Jump to content

Talk:List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Sect vs Denomination

I very much disagree that the movement is a denomination. From Religious denominations:

A religious denomination (also simply denomination) is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity.
The term is frequently used to describe various Christian denominations (for example, Eastern Orthodox, Catholicism, and the many varieties of Protestantism or Restorationism). ...

The religion in this case is the subset of Christianity called the Latter Day Saint movement, and the denominations are the individual organizations in that group. Furthermore, from Sect

A sect is generally a small religious or political group that has broken off from a larger group, for example from a large, well-established religious group, like a denomination, usually due to a dispute about doctrinal matters.

While many of the denominations listed here are sects - there are some that are definately not - since the main differentiator of a sect is that it is a small group that has broken off from a larger group. The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS does not meet that definition because of the confusion after Joseph Smith's death. There was no clear (well in some people's mind) successor, so one can not say that the church broke off from anything. It is either the successor organization, or a new group made up of a group of scattered followers of Joseph Smith, neither of which qualifies as a Sect.

Finally, the term sect has a negative connotation that denomination does not carry. I will be moving everything back pending any discussion reaching consensus to the contrary here. --Trödel 03:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a serious misunderstanding of the term denomination; does anyone have any source for calling the Latter Day Saint movement a denomination? The movement has no control over the various churches as is normally the the case a denomination to exist. Further, a denomination exhibits a cohesive theology, philosophy, ethics and religious practices and rituals.
More important, Latter Day Saint movement is an academic term that has no value in public communication; it is unrecognizable to the majority of readers. Why was there no discussion of this change? It is significant and should have first been discussed. I think the more appropriate action is to revert immediately and then allow a case to be made for the first change. I am willing to be convinced if notable references can be provided, but I think it is highly unlikely such will be provided. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Since all of the bodies listed do not fit the definition of "sect" or "denomination", shouldn't something more generic that has universal application be used instead, like "churches" or "organizations"? Based on Trödel's provided WP defns (which are not totally correct, but assuming that they are), using "sect" or "denomination" would be misleading, it seems, so I see no reason to favor "denomination" over "sect", which was done when the page was created from Latter Day Saint movement (which, I point out, was also done without prior discussion there, so it's not like either name has a leg up based on consensus from discussion). In academia, the "Latter Day Saint movement" as a body is often referred to as the "Latter Day Saint denomination" kind of colloquially, as a type of shorthand when speaking about them, though you are right that formally the movement doesn't really qualify in the way other ones do and it's rarely used in writings for this reason. Often, to get around the problem, the "Latter Day Saint family" is referred to as a subgroup of Restorationism, which for all intents and purposes is treated equivalently to a denomination with multiple sects. "Latter Day Saint movement" is hardly ever used, except by Latter Day Saints and in WP, at least from what I have seen/heard. This may be because — as is commonly joked about — it sounds like something one might do in a bathroom, but hey, whatever. Snocrates 05:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the Latter Day Saint movement term originated. However, I do know that Wikipedia has full articles on groups that are not notable - groups of less than 500 members. In the catholic tradition these would not even be recognized as any different. There are really only a few denominations that could be considered as flowing from the traditions established by Joseph Smith and the rest are hardly distinguishable (when viewed in the sea of all religions) except by those who are well informed of Latter Day Saint theology.
I choose to quote Wikipedia articles because they tend to have the commonly used definistions rather than academic ones; however, from Websters we have:
Denomination - 4: a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices
Sect - 1 a: a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical
or b: a religious denomination
It is because of the value judgment, "especially one regarded as extreme or heretical" that is part of the definition of sect that I think the use of the term does not meet the neutrality standards of Wikipedia.
As to finding a term that describes the various thelogical groups that identify themselves with Joseph Smith's teachings - I don't have any suggestions - it is a difficult issue. --Trödel 13:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm fine with our use of the WP definitions you provided earlier — or the new ones you've provided — I shouldn't be so pedantic myself and my "preferred" definitions are probably rife with my own POV — the defns you've provided are acceptable to me for the purposes of this discussion. I can certainly understand the discomfort with "sect", and I would agree (I think) that using "denomination" is probably marginally better than "sect" for that reason. I'm leaning towards using "churches" to avoid the whole problem of sect vs denomination, but this does have the problem of being confused with a physical structure called a church, which is how the term is usually used on WP. Snocrates 13:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As I continue to think about this I certainly see reasons to use denomination for the larger groups and sect for the smaller groups. Churches is certainly more neutral, but I am not one that attaches a lot of negative connotation to the term, so I may not be the best source. I may just be muddying the water, Trodel and Snocrates, is there a specific proposal? Do you think it would be appropriate to use both terms in the article and use Churches in the title? --Storm Rider (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I would use denominations - but mostly feel that way out of inertia - i.e. it has been that way on wikipedia for a while - and is a result of negotiations when people were trying to put some of the religious organizations into the Category:Cults.
The reason I find sect objectionable is not because it is not a perfectly valid word - especially when used in sociology and related disciplines since the word used there is a "term of art". It is because it is my belief (from personal experience) that most people find sect to be PC euphemism for cult rather than a different word with specific meaning.
I am trying to remember in what context I've had this discussion on what to call the different religious organizations and see if the arguments there still hold any value - but I can't remember it for the life of me. I wish I could Google just my contributions :) After reviewing a few - here are a couple examples - but mostly about using cult:
I would stick with List of denominations ... --Trödel 23:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Question: are those small groups with less than 10,000 memebers a denomination or something else? --Storm Rider (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as a proposal goes, I'm fine with going back to "denomination" until some other consensus could develop, though I myself would prefer to use "churches" to avoid the problem entirely. I personally wouldn't refer to a group under 10,000 as a denomination, unless it was fairly "spread out" across the world, or, in other words, not limited to one or two states in the U.S. or to one country in the world. What I see as a possible borderline case is the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) — they have fewer than 10,000 members (I think), but they are well-scattered throughout the world. Snocrates 07:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm ok with churches or denominations - maybe we should add something to the intro to explain the use of the term and include in the list the number of units/members each organization has to give some perspective to the different denominations/sects. --Trödel 15:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an old discussion, but it seems that a rough consensus for changing the article title to "List of churches..." was reached. If there are no objections, I plan to change the title to "List of Latter Day Saint churches". COGDEN 16:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

