From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Mormons has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 27, 2011 Peer review Reviewed
February 7, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Request Edit History[edit]

The article should state that the first of the visions had by Joseph Smith in the 1820's was of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. It is represented by the picture to the left of the article but no mention of it is made in the article itself. Nilhtriw (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree this should be added †₳☼ҤѺԝӀіӣǵ (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
It actually is mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of the "Beginnings" section. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
But critically this was not the first vision which Smith reported. It was not announced until 1839, some 19 years after it is supposed to have happened, during the Nauvoo period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangerbird (talkcontribs)
You are partially correct: the account of the First vision was not widely circulated during Smith's lifetime. The first written account dates to 1832, 12 years after it is supposed to have happened, but most books and biographies present it chronologically anyway. ~Awilley (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Can someone swap Mitt Romney for his father, please[edit]

Can someone swap out Mitt Romney picture for his father, please. George Romney has compelling story, worthy of place on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19 September 2012

Hmm...In terms of overall notability Mitt beats his dad I think. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Diagram misrepresents Australia[edit]

The diagram purporting to represent "Global distribution of LDS Church members in 2009" appears to attribute more than 100,000 members to Australia. This is apparently based on the church's POV claim that it had 123,650 members at 1 January 2010. (See relevant article section.) However, WP's standard for verification is a reliable third-party source, which criterion is more fully met by the official census figure--52,141 in 2006. The diagram should be amended accordingly. Bjenks (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The diagram isn't meant to misrepresent anything. Granted, it is based entirely on the LDS Church's claims, which as far as I know are generally fairly reliable. (They compare reasonably to most secondary sources I know of.) Australia, based on what you say, I would guess is somewhat of an outlier. Selectively changing the Australia statistic would be putting an orange in a box of apples. Replacing all the apples with oranges (tracking down census data for 140 countries) isn't particularly feasible, so I think the best solution is to keep the current diagram and live with the "bad apples". ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Records of the LDS Church are very accurate since they have the names of all the members, including children. I do not expect anyone else to have a count. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
However, third party POV seems more reliable for third party readers. Thus I recommend to use the 2006 data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
LDS Church records represent a fairly accurate count of how many people have been baptized into the church (or, if under 8, added to the membership rolls). However, they are not a very good representation of how many people self-identify as members of the LDS Church. There are many LDS Church members that no longer consider themselves Mormons, though their names remain on the membership rolls until they are either excommunicated or the members themselves take action to remove their names. So it depends entirely on what statistic we are wanting—(1) total church membership based on baptisms, or (2) church self-identification? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

political activity[edit]

I want to know if it is true that Mormons prohibited to teach the evolution theory and literature like Romeo and Juliet in Utah. It is said that Mormons are very influential in agriculture industry. Can anyone who knows about those topics expand the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, Utah's public schools teach literature and evolution the same as any others. (Incidentally Mormon doctrine is actually more tolerant of evolution than that of, say, Evangelical Christians). I'm not quite sure what influences Mormons have had on agriculture. In my opinion these details are mundane enough that they don't really need to be mentioned in this article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
If anyone wants to know such questions, (including Wikipedia readers) they can ask via [1] This article could point that out. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 November 2012[edit]

Please change [[File:LDS Global Distribution.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.5|Global distribution of LDS Church members in 2009]] to [[File:LDS Global Distribution.svg|thumb|right|upright=1.5|Global Distribution of LDS Church Members in 2009]] because it is now in SVG format for better quality. Skagentech (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Done, though I've kept the capitalization from the article, as I believe that follows Wikipedia's standards. I also nowiki'd your file links so the thumbnails don't display. RobinHood70 talk 09:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for converting that. I guess .svg is better quality than .jpg? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the main reason it's used is that it scales better, since it's based on vector graphics rather than a bitmap. If you resize it very small or very large, a well-designed SVG file will usually be more accurate than a JPG, GIF, BMP, etc. RobinHood70 talk 18:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

new topic[edit]

Please include the fact that Mormonism is a type of Christian faith, and not its own branch of religion, Mormons still use today's bibles to study from, and we believe that the book of Mormon is another true testament of Jesus Christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see the 3rd paragraph of the article which says, "Mormons self-identify as Christian, though some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity. Mormons believe in the Bible, as well as other books of scripture, such as the Book of Mormon." Is this what you were looking for? ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Written vs. Translated[edit]

