Talk:Latter Day Saint movement

Note: This article is a very small part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. Before adding content to this page, please visit the project page, see List of articles about Mormonism or discuss your ideas here so you can get a feel for the structure of the Mormonism area of Wikipedia.

LDS Plural Marriage

"The LDS Church abandoned this practice in 1890."

No they did not. They merely suspended its practice. LDS doctrine affirms that plural marriage will be restored to the earth during the millennium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.17.53 (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of article

Is there a real difference between this term and the term Mormonism? Hawstom 20:54, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No there is not. Any extra material here should be merged into the Mormonism article. B 22:53, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there is. While Mormonism is a set of doctrines, practices, and cultures, the Latter Day Saint movement is a movement. (It's also more acceptable to the CofC). Mormonism isn't really a thing that "happened", but rather a thing that "is". Thus, the title history of the Latter Day Saint movement is more appropriate, I think, than the title "history of Mormonism". It's a subtle difference, but I think an important one. COGDEN 04:04, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually there is not. Mormonism is a movement as well as a set of doctrines, etc, among other things. You're drawing a distinction that really doesn't stand close scrutiny. history of the Latter Day Saint movement could just as well be styled as "early history of Mormonism" or "early history of the Latter Day Saints" or some such. Even more problematic is that the phrase "Latter Day Saint movement" is not common place among scholars nor even the greater part of Latter Day Saints. B 04:29, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

The term "Latter Day Saint movement" is quite common among scholars (except for Latter-day Saint scholars) and is in common use in several Latter Day Saint churches. Do a Google search. Moreover, there are several books and articles entitled "History of the Latter Day Saint Movement". After a little research, I've also found rare references to the "Mormonism movement"; however, this term is not quite the same as "Mormonism" either. Whether this article is called the "Latter Day Saint movement" or the "Mormonism movement", the addition of the word "movement" alters its meaning sufficient that "Mormonism" and "Latter Day Saint movement"/"Mormonism movement" are not strictly synonyms. As long as they are not strictly synonyms, they should have their own article. And I don't think they are precisely synonyms. For example, while the Nephites could be said to practice Mormonism, you can't say they are part of the Latter Day Saint movement. Likewise, while a church such as the New Covenant Church of God is no doubt part of the Latter Day Saint movement because of its origins, it is a stretch to say they presently practice or believe in Mormonism (they classify themselves as Evangelical Christian, and they consider the Book of Mormon to be a fraud perpetrated by fallen angels). COGDEN 14:08, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, Latter Day Saint movement is more common than I thought, and I won't argue the point whether it is not synonymous with Mormonism, but my main point stil stands: there is not a significant enough distinction to merit it's own article. Whatever distinction there may be should be spelled out on the Mormonism article. Also note, it's anachronistic to suggest that the Nephites were "Mormons", and the New Covenant Church of God example is unpersuasive...it is no more a part of one than it is the other. B 18:34, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

If we MUST have separate pages, we better define well their purposes and keep them self-contained. This redundancy business is getting out of hand. We are saying the same thing over and over and over. We should NOT say anything on this page (that is about an obscure term more than anything else) that can be said elsewhere. I still think this page should be little more than a redirect, if anything more at all. Hawstom 16:32, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK. I have to admit this page is pretty well focused. Here is a specific thing we need to address about this issue--the list or hierarchy of churches/groups. Maybe one of us needs to start a hierarchy of churches/groups. Where is/should each group be listed? On this page there does need to be some description of who is included in the notion LDS movement, but this needs to reference other pages instead of restating the same points made in other articles. I propose two rules for this page:

• This page is solely focused on WHO is considered part of the LDS movement and what UNIQUELY distinguishes the LDS movement from Mormonism.
• This page uses references instead of original text where possible to refer to groups and definitions. Hawstom 16:44, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the term Latter Day Saint movement is much more limited in scope than Mormonism. While you might argue that part of Mormonism is a movement, you can't argue that the movement is Mormonism, because it's so much more. You only view it as a "movement" in the context of institutional history. However, for that particular purpose, I don't think there is any better term. It is especially useful in the title of the article History of the Latter Day Saint movement, which is an institutional history of the movement, but not a detailed history of all the doctrines, practices, and cultures of Mormonism (because there are too many of them and they have their own articles). So I agree that the article should be small, but I think it must at least include the following: (1) a detailed definition of the term Latter Day Saint movement and how that movement differs from similar movements such as Restorationism and the Restoration Movement, (2) a link to History of the Latter Day Saint movement, and (3) an indication that the movement resulted in Mormonism (a set of doctrines, practices, and cultures).

