Talk:Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Distinctive Doctrines

Where does this information come from: "The church teaches plurality of wives, who are believed to be inferior to their husbands, as a general requirement for the highest eternal salvation of men, Godhood." that women in FLDS are "believed to be inferior to their husbands"? Inferior in what way? Is there more specific information? Kewp 08:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be inflamatory. I do not think that doctrinally they see women as inferior, just 'differently' equal. --Tobey 17:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The religion is totally tailored towards males, in my opinion. Polygamy is pretty misogynistic altogether. The religion treats women as a form of currency or a reward, not giving them any say in who they will marry, where they will live, and how many children they will have. They get kicked out or locked away if they refuse the males' wishes. I don't know, maybe it's just obvious to me... Mikesherk 03:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Depending on the community in scrutiny, the members feel differently about how their religion is. For example, in Centennial Park, AZ (just a few miles from Colorado City, AZ) they are more open and liberal than the members of Colorado City, they are allowed to watch movies and are slightly more "in tunned" to the rest of the world. According to some of the members the women are allowed to leave and live a different life if they so choose. This is not the case with the FLDS living in Colorado City. However, the women believe they are given to the men but what the men do is none of their business.User:wils4930

Headquarters

Sandy, UT? Is that real? Warren Jeffs, prophet lives in CC, AZ. Hawstom 09:34, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nice addition. Maybe the Sandy location is (or was) the "official" headquarters, with all the members living elsewhere. I can't verify, so I'm removing the Sandy, Ut. reference. COGDEN 03:54, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Jeff compound was located at the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon in Sandy, UT until the family left for CC. During 1970's Warren and his siblings attended local public schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:205.188.208.10 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 2004 Feb 4

Integrate this into Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

Posted

12:17, 2004 Jan 17 . . 64.78.74.74

as entire text of Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter (sic: no "Day Saints" at end):

Leader and Prophet Rulon T. Jeffs died in 2002 leaving his son, Warren Jeffs as the leader of this organization. (Rulon Jeffs--married 22 women, fathered more than 60 children his son is quickly coming up the ranks as well.) The headquarters are in Hildale, Utah, but the group has a strong presence in the border Colorado City, Arizona as well. Those towns, once known as Short Creek, were the site of the last effort to prosecute polygamists in 1953. Public sentiment turned against authorities after newsreels showed children being taken from their mothers and fathers being thrown in jail.

Welfare fraud, tax fraud, incest, statutory rape, physical, emotional and psychological abuse are all elements interwoven in this community, hidden behind a veil of secrecy, isolation, and deprivation. Roughly 20,000 men, women and children participating this illegal lifestyle, 33% are receiving state and federal aid. They also lay claims to 0% unemployment in the 2000 census.

Placed on Wikipedia:Cleanup Jan 18, and then blanked (after moving text here) and put on VfD. Recommend those more familiar w/ the subject evaluate, NPOV, and move into article as needed.
--Jerzy 19:12, 2004 Jan 18 (UTC)

Will do my best. Thanks. Umm, should I leave the text here or remove it?
--Hawstom 20:31, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Umm, I am a little confused by this deletion business. That Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter (sic: no "Day Saints" at end) page was clearly a mistake caused by an associate of mine clicking on a deformed link in an e-mail I sent. On the page I see you have put that it is slated for deletion. But I don't find it on Votes for Deletion. How long does it take to delete an obvious mistake like that, and where and how is it done? Can it not be put on a speedy deletion list? I don't understand why it is still around. Can you explain what is happening?
--Hawstom 16:23, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

H, i don't recall; it seems to be gone now; it may be that it was not done quickly bcz the VFD was treated as applying to the article, not just the redirect that got created when the article was renamed. Sorry not to have noted your question earlier.
--Jerzy(t) 03:39, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

For the record, back in early '04 neither moves nor deletions were documented as they are now, and i doubt there was such a thing as a history merge, unless via labor-intensive intervention by a developer. I was presumably confused in describing a "renam[ing]". My best guess -- w/o having looked into old revisions on the very busy pages VFD (forerunner to AfD) and CU -- is that

someone pointed out on CU that the title looked like an error,
someone provided the correct title,
someone blanked the text of the article, probably replacing it by the markup for rdr'g to the accompanying article,
i got the text (either by being the one who blanked it, or (my guess, based on hazy recollection of long-past events) from the history, before the Rdr-ized page was deleted), and copied it into this section of this talk page, to facilitate a cut-and-paste text merge (which probably was the best that was practical at the time),
Hawstom effected that text merge,
the Rdr was deleted on a presumption of uselessness, sometime in the next 50 days, and
IIRC, viewing or restoring deleted pages from that period later became impossible due to their non-redundant storage and a destruction of data in a malfunction that i don't recall hearing any details of.

--Jerzy•t 22:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Mention Krakauer?

Should there be any mention of the increased public attention given this sect after Jon Krakauer published Under the Banner of Heaven? That book seems to have sold well, and I imagine it had some impact on this group -- is there anything verifiable that would be worth noting about that here? Jwrosenzweig 21:04, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

CBC stories

CBC website has a longer story about Canadian colony at Bountiful from January 2003 [1] and a recent story about police investigating abuse allegation at the colony [2].

sect status

I've been reading through the wikipedia entry for Sect and I'm just not sure how FLDS fits into that status as a "sect of mormonism". According to the article on Mormonism, the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is also a sect, but I think a perspective from a Mormon would in fact be useful on this subject. Is FLDS considered by traditional LDS folks to be a sect (in fact, do they consider the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints itself to be a sect of Mormonism)? As an outside perspective, I'm not sure that "Sect" would be the most clear word to use in the context of the introduction for FLDS. Perhaps we should include that the sect is "controversial" or that these beliefs are not part of the mainstream beliefs of Mormonism, so FLDS is considered a sect. That's my 2 cents. I just think clarification would be beneficial to understanding and maintaining an NPOV and encyclopedic stance on the subject. --ABQCat 05:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think by any definition of the word sect, the FLDS church is one. There might conceivably be some issue as to whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a sect, but the word sect has two meanings: the word means not just a dissenting group that breaks away from a larger group, but it also is a synonym for religious denomination, which clearly the CoJCoLDS is. COGDEN 16:58, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

To (us English speaking) LDS, sect means simply denomination. But to some others--from Spanish speaking background, for example--sect may be a pejorative term like cult. I don't know whether that consideration ought to factor into our Wikipedia usage. The word "branch" is generally non-connotative. I won't quibble over any less-nuanced substitution for sect. Tom - Talk 19:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:BoNoMoJo changed the phrase in question to "originated from". Doesn't this imply that FLDS is no longer a part of Mormonism? We could factually say FLDS originated from LDS, but we can't factually say FLDS originated from Mormonism, at least not the way we are using the word in the Wikipedia. Could we say, "FLDS is a branch of the Latter Day Saint Movement that originated from the LDS Church."? Tom - Talk 03:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No. A sect is "a dissenting religious group, formed as the result of schism" (Merriam-Webster) See also. FLDS dissented and separated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and considers itself to be the true expresssion of the Mormon faith. Meanwhile, evangelical Christians consider the Mormon Church and its sects to be - theologically - cults of Christianity (See this theological definition). That is, while Mormons claim that Mormonism is the true expression of the Christian faith, evangelical Christians consider Mormonism to be unorthodox, and therefore outside the boundaries of the Christian faith.

Anton Hein 04:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anton, I'm sorry for being dense. But your comment goes right over my head. What are you responding to when you say no? And what are you suggesting we should say about the FLDS Church? Are you simply re-stating what we are saying--that FLDS is a branch of Mormonism, which itself is a branch of Christianity? And do you have a strong opinion about the wording in question in the first sentence? Tom - Talk 14:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anton, I agree with Hawstom - the second half of your comments seem to be based on your POV of Mormonism, not sects, or anything relating to this article. We know why there are differnces between Mormonism and Evangellical Christianity, Modern Christianity, Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but the satements above seem like they belong on Mormonism and Christianity or a controversies page. Nothing to do with the topics at hand. Please clarify. -Visorstuff 16:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for causing confusion. Am still learning how things work at Wikipedia. I was responding to Tom. Generally, I think that calling the FLDS "a branch" suggests that the FLDS is merely a denomination of Mormonism (much like, say, the Baptist Church is a denomination of Christianity). Indeed, the article currently describes FLDS as a denomination of the Mormon Church. However, the FLDS does not consider itself to be part of the Mormon Church, but rather the only true expression of Mormonism. It has thus separated itself from the Mormon Church and can therefore no longer be viewed as a branch. I added the info regarding the mainstream Mormon Church to illustrate how the terms 'sect' and 'cult' are defined theologically - in this case from an evangelical Christian perspective. As for the wording of the first sentence, I'd say that 'denomination' is incorrect. A denomination is A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy. The FLDS does not fit that description. Jon Krakauer, in his book "Under The Banner of Heaven" uses the proper term for the group when he writes, "Straddling the Utah-Arizona border, Colorado City is home to at least three Mormon Fundamentalist sects, including the world's largest: the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." (p. 10). Incidentally, even if the FLDS would want to be considered a denomination of the Mormon Church (which is does not want), that would be impossible. In Google cached statement Mormon president Gordon B. Hinkley says there is no such thing a Mormon Fundamentalist. He also says, "If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose."