In regards to the recent changes, looking at it more closely, my interpretation is that some parts are his own writing while others are translations. Would the wording "written or translated" work best, perhaps? I'm not a Mormon myself, so I will happily bow to those with better subject knowledge than me—I just want to make sure we're not introducing inaccuracy either way. RobinHood70 talk 23:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. Part of the Pearl of Great Price is Smith's translations (of the Bible and the book of Abraham), while part is simply his writings (autobiographical sketch, articles of faith, etc.) I personally think it's simpler to just say writings than translation of writings or writings and translations. Besides, irregardless of whether they were actual translations or fabrications, they are still writings, so we kind of sidestep the POV problems as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree it's easier to just use "writings" since it's a complex (and controversial) issue as to what Joseph Smith meant by "translation". The "translation" of the Bible portions (Book of Moses and Joseph Smith—Matthew) wasn't really a traditional process of translations as the term is usually used—he didn't claim to have original source material as he claimed with the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. And even those latter two Smith said he relied almost wholly on revelation as opposed to traditional methods of translation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Infobox template[edit]

There's a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Mormons#Replacing pictures that might be of interest. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Request to remove the "Ex-Mormons" subsection from "Groups within Mormonism"[edit]

Ex-Mormons are by definition a group outside Mormonism. The format of the article at present suggests that Ex-Mormons are a type of Mormons. That makes no sense. I vote that this subsection be removed entirely. Piguy (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the paragraph itself implies that Ex-Mormons are a type of Mormons. Also, I should probably only note that the paragraph was only recently made into a subsection (over my objections). Just out of curiosity, would your concern be remedied by taking the article back to the paragraph/list form, and dropping the subsection headers? ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the text itself doesn't imply that, but it's placement within the section "Groups within Mormonism" does. It just doesn't make any sense to even have a discussion of Ex-Mormons in the article about Mormons, let alone within the section "Groups within Mormonism." If that group does need to be mentioned, it should be a simple statement directing the reader to the appropriate article; e.g.: "Former Mormons who seek to disassociate themselves from the religion are referred to as Ex-Mormons." Piguy (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
So you're saying possibly say that under the "Latter-day Saints" subsection where it's talking about less active Mormons? ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
That would be a good place. We'd have to be careful, though. The "Latter-day Saints" subsection is already skewed with more information on less active members than active members. In my opinion, the subsection should be largely about those who more readily accept the label "Latter-day Saints" (i.e. active members), with a smaller reference to less-active and former members. Piguy (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I have made the suggested change to the article. Pi-Guy (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 June 2013[edit]

All references to Joseph Stalin need to be changed to Joseph Smith.

Lizzzzc (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. The vandalism was reverted. Thanks for reporting it here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone hacked the page and changed all Joseph Smith references to Joseph Stalin[edit]

I do not know how to fix. 6/28/2013 Kmoravec (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I undid this vandalism. Thanks for reporting it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Utah History Encyclopedia reference[edit]

The Utah History Encyclopedia reference on this article should be replaced with the following one:

Embry, Jessie L. (1994), "Polygamy", in Powell, Allan Kent, Utah History Encyclopedia, Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, ISBN 0874804256, OCLC 30473917 

Thanks. -- (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2013[edit]

You seem to be mixing up "Practice" and "Practise" in your article - there are several wrong entries to this effect. E.g. "Practice" is a noun and should be in the form of "a practice" or "the practice". "Practise" is a verb and should be used as such

Snowybeeky (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. The use of practise as a verb is UK / Commonwealth usage. This article is written in US English, as far as I can tell, and the US standard is to use "practice" for the verb as well as the noun. See WP:ENGVAR for more info on how we accommodate both American and British English on Wikipedia. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please link to the spanish site?[edit]

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That's just a redirect toÚltimos_Días which in english is the Latter Day Saint movement article. Not sure that this is the best link. -- (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Evergreen citation[edit]

Please change the following ref, found in the Culture and practices section of this article.

{{cite web |url= |title=Resources for Individuals |author= |date= |work= |publisher=Evergreen International |accessdate=November 11, 2011}}
{{citation |url= |title= Resources for Individuals |work= |publisher= [[Evergreen International]] |archiveurl= |archivedate= 2012-11-20}}

Evergreen International is defunct, and this is the last useful archive of this page. -- (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Done ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal: the keystone metaphor[edit]

I suggest that the (very short) page Keystone symbol in Mormonism should be merged into this article. I really want to work on the Keystone article, and this separate page arose because of disagreement how/whether to include the Mormon example of the figurative use of "Keystone" in the keystone page itself. (Actually I think some discussion of the various figurative uses is quite appropriate, but that is a separate issue.) Now we have this rather stranded page -- it could be referenced from the Mormons page, but if the keystone is that significant, it should surely merit a direct reference, and all of the content would fit in a small paragraph. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is my first attempt at a merger proposal, and I've gone wrong already. This should probably be on Mormonism Imaginatorium (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a merge to Book of Mormon would be appropriate, since all the examples of its usage relate to the Book of Mormon being the keystone of Mormonism. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Modern times section[edit]

