such as how Parley P. Pratt's mission call to Canada came about, or how Parley was himself disaffected for a time due to the failure of the Kirtland Anti-Banking Company. I have the series myself and could try to find a source for you about Orson Pratt's 1846 disaffection, but it might take me a few days. Would you like me to try and see what I can find? Just let me know. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to help out! And your historical fiction suggestion is nice because it can introduce the events of history, and give ideas for what to look for in other scholarly historical sources. A thought occurred to me: could you be thinking about Orson Hyde's 1839 disaffection? It was very public and is well documented, and is mentioned in histories of the church. But I'm becoming very doubtful that there was also an 1846 incident. ——Rich jj (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I was absolutely not thinking of his 1839 disaffection. He also became disaffected in 1846. I will research the matter as time and circumstances allow within the next few days. I will let you know as to if and when I find anything. I will keep you posted. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Updating the way temples and general authorities data is handled

With the introduction of the module namespace a few years ago it appears that the "kludge" that I put together to allow all temple data to be stored in one place and then automatically updated on the various pages that use that data would likely become archaic. Module namespace uses the Lua programming language to handle a lot of complex logic that is currently being used in these templates and does so in a better way (easier to understand the programming with proper programming formatting/indenting, faster compiling/displaying of the pages, etc). Does anyone know how the module and template namespaces interact well - I would be learning from scratch to update the structure, etc.

I am interested in this partcially because (1) the "Book" feature - it would be nice to be able to publish a book on just the temple list - and the existing Book:Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints‎ could become a comprehensive guide to temples; and (2) it would be nice to have the List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints‎ become a featured list again.

Any thoughts, suggestions, known issues, etc (especially if those things make using the Lua language for this premature and likely to be very difficult) - Thanks --Trödel 15:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

any thoughts User:ARTEST4ECHO; User:Eustress; User:Shereth; or User:Jimp --Trödel 17:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If this would be a more effect method to keep track of temples and temple-related changes that need to be made, I'm all for it. Anyone else? --Jgstokes (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

At least for regular computer use, the only comment I'd note from when I happened to glance at the list of temples today is that the stats graph is now quite small and hard to read, also one of the Temple Square pictures that was moved now creates a lot of white space at the beginning of the list itself and looks kinda odd to me. Thanks for all your efforts! ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the feedback - I'll fix the stats graph and the temple square picture. We need to find a substitute for the stats graph as it is inaccessible to editing since it uses a proprietary program.

As to being more effective - I'm not sure - I'm hoping someone has some experience with Lua and can help us make that decision --Trödel 21:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion - George Albert Smith

With a recent section addition and associated editing, I have opened a talk page discussion on the article for George Albert Smith, should any wish to comment. ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Renaming proposal

I propose moving Music and the Spoken Word to Music & the Spoken Word. The official logo for the program shows the "&" sign rather than spelling it out, and the article title should be changed to reflect that. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This looks like an uncontroversial move to me so I just did it - we can undo if anyone objects. --Trödel 12:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Trödel. It looks great! --Jgstokes (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal: List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and List of general officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I am starting this topic to propose a merging of pages. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now has its general authorities and general officers in one place, on one chart. I therefore propose that these pages be merged and moved to List of general authorities and general officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the change but I would call the new page List of general authorities and officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints --Trödel 12:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I would continue to keep them separate. ChristensenMJ (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is that, ChristensenMJ? It seems to me the reason the Church made the change is to demonstrate that the general officers of the Church perform duties just as pivotal to the direction of the Church as that of general authorities. Also, it would save space in the Wikipedia server to have one article covering both subjects that are so similar, rather than two separate articles. I'm not saying you're not entitled to your own opinion, but I fail to see the benefit of keeping them separate. It makes more sense to combine them. I don't understand why you would object. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend, Jgstokes. I assume you're not providing evidence of the need for a merge simply because of a chart presentation and Wikipedia server space. The roles of the two groups are still very different, which didn't change just because they are shown together on a chart. It's nice that perhaps it provides more visibility, but the importance of the auxiliaries have always been as "pivotal of the direction of the church." The opening lines of the article on the auxiliaries notes them as a secondary body of government, which are ancillary to the work of the governing priesthood bodies. One could even argue that the determination over 10 years ago to not have general authorities serve in the roles noted some distinction between the nature of their work and provided time each could be focused on their individual roles. I just think it's a lot cleaner and doesn't create overlapping confusion as to their roles. Saving space on a Wikipedia server is certainly not a reason to merge them. ChristensenMJ (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