You indentify some good points. At the very least, we can agree that there should be some acknowledgement of Latter Day Saint movement whether it gets its own article or a redirect. I don't have anything else to add at this point, and I don't think it hurts for this article to stand at least for now. I hope this discussion helps inform other interested folks why this article is here in the first place. B 02:22, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

I like to think that Mormonism, especially Utah Mormonism is a culture, but it applies to a great degree to we in "prairie" churches as well. You can be a stonecold atheistic member a high priests quorum in the Celestial Heights 100th Ward of Mt. Kolob Stake and still appreciate Mormon mores, attitudes, political sentiments, heritage etc. I think all of us probably know a few "cultural Mormons" and if not then we know of them...folks like Sterling McMurrin or Eric Ericson come to mind. I regard myself to be Mormon, mostly because I was raised in a Mormon culture and I'm RLDS, but start talking theology with me and I'm on the eastern orthodox end of the historic Christian spectrum. And there's a lot of folk that I know who are just like me....I ain't that unique.

Where "LDS movement" fits in

Within (this is an important NPOV declaration) Christianity there is a heritage/movement/religion that stems from Joseph Smith. It is complex and controversial. What is it called? Let's call it Christianity.JS Hawstom 17:08, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Within Christianity.JS there are camps, normally called churches. They have names. They are all a part of Christianity.JS .

Within Christianity.JS, are we saying the different churches can be classified into Christianity.JS.SubJS.Group?

I say, Let Christianity.JS = Mormonism

I ask, how do you classify the groups? By history? By belief? By association? By heritage? Community of Christ and LDS Church of Christ are both Christianity.JS churches right along with FLDS Church of Christ whether they like it or not. As long as you mention JS and the Book of Mormon in your group without vituperation, you are either Christianity.JS or you are universalist.

So what do you propose are the Christianity.JS.SubJS groupings? Are there really any, or is it simply a meaningless matter of internecine bickering that is meaningless to the greater world?

I say, Let Christianity.JS.BY = Brigham Young Mormonism or Utah Mormonism Let Christianity.JS.JS3 = RLDSism, but I don't know what the name is. Hawstom 17:08, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia, and I made some changes (attributed to 64.66.218.206) before realizing changes should perhaps be discussed. Just jumping in to identify myself and let you know why I made the changes. I changed membership numbers because LDS.org indicates a worldwide membership of 11,985,254 as of 12/31/03. I added a statement, also quoted on the lds.org site (http://www.lds.org/newsroom/page/0,15606,4043-1---15-168,00.html) about referring to splinter groups as Mormons. I hope I haven't stepped on any toes. The whole concept of articles open to anyone for editing is amazing. You have all done a fantastic job. teufelhund9 14 Jun 2004

Almost the entire text of "Major Denominations" was a discussion of the term "Mormon" --- I moved that text to the article: Mormon, where most of the rest of that discussion was already found. I moved information in the header to the header of the new "denominations" section. --John Hamer 02:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, sorry I am new and just wanted to clarify some things. You are "dicussing the difference between mormonism and the Latter-Day Saint movement. Mormonism is reffering to the mormons and what they as members believe and practice, the Latter-Day Saint movement is completely different. It is reffering to what once was the Church of Christ and then split into many different denominations. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the main organization, everything else split off of that. So technically there should be no discussion. These two topics are completely seperate and having nothing to do with each other except for the fact that all the denominations broke off of the main church. I really am sorry, but I think that this is a stupid argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MORMONIQ (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I do not think that Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism should be merged. Let me explain why. To me, Mormonism is merely a subset of the movement. Latter Day Saints claim that Joseph Smith was inspired. Some reject that he "translated" the book of mormon or that he was indeed a prophet like he said he was, whereas, they still think he taught good things and adhere to his teachings. Many of the more recent Community of Christ believers would fit this mold. They've shed themselves of part of his divine calling, without rejecting their history. However, I do not think you can belong to Mormonism if you reject the teachings of the Book of Mormon as some in the Movement do. Amother example, Sidney Rigdon, after he left the church didn't use the BOM, however, his church was definitely tied to Smith's teachings and wouldn't be called Restorationist, but part of the Latter Day Saint movement. Mormonism also contains a certain level of culture that are not shared between the "utah church" (LDS) and the "missouri church" (CoC), because of the emphasis on the BOM. Mormonism is the culture created, the history, the doctrines and speculations. The Latter Day Saint movement has no shared culture, shares some doctrines and speculations - although they may vary - but it does share a history. I think we should do a better job at distinguishing, rather than merging. -Visorstuff 21:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, this page is mostly just listing a whole bunch of different sects of Mormonism. It has a little info at the top, but is somewhat akin to a disambiguation page. The Scurvy Eye 23:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggested the merge because this article identifies the two as the same thing (due to a recent edit). The opening paragraphs are also very close to each other. I would agree to making more of a distinction between the two articles rather than a merge. I'd be up to have someone just doing it, if no one objects by Saturday. Val42 04:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes there's a huge difference between Latter Day Saintism and Mormonism! we've got the RLDS, the CoC, the Temple Lot folks and God knows who else that are Latter Day Saints but not Mormons. --Nerd42 15:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nerd42, I Lovez the CoC!!!!1!! 68.2.143.22 02:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Do not merge. Mormonism covers just the LDS church which is a subset of the LDS movement.Gateman1997 01:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs of the two articles sounded very similar which is why I suggested the merge. After the discussion here and more research on my part, I removed the "suggestion to merge" and actually made a clear distinction on both of the articles' pages. If I made incorrect "corrections", please fix them, but pleast do not muddle the distinction between the two articles (like it was before). Val42 04:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally Gateman1997, I disagree that it only refers to LDS church members. The recent "survivor" contestent considered himself "Mormon" but was never baptised. Cultural mormons are common, as the shared history of offshoots of the LDS church and Strangites, which HAVE to be included as part of Mormonism, as they self-identify as such. The Elizabeth Smart kidnapping is part of Mormonism, yet, "David" was not an LDS church member. Mormonism is bigger than the LDS church, and contains culture, history, doctrines and beliefs stemming from Belief in the BOM, but the LDSM contains much bigger, as many reject the BOM itself in the LDSM, which has not shared culture, and only some shared history, and little shared doctrines. -Visorstuff 16:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That may be true, but not only is Mormonism bigger than the LDS church, but the Latter Day Saint movement is even bigger than Mormonism. (see my previous post) --Nerd42 18:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay already. I've removed the suggestion to merge. Rather than continue to discuss the merge discussion (that no longer exists), let's get back to improving the articles. Val42 18:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