Anton Hein 00:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I understand better where you are coming from, Anton. I think that using the terminology we have developed here at Wikipedia for the Latter Day Saint movement, the following statements are all accurate:

1. The FLDS Church is a branch or sect of the Latter Day Saint movement
2. The FLDS Church is a branch or sect of Mormonism
3. The FLDS Church is a schism or offshoot of the LDS Church. It originated from the LDS Church.
4. The FLDS Church is not a denomination.

Perhaps you are suggesting we should say something like "The FLDS Church, a twentieth-century schism of the LDS Church, is a branch of the Latter Day Saint movement." - Tom - Talk 07:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints rejects all affiliation with the offshoots, like the FLDS and Community of Christ. Would these groups still be considered a sect if all involved deny affiliation? - 10:32, 12 July 2006

No Church usually likes any group that they see as breaking away from them. Yet as the FLDS was made up of members originally affiliated with the LDS Church, and as they hold to many of the same beliefs, it seems appropriate to call them a sect (whether the LDS Church or its members likes it or not). Undoubtedly the FLDS regards the LDS Church as a sect too. --Tobey 00:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see that the FLDS religion is obviously related to the Latter Day Saint Movement as the box on the right says, but that box also lists Gordon B. Hinckley as a significant leader, which is no doubt true for the main sect since he is the current leader, but wouldn't it be inaccurate to list President Hinckley as a significant leader of the movement since he is not related in any way to the FLDS church? Would it be possible to at least get rid of President Hinckley's name in this article since he is important to the main sect, but not the FLDS sect?

In response to earlier questions about the FLDS's status as a sect of the LDS church. As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I thought that I may throw my own opinion in. I do not speak for the church as a whole but as a individual. In my opinion the FLDS church and it's members are as follows. They are not Latter-Day Saints. They are not Mormons. They are not a sect. They are entirely separate in all aspects. To me someone who is FLDS is as different from someone who is LDS, as a Catholic is to a Baptist. I cant even comprehend how they could call themselves Mormon. It's as if they took our principles and beliefs and changed them to serve there own designs. Other "sects" of the LDS church could conceivably be thought of as Mormon if they originated at the death of Joseph Smith and before Brigham Young was ordained. But these "sects" have gone far from the original teachings of Joseph Smith and are no longer closely related to the church in most ways. According to the 5th Article of Faith written by Joseph Smith, a man must be called of god by those who are in authority. Where did Warren Jeffs receive his authority. I don't know how well I'm explaining this but unless they've changed the doctrine from what it was when Joseph Smith was alive there is no way there leaders have authority to govern the church. It's like they think they're something they're not. I believe they are not a sect, being a sect gives the perception that they are still Mormon. Which they are not. Holt2 (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lost Boys

I have been doing some research into this cult, and am wondering if there should be expanded information on the Lost Boys, the organizations set up to help them, problems they face, and other media sources?

Dr. Phil ran a run-up episode on the FLDS, and A Current Affair ran a story on Carl Ream -- a boy, who at 14, ran away from the community (Broadcast date of 05/09/05). There are several documentaries as well.

Also, should there be some sort of expanded information on Warren Jeffs and the obscene amount of children he has?

To tell the truth, I have been a bit concerned that this article (I wrote much of it) violates NPOV by not being positive and sympathetic as possible. Unfortunately (since that is our interest who are writing, and we have been to lazy to "write for the enemy") the article is quite slanted against the FLDS Church, which is of course against our policies at Wikipedia. I will go see if I can get somebody more sympathetic to help us improve the article. Tom Haws 23:04, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think that it could also be argued that an article that's as "postive and sympathetic" as possible in itself violates the principles of NPOV. I think the best thing to do is to just say the truth, and not try to pretty it up any. The truth will attend to itself, whether it works for or against the FDLS.

JesseG 21:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Good thoughts. It is important to follow the NPOV policy as it is explained at WP:NPOV. That requires us to write with a sympathetic and positive tone. And it requires us to avoid discerning "truth" and instead to present "knowledge". My underlying concern is that it is not Wikipedia's business to run an expose on anybody or to debunk anything. I am certain there are plenty of people who could provide warm and fuzzy "knowledge" about the FLDS church. According to our NPOV policy, we need to find those people and get their perspective. This article fails in that it presents nothing but bad news. See Caltonh comments in the next section, where perhaps we coudl continue this dialogue. I invited several FLDSers to contribute to this article, but they have apparently not showed up. Tom Haws 21:26, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please see new article: Lost Boys of Polygamy Greenw47 12:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A good way of NPOV-ing this article would be to include more of a history segment of this religion. It's really off-balanced, writing too much about warren jeffs, rather than an article on the FLDS church. For example, it's almost impossible to trace the succession of church leadership based on this article alone.. Fredsmith2 09:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A timeline of FLDS church leadership would definately be a good addition to the page, please feel free to add this information to the article. I will again state my disagreement with the Warren Jeffs information being off-balanced since he was a major factor in moulding the church into the form we see now. Twunchy 15:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Doctrine and Beliefs?

Shouldn't there be at least some description of their doctrine and beliefs? What are their "inspired texts" if any, and religious practices? The article understandably focuses on their reasons for being noticed, but some balancing should be added. If they are non-evangelical and don't reveal much detail to outsiders, then at least a statement of such could be added. Carltonh 21:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Tom, lets retain a semblance of logic here. When the law is broken, it should be reported as broken. For instance, the murder page does not mention that many people find a fulfilling lifestyle in serial killing, and likewise the Holocaust page doesn't say that some concentration camps were extremely loving, warm and fuzzy environments. When you force a 14 year old to marry you illegally, the law is violated, end of story. There is nothing warm or fuzzy about that fact. 68.60.53.141 (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Various corrections

The FLDS as a Church organization under that name is a rather recent occurance, they were previously called the United Order Effort. They were part of the religious group headed by Lorin C. Woolley, J. Leslie Broadbent, John Y. Barlow and Joseph W Musser (until they began to split from his authority in 1952-54). I altered a few words to more accurately present this fact.

This is well documented by Prof. D. Michael Quinn, Prof. B. Carmon Hardy and others.

The Apostolic United Brethren had a temple in Mexico doing vicarious ordinances before the Eldorado one. The Manti-based "True and Living Church" and Peterson's Patriarchal church also have one. The text has been altered to reflect this.

It is important to note that the Centennial Park group (sometimes called the Third Ward) split away from them, as did a group in Bountiful under the direction of Winston Blackmore. (unsigned by tobeyjaggle)

Do you have a reference for an operating temple for the TLC? Not doubting, just haven't seen info on it. I thought they believe they get the Manti tempel and perform ordinacnes in homes, etc. The other is an endowment house, not a temple. The AUB does have an operating temple, but it is outside of the US. The FLDS temple would be the first in the US, wouldn't it? -Visorstuff 22:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a reference to the 'TLC' Endowment House at their old website & here. As well as a reference to an 'AUB" Endowment House in the wikipedia [Temple (Mormonism)] entry. Whether an Endowment House can be classed as a temple I suppose is an arguable point. However the 'Peterson' group does call theirs a temple and it has been around for a while now.

Structure of the church

There is a hierarchal structure to the FLDS church- which is not discussed. For example, it discusses Warren Jeffs as a prophet, but it does not dicuss the apostleship or other councils, bishops, etc. Any takers on the research and writing of it? We need to get it more inline with other denomination articles. -Visorstuff 21:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Blood atonement

The distinctive doctrines section was changed by 216.83.150.243 from my original "Critics claim that Warren Jeffs has indicated his desire to resurrect the 19th-Century Mormon doctrine of 'blood atonement'...." to "...has indicated his desire to institute the doctrine...."

I believe that the original should stand. This was originally a Mormon doctrine taught by leaders of the church, as stated in the blood atonement article. I don't see a reason to not point out that fact. The word "institute" implies that Jeffs has come up with an entirely new doctrine, which is not true. Here's a quote from the intro to that article:

In Mormonism, blood atonement is a controversial doctrine taught by some early Latter-day Saint leaders, and expanded by Brigham Young, that within a theocracy, there are certain sins such as murder that requires that murderers "have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins" in order for the Atonement of Jesus fully operative in the repentance process.

I don't want to revert this if there is some legitimate reason to go with the new wording, but I can't see any. Mycota 05:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The genuine Mormon church has never practiced or taught “blood atonement” as it is often represented by our critics. The following quote from Doctrine and Covenenants 134:10 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/134/10#10 was written in 1835; and stands as a statement of official doctrine of the church from that time, up until now, and forever (or at least until God tells us otherwise):

“We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.”

This was the official doctrine and policy of the church when Joseph Smith was running it, it was the official doctrine and policy when Brigham Young was running it, and it remains the official doctrine and policy today. It was the doctrine and policy when various leaders of the early church are alleged to have taught otherwise; and any that may have so taught did so in error and without authority. To claim that this “blood atonement” was ever an actual practice or teaching of the genuine Mormon church is dishonest and inaccurate. Bob Blaylock (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The current article states:

"Richter also claims that he was asked to design a thermostat for a high-temperature furnace that would be capable of destroying DNA evidence if such "atonements" were to take place"

The sourced article has gone off-line, but as near as I can tell Richter never made the link between the incinerator and destroying DNA - that was done by a Texas newspaper editor. A simple google search of "2,700 degree furnace" shows that such furnaces are also used in making asphalt and steel. Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary, I'm thinking of removing it. Objections?Mgy401 1912 (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do Mormon Fudamentalists have fun?