ChristensenMJ, thanks for your explanation as to why you don't think the merge is a good idea. I understand your position completely now. As I understand it, part of the roles of the auxiliary leaders is to serve as members of governing Church councils. This is especially true now for the women. Much as the auxiliary presidencies of a ward are sustained and serve on committees with the bishopric and ward councils, so too are the general auxiliary leaders of the Church serving on major Church councils. President Hinckley wisely observed that each member's calling in the Church is as vital to the progression of the gospel as the role of an apostle. As such, especially now that the female auxiliaries are serving on Church councils, I believe we do a disservice to those serving as general officers when we infer that just because their roles are different, they are somehow of lesser importance to the further of the work. That was my main motivation behind posting this change. I feel it's vital for Wikipedia readers who visit either page to understand the equality of the two groups in question, even if they are not fully equal in authority or responsibility. The argument could be made, I suppose, that since the area seventies are also in a separate Wikipedia article that it would be wise to list any serving in any general Church capacity separately. It could also be argued that since the auxiliary leaders and area seventies' service is temporary, with an inevitable release, we should keep them separate from those who are serving full-time. But if that's the case, technically we should also consider listing the members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy, whose assignments are also just for a certain number of years, on a separate article as well. But that wouldn't be fair to those of the Second Quorum, who serve just as faithfully during their tenure as any other general authority. What I'm trying to say is that Wikipedia needs to demonstrate to their readers their understanding of the united role of all who serve in any general capacity in the Church, no matter how temporary their assignment might be. While I do agree with you that the auxiliary leaders are a "secondary body of government", in order to maintain that argument, you would have to make some kind of distinction between the various bodies of general authorities. That distinction is made on the general authority and auxiliary Wikipedia pages. But in looking over the wording in the auxiliary article, this little gem stuck out to me. Harold B. Lee said: "[A]n auxiliary is to be an aid to the priesthood in watching over the Church and also an aid to the home, under the direction and … cooperation [of] the priesthood." It is further noted that "[t]he purpose of the auxiliary organizations is to help 'plant and make grow … a testimony of Christ and of the Gospel.'" I fail to see how that is different from the role of general authorities in testifying of Jesus Christ. As I said, I recognize your right to your own opinion on this matter, but I wanted to clarify these things to make my position clearer. Does that help? --Jgstokes (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Not having the auxiliary leaders in a separate article/list in no way lessens the importance of their service. They remain very different in the roles they play. That is unchanged. Perhaps consider the practical side of what their assignment entails. General auxiliary leaders have no authority, they do not preside at any meeting they attend anywhere in the world, they don't do anything such as reorganize stake presidencies, they don't hold keys to allow setting aparts to be done, etc. There is no doubt they fill an important role of training and directing the work of their organization, all done under the direction of either general authorities (or area seventies, such as when they travel). This also has nothing to do with terms of service. Those in the Second Quorum of the Seventy are completely general authorities in any way, shape or form as those in the First Quorum of the Seventy. It just comes with a specified term of service, not all that dissimilar to designating emeritus general authorities at age 70. There are at least some quick, initial thoughts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, your argument makes sense in some ways, but I have to say I'm unconvinced. I still think the page merge would be a good idea. Now that I've heard your reasons for objecting to the change, I would like to hear what other editors have to say about this. And I am perfectly willing to let the consensus decide this issue, whether the pages are ultimately merged or not. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