^_^ --Nerd42 20:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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

They should be merged. All above mentions follow 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 can want to seperate your modern church from its past however its past can't be changed. The current "big" branch is still preaching about Smith and Young and they were part of the Latter Day Saint movement.

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 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 the Mormons have 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.

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.

MORMONISM is what all the above pages are all refering to.

And a quote from Latter Day Saint movement page shows a 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."

Humanistic Mormonism

How is Humanistic Mormonism a branch of Utah LDS Christianity? It does not appear to be a religion at all. The Jade Knight 23:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

RLDS section

As the RLDS/Community of Christ is the largest denomination (including it's own splitoffs) outside of the LDS church itself, it deserves it's own heading. Surely we can come up with some kind of system to arrange the denominations by their size. Perhaps some creative soul can draw an illustration of a sort of "family tree" of the splitting factions. --Nerd42 20:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked out the revision with the Community of Christ in its own section. I think that it is part of the "Prarie Saints" denominations and the largest of them, so it should lead the list of them. The schisms that developed from there should be indented under that, like you have done with it in its own section. Val42 21:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The CoC is the only denomination listed to have more than two bullet points under it. In fact, the ones listed aren't even comprehensive of the number of groups that have left the Community of Christ. If the Community of Christ ought to be described as a "prarie-saint denomination," though I have no idea where that term comes from, (perhaps the article ought to enlighten me on that point, or perhaps it already does somewhere that I haven't noticed) then it ought to have it's own subheading under "prarie saint denominations" as it is so large and has so many detractors and subgroups. --Nerd42 21:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A possibly helpful link

lol even anti-mormons see the differences between the LDS and RLDS

http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/cults/exposem/xm09.html

I can't guarantee the accuracy of the link of course, but thought the information might be helpful for editors. --Nerd42 21:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

February 2006 intro

Nice intro. Tom Haws 19:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The original church

The following (or close to it) appears three times in this article:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- organized by Joseph Smith Jr. -- 1830. The original Church (see Rocky Mountain Saint Denominations below).

While I personally agree with this statement, it has the appearance of POV. If the name of the church was changed from "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" before Joseph's death, then the statement is true (but the wording should be changed). If not, then the statement isn't true and needs to be changed. I know that this is an issue that has been brought up before, but when was the name changed? Val42 03:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's article on the Church:

In April 1838, the full name was stated as "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"[citation needed], according to direction recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 115:3-4. When the church became a corporation in 1851, the legal documents used the current standardized spelling and punctuation, capitalizing the first article, "The", and using the British hyphenation of "Latter-day": The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is some dispute as to whether or not this was the official name prior to 1851, mostly because there was not standard spelling or punctuation in any church publications prior to that time and legal documents of the organization are not readily available. The church currently uses the word "The" as part of its official name, as opposed to a modifying article.