I'd just want to know what life is like for the youth commutiy. Like i to knew the answers to these Questions:Do the mormon Fuds had ever watch/read Star Wars or lord of the Rings or some kind of other populer franchinse(epecially the Chronicles of Narnia) and would their leaders wuold let them do so(and they had made commets about these kind of stuff?)And do youths (especially the ladies) would their folks aloud them to have successful careers like of a singing or acting career? Also I like to knew if they've their own millitia? I'd just want to knew all these things please(and you people can also add some exta links to other web articles that may have the answer to my question)Thanks.Also would the folks (especially the leader of the church himself) would let the peopke watch TV shows (especially Lost,the Stargate TV shows, and munch others; also did the they made similer commets about this)And do most members of this subreligeon group do munch about world/or american history and are taught it(and do they even knew current events and especially some stuff about the paranormal like Bigfoot,Yeti,The Loch Ness monster,UFO,Chupacabra,and other kinds of stuff (especially about Hollywood).Also do they let them play viodeo/computer or Board games(especially like Knights of the old Republic and others; and did the the leader of te mormon Fundeamentalists made any commets on this.) And were they aloud to read postmodiem,Modiesm,or other reading genres, like fight club.And do they've any book stores or librabries of their own.And do they eat internatioal food and would thier leader do so let'em? Ah well I think I'm askin' you people too many Questions, but you can make your answers short if you what.And I think I'm now done asking you anyway.-Jana

Mormon Fundamentalists in other communities (such as the [Apostolic United Brethren] - AUB) hold activities for their youth - sports, dances, firesides, & trips. Although very worldly entertainment is shunned, different parents and youth have differing standards and expectations.

Many Independent & AUB Fundamentalist youth have read Lord of the Rings, watch popular movies (although most take exception to frequent swearing, nudity, and extreme violence), and have game consoles. Other such youth are more conservative.

There is Fundamentalist fiction, plays, pageants, musicals etc. although they are rarely heard of outside of their communities.

The FLDS are not typical of most other Fundamentalists in these areas.

--Tobey 06:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Article way out of date

I have taken the liberty of adding many aspects and current events of the FLDS church that have transpired in the last few years, most notably the transition to the Texas compound, and the Attorney General's Office lawsuit against (well technically for the protection of) the United Effort Plan. I think this article is in need of clarification and additional referencing from recent articles of information published recently. I think the NPOV has wandered and a new section needs to be added for criticisms, lawsuits, controversies, etc. Since this church is very closed lipped, all we hear are the bad things and that's crept into the wordings in sections that they shouldn't be in. I am not a sympathetic person to this religion but they should be at least objectively portrayed, even though much negative information is out there, there should be a way to properly present this. Any help would be of course, helpful. :) Twunchy 22:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please also see Lost Boys of Polygamy - new article. Greenw47 20:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Paramilitary groups

I removed the following sentence:

There has been allegations that the FLDS has a paramilitary group with it's intent to kill African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, Latin Americans, and even immigrants.

It is poorly worded, unsourced, and POV. Mycota 21:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, there's no military group whatsoever in the FLDS Church. I grew up there and participated in the closest thing they have to the group "The Sons of Helaman" a group of young boys between the ages of 9-16 who march. That's all they do. I was an active participant in the "The Sons of Helaman" both as a young recruit who marched and again in my late teens as a Sargent who organized and disciplined a platoon of boys to make sure they were ready to put on an impressive marching display.

The leaders of the FLDS Church always told us to NOT have ANY guns. The philosophy was that if we had guns the Lord would put events into motion that would force us to use them and being a very docile and nonmilitant group in general we perceived that to be a bad thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xartican (talk • contribs) 05:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of the name Mormon Fundamentalist

The Associated Press Stylebook states, "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death." It has been stated for for the press that "The term "Mormon" is a nickname commonly applied to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is no such thing as a "Mormon fundamentalist," nor are there “Mormon sects." A correct term to describe these polygamist groups is "polygamist sects." The inclusion of the word "Mormon" is misleading and inaccurate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natelewis (talk • contribs)

May be. “Polygamist sects” could describe several religious - mormon other christian or non-christian groups. But the FLDS is evidently a denomination with mormon origin, history, scripture-base and teachings. How could this problem be solved without using the “mormon”-terme? -- Dietrich Benninghaus 18:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism calls them Mormon Fundamentalists. I believe that the term originated with a journalist for Time magazine in the 1930s, and is widely used by scholars of history and theology. What else do you call a group that calls themselves Mormon, and has the Book in the Mormon as one of its sacred texts. It should be noted that many members are not polygamous, and therefore just calling them polygamists ignores the uniquely Mormon aspects of their beliefs that even their monogamist adherants hold to. Perhaps Latter-day Saint Fundamentalists would be more acurate, but I think the LDS church would like that even less. --Tobey 23:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This page and all LDS pages should be merged under the title Mormonism. All LDS pages are talking about Joseph Smith's teachings, the page is about his teachings anyway, so that goes to reason they read the book of Mormon therfore Mormons.You may want to seperate your modern church from its past however its past can't be changed. The current "big" branch is still preaching about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and they were part of the Latter Day Saint movement, Church and Mormonism.

This is not the main reason I suggest the change however. They should be merged because all the other religions I've read about on Wikipedia include the movements or beginings, middles and currents on their main (only) page. As in Buddist getting only a Buddism page, Hindus getting only a Hindism page and so on. If they are not merged then I feel that all of the other religions should have similar adjustment to the Mormons. As Mormonism has three (3) different listings as of today, Sept. 26 2006, Latter day Saint Movement,Latter day saints and Mormons. They should all be listed under Mormanism. Anarcism, Capitalism, Communism have many forms but only one (1) page each.

lol: I was wrong there are nine (9) pages on Momonism as of today (maybe more are hiding) Latter day Saint Movement,Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ,History of the Latter Day Saint movement,Jesus in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Missions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon, Mormonism, and there are lists with (small) pages of even more sects. I'd be willing to wager that all of the different branches not only follow the book of Mormon, but also all but one originated in Utah.

Joeseph Smith's MORMONISM and the book of Mormon is what all the above pages are all refering to.

And a quote from Latter Day Saint movement page shows the connection."The Latter Day Saint movement spawned many religious denominations, some of which include a set of doctrines, practices, and cultures collectively known as Mormonism, although some do not accept the designation Mormon."

I believe "Latter Day Saint Denomination" is acceptable (note it doesn't contain the hyphenated Latter-day that the Utah Church holds). Calling them a polygamist sect is ridiculous, because it barely describes their religion and they are in fact a religion, primarily. Imagine calling the Utah LDS a "door knocking sect" or a "food storage sect" It is insulting to say that. It is equally insulting to call the FLDS a "Polygamist Sect" and deny them their religious title.

There is a link to this article from the Exmormonism article, backed up in the discussion section of Exmormonism. It seems only logical that there should be a link back. greenw47

Is there a reference for the AP stylebook? I know this is a quote from lds.org, but I haven't seen the actual reference to the AP stylebook. Fredsmith2 09:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The AP (Associated Press) stylebook that says that word "Mormon" is not correctly attributed to any other organization besides The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Information is from this article: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645197523,00.html Twunchy 15:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I know the Mormons don't like it that polygamist sects also call themselves Mormons. What I'm wondering is where AP says that Mormon should only be applied to the Mormon Church. lds.org, and the church-owned deseretnews.com, that mildly reference a styleguide aren't reliable sources for the Associated Press. Fredsmith2 18:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

statement without citation

... Joseph Smith, believed to be a prophet of God by members, had encouraged in the belief that they were restoring original Christianity.

I removed this portion last week because it states that he believed that they were restoring original Christianity is unfounded to my knowledge. I believe it should be removed unless a reference from Joseph Smith's writings is placed. I think a citation is necessary because the statement makes sound LDS members sound hypocritical without mentioning their belief in continuing revelation (like when in acts the need for circumcision and the rule that the gospel was only for the Jews were both changed).--72.130.179.41 15:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

polygyny

I know that technically what the FLDS practices is polygyny, but it's called polygamy or plural marriage within the FLDS church. This article seems misleading, in that it seems to indicate that the FLDS church calls its practice polygyny. Fredsmith2 09:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck! Just because the FLDS church uses different terminology doesn't change the facts. The fact that the FLDS consider it polygamy or plural marriage IS stated in the article but polygyny is the precise term. Twunchy 15:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, this article is misleading. The common term is polygamy, and polygamy includes polygyny. Thus saying that the FLDS church practices polygamy is technically correct. They just don't practice polyandry as part of their polygamist practice. They only practice polygyny as part of their polygamist practice. Perhaps the references to polygyny should be moved to the polygamy page of wikipedia, even though that page does expain polygyny pretty well. Fredsmith2 19:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps it should be specified in the article that they practice "polygyny", but call it "polygamy". If it is technically correct to call polygyny "polygamy", since this includes it, it must be as correct to call polygyny "marriage", as that term also includes polygamy, and then one could, in turn, argue for calling it "something", as "something" includes marriage. Let's be as specific as reasonably possible, please? Saganaki 17:57, 5 april 2008 (UTC)

Saying they practice polygamy and saying they practice polygyny are both correct as polygyny is a type of polygamy. So perhaps, that's what the article should say at an appropriate place: the type of polygamy practiced in the FLDS is polygyny.