So, what are the reasons to merge? I think so far we've heard that they are shown in one place on a chart, that it would save WP server space, that they serve faithfully, and continue in roles that haven't changed (even with new assignments in some cases) in support of both the church's overall efforts and that of working under the direction of the general authorities. I certainly agree with consensus deciding, as that's a core principle. It doesn't lessen their assignment to not try and show them as equal to the general authorities (which I don't believe they are, meaning in the roles they are asked to fill - not in their commitment or service). I just wonder if there isn't a feeling that stretches reality in trying to have them be shown as the same, simply because a chart lists them and some were invited to serve in new capacities - each of which is no doubt a good thing, that is not at issue. ChristensenMJ (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The biggest reason is to bring it into conformity with the way the LDS Church lists them. But you are right that this is not the only reason I would be in favor of such a change. Some have argued that the area seventies page should also be merged with the general authorities page. I don't believe this should be the case, as service as an area seventy is specific to a certain area. The main reason I would be in favor of merging the pages, and the reason I suggested the merge in the first place, is because the general officers seem to be consistently handling more responsibilities as assigned or invited by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. They also hold a supervisory role over all groups related to their callings: ie, the Sunday School General Presidency holds a supervisory role for all matters relating to Sunday School worldwide; the Relief Society Presidency oversees all matters relating to the Relief Society sisters worldwide; the Young Men and Young Women and Primary presidencies hold supervisory responsibility for all affairs related to supervising and supporting all the youth and primary aged children and those called to lead them worldwide. In filling these responsibilities, they serve in roles that are no less significant to the work of the gospel than any full-time general authorities. And while they serve, they are giving just as fully to these callings as any general authority does in his full-time devotion to the work. I believe we short-change the general officers of the Church when we imply that their roles are any less significant to the work of the gospel. I understand your reasons for not being in favor of the merge, but, in my mind, the reasons for merging these pages are far more compelling than those for not merging them. At least, that's the way I see it. I recognize that people may feel differently about it, which was my main reason for seeking feedback before asking an administrator to go ahead and merge the pages. That being said, is there anyone who hasn't been given an adequate chance to comment on this matter that would like to have their voices heard before a final decision is made? --Jgstokes (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Jgstokes. To me, this still sounds like "a chart listed it" and "they serve very well in their assigned role," both of which are true. These leaders have delegated to them the role of training and seeking to improve and strengthen the individual auxiliary in which they serve, but they don't have any supervisory responsibility. No local ward or stake leaders report up to these presidencies. The delegation to carry out the "day-to-day" functioning of the auxiliary is very important, without doubt. That - and their overall role - has not changed, at least to this point, in any material respect for many, many years. There is no short changing of them simply because they do not have church-wide stewardship. As to your last sentence, for some reason there doesn't seem to be a lot of traction toward this discussion, since it's primarily you and I, with Trödel of course chiming in briefly. Unless that changes, I'd suggest the matter rest for you until such time as there is more substantive discussion. ChristensenMJ (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I am ok with it either way, but I think the simple argument for the proposal is that presidencies with general authority over their organizations should all be on the same page (as opposed to local or Area based authority). That seems like a reasonable way to decide what is included. --Trödel 13:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly so. That was my main reason for suggesting the merge, though that may have gotten lost among other less important reasons that are just as valid. Let me ask you this: Would you feel the same way about this if general authorities still served as members of the Sunday School and Young Men General Presidencies? I think we are all in agreement that if a general authority had that calling, it would be perfectly acceptable to include on their respective listings of responsibility on the List of general authorities page. We also hear from at least three general officers during conference, and that number doubles when you add in the speakers in the General Women's Session to that count. If 15% of all the speakers in general conference are auxiliary leaders, especially with the Church handing them more opportunities to serve and more worldwide roles, I fail to see how that is any different than the roles general authorities fill. They have a general responsibility, so they should be listed with the general authorities. Thus the page should be renamed. Since ChristensenMJ is the only one that seems to find this change problematic, it's safe to assume that either the general Wikipedia community is unaware of this conversation or they don't feel it's an issue of enough importance to comment. I would never unilaterally make this change, which is why I posted the proposal for it before requesting that an admin combine these pages. I hope that this change can be made, but at the end of the day, I won't be brokenhearted if they remain two separate articles until a later time when it might be more opportune to make this change. At the end of the day, what it really comes down to is that this discussion has only been active for about a week, which may not have allowed all those who want to comment on this issue to do so, and I feel before a decision is made one way or the other, others should be given an adequate chance to comment. Thanks. as always, for the discussion. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should wait for additional input (even solicit it if necessary from others who regularly contribute to the LDS pages). --Trödel 16:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Are there any editors in particular we should solicit feedback from? --Jgstokes (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A significant difference that exists, but seems to continue to be overlooked (not sure if this is part of what's considered one of the less important reasons), is that they have no supervisory, presiding or general authority over the organizations or anything else. These leaders can do nothing "on their own" - any changes, direction, new policy, etc. that may be suggested or recommended are approved by general authorities. Another way to look at this, given the references to local or Area-based authority, is that if any of these auxiliary leaders are at a meeting (typically to provide training) with an area seventy or a stake president, they do not preside - the area seventy or stake president would. Their worldwide roles have not changed, the church now has the 3 women presidents serving on an additional committee. While significant, it does not change what their responsibility and assignment has always been. Yes, it's obvious that if general authorities still served in these assignments, it would be noted on the general authority listing article. That is very different than this discussion. The church also elected not to have general authorities serve in these roles anymore for the Sunday School and Young Men. I know my friend, Jgstokes, keeps saying that I don't see the real issues here - charts, numbers speaking in general conferences and striving to value their service, and I am admittedly/apparently beating this to death, but there remains a significant difference in the governance of the LDS Church as done by general authorities versus wonderful service provided by general auxiliary presidencies. As to more feedback or input, as I noted from the beginning of this discussion, if a broad consensus weighs in and determines to merge, I respect the WP process and principle behind that, though I don't believe the stated purposes for a merge justify the action. ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, ChristensenMJ, I believe your objections to this change have been well recognized and noted in a way that they cannot possibly be misunderstood. You may indeed be flogging a dead horse. I have taken those objections on board and may be reconsidering my position as a result of my respect for you. But that doesn't change the fact that there are at least two others of us who are neutral towards or else in favor of this change. It is good that you have thoroughly explained yourself so your objections are understood and taken into account. I still think we need feedback from others before a final decision is made. I have said I will abide by a consensus decision, and you have indicated a willingness to do the same. Now all that remains is for others to read this conversation and comment as they will, and the consensus will decide this issue. So again, the question arises, who should we solicit feedback from? Whatever the consensus decides, I believe we have both couched our positions well and that these will be taken into account by all who contribute to this discussion. Thanks for making your position plain. Whatever the consensus decides, it has been a good discussion. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm sorry Jgstokes but I think ChristensenMJ is correct. If any anyone is flogging a dead horse is you.