Note that it says that there was no spelling standard at the time. The Jade Knight 02:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting question to explore. One that Wikipedia cannot solve. There are four different parts of this. (1) The legal successor to Smith was (according to one court) James Strang. (2) The successor of church properties (which were all controlled in Smith's name) would be his son, JS III, according to probate laws. (3) other claimaints to succession, according to church policy and revlation, had no real claim (such as rigdon being in the first presidency or whitmer as president of the church "in zion") on succession, as the revelations do not allow for that. (4) The body of the saints, the "of Latter-day Saints" part of the church as a whole (more than 70+ percent) followed the leadership of Young. Since this is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is according to revelation and original articles of incorpration (D&C 20) that the body of the church, the governing body of the church is the "Latter-day Saints" who uphold and sustain, and determine who church leaders are (as they "agree" with God, but they could go against him, although it's not been done in our history). Saints don't realize the power they have in this regard, and why sustaining is such a sacred thing. But due to the church members at the time of smith's death rejecting the leadership, as a whole, of Strang, ridgon, whitmer, wm smith and others, according to church law, this would be the successive church. It is disputable based on the above points about strang and smith III, but is helped by the fact that Cowdery, who was an equal with Smith in the original incorporation as a leader, came back to the LDS church. The Latter-day Saints followed young, and therefore, "the church" decided to follow young, rather than strang. Those were the major two divisions that had supportable legs. Even if Strang was appointed by God to be the successor, the church membership rejected his claim, and therefore could not lead the church by church law. This, of course begs other questions, as to whether or not Strang's "revelations" were from God, but just not sustained or accepted by church members (as were Young's, Woodruff's and others) and therefore not valid and binding to the church, and it gets even messier from there. Hopefully this helps you to see the conundrum in this all. The LDS Church is the same church (as a body) but it may not be the rightfully appointed channel of succession at the time, although I believe it was. Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 20:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Headings

Adjusted headings to be more accurate. At the formation of the movment it is most accurate to describe it as a cult, as it was a new tradtion (though broken off of the larger Christianity) that was seen by those outside of it to be outside the mainstream. Over the years the as the movement has grown many of the groups became sects as they have been seen less outside the mainstream. Do to size and length of existance, and regonition LDS and Community of Christ are probally the only two to truly have gained the status of a relgious denomination. Though as to some portions of Christianity see various LDS specfic practices as out of the mainstream, the LDS church may be both a religious denomination and a cult of Christianity.

Hi User:4.242.9.178. Because of the connotation of the word "cult," it is discouraged from use on Wikipedia. You may want to read the following wikipedia guideline: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid and more specifically Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Some_terms_are_technically_accurate_but_carry_an_implied_viewpoint and Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_with_controversial_or_multiple_meanings. -Visorstuff 18:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Denomination does not work, and the negative meaning of cult does not, but the actucal word is correct in describing the movment. As people misunderstand the word cult, I have left it out this time, but it is wrong to missuse another word in its place.

POV

I've added a POV tag as the introduction to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seems to be very heavily pro-CoC POV. I don't think the brief descriptions in that section are any place to get into the complicated issue of the "true" successor to the original LDS church, particularly in the manner currently adopted in the article. I suggest that the description be shortened and simplified, trying to avoid the POV problems that the current suggestion contains. The Jade Knight 03:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have to largely agree here. From a LDS Church perspective (and not mentioned at all in the section refered to here), eight members of the original Quorum of the Twelve stayed with Brigham Young and moved to Utah. Of the remaining four, they either simply dropped out of history altogether or formed their own seperate communities. It is from this basis that the LDS church claims to be the heir of Joseph Smith. Also not mentioned is that far and a way the bulk of those who called themselves "Mormon" in 1844 stayed with Brigham Young as well and for the most part moved to Utah. The RLDS (CoC) was mostly "converts" that came together after this date, and the rest of the other communities were also considerably smaller than the group which moved to Council Bluff and then to Salt Lake City. These facts are very much marginalized in the current article.

I could go on with specific theological points, and the supposed "legal claim" that the RLDS church has as the legitimate successor being formally tested in court really doesn't have too much basis in fact either. Courts are just as much a political arena as anything else, and there were strong political reasons to disenfranchise the LDS Church of Utah, where ownership of property in Kirkland, Ohio was hardly a pressing matter. It was more important to preserve title to the temple in Salt Lake City instead, which had also been confiscated by the U.S. government on more than one occasion. The RLDS church was simply in a stronger position to claim and maintain those properties with the right friends and contacts in the court system (and a general anti-LDS sentiment especially due to polygymy in Utah) that it wasn't hard for the RLDS church to win those cases.