Move Warren Jeffs information to Warren Jeffs page

Most of this article is about Warren Jeffs, not about the FLDS church. Most of this article should be moved to the Warren Jeffs page, and a small section should detail Jeffs' leadership of the church. Fredsmith2 18:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if you know much about this church you will understand that it was definately all about Mr. Warren Jeffs, while he was actively running the church. The majority of this article is about the church, but Mr. Jeffs and the FLDS church are inextricably combined. Twunchy 05:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The FLDS church "started" in 1890, and this article is sadly lacking in historical information other than about Warren Jeffs. I understand that having a convicted rapist as the head of a religious organization is sensational and thus it's easier to find Jeffs references than earlier church references, but I think that this article violates the NPOV by focusing so much on Jeffs, rather than on the organization, even if in the last few years, "Jeffs was the organization." Fredsmith2 18:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously are you reading past the intro? The vast majority of this article has nothing to do with Warren Jeffs. And there is a problem with what you propose by adding more information about this religion: from what would we quote? Unfortunately most of the "history" that is accessable is not published in a manner friendly to the FLDS church, and there are no reliable primary sources that I know of that give a doctrinal or historical viewpoint about the FLDS movement. The religion is "closed" to the outside world, so therefore there's scant information to go off of. There is a wikipedia policy of verifiablilty, most of the statements and facts here are from widely circulated press and insider accounts, which typically skew in the unfavorable direction for the FLDS church, but they are verifiable. There would need to be a reliable primary source of a more neutral slant which would be needed to quote from to do what you propose. If there is such a publication, please enlighten us about it and we can continue from there, but until then you have this conundrum to solve, From what do we quote? Twunchy 19:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fredsmith2 on this one. Most of the information in the intro, although not necessarily needing to be moved to another page, should at least be moved to a sub-section, since it is information about one aspect of the organization, not the organization as a whole. Rajakiit 22:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Warren Jeffs

Is Warren Jeffs still leading the church, even in jail, or is there a new leader or going to be a new leader? Does anyone know? Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 22:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been reported, notably in the Deseret News, that Warren Jeffs attempted to renounce his position as prophet. It is unknown if a replacement to Warren Jeffs has been made, but it is rumored that there are new leaders within the FLDS that are tending to church affairs wile Warren awaits trial.

Just as an FYI, I will be undoing some of your deletions because the information was factual, it's just not easy to cite the facts in question due to sparse information available. Most of the items in the article have been widely reported in the media, but tracking down the original citations is difficult. I am intimately aware of many allegations reported here for these articles due to my interactions with the Utah Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, and others but most of this info comes verbally to me and others in the media, and are not necessarily published in an easily citeable way...for example if the Atty General mentions something as fact on Fox News (or other broadcast media), how do I cite that? Unless a transcription has been made, which often there is not, how do I make the citation, even though it's a fact that has been stated there is no written record of it. I run a television studio and have had discussions on all fronts of the FLDS church and I have been trying my best to keep all information as factual and up to date as possible but I don't have much time to devote to the cause of tracking down proper citations, but I do think it is a disservice to outright delete information even if factual just because of a missing citation, I'd rather see you help locate these missing citations, because they are out there, I just can't get to them all. Twunchy 05:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

While the information may be factual, it is in accordance with Wikipedia policy to remove any uncited information which is contested. These claims were contested, as someone added a citation needed tag before I removed the OR. Criticism sections should especially be properly cited. Also, since when was information regarding FLDS information too sparse? Go to your local library, use the internet or a database and you will find a lot of information. If you really don't want something not removed, then you can cite it. That's the policy; please stop violating it by reinserting OR after it was previously removed. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 07:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bountiful, British Columbia

Right now, the Bountiful article is very heavy on Church information, and this article is very thin on information regarding the BC branch, so I have posted a request for guidance on condensing the BC article and expanding the main FLDS article. Any input/help is welcome. Anchoress 10:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent duplicative edits

A recent editor has been adding historical information that is already in the article. There is no need to duplicate this information. Edit the historical information that is there, but don't create a whole new section that is repetitive. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 03:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have every right to ADD more information to this article to make it more complete and comprehensive. This article after all is about the FLDS it would be a shame for me to put any of that information in huh? Twunchy 04:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course you do—but you need to add it to what is already there. When a history section already exists, add to it. You don't need to write a new section from scratch. That's not the way WP editing works, generally, unless there are severe problems with what already exists. You build on what is already there. No need to re-invent the wheel. The vast majority of the information you added was already covered in the section entitled "history". Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 04:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable to alter the format of a page, heck I'm the one who made it as it was. Twunchy 04:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Typically articles about churches don't have two history sections covering the same information. I don't think that is "perfectly acceptable". And regardless of your edit history, you don't own the page and can't simply make it how you like it by avoiding all considerations of formatting and style. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither do you own the page either sir. Don't come in and stake claim to an article and then point the finger at me and say i'm claiming it...yes I claimed it when no one had touched it and it was very POV and out of touch, I came in and claimed it because no one else did. If you want to help, please help, don't just hit the delete button. If you want to piss someone off on wikipedia it's by deleting their hard work without regard. Twunchy 04:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

?? You're very touchy, my friend. I never claimed ownership; I am trying to get you to see why your edit may have been inappropriately performed. But whatever. Have it your way, Burger King. The article looks kind of sh***y now, what with everything having been said twice, but whatever. If you want to stake ownership, that's an issue that will be taken up with administrators. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 04:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

LDS.org citation

The lds.org being added should probably not be referenced due to its inherent POV nature—it claims the term "Mormon" may be used exclusively by the LDS Church. We can't cite this kind of claim unless it is a cite of the claim itself as opposed to showing the difference between LDS Church and FLDS Church. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 03:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference was provided as per the request of fredsmith2. The citation proivided the context requested establishing the fact that there is no connection TODAY between the two religions. If you cannot agree with that then you shouldn' be editing this page because they are not in cahoots, related, or even working together. The citation was only to prove the request to stand behind the statement I will now quote from that citation the relevant part "There is no reason why the Church would wish to comment about a legal action concerning a group with which it has no affiliation or connection." That's the only reason the citation was there, I can't pick and choose their webpages content I gotta take it as it is. Twunchy 04:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But there ARE connections today, that's the point (see below). It's just that the connections aren't official or based on interaction between church authorities. The LDS Chruch has no monopoly or trademark on the word "Mormon", which was essentially what the citation was claiming. We can find a more NPOV cite that simply says the churches are not officially connected. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 04:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

NO there's NOT!! There exists historical connections, none today. If you know of some please cite them. Twunchy 04:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are some for you:

1. A large percentage of the doctrine and teachings are the same or very similar.
2. Belief in Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as a prophet of God.
3. Belief in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price and much of the Doctrine and Covenants
4. Some members in FLDS Church used to be LDS Church members, and vice versa
5. Similar church heirarchy

There are others. As I said, these are NOT official connections. They are unofficial. But they are connections. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 04:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

THe same can be said of Christian and Jew. There IS a difference and that is why I changed the statement. Twunchy 04:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You're making a WP:WAX-style argument that is very unconvincing. I have shown there are connections. And anyhow, to say there is "no connection" between Jadaism and Christianity would also be incorect. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 04:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Connection to LDS Church

I have changed the broad statement that today there are "no connections" between the FLDS Church and the LDS Church to the more correct statement that there are "no official connections" between the churches. There are some connections—historical connections; connections in the public mind; some of the members of one may have previously been members of the other, etc. But it is true that there is no "official connection" and that they are separate denominations, and that is what the article should state. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 03:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason I edited this is because the "offical connection" grammar is very weasely (see WP: Weasel words) as in "Lance Armstrong is officially retired from cycling". This statement doesn't say he quit riding his bicycle altogether, but instead implies that he no longer competes, the statement they are not "officially connected" implies an unofficial one in this sense as in "wink wink, sure they don't." The statement I made was that RIGHT NOW, TODAY, THIS TIME PERIOD, there is absolutely no connection between religions any more than the Catholics are to the Lutherans. Twunchy 04:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That kind of super-explanation can easily be included in a footnote. Saying there is no connection at all is blind to history and many of the doctrinal connections. Quite simply, there ARE connections that go beyond what is officially true, so it's not at all weasily. Also, calling the LDS Church the "Mormon Church" is a weasily way of implying that Mormon fundamentalists have no right to claim to be Mormons, which is POV. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 04:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I never made such a statement sir. Twunchy 04:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit you made did say there was no connection and it seemed to go out of its way to refer to the LDS Church as the "Mormon Church". It's just unnecessary and causes too many problems. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 04:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW connections in the public minds between LDS and FLDS are not facts, the are also known as MISCONCEPTIONS and after all an encyclopedia is supposed to DISSPELL misinformation, no? Twunchy 04:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That was just one of many examples. See my list in the above section. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 04:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic & Lutheran churches split thousands of years ago, yet one can enter the church of the other & not only recognize but agree with 90% of the service. Yet we're supposed to believe that the FLDS has veered from the LDS so much in only 100 years that they cannot recognize each other as related, in any possible way? In contrast, the Seventh-Day Adventists seemed to accept that the Branch Davidians in Waco were a breakaway group, however embarrassing, because historical fact made it undeniable. While I'm certain the LDS wants us to believe there are no doctrinal connections, I don't believe an unbiased observer can agree with that. BogWhomper (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Page used as reference

Top of this page reads: "This page has been cited as a source by a media organization"

Let's get frank: lots of people are too lazy to do research. So, they look to wikipedia, for all of its faults, the handiest free encyclopedia. The use of wikipedia as a reference is larger than acknowledged in Talk:Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is apparent in reading between the lines of many news stories, that many of key points in some news articles rely on points presented in wikipedia articles. Dogru144 15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And your point is ... ? Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 09:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Red Links

I found several red links in this article. If their subjects are notable, articles about them should be created, but if not, the red links should be removed. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The red links are an invitation to those who may have additional information about these people, who are indeed notable within the context of thie faith, remember that "Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished" as per your link to the red links page, they are not to be avoided, but are there to encourage those that may know more info to contribute. Twunchy (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What causes this article to side scroll

I seem to be seeing this more and more often on certain articles, but I can never find a reason as to why they do this, as I never see anything on the right side past the normal width of my screen. I'm not sure whether or not its my computer but I don't think so, and if it is I don't understand why it is only happening on certain pages. --Jamespoky (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs

The article touches on a number of things, some of which are strongly different from the normal Mormon practice of faith. Shouldn't it also touch on the beliefs of faith that separate it from the more common Mormon faith? I don't find well document statements to add to the article, but am just asking. 75.62.238.163 (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

where do members come from?