The following sentence should be modified from (bold for illustrative purposes only):

During the latter half of the 19th century, there was a retrenchment movement in Mormonism in which Mormons became more conservative, attempting to regain their status as a "peculiar people". instead say:

During the latter half of the 20th century, there was a retrenchment movement in Mormonism in which Mormons became more conservative, attempting to regain their status as a "peculiar people".

19th century = 1801-1900; 20th century = 1901-2000. -- (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppression and excommunication of women[edit]

Need a section to describe the Mormon's actions in oppressing Mormon women and supportive view of the Church — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an article about an group of people defined by their connection to Mormonism; it is not about specific practices of the LDS Church, or recent actions taken by them. Material relating to the topic you are describing can be found at: Mormonism and women, Mormon feminism, Criticism of Mormonism#Gender bias and sexism, Complementarianism, Ordination of women#Latter-day Saints, Ordain Women, Kate Kelly (feminist) (and the rest of Category:Mormon feminists), Mormon blogosphere, Excommunication#The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Disciplinary council, Relief Society, and Young Women (organization), among others. -- (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ref fixes needed[edit]

Several ref fixes need to be made, which I can't at this point because the article is semi-protected.

First, in the "Beginnings" section, the following needs to be corrected:

<ref>''Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History'', p. 824; {{Harvtxt|Brodie|1971|pp=393–94}}; {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|pp=539–50}}; Many local Illinoisans were uneasy with Mormon power, and their unease was fanned by the local media after Smith suppressed a newspaper containing an exposé regarding plural marriage, theocracy, and other sensitive and oft misinterpreted issues. The suppression resulted in Smith being arrested, tried, and acquitted for "inciting a riot". On June 25, Smith let himself be arrested and tried for the riot charges again, this time in Carthage, the county seat, where he was incarcerated without bail on a new charge of treason. {{cite web |url= |title=Legal Trials of Joseph Smith |author= |date= |work= | |accessdate=November 11, 2011}}.</ref> instead read:

<ref>''Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History'', p. 824; {{Harvtxt|Brodie|1971|pp=393–94}}; {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|pp=539–50}}; Many local Illinoisans were uneasy with Mormon power, and their unease was fanned by the local media after Smith suppressed a newspaper containing an exposé regarding plural marriage, theocracy, and other sensitive and oft misinterpreted issues. The suppression resulted in Smith being arrested, tried, and acquitted for "inciting a riot". On June 25, Smith let himself be arrested and tried for the riot charges again, this time in Carthage, the county seat, where he was incarcerated without bail on a new charge of treason. {{citation |contribution-url= |contribution= Smith, Joseph: Legal Trials of Joseph Smith |first= Joseph I. |last= Bentley |authorlink= Joseph I. Bentley |pages= 1346–1348 |editor1-last= Ludlow |editor1-first= Daniel H |editor1-link= Daniel H. Ludlow |title= [[Encyclopedia of Mormonism]] |location= New York |publisher= [[Macmillan Publishing]] |year= 1992 |isbn= 0-02-879602-0 |oclc= 24502140}}.</ref>

This source is just reprinting text from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism without indication of permission, and so is a copyvio that needed fixed.

Second, in the "Pioneer era" section:

<ref name="emigration-religious-freedom">In 2004, the State of Illinois recognized the expulsion of the Latter-day Saints as the "largest forced migration in American history" and stated in the adopted resolution that, "WHEREAS, The biases and prejudices of a less enlightened age in the history of the State of Illinois caused unmeasurable hardship and trauma for the community of Latter-day Saints by the distrust, violence, and inhospitable actions of a dark time in our past; therefore, be it RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NINETY-THIRD GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that we acknowledge the disparity of those past actions and suspicions, regretting the expulsion of the community of Latter-day Saints, a people of faith and hard work." {{cite web |url= |title=Official House Resolution HR0793 (LRB093 21726 KEF 49525 r) |author=Illinois General Assembly |date=April 1, 2004 |work= |publisher= }}; "The great Mormon migration of 1846–1847 was but one step in the LDS' quest for religious freedom and growth." {{cite web |url= |title=Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail: History & Culture |author= |date= |work= |publisher= }}.</ref>

...should be modified to instead read:

<ref name="emigration-religious-freedom">In 2004, the State of Illinois recognized the expulsion of the Latter-day Saints as the "largest forced migration in American history" and stated in the adopted resolution that, "WHEREAS, The biases and prejudices of a less enlightened age in the history of the State of Illinois caused unmeasurable hardship and trauma for the community of Latter-day Saints by the distrust, violence, and inhospitable actions of a dark time in our past; therefore, be it RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NINETY-THIRD GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that we acknowledge the disparity of those past actions and suspicions, regretting the expulsion of the community of Latter-day Saints, a people of faith and hard work." {{cite web |url= |title=Official House Resolution HR0793 (LRB093 21726 KEF 49525 r) |author=Illinois General Assembly |date=April 1, 2004 |work= |publisher= }}; "The great Mormon migration of 1846-1847 was but one step in the Mormons' quest for religious freedom and growth." {{citation |contribution-url= |contribution= History & Culture |title= Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail |work= |publisher= [[National Park Service]] |accessdate= 2014-07-09 }}.</ref>

This is a direct quote, but someone changed the word Mormons to say LDS, and this modified ref better describes the source.

Third, also in the "Pioneer era" section:

<ref>{{Harvtxt|O'Dea|1957|pp=91–92}}; {{cite web|url= |title=Welsh Mormon History}} During the 1840s and 1850s many thousands of [[Wales|Welsh]] Mormon converts immigrated to America, and today, it is estimated that around 20 percent of the population of [[Utah]] is of Welsh descent.</ref>

...should instead be:

<ref>{{Harvtxt|O'Dea|1957|pp=91–92}}; {{citation |url= |title= Welsh Mormon History |work= |publisher= [[BYU Research Institutes|Center for Family History and Genealogy]], [[Brigham Young University]] }} During the 1840s and 1850s many thousands of [[Wales|Welsh]] Mormon converts immigrated to America, and today, it is estimated that around 20 percent of the population of [[Utah]] is of Welsh descent.</ref>

...since was migrated to, and currently appears to be be involved in cybersquatting with completely unrelated Japanese text.

Fourth, also in the "Pioneer era" section:

<ref>See Tullidge, Edward, ''History of Salt Lake City'', pp. 132-35 (Original from the University of Michigan, 1886).</ref>

<ref>{{citation |last= Tullidge |first= Edward |authorlink= Edward Tullidge |title= History of Salt Lake City |url= |contribution-url= |contribution= Resignation of Judge Drummond |pages= 132-35 |place= Salt Lake City |publisher= Star Printing Company |year= 1886 |oclc= 13941646 }}</ref> this is a more accurate and complete reference.

Fifth, also in the "Pioneer era" section:

<ref>The LDS Church encourages journalists not to use the word ''Mormon'' in reference to organizations or people that practice polygamy {{cite web |url= |title=Style Guide — LDS Newsroom |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate=November 11, 2011}}; The church repudiates polygamist groups and excommunicates their members if discovered {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2008|p=91}}; {{cite web|url= |title=Mormons seek distance from polygamous sects |year=2008 |}}.</ref>

<ref>The LDS Church encourages journalists not to use the word ''Mormon'' in reference to organizations or people that practice polygamy: {{citation |contribution-url= |contribution= Style Guide — The Name of the Church |title= Topics and Background |work= |publisher= LDS Church |accessdate= 2014-07-09}}. The church repudiates polygamist groups and excommunicates their members if discovered: {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2008|p=91}}; {{citation |url= |title= Mormons seek distance from polygamous sects |date= June 26, 2008 |agency= [[Associated Press|AP]] |publisher=}}.</ref> the URLs have changes, and the references were incomplete.

I'm sure I'll find more, but that's all for now -- (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I know I don't have to tell you the merits of creating an account. Thanks  NQ  talk 22:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

grammar correction[edit]

Can't make this simple copyedit right now due to semi-protection. Comma should be taken out of the following sentence (commas used before prepositions only if a new subject and verb follows, here we have only a new verb):

"They believe that Christ's church was restored through Joseph Smith, and is guided by living prophets and apostles."

So should read "...Smith and is guided...".

Alternately, keep comma and change to "...Smith, and that it is guided" (which adds the needed subject). Ath271 (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever fixed. Just noticed that actually the two preceding sentences have the same issue:
"They have a unique view of cosmology, and believe that all people are spirit-children of God" - either remove comma or add subject after existing comma ("and they believe")
"Mormons believe that returning to God requires following the example of Jesus Christ, and accepting his atonement through ordinances such as baptism" - either remove comma or add subject after existing comma ("and that it also requires") Ath271 (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Choice of Images[edit]

I think the choice and order of image seems odd.