The bulk of this paragraph perhaps could be merged into the CoC article (under differences of philosohpy with the LDS Church) with a much more neutral paragraph written that would simply state the facts about the group that moved to Utah under the leadership of Brigham Young, removing the editorization that is a strong POV. --Robert Horning 10:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert, could you please begin with a rewrite of the paragraph. I am not sure, at this point, about merging into the CC article. Let's wait for comment from other editors. I agree that the current article is too heavy handed and POV. Storm Rider ^(talk)

I agree. Robert, please rewrite the paragraph. It is not only biased as it is, but also is confusing and poorly written. It sounds like you understand the relevant issues.--71.252.162.208 20:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What is it with this article? Has anyone read it? Some of it is unbelievably POV and in any case it is very poorly written. Needs straightening up bigtime. Maybe by someone who isn't religious? --SandyDancer 02:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like an anon editor came in yesterday and introduced a very heavy CoJC POV. I've reverted back to the more neutral version. And now Val42 has fixed my mistake and restored it to the neutral version I was intending to restore to (but failed miserably). Thanks Val. --FyzixFighter 03:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, I think that we detected the problem at about the same time. I saw what had happenned, so I was comparing changes to figure out which version had gone off track. After I rolled it back to the change that looked the best, I checked the history and noticed that you'd rolled it back almost as far. It's good to receive confirmation as well as congratulations. Thanks FyzixFighter. Val42 21:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I began a rewrite today; Be Bold they say! I was pretty dismayed with the load of POV language that has crept into this article by some of our CofC editors. If you want to argue about which is the rightful heir to the church restored by Jesus Christ, do so on the individual church pages. This article is not the place for such a conversation.

I hope to see additional contributions by others or discussion on this page should someone have strong disagreement with my edits. Please let me know. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I am not comfortable with the current, main descriptor of Praire Saints and Rocky Mountain Saints; those are not the most common descriptors. LDS don't use the term often. Any suggestions? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know where these terms came from? John Hamer? Is he still around? It doesn't seem so.

They're really useful terms, but a quick google search suggests they might be original research or at least advancing very obscure labels. It seems the division is getting at whether the groups assert(ed) that Brigham Young was a legitimate leader (at least for a time). The geographical division works as a function of that. I think it's useful to divide the groups in this way, and I think we could retain it for structure. Maybe "Groups that followed Brigham Young". On the other hand, it seems unfair to classify everything else in the negative ("Groups that have never followed Young"). Honestly, that seems to be all that's shared by all the "Prairie Saints". Not even broad geography unites these groups; Michigan is rarely described as "prairie."

Maybe a better organization, just tracks branch and break-offs from Joseph Smith as the main trunk, with each post-Smith group getting a subheading. There is some vagueness because many of the groups didn't clearly break off from a single branch, but we can just ascribe these groups to the last branch they endorse. So for example, the re-gathered polygamist groups would be branches from Brigham Young's CoJCoLDS and not usually from each other, or from a vaguely define "Polygamist Mormon" faction. The RLDS would branch straight off of Joseph Smith, Jr. although a lot of the membership had previously been involved with other groups. If the structure is clear enough I don't think we need broad headings. Cool Hand Luke 22:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, I think it best to do away with the attempt at reclassification and just describe the groups within the movement as you did above. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok - someone has put some pretty heavy POV stuff into the "brief history" section. Deleting.

Just a quick note Joseph Smith was killed in Carthage, Illinois not Nauvoo Illinois. I've never edited so i figured i would put it here and someone else could fix it. 71.202.164.164 04:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Teresa Peschke71.202.164.164 04:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed rename to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (history)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No move Duja► 11:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

---

• I found this proposal on Wikipedia:Requested moves, but found no discussion. I oppose, because this article is not solely about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but also deals with other related churches.--orlady 16:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose—not any one sect's history. Deliberate naming choice. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - the current title is accurate and most correct. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - for reasons already listed. The Jade Knight 03:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Orlady. If it was just about the singular LDS church and it's individual history then the proposed move title would be appropriate. However it looks like this article covers a broader scope. I don't think it is negative POV to refer to this as a "movement" which is what the nominator seems to be implying. 205.157.110.11 03:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title edit