LDS movement

What if we instead called it Latter Day Saint restorationism instead of a movement. That seems to be a pretty neutral term that is also descriptive of what the -ism is about. Then we could call this List of ??? in Latter Day Saint restorationism --Trödel 15:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This could be a far-ranging change, but my intial reaction is very positive. Though I had never heard Snocrates' reference to "throne room" activity, now I can't get it out of my mind (for which I will always think kindly of him! :)
On a more serious note, I have never heard this term, but do you think it flies contrary to academic use where movement is the term of choice? Should this term be used to replace other terms in all other Mormon related articles? --Storm Rider (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just reading about some different religious traditions - and there was a comment about Latter Day Saints being a part of Restorationism - and it just came to me :) Latter Day Saint restorationism OR LDSR for short :). I am not sure whether there is any academic usage - and that could be an argument against it - but I don't think it would be definitive. Additionally, it fits better when you view LDS theology from a non-Christian Worldview. There are Christians - Catholics (claim authority through Peter); Protestants (those who protested against the catholic tradition); Restorationism (those that claim restored authority - or a mandate to restore Christ's church). That makes sense - and Latter Day Saints because they form a large portion of, though not all of the Restorationism could be identified as a subset by using Latter Day Saint restorationism. Just like Baptists are a subset of Protestants. Unfortunately use of Latter Day Saints for all the Smithite groups instead of Latter-day Saint creates too much of a confusion with TCJCLDS, so the consensus was to add a word to identify it as different. The more I think about it the more I like the idea of using restorationism instead of movement. Any other thoughts before we take this idea to a much wider group - and face the impending onslaught? --Trödel 21:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I too like it and think it's a brilliant solution. You're right that it might be a hard sell. I apologize for the comment about the "movement"!, but it's an ongoing joke where I work among people familiar with the WP articles. As for the proposal perhaps not being used academically — "LDS movement" is not widely used much anyway except by Latter Day Saint academics, as far as I have been able to tell, so it's hardly a step down in that regard since it's very common to speak of the "Latter Day Saint family" within Restorationism in the academic community. Snocrates 23:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't apologize, my problem is that I have a deviant mind and grasp hold of the silly, mundane, and immature. It is funny that I have never appreciated any of the shows/cartoons that make use of this type of humor like the Simpsons, etc. I have yet to see a show of that genre. I guess it is one of those compartments in my brain that I don't share with others and keep it bottled from public view. What can I say, I am a warped individual.
Let's move forward. Though I have minor reservations, I think it might be something to discuss further. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Latter Day Church of Christ Establishment