  1. It seems strange that Dieter F. Uchtdorf is included, but Thomas S. Monson isn't, as Monson is President of the Church and Uchtdorf is his councilor.
  2. It seems strange that Manning is between Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and on the top row. Smith and Young were the first two Presidents of the Church. While I have no issue with her being included, I don't think the location of her image is best.
  3. Philo Farnsworth, Marie Osmond and Stephenie Meyer may or may not be the best choices. While they are known for being "Mormon" writers, inventors and entertainers, there are slot of others who are just as famous, for example Gladys Knight.

I think we need to come up with some better image choices. Perhaps a list of images could be created and then the best 9 chosen by consensus?--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 15:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that whoever chose the images was probably trying to get a cross-range of nationalities, ethnicities, and genders. Uchtdorf was probably chosen because he is a prominent non-American Mormon. That said, I have no objection to changing those that are selected. The one aspect by which the selection wasn't balanced was by denomination—there are no fundamentalist Mormons pictured. Why not Warren Jeffs? (OK, that last sentence was a bit of a joke.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I have created Template:Random image array which will allow us to add more images here, and each time the readers browser or Wikipedia purges, the images will be chosen at random in groups of 4.
However, when adding the image to this page, (that I'm about to do) I tried to keep the reason they were chosen the same for each group. For example, Jane Manning was chosen because she was a early African American Latter Day Saint. Joseph Freeman will now be randomly swapped with her image, as he is the first African American to to receive the Melchizedek priesthood after the announcement of the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood.
I hope you like it. I have absolutely no issues with someone changing the image. I just did my best
I figure this new template will all more image to be shown, without taking any more space.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 19:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes protection?[edit]

Hi. Given that almost all edits to this article in the past few months from IP's and new accounts have been problematic and have been quickly reverted, I would propose that we enable "pending changes" protection here. This would be the same protection that is currently in effect for the Mormonism and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints articles. Any objections? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, and since we had another IP vandalism incident on the article, I've gone ahead and enabled pending changes protection. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

April conference (world annual broadcast)[edit]

For editing purposes (especially for statistics and social issues) you may be interested to know that I am keeping brief notes and putting them on my personal TALK page: User_talk:Charles_Edwin_Shipp#LDS_April_Conference.2C_world_broadcast.2C_April_4-5.2C_2015_.28Sat.2FSun.2C_10am.2F2pm_MT.29 -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) -- PS: I'll add official references later.

External links[edit]

Per WP:EL policy, this section is not a place for promotional links such as those that sell books or promote any particular belief system. furthermore, ONE link to the Church of Latter Day Saints should be sufficient given how many times its mentioned in the article and the prominence of its article link above the header. If anyone disagrees, please state your case for the inclusion of the links here. Otherwise, I will continue to remove these links per External Link policy. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you apparently don't realize most of the ones you have removed are not links to the LDS Church. While it is the largest, and perhaps most well known of churches that have come out of Mormonism, they are not the only one. There has been an error in thinking all that was removed was for the same church and/or purpose. It's likely that WP:ELOFFICIAL may apply and the links are fine as they were. (In full disclosure, I would also note that this last sentence was added as I edited my comment, so the "agreed" from below by Winkelvi may not apply to this part) ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, Scalhotrod. -- WV 03:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, so lets go through them, one by one...

This is the media link I identified as such and left alone.
  • Patheos + Mormonism – – Mormonism Origins, Mormonism History, Mormonism Beliefs
The .com was the tip off, this is an advertising driven blog site.
  •, official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
  •, introductory website containing answers to frequently asked questions
I'm fine with either, but please pick one or the other. Both have LDS logos at the top.
This is a self published website by an author, Brian C Hales, to sell his various books.
  • free encyclopedia about Mormons from the perspective of members
AFAIK, we don't promote other Wiki's and self-generated sites. Am I wrong? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No, you are correct. -- WV 03:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing them. Without having gone into detail on them, but knowing they were representing different parts of Mormonism and had longevity on the article, I was concerned the IPs edit war was getting in the way of what was appropriate. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have been one of the main contributors to this article, so perhaps I can help with a rationale for why each site is linked.