Just an editing issue, but a big one. The correct way to write the title would be "Latter-day Saint Movement". Also, any time you write "Latter-day" it should be with a hyphen and a lower case 'd'. This is the universal way of writing this term and is based on the first use of it in the Doctrine and Covenants of Joseph Smith. Not only that, but it follows basic rules of grammar. It is not a "Latter" movement or a "Day" movement, but a "Latter-day" movement, as the hyphen makes clear. Not to use it is grammatically ridiculous. It also risks the professional look of the article. I can tell that this has been an issue from the hidden comments on the page, but it is an important one. Wrad 02:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrad, your participation is appreciated; thank you. The term "Latter Day Saint" movement is appropriate because it is inclusive of all the churches that descended from the initial church founded by Joseph Smith. The term you proposed, "Latter-day Saint", is only used to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is only one, but by far the most significant, of the groups. Does this make sense to you now? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually no. The problem doesn't lie with the church origination as much as with grammar. My proofreading eyes can't stand it. A hyphen is used to join two adjectives together when they don't work separately. See my explanation above for more. I also don't see how this excludes any church. Wrad 04:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The hyphen was not used consistently by Smith himself. In fact, contemporaneous editions of important works omit it (see 1835 D&C edition cover page here, "Church of Latter Day Saints" (prior to the 1838 name change) or the title page for this hymnal, "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", or for the 1844 D&C. The hyphen has come to be associated with Brigham's church alone; it was actually the minority spelling when Smith was alive. While the LDS Church is surely the largest and most important, the LDS hyphen does not well embody the entire movement inspired by Smith. Cool Hand Luke 06:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wrad. Thanks for helping out, but that's the term used by historians of the greater movement. Agape bright 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Latter Day Saints movement"? Isn't it a movement of "Latter Day Saints", in plural?--84.111.117.111 (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Denomination label & number of adherents

Can "The Restored Church of Jesus Christ (Eugene O. Walton)" be properly described as a denomination, given it only "has 25 members"? How about "Reform Mormonism", especially given that the article that previously described it was removed by AfD? -- 63.224.137.164 03:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "Reform Mormonism" seems to be promotional and is not verifiable by any third party, it seems. I imagine Walton's church might be verifiable in actual published works, but I may be mistaken. The Marriott Library seems to have a collection with some of his papers in it. Cool Hand Luke 17:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Berwood2001 (talk · contribs) has tried to add back in material about The Latter Day Church of Christ that was both previously removed from this article (as well as others), and for which the main article was removed by AfD. -- 12.106.111.10 20:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

More POV issues

The other POV discussion hasn't been posted in since '06, which is why I am starting a new one. The article was incorrect at some points, and it had a generally negative point of view on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Unless specifics about what was wrong with my edit are explained here, I am sticking to it. Also, the list of denominations was very hard to read, so I made it into a table. This revealed that there is some missing information. The last church on the table used to be in a comment, for reasons I am not aware of. Because I saw no reason to hide it, I put it on the table too. However, if anyone knows why it was in a comment, please feel free to move it back to one. Some of the edits I made were just taking out some details from the not-so-brief Brief History. Jukilum 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually think some past articles cast a somewhat negative tint on the Movement as a whole (i.e. the movement "spawned" other denominations?). There may be problems with saying outright that the CofC as it is called on this board, started it all, though. I like your new tables, by the way. Wrad 19:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless someone can find a reliable source that says that something else started before CofC, it stands as a fact that it was the first. Jukilum 15:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How can POV have crept into an article that was originally so well conceived and written by the likes of COGDEN and John Hamer (a real live historian)? I can't fix it, but I'll throw my hat in the ring once.  :) Agape bright 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Name

I see in notes the following: "Name changed to Church of Latter Day Saints in the Kirtland portion in 1834. The church officially took on the name Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1838. See The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, below (under Rocky Mountain Saint denominations)." Is this really so? The name had a hyphen before Smith died? I thought the hyphen was the sole brand of the Brighamite church. The reason this is an important issue is that to me it seems to indicate an intent to identify the Brighamite church as "the real deal", which, of course, Wikipedia can't do. If the name was truly hyphenated, then no big deal. But if not, then it's POV pushing. Agape bright 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a few pre-1844 references to a hyphenated form of the church, but I understand that the un-hyphenated form was more common. For example, the un-hyphenated form was used consistently in the official church periodical Times and Seasons (edited by Smith) until Smith's death, although as reproduced in Times and Seasons, the Wentworth Letter calls it "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". Orson Pratt also used the un-hyphenated form in his publications. Some time in late 1844, they started using the hyphenated form and the un-hyphenated form about equally. There was no standard. I don't know of any instance where someone used a hyphen and a lower-case "d" prior to the "Brighamite" church. COGDEN 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll make an effor to improve it. Agape bright 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I tried to make it all consistent and informative. My only latent dissatisfaction with the tables is that the Smith church is called Church of Christ (with a note on names), but then the tables have several subsequent denoms continuing from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I think that's poor communication and confusing to a reader. Ideas? Agape bright 15:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea. According to many contemporaries (eg. Whitmer) and moderns (eg. Bushman), the 1844 Smith church had undergone significant remakes since 1830. Perhaps the Pre-1844 table should have a row for each successive major iteration of the Smith church name?? Would that be bad? I think it might help provide a more understandable guide to the names and people and groups. Agape bright 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Denomination tree