How many members are regular LDS who drift over, as compared with native-born FLDS?128.100.110.82 (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In all reality, the only growth of this sect comes from within...outsiders are strictly that. There are no proselyting efforts to increase the worshiping population, there is just an unfortunate past of large families with close marriages, borderline incest, and the consequences therein because of the closed nature of the religion. There's no drifting from LDS to FLDS, it's just a "homegrown" product. Twunchy (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I personally know of at least 3 people who are friends who used to be in the LDS Church and became members of the FLDS in Utah and Alberta. These are just people I happen to know, and it's anecdotal evidence, but it suggests that there are some outside "converts", if you will. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Birth Defects

The section on Birth Defects (fumarase deficiency) is supported only by a newspaper opinion story. There does not appear to be any actual study cited. Proxy User (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that can be cited that support this claim about the Fumarase deficiency & FLDS connection, including:

• Dougherty, John (29 December 2005). "Forbidden Fruit". Phoenix New Times. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Hollenhorst, John (8 February 2006). "Birth defect is plaguing children in FLDS towns". Deseret Morning News. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "Doctor: Birth defects increase in inbred polygamy community". Daily Herald. 9 February 2006. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Adams, Brooke (11 February 2006). "Physician finds rare disease in FLDS kids". The Salt Lake Tribune. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (reprint)
• Szep, Jason (14 June 2007). "Polygamist community faces rare genetic disorder". Reuters.

The articles on this list are not "opinion" pieces (or what the newspapers call an editorial), but instead are news reports. Dr. Theodore Tarby did also publish his findings in a medical journal, but I haven't found that reference yet. -- 63.224.135.113 (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious Persecution

If this article attempts to support the claim that religious persecution is not occurring here, then it will need to address these questions:
Under what pretext were authorities spying on the ranch and taking aerial photographs prior to the raid?
How is it that the main victim, ‘Sarah,’ went to a hospital for broken ribs in a domestic dispute that didn’t result in the hospital calling the police?
How is it that the main suspect, Dale Evans Barlow, has been living in Arizona for the last 31 years?
Why do none of the cell towers around the ranch have a record of a cell phone call occurring for the time and duration of the distress call?
How were the authorities able to mount such a huge raid on such short notice?
Why would authorities overreact in sending in men in full combat gear with assault rifles and armored personnel carriers against such a passive group?
Why did the police confiscate cameras and pictures FLDS members took of the raid?
Why is it that the First Baptist Church of Eldorado Texas provided busses to carry off the children?
Why did police want to break into and confiscate belongings in locked dressers?
Why did authorities lie to the mothers?
Why did authorities take cell phones from the mothers?
Why is guilt by association applied to this group and not to more legitimate cases of child abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests?
Is it not the souls of these children that Texas officials are trying to protect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.85.26 (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing Wikipedia with a blog. Please read up on WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:MOS and feel free to make additions to the article. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are some answeres to all of your questions.

1. The authorities were stopped at the gate and stayed there, it was a stand off.
2. The hospital does not investigate unless thay see or hear something amiss, pepole brake bones every day.
3. You can live any where you want.
4. How do you know that thay do or don't?
5. A warrent.
6. Thay did not know what thay would come up aguenst, thay had to be prepared for the worst.
7. Too see if there were any other photos on the cameras/cell phones that could be used as evedence.
8. Someone had to take them.
9. It was a rade, and thay had a warrednt, to look for evedence. would you leave something you don't want anyone to see out in the open.?
10. To get them to go easy (I'm not saying that was right).
11. Evedence.
12. The caholic church has no extencive recored going back years.
13. How do you know.

User talk:Miajmw Miagirljmw14 (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

75.172.85.26,

Despite the extent of sexual child abuse by Catholic clergy (What of Anglican clergy? Neglect to mention high incidence of similar abuse of children by Anglican clergy in your "argument" and you demonstrate what I suspect is either ignorance or prejudice against Catholics in general, i.e. what was it, Religious Persecution), Catholic moral theology and clergy and laity alike DO NOT foster a sick and paedophiliac culture wherein underage girls are little more than sociliased livestock for adult males. Although misogyny indubitably infects the minds of religious leaders the world over, this cult season it with a perverse, ironically pornographic, hypermasculine paedophilia which is sociopathic - AT LEAST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.34.5 (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is sort of weird

I'm sure I'm not the first person to notice this about this picture which is I believe the third or fourth picture from the top in this article, but have you guys noticed that band of light that comes directly out of the upper left hand part of the picture and hits the temple? It may be a trick of the camera lens, but it is still sort of humorous. It's sort of like, "I can see the light!" (By the way, I don't mean that as an insult. Take it as a joke.) Raecoli (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article include the Christianity template ?

Shouldn't this article include the Christianity template to be consistant with other pages about Christian groups ? Furthermore the Latter Day Saint movement page can be reached via the Christianity template so the absence of the Christianity template on this page seems inconsistant.....as are other Christian group pages it has to be said Sean.hoyland - talk 10:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Rozita Swinton

As of April 18, the caller who initiated the polygamy raid has now been exposed as a hoax. The call was actually made by 33 year old Rozita Swinton of Colorado Springs, CO. She has been taken into custody by Texas Rangers and I believe she is being extradited to Texas. The Texas Rangers and the FBI are still investigating what exactly her connection to the FLDS is and why she made the call. See the full article here: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4678143&page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.117.245.238 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 April 2008

Yes, see the full article, which will presumably tell you that

• she was arrested by Colorado police (with TX authorities present), and released
• her crime was in CO, not TX, so TX authorities -- or FLDS lawyers -- may be able to subpoena her to testify, but not extradite, since extradition is for people accused of breaking laws of the extradition destination
• There's a good chance the call was fraudulent, but you, i, and the others who think so are basing that on very thin revelations by authorities, and lots of guess work.

--Jerzy•t 04:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Mann Act

Critics claim that some members of the church are violating laws (because polygamy is illegal in the United States) when they participate in polygamy.[47]

Polygamy is illegal under Texas State law, but does anyone know if this is supported by the federal court in any way? All I could find was the Mann Act, which was (among other things) racist. Should the Mann Act be referenced in this article? 63.211.201.174 (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Xuthos

See: Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act; Poland Act; Reynolds v. United States; Edmunds Act; Edmunds–Tucker Act; Mormon Church v. United States; Clawson v. United States, and a number of other cases listed at Category talk:Law related to Mormonism which still need articles written for them. -- 63.224.135.113 (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What the authorities found

Here's what i'm about to refactor, for clarity:

Authorities entering the temple found safes, vaults, locked desk drawers, and beds.[39]

I really don't get this sentence it doesn't fit in with the rest of the paragraph and I'm not sure why it's important to note.Lot49a (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My refactoring:

The article says

Authorities entering the temple found safes, vaults, locked desk drawers, and beds.[39]

I really don't get this sentence it doesn't fit in with the rest of the paragraph and I'm not sure why it's important to note.

Most of the sentence (all but subject?) is from the affidavit taken to court immediately following one stage of the search, and it prefaces some findings, like a presumably female hair in a bed in the temple. If it's useful in the article, it probably would be as a paraphrase & extension:

... entered the temple, and searched safes, vaults, locked desk drawers, and beds that they found there.

--Jerzy•t 10:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy Diaries

I discovered the most interesting web page about the polygamy and the lives of the FDLS. The entire web page is all about the recent events in the news (the largest child abuse case, and taking DNA from the children etc....). But there is one particular article and video that I want you to read and especially watch is "Colorado City and the Underground Railroad". To access this video you must sign-up as member to this website, but it is FREE, FREE, FREE. It will only take you a few minutes of your time. It will be worth it, so that you can watch this short documentary. Also their are other articles and video's about these FDLS people that is very informative.

The webpage:

http://www.azfamily.com/sharedcontent/southwest/azfamily/features/polygamy/index3.html

Let me know what you think. Morroccolyfe (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Split out "April 2008 raid" section to sep article

The accompanying article is already way too long (about 38 kB, in fact), and coverage of the raid and the upcoming suits and custody determinations is bound to grow to much more. The section Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints#April 2008 raid should be reduced to about a paragraph and a lk (and perhaps renamed to something a little more open ended); the lk should go to the current YFZ Ranch, (which will need renaming), and the current content of "April 2008 raid" merged with the corresponding half of the article currently titled "YFZ Ranch", which currently duplicates much of the content of the section proposed for split-out (but, BTW, at a glance, with more PoV).
--Jerzy•t 05:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I support merging the 2008 raid section with the YFZ Ranch article. it would be a lot more manageable and less redundant. Greenw47 (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me...just keep a pertinent portion here with link to YFZ ranch...amazing that this article is just now getting attention, all these problems being vetted in the press have existed for years...I'm glad I updated it a few years back to get it up to date. Thanks for the help. Twunchy (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for both comments. It's been 6.5 days (long enuf to delete an article on AfD!), and IMO the activity level (including merge decision on Swinton) makes action timely, so i'm proceeding.
--Jerzy•t 18:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed item

I've removed this apparently real, but irrelevant and groundless opinion, by one person, who is willing to make an accusation for which she could have no evidence. The context she was quoted by the accompanying article in was "The alleged 16-year-old girl has still not been located, and FLDS members [sic] claim..."