From what I know of the LDS Church (I am not a member), These two organizational groups in the LDS Church (Priesthood Officer and Auxiliary Officer) are not the same group. To merge "List of general authorities..". into "List of general officers..." seems inappropriate to me. They are distinctly different organization inside the LDS Church. For Example, assuming what I have been told by extended family is right, within a Ward the YM's President (Auxiliary Officers) is not the head of the Priest Quorum, the Bishop (Priesthood Officer). So, to combine Auxiliary Officers into the same list as the Priesthood Officers seems to make a WP:POV statement that Wikipedia thinks that that the LDS Church structure is X when it really is Y.

Ultimately, nothing I have read here makes me think a change needs to be made. The current setup more accurately represents the structure of the LDS Church leadership.

However, I admit Trödel idea of "List of general authorities and officers of..." has some merit, but isn't really being discussed here.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 13:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I think that Jgstokes is proposing the merger (I believe his proposal was to merge General officers into the General authorities page) because of the recent changes regarding the governance of the church wherein the auxiliary general presidents are now included in the Priesthood and Family Executive Council, Missionary Executive Council, and Temple and Family History Executive Council as members (rather than advisors to the councils). This is why I think the proposal has some merit --Trödel 15:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry, I didn't make myself clear as your comments have made clear to me. Let me try again. I think that Trödel idea of merging them into a new page called List of general authorities and officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may have some merit. Since the title of the page is making a distinction between the two organization, the argument can be made that the page can address the differences between general authorities and officers of LDS Church, allowing for Merger. However, I do not feel that this version of the merge proposal by Jgstokes (yes I realized he made the proposal) has discussed this idea at all, so I cannot give my Oppose or Support to it. If Jgstokes should close this merge proposal and open a new merge proposal into List of general authorities and officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to open a new discussion process, I may change my mind and support the merge, but as for this discussion, I am opposed to it.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 21:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, as requested. See the topic at the bottom of the page. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, currently a redirect to Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has been nominated at redirects for discussion (RfD). The redirect has a complex history and the discussion would benefit from the input of editors with relevant subject knowledge. Please comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 8#Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge Proposal: List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and List of general officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to List of general authorities and officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Per User:Trodel's suggestion above, and per ARTEST4ECHO's request that this particular proposal be made, I am proposing to merge the List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and List of general officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to List of general authorities and officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The reasons for the proposal have been considered carefully in this discussion page, two topics up. In summary of that discussion, the reasons for merging these two pages are as follows. It should be noted that these points are not in order of importance or relevance. 1. The LDS Church lists them on one chart. 2. The general officers have been given more responsibilities of late, with the women auxiliary leaders (Primary, Young Women and Relief Society) being asked to serve on three major church councils, the membership of which has been restricted in the past to priesthood leaders (general authorities and leaders of the Sunday School and Young Men). 3. General auxiliary leaders are becoming more visible nowadays, with many making international trips independent of general authorities to lend support to local leaders who serve in the same capacities. 4. General auxiliary leaders, male and female, have been asked to participate in temple dedications, having just as much responsibility in dedicatory services as do general authorities. There may be other reasons for the merge that have not been mentioned yet. The arguments against this move are highlighted above, but since I am proposing this merging of articles, I don't feel qualified to summarize them. I will leave that up to the editor who made them. Thanks in advance for summarizing your position, User:ChristensenMJ. P. S. I hope I'm not offending you by singling you out and asking you to provide such a summary. I feel that since you are the only one raising objections, you would be better qualified to do so than I would. That said, any other comments for or against this new proposal? Thanks in advance to any and all who will participate in what I feel is a very important discussion. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are some of the reasons I think it's sufficient to retain the auxiliary leaders in a separate list, with the existing See also link showing on the listing of general authorities. (Also in no particular order.) 1) They hold no supervisory or presiding responsibility, 2) The travel and its associated training is not new, 3) Related to the two above, when they do things such as that training, they do not preside anywhere they attend. That would typically be an area seventy or stake president, depending on the setting. They really have no authority of themselves to go and do things such as travel or training. 4) Yes, it’s terrific that the three women now serve on the councils they do. I am not completely sure it’s a given whether the Sunday School leaders ever have. The Young Men leaders may have been associated with one of the councils, as they are at a local ward level. 5) Related to the above, it should be remembered that this is not a gender issue, as is somewhat insinuated in some of the reasons noted. The leaders of the Sunday School and Young Men are leaders who hold the priesthood, but they are just as much an auxiliary leader as the women who serve in the other 3 auxiliaries. 6) Particularly in the case of the women, they are representative of a large and significant portion of the church’s membership. It makes sense they would be asked to speak in a general conference or at a temple dedication. Although it’s been a while since non-general authorities or general officers have talked in a general conference, it used to be rather common. People not holding those roles speaking at a temple dedication is not that uncommon. Participation in dedications is still somewhat limited – meaning the auxiliary leaders’ participation is typically fairly localized to Utah’s Wasatch front area. And giving a talk does not signify responsibility – whether in conference or a dedication, nor does displaying them on a chart in a single page format. 7) I believe this is stretching and trying to make “equal” what is not “equal” – nothing to do with whether their service is as valuable as anyone else’s service. The auxiliaries do not perform the work that general authorities do – such as setting apart people in assignments, reorganizing stake presidencies, etc. Thanks for the opportunity to participate in the discussion. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - While I understand Jgstokes reasoning, and I agree with alot of them, I do not feel that they rise to the need to change the established consensuses that they are separate groups that need separate lists. However, this may change in the near future as the idea of merging them has some merit, but as the legal term goes, "The issue is not yet ripe".

  My understanding is that ChristensenMJ is correct that auxiliaries do not perform the work that general authorities do and they are distinctly separate groups. This has been the long standing established consensuses. However, Jgstokes is correct that recently many changes have been made, therefore, it can be argued that the line separating them is no longer so bright. This is why I felt that Trödel particular naming suggestion of Jgstokes desire to merge had some merit. I had hope that something new, some new justification, would come up, making the line clearer on way or the other. However, that hasn't happened and this discussion is a rehash of the same reasoning, which doesn't seem to justify a change.

  However, my reason for weakly opposing the change is that these changes are Wikipedia:Recentism, i.e. "without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic...". We don't yet know how these changes that the LDS Church has/are making are going to affect the LDS Church in the long term. Are these going to change the very structure of the church as Jgstokes suggest? Or are the window dressing to appease the "Ordain Women" movement as some suggest? Or is the truth somewhere in between? Ultimalty, we just don't yet know what the outcome of these changes are going to be, making this a case of Wikipedia:Recentism. Therefore we need to wait and see.

  Ultimately, given what has been written here, I see that more harm can come from merging them and being wrong then can come from not merging them and being wrong, as merging them is "...trying to make "equal" what is not "equal".." Therefore, at this time, I cannot agree with a merge.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 12:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. But I too am a little surprised that you came to this particular topic in hopes of hearing some new argument. The arguments in the topic that resulted in the creation of this topic are the same, as they should be. Any new reason for favoring this change will be included as time and circumstances allow ASAP after new information comes to light. Until that time, I would not object to putting this topic to bed temporarily, unless someone who hasn't had a chance to give their opinion comes along. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Ordinance (LDS Church) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ordinance (LDS Church) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordinance (LDS Church) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 15:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)