An editor recently added this tree to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Would this, or something like this, be more appropriate here? WBardwin 08:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Main branches of the Latter Day Saint movement

William Bickerton: The Church of Jesus Christ

Sidney Rigdon: "Rigdonites"

Granville Hedrick: Church of Christ (Temple Lot)

Joseph Smith III: Community of Christ

James Strang:

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Brigham Young

Fundamentalist Church of

Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Joseph Smith

Denomination listings

Currently the denominations are listed by the date of their organization. Would it be more appropriate to list them in order baised upon size. This would not change the subsets they currently are found in, simply the order. It makes sense interest would be stronger in the larger organization most (not all) of the time. Jcg5029 02:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That might make it more counterintuitive, if anything. By date of organization seems logical and the most NPOV to me. –SESmith 03:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, then why does the CoC get its own separate section? If this isn't being organized by size then they should be under the category of Prarie's, we wouldn't want to organize by size. Jcg5029 03:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

PLDS?

I noticed the Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not listed on the grid.66.191.19.217 13:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added them to the 'Other' section as they really don't fit in the other categories. 71.92.157.26 21:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It has been suggested that Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement be merged into Latter Day Saint movement.

• Agree In articles about ideologies, Wiki should present, in the same entry, both pro and con arguments. -The Gnome (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong "Dont Merge" - In general, pros/cons on a given topic should be presented in a single article. However, the Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article should be kept distinct for several reasons: (1) The article is a summary article, or portal (see Wikipedia:Summary style and WP:SPINOUT). (2) All religions have "Crticism of ..." articles, and nearly every one has had a merge/delete discussion, and they always end up "keep". (3) See Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. (4) The critical movements that challenge major religions are very significant movements in their own right (that is, the criticism _is_ a subject, with its own history, actors, and events) and warrants a dedicated article. (5) One can think of the article as documenting, in encyclopedic fashion, the ideas of notable LDS critics (Tanners, etc). (6) It is unseemly to put a large amount of criticism in the main LDS article, the focus of which should be the history and positive aspects of the faith; (7) Merging would create a main article that is unreasonably large. (8) The article had a deletion/merger discussion around 10 months ago and the decision was Keep. Noleander (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

However, the main article probably should have a small "Criticism" section that contains a brief summary of criticism, and has a link to the Criticism article. Noleander (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree - this is the typical method for dealing with criticism; they have a history unto themselves that deserves a separate article. There should definitely be a summary section in this article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree. For reasons ably set out by Noleander. Snocrates 01:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Soft Disagree - I think there are things in this article that should be expounded upon in the main articles they reference. I also strongly believe that there should be small summary section in the main LDS article that gives a 30,000 foot overview, and then references this article according to guidelines of a spinout article (WP:SPINOUT). But in general, I think this article should exist on its own as well because there is a significant scholarly and sub-scholarly (is that a word?) movement that criticizes the LDS church and its off shoots. Descartes1979 (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Disagree with merger — This may be the only time that I agree with Noleander, Snocrates and Descartes1979 on a major issue, but let's celebrate where we can, right? These articles shouldn't be merged for the very good reasons given by Noleander above. I also agree that there should be a small section with criticisms pointing to the other article. It will be difficult making such a section, but we can butt heads on that later. — Val42 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"This may be the only time that I agree with Noleander ..."  :-) Noleander (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you did forget "major". I think that we've agreed on some minor things before. We may also agree on something major in the future. For now, I agree with you (and the smiley that you have above), so let's rejoice together.  :-) — Val42 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with merge. Incidentally, when did we move the article off of Criticism of Mormonism? I also disagree with that move. Cool Hand Luke 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the name change was proposed by User:TrustTruth about Nov 25 (just guessing on the dates) and no one really said anything one way or another; so it was changed by TrustTruth or User:Descartes1979 around 1 Dec. I had (and have) no strong feeling one way or another. If you want to bring it up again, TrustTruth is the one to talk to. Noleander (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a move back to "Criticisms of Mormonism" too, if it were raised. Snocrates 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that one of the reasons TrustTruth proposed the renaming was that the article, at that time, contained 1 or 2 sentences of criticism directed at the Fundamentalist LDS church (criticizing the on-going illegal polygamy). TrustTruth pointed out that the title "Criticism of Mormonism" could be misleading to casual readers: they might think the fundamentalist polygamy criticisms were being directed at the COJCOLDS. However, those two sentences were moved out of this article (into "Fundamendalist LDS" article) awhile ago. So that particular reason is for the renaming may be no longer a concern. Noleander (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's why the merge proposal seems so doubly weird to me. It's nearly all criticism of the LDS Church and their beliefs. It says some of the criticism is broader, but it cites things that denominations like the Community of Christ don't even believe in, and then it rebuts these criticisms by citing LDS apologists. It would be positively bizarre to merge so much LDS-focused criticism here. Cool Hand Luke 21:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Why two articles? Why are Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism two separate articles? The intro to the latter even says that it is the about the "the religious, ideological, and cultural elements of certain branches of the Latter Day Saint movement." What is there to the Latter Day Saint movement that is not religious, ideological, or cultural? These seem like redundant articles, and neither one of them is particularly long, so I propose they should be merged. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 11:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the proposal is to merge into Mormonism, the discussion should take place there. — Val42 (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Latter Day Saints movement