"It is a bogus person. It is a person they made up. That person does not exist on this land."<ref>{{cite news | url= http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8927977?source=rv | title= Polygamous mothers decry loss of children; Texas says it was necessary | publisher= [[The Salt Lake Tribune]] | date= 15 April 2008 | first= | last= | accessdate= 2008-04-15 }}</ref>

--Jerzy•t 14:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unattested photograph(s)

The photo of the temple is not public domain. On the photo page it says: Permission: (Reusing this image) PD; On http://web.sccn2.net/flds/More-Pics.htm is clear disclaimer that all images are considered public domain. This is part is true, the statement is on the website.

Author: Randy Mankin of the Eldorado Success is not true, the website is anonymous.

Public domain is based on Copyright holder releases all rights; verified 2007-10-12; full text of release is reproduced above Unfortunately, nobody can say who the copyright holder is. Randy Mankin doesn't admit to ownership.

The entire website Eldorado FLDS has no ownership listed, and a request for photos' owner has gone unanswered. From appearances, the site is an anti-FLDS effort with many links to opposition sites, none to supporting sites. The aerial photographs are expensive, and has been updated with new aerial photos about one a month for years.

It is in poor taste, if not illegal, to use photos that are anonymous attempts to spy on or harass the subjects.

How can this photo be removed until either it's true owner gives permission or another picture is obtained? 66.82.9.53 (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo is being used with permissions from the creator of the website (who is the one who assumably took the pictures)...there is no case for removal, photos are not violating any policy of Wikipedia, they is no POV implied from the pictures, the website may be POV, but an aerial photograph violates no laws, or policies. There is no one else claiming copyright to any of these photos they have been used throughout the press etc. The arguement is moot. As to the author, I don't know. The photo I originally posted (which has been replaced) had no such tag for authorship. Twunchy (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

LDS Church's renunciation of polygamy

Is 'renunciation' the correct word? wouldn't 'suspended' be better, or 'put a moratorium on'? since it is still on the books. Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, the LDS Church's Wikipedia page uses the term "suspend", not "renunciate". Mgy401 1912 (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Origins" subsection changes

Robert1947 (talk · contribs) changed

Although officially claiming roots back to John Taylor and the LDS Church, the FLDS Church traces their inception back to a schism from the LDS Church.

to read

Rooted in the LDS Church, the FLDS Church traces their inception back to what they regard as the apostasy of the LDS Church in 1890.

and summarized that edit with

revise wording to outline FLDS beliefs, rather than an LDS perspective, thus enhancing NPOV

which AFAI can see could be a reason for some other edit, but is nonsense in this context: it's not an "LDS perspective" that FLDS claims "roots" in the guy who led the LDS until he died. Rather, that seems objectively to be part of the FLDS's beliefs.
I am restoring the previous rev'n's mention of John Taylor, which is part of the narrative of their PoV that their schism represents faithfulness to LDS principles that the LDS abandoned by caving to secular pressure.
Also, in either case, the lk www.childbrides.org/history_SLTrib_plig_throughout_history.html has become a page (that suggests the content has been purged because it was a copyvio), which is why it has to change to a fact tag or be replaced.
As far as the rest goes, i think both wordings are kind of muddy. Here's what i find an improvement over both:

The FLDS traces its claim to spiritual authority to accounts, starting with that published in 1912 by Lorin C. Woolley, of a purported 1886 divine revelation to then LDS President John Taylor. They see this as precluding validity of the 1890 Manifesto, against new plural marriages by church members, issued by Wilford Woodruff, whom the LDS recognizes as Taylor's successor.

Unfortunately, i don't know what ground is covered by the childbrides.org ref. (It's not on Wayback Machine either.) The ref i've inserted for the time being is, overall, a criticism of FLDS, but what i've drawn from it sounds likely to coincide with FLDS accounts -- except that i've left out the PoV language they are likely to prefer. But perhaps there are FLDS sources that would confirm that; equivalent refs from both sides could show that these bare facts are not in dispute.
--Jerzy•t 06:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

perhaps use the fldstruth.com website for the ref...it has roughly the same info to support the statements on John Taylor. BTW...though written by me (the original sentence), and yes I am LDS, I was trying to present the information as best as I could from the scant resources available, I meant no POV and in fact I have been trying to neutralize this webpage from the first edit I made, I didn't revert the change because I don't want to be "owning" this page, even though I have been one of a very few maintaining it for years now. Thanks for your help in coming in and editing this article, just remember there are very few NPOV sources to draw information from for the FLDS, possibly mormonfundamentalism.comorg could be another good page to quote from though not FLDS it's maintained by the Apostolic United Brethren,(they share common origin) but. Another site mormonfundamentalism.com has fairly accurate info that is reasonably NPOV. Twunchy (talk) 15:45, 8 & 03:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's important to say how important the attitude of non-ownership you express is (even tho i've made no effort to see how well you're handling that difficult position).
  I don't think i want to make a serious (regular) effort to help develop the FLDS-related articles, and my expedient of lk'g to Lorin C. Woolley#Plural_marriage (in ignorance of the 1886 revelation article) is suggestive of one big reason why: i don't know my way around the related articles, and i don't think i want to make the effort of changing that. Rather, i want to encourage your taking heart at a bit of recognition of the importance of this corner of the WP vineyards and your labor there, and boldly fixing that lk and the other stupid things i certainly have done and will do.
  I do expect to keep a half eye on activity on the accompanying article, so you'll probably see more of me eventually. I think it's fine that you edit here; so far, my impression is that you do a good job of drawing on the knowledge that LDS background grants you, without trying to be an advocate. (And having said that, and thanked you for your labor in the vineyards, i probably need to say that my face-to-face exposure to LDS is limited to working with a Mormon, for maybe dozens of hours, on an unrelated common interest. But that i also understand -- along the same lines you seem to for your part -- that what i share of Bill Maher's assessment is of not what my editing on this topic is about. I say that not for you, but for anyone looking over our shoulders and suspecting an LDS cabal.)
  --Jerzy•t 21:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  

• It was specifically in the context of my reference to

...my expedient of lk'g to Lorin C. Woolley#Plural_marriage (in ignorance of the 1886 revelation article)...

that my colleague made the following contribution (which -- for the sake of clarity, and to avoid seeming to endorse more confusing and potentially misleading instances of responding to signed contribs by interrupting them -- i've moved from its former interrupting position).
--Jerzy•t 05:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I made that article today :). just FYI, you didn't miss anything. Twunchy (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon blog

I removed

* BerryKnoll FLDS 101: This blog contains information about the basic teachings and history of the FLDS church

from the "Further reading" section. I doubt an anonymous blogger, unendorsed by any sponsor, is enuf of a reliable info source to be listed there. It may, on the other hand, be a good source to editors, of things worth looking for verification of. In particular, it seems to quote heavily some kind of series in "WSJ", which (shall i say) doesn't rule out its being the Wall Street Journal. (Or Wilbur's Second-hand Junk.)
BTW, it's a 6-issue old blog that's attracted 4 comments from 3 (or fewer) people. I won't complain if someone removes it from even this talk page as spam.
--Jerzy•t 02:06 & 11:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If his blog had been more than skimmed, it would have been painfully obvious that apparently former-or-current fundamentalist Latter Day Saint (and expert on its doctines and history) Knoll quotes extensively from the lectures of the FLDS's Prophet, WSJ himself [Warren Steed Jeffs]. Sure let's keep links to the infotainment level of sensationalism/"scholarship" in such sources as Banking on Heaven [quote: "In the FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints), women are chattel and young boys are kicked out so older polygamous men can have sex with young girls. Everybody does what they’re told, because the prophet, Warren Jeffs, is God [...]]"----but retain links to more informed sources of scholarly analysis such as Knoll's as well. [snippet: "The FLDS 'yearn for Zion,' to live in a society free from sin and contention, where all things are held in common without jealousy -- a heaven on earth. As the FLDS leadership continued to prophesy that the end of the world was quickly approaching, they taught the people that wickedness needed to be purged from their society. Jeffs taught, 'One or two covenant breakers can cause the Lord to stop blessing this people. As long as we have evil doers among us, the Lord's blessings will be withheld. Zion must be pure. We can't have evil people among the priesthood for the Lord to appear and bless us like He would like to. Be this a warning.' (WSJ 12/26/95) Jeffs laid the doctrinal groundwork to justify a cleansing of the FLDS. Their theology teaches that an ancient city lead by a prophet named Enoch, was taken up into heaven because of their righteousness. The FLDS believe they can be taken up too as the wicked world is destroyed."/*/] That is, sure, let's keep our nice glossy issue of People magazine, "Life in the Cult", on our coffee table but still let's not pull out the essays by an informed insider out of our file cabinet and burn 'em just 'cause they're in typescript.
-- — Justmeherenow (   ) 02:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