  • The Mormons—PBS American Experience/Frontline: Watch the Full Program Online—Part One: History, Part Two: Church & State A pretty good documentary on Mormons and an acceptable external link.
  • Patheos + Mormonism Patheos hosts a lot of good information on a lot of different religions, and they are generally regarded as a pretty good source. I think this is a great external link, and their material is neither polemic or apologetic.
  • is the official website of the LDS Church and definitely belongs here.
  • is a different but also official website of the LDS Church, and the information there is geared towards answering questions of non-members. ( contains materials geared more toward members.) I can see arguments using WP:ELOFFICIAL both for having both links or only one. (ELOFFICIAL does allow more than one link in some circumstances.) I think this has been added and removed several times over the years. I see no problem with keeping it.
  • was added years ago in an effort to balance the EL section because there were no external links specifically about Mormon Fundamentalism (a branch of Mormonism outside of the LDS Church). There is no "official" website for Mormon Fundamentalism and this was the best we could find. Something better might exist now.
  • A semi-closed wiki open to editing by LDS members. As far as I can tell it is allowed, (WP:ELNO #12 doesn't apply because it is a stable well-developed wiki). I don't care much whether it stays or goes.

Anyway, I hope this helps. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Going forward after the protection expires[edit]

(edit conflict) I'd say that first off we need to look through the article and see if these links are needed. If their subjects are covered either by sources or links to other articles, that makes it easy to remove them. That said, if there is a desire to list links to the variety of Mormon "versions" (I guess meaning other than the LDS), I'm willing to help find them. But we have to keep in mind that the EL section shouldn't be turned into a WP:LINKFARM. I'd first up, the author's site on Mormon Fundamentalism needs to be removed since it clearly violates WP:EL.

It might be worthwhile to add a link to a page of the Community of Christ as well, maybe, perhaps Otherwise, I can't see any objections to any of the links discussed above. John Carter (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
My objection is solely on the basis of WP:EL: too many links and links that are inappropriate (promotional). If that's the case, they shouldn't be in the list/article. -- WV 16:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter, I don't think a link to would be appropriate because members of the CoC specifically do not identify as Mormons. (In general, only groups originating from the followers of Brigham Young after Joseph Smith's death identify as "Mormon".)
@Winkelvi, the link to was added by User:Good Olfactory to avoid making the article too LDS-centric. He had initially linked to [2] but replaced it with [3] because that seemed to be a better and less-commercial site. Because there is no "Official" website for Mormon Fundamentalism, (MF is made up of perhaps hundreds of unrelated and sometimes competing churches, sects, and groups) some sort of independent website was needed. I guess this is my "weak support" for having this or some other website about FLDS if a better one can be found, for the EL section.
For moving forward, after the protection expires, let's just pretend like it's still protected until we come to a consensus here. If the IP editor decides to start reverting again I'll report them myself. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The point of self-identification is a good one. I do note however that the Handbook of Denominations in the United States, 13th edition, 2010, specifically includes 4 groups in its section "Latter-day Saints (Mormons)": The LDS Church, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Community of Christ, and the Church of Christ (Temple Lot). The page Latter-day Saints currently redirects to the LDS Church, not here. If it redirected here, there might not be a problem. The fact that it redirects there raises some problems as to how and where to include them in the broad LDS/Mormon grouping in wikipedia. I offer no solutions here, by the way, just pointing out what might be seen as a bit of a problem as it stands in our content here. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. The CoC are definitely part of the larger Latter Day Saint movement. I believe Latter-day Saint (small d with hyphen) redirects to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while Latter Day Saint redirects to the larger movement which includes the CoC. That has been the convention at least (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints)#Guidelines). ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that works. Sorry about not catching that myself. John Carter (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Agree with Scalhotrod in regard to WP:LINKFARM. And I will say that it seems his comments along with mine are being ignored at this point. Am I wrong? -- WV 00:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

So to take a pro-active approach, lets just start compiling the list here so we can transfer it. Can everyone agree that the list should be alphabetical by organizations name? So for a start...

==External links==

===Various denominations within Mormonism===


  •, an organization for former Mormon fundamentalists


Seem OK so far? If the Brian C Hales website wasn't promotional, I could understand its inclusion. But its an outright sales site for his books and goes against WP:EL. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, Scalhotrod. -- WV 03:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, haven't meant to ignore anybody here. I don't really have a strong preference either way which is why I wasn't participating much earlier. A couple problems with the list:

1. Community of Christ and Church of Christ TL websites should be excluded. These denominations do not fall "within Mormonism" for the reasons I mentioned to John Carter above.

2. is not an organization for former Mormon fundamentalists. It's a forum for former Mormons. There is no organization for the group "Mormon fundamentalists" current or former (which is why I wanted the Hales website). Besides is used as a source in the text of the article. Basically it fails the criteria in WP:ELYES and meets a couple of the criteria of WP:ELNO.