There is some confusion on the establishment date of the Latter Day Church of Christ. Several different dates appear in various pages

  1. The list says 1926
  2. In Shields, Divergent Paths, (pages 134-35) the Incorporation of the Davis County Cooperative Society occurred 7 February 1941.
  3. The Utah Attorney General’s Office and Arizona Attorney General's Office in the Primer (page 15) uses 1935
  4. The Latter Day Church of Christ page the disputed 1977 incorporation as its date of "Creation" for the Latter Day Church of Christ itself. I cannot seem to get the info the "References" the page suggest linking its creation to 1977. It may be there, but I have been unable to find it.

On top of that, more than one date may be correct, so which one should be use. Assuming the sources that say the Latter Day Church of Christ was "Incorporated" in 1977, this doesn't mean that the Sect was "Created" then. There has never been a "Incorporation" requirement for the "creation" of a sect that I have found on Wikipedia. If it had, I huge number of sects in the LDS movement would probably not be considered "Create". Also I not sure if a "Name Change" constitutes a "New Creation". Since Latter Day Church of Christ is just a "reincorporation" of Davis County Cooperative Society, why is the date of creation restarted?

I think some discussion is in order as I'm not even sure how to fix this.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Elders Warren Parrish and Samuel Stevens

Does anyone know where I can find a public domain photograph of Elder Warren Parish or Elder Samuel Stevens for use on this page.. These men were assistants to Joseph Smith Jr. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find an image of Warren Parish at all, and I have tired. The best sources I have found for Mormon Images are
However, as far as I can tell, none of these have images of ether of these men.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Confederate Nations of Israel and Alex Joseph

I have run across some confusion regarding the "Confederate Nations of Israel". Per a number of sources I have found, while Confederate Nations of Israel was founded by Alex Joseph it was not the name of the sect he founded. It was "Church of Jesus Christ in Solemn Assembly". Confederate Nations of Israel was the political arm he started, and should not be confused with the sect. However, I'm not sure how this should be noted on the list, as calling the sect "Confederate Nations of Israel" is a very common mistake, which is even noted here. Even the Confederate Nations of Israel says that it is not a "sect" but a " hybrid church–political organization" and "multi-denominational".

Two really sources to cite the name are:

  1. Webb, Loren (December 22, 2012), Southern Utah Memories: Alex Joseph Story, Big Water, Utah: KCSG Television, retrieved August 21, 2013
  2. Stokes, Jerry (2007), Changing World Religions, Cults & Occult, p. 159, retrieved August 21, 2013

I think the name should be changed to "Church of Jesus Christ in Solemn Assembly" with the "Notes" mentioning "Confederate Nations of Israel". However, I thought I would ask for ideas before I attempt any change. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Centennial Park

Why is Centennial Park a break off of the Short Creek Community and not the FLDS? It seems strange. After all they broke from Leroy S. Johnson, the FLDS leader over the "One man rule". It is called the "Second Ward" with the FLDS the "First Ward". The Centennial Park page makes it sound like a splinter group of the FLDS and it is listed as a splinter group on the FLDS page (Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints#FLDS_splinter_groups). --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 22:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation page for "Restored" churches

I just created a stub for a small sect based in Ontario called the Church of Jesus Christ Restored and added it to the RLDS table. There are so many churches with similar names that it seems wise to have a disambig page for any sect with Restored or Restoration in the title. Does that seem like a good idea? Mycota (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_denominations_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement/Archive_1&oldid=1150610913"