_____

/*/"Yearning for Zion"

a hymn by WSJeffs

3rd verse

Imagine the people of Enoch of old, trained in the order of heaven

A beautiful city the Lord called his own and forever made his abode

Coming to join with the Zion on earth when finally the earth finds its rest

A kingdom established in celestial laws, a people the Lord can accept

A New Jerusalem it will be, a land of refuge, a city of peace

[ . . . ]

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 04:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please be so kind as not to presume to know what others have done, based on what effort it would have taken you to infer what they have not inferred. (Nor what i find painful, or even desperately dull and tedious and stuffy and boring.)
  Even tho you use "his or her" for to the writer, you now refer to "Knoll", as if you believe it to be a surname -- this in place of your styling them, in the entry i removed, with the Elia- or Q-like "BerryKnoll". But in any case your "expert" source of "scholarly analysis" is not enough of a scholar to state, or even hint what you assert: that "WSJ" followed by a date means instances of "Jeffs['s] lectures, [identified by] dates they were delivered".
  IMO this reeks of non-verifiability more than i realized when i was deciding how thoroly to examine, given the absence of any hint that these lectures are published, and the value foreseeable, during Jeffs's two-yearish fugitive period, of new Ministry of Truth editions that could be used to rebut earlier editions. By my standards, any appeal to single copies of unpublished documents, directly or via a writer relying on such, fails to verify. If there is controversy about what they believe, there is no established knowledge on the subject, but at most established knowledge about what is widely believed by outsiders about their beliefs. And we only document established knowledge.
  I was indeed not exhaustive in my examination, and i erred by understating the number of "issues" by 17%, and overstating its duration by, apparently, 200% -- as a result of having limited that examination to what i still think it deserved.
  Your enthusiasm for keeping Banking on Heaven sounds like a sarcastic claim that it does not meet the standards cited against the blog. That's irrelevant to what to do abt the blog, and what i for instance did abt the blog offers little insight into what we should do abt BoH: i only evaluated the brand new entry for the the blog. Verifiability applies to BoH, but "sensationalism" is not a criterion per se. In this case, the charges the jury convicted Jeffs of, and the testimony offered against him, were pretty damn sensationalistic, so your characterization of BoH does little to suggest to me any lack of verifiability. ("Jeffs is god" sounds like a sloppy way of saying "Jeffs's word is taken as the word of god", but i doubt the reporter said it, as opposed to quoting someone with strong feelings.) But i encourage any interested editor to review that entry, and the rest as well.
  --Jerzy•t 11:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  

Should WP readers follow the link to Bannking on Heaven, I trust they'll quickly size up it's a journalistic expose; should they click over to Rick Ross Institute, that they're at a Christian apologetic anti-heresy site; and should they somehow end up over at FLDS 101, that they're at an anon blog (one that seems, at least, tinged with an "insider" FundyMo viewpoint) attempting to dispassionately examine the sect's beliefs and history. — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

_______

This is part of clearing up the (very probably innocent) irregularities it specifies: The following contrib was made by an IP, at a later time than the "02:06, 9 May" timestamp, and placed between the end of the body of the 02:06 contrib and its sig and timestamp. As such, it is

1. a forgery as to the time of contribution (which has now been remedied by my action of moving it out of the 02:06, contrib and attaching an {{unsignedip2}} tag with the actual timestamp, as shown by the edit history of this talk page), and
2. presently indistinguishable from a forgery as to the contributor. (Any such forgery is technically remedied by the same tag, with the IP editor's ID. If

   Justmeherenow (talk · contribs) and

   96.240.101.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

   are in fact the same person, that person should normally be able to establish the fact by so stating in each of two separate contributions, one while logged on via the appropriate password, and one logged off but using a terminal attached to the 'Net via the same IP address. (Courtesy would call for signing each accordingly.) Doing so would demonstrate that the forgery as to contributor resulted from misunderstanding of WP's contributor-verification standards, and perhaps unawareness that their logged-in state had ended. A convenient place for such a demonstration immediately follows my signature.)

--Jerzy•t 11:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement of User:Justmeherenow:

Statement of User:96.240.101.244:

_______

[quote: "The FLDS 'yearn for Zion,' to live in a society free from sin and contention, where all things are held in common without jealousy -- a heaven on earth. As the FLDS leadership continued to prophesy that the end of the world was quickly approaching, they taught the people that wickedness needed to be purged from their society. Jeffs taught, 'One or two covenant breakers can cause the Lord to stop blessing this people. As long as we have evil doers among us, the Lord's blessings will be withheld. Zion must be pure. We can't have evil people among the priesthood for the Lord to appear and bless us like He would like to. Be this a warning.' (WSJ 12/26/95) Jeffs laid the doctrinal groundwork to justify a cleansing of the FLDS. Their theology teaches that an ancient city lead by a prophet named Enoch, was taken up into heaven because of their righteousness. The FLDS believe they can be taken up too as the wicked world is destroyed."/*/] That is, sure, let's keep our nice glossy issue of People magazine, "Life in the Cult", on our coffee table but still let's not pull out the essays by an informed insider out of our file cabinet and burn 'em just 'cause they're in typescript.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.101.244 (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2008

Oy vey. User 75.167.176.1 curiously states in his most recent edit summary, "Crapola: not one source does the self proclaimed expert list." However, actually going to Knoll's blog----a practice I would recommend those who'd wish to edit links to it----reveals e/g his or her most recent blog essay, in addition to three references to Jeffs lectures, specifying dates they were delivered, also makes one reference to a page in past-FLDS prophet Leroy S. Johnson's book; so, for just in this single essay, would three plus one equal four or would it be more accurate to haphazardly allege that "3+1=0"? <shrugs>
-- — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• No, not "3+1=0", but by my calculation 3×0 + 1×0 = 0. I've addressed the (3) Jeffs refs above, where you sneered at me with the same logic. The Johnson book, of some thousand or more pages, evidently has no title worth mentioning, and also reeks of unpublished material that will only contribute to verification if and when professional scholars, never brainwashed by the church, get to do what literary scholars do, by comparing all the published editions, the various manuscripts, the relevant correspondence, and in this case, the depositions and transcripts from the trials and psychiatric examinations.
  --Jerzy•t 11:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  

WP isn't edited according to any single editor's point of view about a work but according to what the consensus of editors specifically deem of value---or not of value---in it. Jerzy (it's hoped, for his or her sake, without reading the work in question) suggested FLDS 101 doesn't contain references. I pointed out four in its then most recent essay. Until Jerzy materially challenges this observation, the rationale for his or her objection to this work remains unsupported. — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous newspaper commentary by one "Twain, Mark" should rise or fall according to what Mr. or M/s. Twain wrote. And if Mr/s Twain simply references sources in a completely uncontroversial and neutral manner, then WP shouldn't have a problem with it. If WP were to accept some Born Again Christian site's allegedly NPOV/"scholarly" characterization of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha as "obvious pedophilia"---and if someone signing his essays "Mark Twain" who uncontroversially draws from primarily sourced quotations points out that Muhammad was allowed his wives by Allah, it'd be OK to accept both. (And, truly, anybody editing the Mormon pages who'd bat an eye at the locution "BRM 1st ed" (British Royal Marine 1st Expeditionary forces".....?) or the Islam pages who'd squint at the abbreviation "PBUH" or this page who'd scratch their head at "Jeffs said, ..." [snippet], followed by "(WSJ, [date])" and Johnson said, ... " [snippet] followed by "(LSJ's book, [page number])" would do better to admit their humility with regard familiarity with the respective subject matters at hand.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 13:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

p/s Berry Knoll styles Knoll as his surname himself. See here. And here's the source of the name from the FLDS's website: "Just about that time the sirens went off, and they just came full length from the town clear out to the Berry Knoll, just spaced at intervals. The whole distance was filled with patrol cars with their sirens screaming and all their red lights flashing!" (Also note this from Rick Ross's site: "[...T]he story [has...] the righteous members lifting off from the base of a juniper-covered hill south of town known as Berry Knoll, which is said to be the site for the temple the polygamous church had hoped to construct one day. Berry Knoll was coincidentally the site of a tragedy in April 1866 when early pioneer settlers Joseph Robert and his wife, Isabella, were slaughtered by the local American Indians.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 23:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent Capitalization...

I'm no grammar wizard but there's an inconsistency in the article that needs to be fixed. What is the proper way to write these: FLDS Church vs. FLDS church, or alternately LDS Church vs. LDS church. I'm mystified as to the correct capitalization here, the article extensively uses both...well actually it's typically FLDS church and LDS Church. It could be my own doing but please pipe up you grammar geeks, we need to know what's correct! Twunchy (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, probably FLDS Church (since it seems as though it's Catholic Church, United Methodist Church, etc., when speaking of a denomination as a whole, but Catholic church, Baptist church, when speaking about a local parish, etc.'s, house of worship).