3. I think my strongest preference is to not drop the patheos link. Please read our article on Patheos before dismissing it as a "blog". It really is a great resource when it comes to religion.

4. I'm also not terribly keen on dividing the EL section into subsections. The text itself is self-explanatory.

Just to clarify my preference, if it were just me, I'd leave it the way it has been for the last 4 years before the edit war. Since there seems to be a strong desire to prune it, here are the ones I think should stay at the very least: Patheos, (as the official link), and PBS. That's dropping,, and I don't think any new links are necessary. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I like Adjwilley's suggestion, but have one recommendation which leaves us with...

See Also

  • Patheos, a website with information about religions

External links

Any takers? On a separate note, anyone think that Mr. Hales is Notable enough to merit an article? I didn't check to see if he's self-published. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Linking to the Wikipedia article about the website instead of the website itself seems a bit unusual and not very helpful. It's like an article about a specific disease linking to our article on webMD instead of webMD's page on the specific disease. If the website's content is relevant why not just link to it? That's what readers expect I think. (On Brian C Hales...maybe? This book was published by Greg Kofford Books Inc...but I've never heard of them either.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
From what you've said about Patheos, I'm wondering if it doesn't belong in a page bottom template. There's one for "Mormon-nomers", but not for religions in general. Considering that the site is multi-religion informational and has its own article, maybe its not getting the credit it deserves. I did not check, but is it cited in the body of the article? If it is, we can't use it in See also anyway.
Judging by his bio on Amazon, Hales is fairly impressive[4]. Obviously there needs to be sources, but he looks like an interesting guy. Bummer, just found this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian C. Hales, so much for that. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Less is more[edit]

Just go for one link. WP has does its job with the article. Don't need a LINKFARM. Pple can use google. And BTW the PBS link is NOT ABOUT a documentary. It is a portal page for stuff about mormons. (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC), I see that you've changed your mind about its inclusion[5]. Now if we can just get you to work on your Civility and stop swearing in Edit Summaries, you won't have to be watched. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Nope. WRONG. I did not change my mind. I didn't care whether it was included or not. wot i didn't like was that it had a crap description. i see that the so-called editors have finally decided that I was right. Another thing, any editor can add crap so all editors need watching. (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


Mormons are an ethno - religious group? Perciso this response and sources to the wikipedia article in Portuguese. Hallel (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Mormonism link to US millitary[edit]

Some mention of EMS should be given in this article about mind control techniques — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

polygamy ≠ polygyny[edit]

Polygamy has many forms. Since Mormon plural marriage was always polygynous (one man, plural wives) and never polyandrous (one woman, plural husbands) or polyamorous (plural members of both sexes), should "polygamy/ous" be changed to "polygyny/ous" throughout this article, as well as Mormonism and polygamy? To discuss, please go to Talk:Mormonism and polygamy § polygamy ≠ polygyny and {{ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead image(s)[edit]

Joseph Smith
Joseph Freeman
Thomas S. Monson
Don L. Lind
Jenny Oaks Baker
Stephen Covey
Russell M. Nelson
Mitt Romney
Gary Herbert

So apparently per this RfC we are no longer allowed to use image arrays in the Lead sections of articles. Although I'm not entirely convinced that many of the concerns behind the RfC apply here, knowing how things go on this site I think it's time to start looking into a replacement. I would suggest File:Salt Lake Temple, Utah - Sept 2004-2.jpg as a possibility. Pinging User:ARTEST4ECHO who created the current array, and User:Good Olfactory who participated in the previous discussion about the image selection. ~Awilley (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Salt Lake Temple, Utah - Sept 2004-2.jpg
  • Temple photo seems the most appropriate. The other photos mentioned of the BOM and Moroni would be good in the body of the article, but not the infobox. -- WV 19:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Article Reorganization[edit]

In my view, the typical reader who searches for "Mormon" or "Mormons" is more interested in religious beliefs and practices than cultural divisions. I'd like people's thoughts on the following rearrangement:

  1. Terminology
  2. Beliefs
  3. History
  4. Practices and Culture

I propose completely removing the section "Groups within Mormonism" or to substantially rewrite it. The typical reader (once again, in my view) who is searching for "Mormons" is probably looking to read more about people who actually believe and practice the faith. I feel this section gives too much emphasis (comparatively) to people who are non-practicing or non-believing. Thanks in advance for your thoughts! Piguy (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick response: I'm not terribly concerned about people not being able to find what they're looking for. The hatnotes at the top of the article are explicit:

This article is about the people known as "Mormons". For the religion, see Mormonism. ...