I find it strange that the word "Saint" is the singular in this context. But I'm not knowledgable as to the proper usage. Nevertheless, I thought I might make this observation in case there's a need for a correction in this regard. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Here's a usage in the plural: Joseph Smith and the Latter Day Saints Movement by Karen Peebles [1].

I think it's just a grammar issue — because it's being used as an adjective derived from a proper noun, the singular form of the noun is used. Similarly, we usually say "Muslim Brotherhood", not "Muslims Brotherhood". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• But here's a usage in the singular: "About the Kirtland Temple" [2]. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy in lede.

This article is about the LDS movement in general, so does there need to be info about COJCOLDS polygamy in the lede, when there's no mention of it in the actual article? I think that violates WP:LEDE where you are supposed to summarize the article in the lede and flesh it out in the body of the text, if there's no mention in the body there should be no mention in the lede. Twunchy (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed the information that did not belong in the introductory paragraphs. You may want to go back and add information that should be in the intro, but is not currently. --^StormRider 01:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - polygamy could be argued by many as the single thing that the LDS movement is best known for. It definitely belongs in the lede - a much more pertinant question is why polygamy is not mentioned in the body of the article - a glaring omission. There is an entire series of articles on Polygamy and the Latter Day Saint movement - yet no mention at all here? Also, polygamy is practiced by a number of sects in the LDS movement and should not be restricted to the COJCOLDS.--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Descartes, I did not say that information on polygamy did not belong, what I agreed with is that if it is not mentioned in the article it does not belong in introductory paragraphs. There are so many subarticles that identifying the purpose of each is confusing at times. What is the purpose of this article? The information determined necessary for the article would then proceed from that position. Cheers. --^StormRider 00:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Mistake Regarding the Name of the Church in the Introduction

The introduction states, "The original church, founded by Joseph Smith, Jr., was known as the Church of Christ." The church was known by that name in the beginning. A little later the church was referred to as "The Church of the Latter-Day Saints." However, Doctrine & Covenants 115:4 received by Joseph Smith on April 26, 1838, states: "For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." The introduction as it stands would seem to imply that during Joseph Smith's life the the church was called the Church of Christ and only after his death did the name change to something else by others. --Taelder (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Christian Controvery

many christians do not belive latter day saints are christions and it is very controversial to include this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvernon199 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In the context of "Mormonism", this has been discussed ad nauseum (and then some) here, here, here, here, and here, and no doubt elsewhere. I think it's safe to say the general consensus has been to state that it is a branch of Christianity since the movement self-identifies as Christian. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• They are not Christian because they are polytheists (afterlife involves ruling your own planet/Universe), not because some Christians are "offended" that Mormons consider themselves Christian. 76.253.93.26 (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think to be a polytheist you have to worship more than one god. Mormons worship the Christian God only, so I don't think belief in the possible deification of humans makes them polytheists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Article: List of Christian denominations

At Talk:List of Christian denominations#Nontrinitarianism, I've asked about moving certain groups. You may wish to post a comment there.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Bottom Navbox

I added the {{Latter Day Saint movement}} template at the bottom of this page, as I think it is the most relevant to this topic. I'm sort of scratching my head to wonder why this wasn't done earlier, although I know that LDS movement template has undergone quite a bit of modification and revision and renaming. Perhaps that is what happened here, and this page simply didn't get updated.

Anyway, the {{LDS}} template still is here and I'm opening up discussion of or even encouraging somebody else to simply take this out. I just want a second opinion on the matter before it goes, in the spirit of wiki-nettiquette. This doesn't have to be a formal discussion and debate. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)