Interestingly, perhaps: the mainline Mormon Church has said it doesn't really care for either the Mormon Church or the newspaper abbreviation LDS anymore but says it prefers the Church's full official name on first usage thereafter followed by the Church (or alternately, for short, the Church of Jesus Christ----however note that the Church-owned Salt Lake City daily, the Deseret News itself continues to use LDS Church and never, to my knowledge, the Church of Jesus Christ for the LDS Church). — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been lots of previous discussions about this & related topics, which resulted in the creation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints), which covers articles about Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement. Both the LDS Church & the FLDS Church would be covered by this guidance. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

While the mainstream LDS use a more British style hyphenation and capitalization----Latter-day Saint (adopted by the Mormon Church just before the turn of the 20th century)----the FLDS use the original capitalization: Latter Day Saint. — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Clothing

Anyone got an pics of those beautiful dresses and hairstyles of the women of the FLDS? Or anyone know where to buy those in the local wal-mart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Balancing Ross, Krakaeur et al with FLDS sites...and Knoll. A redux

(The following is chiefly excerpted from commentary above.) External links are many. Should readers follow the link to Banking on Heaven, they'll quickly size up it's journalistic expose by Jon Kraukaeur and Ruth Cooke, featuring Elaine Jeffs, Carolyn Jessop, and Penny Peterson; should they click over to Rick Ross Institute, that they're at a Christian apologetic anti-heresy site; and should they end up at FLDS 101, that they're at an anon blog by a highly informed partisan giving his take, albeit much more dispassionately in many aspects than either of the two alternate sources I just mentioned.

Anyways, a fundamentalist Latter Day Saint (at least generically by culture and or belief, although obviously not currently beholden to the Jeffs-led, specifically FLDS faith) is in the process of blogging a veritable compendium of FLDS doctrines and beliefs known as FLDS 101, blogging under the psuedonym Berry Knoll, in which he quotes extensively from the lectures of Warren Steed Jeffs and from excerpts of interviews with current and former members of the polygamous splinter group. (Insiders would recognize Berry Knoll as the "juniper-covered hill south of town" (Colorado City, Arizona/Hildale, Utah...) "said to be the site for the temple the polygamous church had hoped to construct...." one day.")

Banking on Heaven: "In the FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints), women are chattel and young boys are kicked out so older polygamous men can have sex with young girls. Everybody does what they’re told, because the prophet, Warren Jeffs, is God [...]]"

FLDS 101: "The FLDS 'yearn for Zion,' to live in a society free from sin and contention, where all things are held in common without jealousy -- a heaven on earth. As the FLDS leadership continued to prophesy that the end of the world was quickly approaching, they taught the people that wickedness needed to be purged from their society. Jeffs taught, 'One or two covenant breakers can cause the Lord to stop blessing this people. As long as we have evil doers among us, the Lord's blessings will be withheld. Zion must be pure. We can't have evil people among the priesthood for the Lord to appear and bless us like He would like to. Be this a warning.' (W.S.J. 12/26/95) Jeffs laid the doctrinal groundwork to justify a cleansing of the FLDS. Their theology teaches that an ancient city lead by a prophet named Enoch, was taken up into heaven because of their righteousness. The FLDS believe they can be taken up too as the wicked world is destroyed."

[... ... "Yearning for Zion," a hymn by W.S. Jeffs; 3rd verse]:
Imagine the people of Enoch of old, trained in the order of heaven/ A beautiful city the Lord called his own and forever made his abode/ Coming to join with the Zion on earth when finally the earth finds its rest/ A kingdom established in celestial laws, a people the Lord can accept/ A New Jerusalem it will be, a land of refuge, a city of peace [ . . . ].

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

'

What we need here is a verifiable reliable source, a link please, to someone besides you discussing why this blog is notable to the FLDS. I'll look, too, but I don't see any arguments here by you that the blog itself is notable, just quoting its content. --Blechnic (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe inclusion of an external link to Knoll's blog and its in depth discussion of FLDS doctrines and history improves Wikipedia, on its own merits. However, if others truly dispute my assessment here----well, that is, besides the assertion "Blogs aren't reliable sources, so we cannot link to 'em" (which is, really, rather a canard)----I'll not contest the point.... — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that if you can establish that the blog itself is noteworthy, then you can include a link to the blog in the article, along with the relevant source showing its noteworthyness. The problem is I can't find anything about the blog, other than what you say here, so it seems others don't find it noteworthy. All I can find is that it appears to be named after a landform in the Texas settlement, but that's not about the blog, but about the knoll. --Blechnic (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oi! Welcome to Wikipedia. The landform is near Short Creek on the border of Utah and Arizona. — Justmeherenow (   ) 03:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do love the absolute trivial nature of some of the information I pick up here, there's a Berry knoll near the Utah/Arizona FLDS settlements! --Blechnic (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Which landform figures prominently in the FLDS's historical eschatology; which a reader seeking to read further about the FLDS would have been able to click over to Berry Knolls' blog in order to discover...except for the fact that you deleted its link! lol — Justmeherenow (   ) 03:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, if it figures, it is reputably sourced or it's gossip. --Blechnic (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What the guidelines say should be linked includes
[... ...s]ites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
Links to be considered [include ... ...s]ites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

Whereas the guidelines do not proffer notability as the end-all be-all criteria, as some editors might otherwise be wont. — Justmeherenow (   ) 04:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think something else is going on here besides a discussion of whether or not this site should be in the article, so I'm going to leave this conversation with the site out of the article. I will carefully check the other links, also. --Blechnic (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Re your "I think something else is going on here": Huh!? In any case, you've fail to established any grounds under relevant guidelines to disallow the link. — Justmeherenow (   ) 04:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And you fail to establish any grounds for including it. The burden's on you. --Blechnic (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe it would be better to read a representative sample of something an article links to and discern whether it offers information of value before a contributor would brazenly refuse others an opportunity to click over to it. I sincerely wonder: if minutia about a subject is thought crufty, and if a contributor would insist, in excess of applicable guidelines, that compendiums on the subject be made to pass arbitrary tests of notability----well, might it be better for believers of such things to recuse themselves from deciding whether readers should have the opportunity of clicking over to carefully organized sources of information on a subject in question, in which such a contributor has only nominal interest? — Justmeherenow (   ) 08:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you've firmly established this isn't about the article, but about some need of yours to spam Wikipedia with this blog. There are no sources because the blog is important to no one but you. Your personal interest in the blog does not make it noteworthy. --Blechnic (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Tacking from a discussion on the merits toward veiled personal attacks is a bit trollish, Blechnic. Instead of maligning my motives, please accept my sincere assertion that I truly believe any dispassionate examinion of the blog in question's merits would agree with my assessment that it's inclusion on a list of external links would beneficially augment the information available to those researching this topic. In other words, speak to the authority or non-authority of the information it contains or else counter my interpretations of the guidelines above with your own arguments and specifics. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Dispassionate examination of the blog in question's merits" as to whether or not it should be included in this article would be original research, and Wikipedia has a policy of no original research. Kindly provide a link to someone else's evaluation of the blog, and dispense with your beliefs about it. That's all, a link to someone else discussing the merits of the block, a verifiable reference. --Blechnic (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Major restructuring proposal in a related article

A major restructuring proposal for all polygamy articles related to Mormonism has been made at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy#Series and Restructuring proposal. Please visit and give your two cents. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Eldorado, Texas

Aren't the new headquarters now in Eldorado, Texas? Why does the article still say it's in Hildale, Utah? 69.120.98.246 (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not officially verified information, the article implies a shift to Eldorado, but it's far from an announced move or anything that could be verified, so therefore the best information is to keep what we know, or knew, to be true. Twunchy (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

external links

The list over here is in violation of both WP:EL and WP:SEH. Wikipedia does not advertize. While also seeking to cut down links, 2 documentaries become redundant. We dont need to advertize to each film maker's views. In that interest I have removed the link that seems to have less. For the "Audio clips reveal..." I removed the POV language as that is not for Wikipedia to ascertain, the individual listener can decide.

In the media/news articles part: firstly, web logs are not reliable sources to list here, and, secondly, the articles don't provide a "unique resource" to the article. It may be a good source but it is better as a citation within the article.

Most importantly, a cursory glance at the guidelines will show "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Lihaas (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Short Creek Raid

I have added a new section, that just contains a link ot the main article but I think there should be a brief synopsis here in the article. Please add to it if you have the time or knowledge. Twunchy (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Education in the FLDS=

So tell me what grade are the children are educated up to? And what kind of cirrulum are they taught? Since due to the fact I for my own personal reasons like to know about this, as of course its hard to find a source that'd tell me these answers. So please if any one of you knows the answer, so tell me then, and as you can even write it down in the mainstream article if you so want.-Jana Thanks!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.94.242 (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the gender of the child...they are almost all home schooled, girls usually have less than a fourth grade education (they are instead taught how to be good mothers and housewives), boys are rarely beyond a sixth grade education, being taught more often in a trade like construction after that. I don't have a great source for this other than my own experiences and expertise with ex-FLDS members, and they can sometimes hype up their claims, but ultimately their education doesn't usually exceed primary school education levels. This is not to say that all are currently at this education level though, this is a recent phenomenon, with previous generations enjoying a full education and even some going to college. This poor education is restricted to the last 10-20 years, prior generations were better off I guess. Twunchy (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

=And what about Healthcare as well?

I'd also like to know and is curious about how as it isn't menthion about them having a medical or healthcare facility neither about how they handle healthcare in their very isolated community. So please also as well tell me how they'd handle healthcare in their isolated Compound(enclosure) and such. Thanks.

Creo que el articulo esta escrito con odio.

Creo que el articulo esta escrito con odio, y creo que con odio no hay objetividad ni informacion, por favor alguien que exprese la fe y creencia de esta religion, y no se centre en errores o falencias que los hombres que la integran provocan. Respuetuosamente. Marcelo Nuñez

I believe that the article this writing with hatred, and I believe that with hatred there is not objectivity nor information, please somebody that expresses the faith and belief of this religion, and do not concentrate in errors or fails that participants people cause. Sincerelly. Marcelo Nuñez —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelognunez (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)