I think some amount of weight needs to be given to non-practicing Mormons. They do, after all, account for a majority of Mormons.
Whatever the order, I think history needs to come first in this article. ~Awilley (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick input. As a counterpoint, the 2012 Pew study says that 77% of those who self-identify as "Mormon" in the U.S. attend church at least once a week, which is a far greater percentage than that of many other religious groups. If you extrapolate that figure using comparative worldwide activity rates, you may be able to assume that about 58% of those who identify as Mormon are attending weekly. So, to claim that non-practicing Mormons account for a majority, you must include those who no longer identify as Mormon. And in my view, that group is less relevant to this article. Piguy (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
It's been a couple months. Does anyone else have any opinions on the proposed article reorganization? Piguy (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Longer response: If asked to rank the sections in order of decreasing importance to this article I would say: History, Practices and Culture, Terminology, then Beliefs. Terminology is currently first after the Lead because it's a very short section that gives some basic definitions. Otherwise History (which is next) would be first. It may or may not be true that people who search for "Mormon" are looking primarily for information about the beliefs (as opposed to history, practices, etc.) but it would be difficult to produce any evidence supporting that without click-tracking that I don't think Wikipedia does. In any case I think the premise that the Beliefs section is most important in this article is flawed. The main purpose of this article is to talk about the "religious and cultural group" known as "Mormons". The article about their belief system is Mormonism (wikilinked in hatnotes and throughout the article), followed by lower-level topic-specific articles like Mormon cosmology (also linked prominently). Originally this article didn't even have a section about beliefs, and I was the one who proposed adding it (see Talk:Mormons/Archive_1#New_Beliefs_Section and the previous section.) After reviewing my draft, User:COGDEN, who created this article, gave the feedback, "I wonder if this section could be cut down a bit. We already have the Mormonism article to discuss Mormon beliefs and doctrines. I think this should be a 2-3 paragraph, single-subsection section overview, with the reader directed to Mormonism for more information." ~Awilley (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


The lead states that, "Mormons self-identify as Christian, although some non-Mormons dispute this and some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity." The wording requires improvement since, as it stands, it confusingly implies that "some non-Mormons" dispute that "Mormons self-identify as Christians". In reality, virtually no one would dispute that Mormons self-identify as Christians; rather, what "some non-Mormons" would dispute is that Mormons are, in fact, Christians. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a good change to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to think of a good way of saying this.
1. "Mormons self-identify as Christian, although some non-Mormons dispute that they are Christian and some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity." (Simple approach: added "dispute that they are Christian" too repetitive for me)
2. "Mormons self-identify as Christian, although some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity." (Concise, but side-steps the Christianity dispute)
3. "Mormons self-identify as Christian despite some non-Mormons saying they are not and some of their beliefs diverging from mainstream Christianity." (Less concise, seems a bit run-on)
4. "Mormons self-identify as Christian, although some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity; some non-Mormons say that they are not Christian at all." (Too verbose IMO, but clear about who thinks what)
5. Mormons self-identify as Christian, while some non-Mormons contend that some of their beliefs place them outside Christianity" (More focus on the dispute, but also more concise)
~Awilley (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that a new sentence would be clearer. It would be even better if we could say specifically why some denominations don't consider Mormons Christian, if not in the lead, then in the body. Then we could say something like "Since Mormons believe in scripture additional to the Bible, evangelicals argue that Mormons are not Christian." But it might be hard to find a source like that. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I not sure that specific reasons belong in the lead. In fact, I'd say it's more appropriate (and more neutral) for the lead to just say "Mormons self-identify as Christian, although some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity." The fact that "some non-Mormons dispute this" is already implied by having to say "self-identify." Piguy (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

number of temples[edit]

Hello. I reverted an addition of 155 temples from the lede, I didn't find it in the link at first but then I did however I don't think the number of temples is an important figure for the lede so I have not replaced, please correct me if I am wrong. This was the link provided and this is what I read also in regards to the importance of temples. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


The article says that Mormons refer to themselves as Latter Day Saints to put more emphasis on Jesus Christ. So I wonder why Mormons will not wear a cross or put a cross anywhere on their churches or temples? The cross is the symbol of Christ and Christians and was the reason for his life and death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The area involving the use of the cross is addressed in other articles such as Symbolism in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Bahooka (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


Hi, I really enjoyed reading this article today (well...I mean I only got as far as the lede but still...). Nice work and thanks to all who have worked hard on it! Rogerdpack (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)