Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18


There is a lot of redundancy in this article, with certain elements of Mormon doctrine being repeated over and over again, as though the article seeks to place particular emphasis upon them for some reason. Whether this is because contributors have not been paying attention to what's already been written in the article or because someone is trying to make a point I'm not sure…I would like assume good faith though and give those who have edited the article the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, it needs to be majorly cleaned up, with a single mention of each significant element of church doctrine being plenty sufficient. I'll try to fix it a little bit myself. --Antodav2007 (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It might help me if I knew what to look for. What are some things that you think are being repeated too much? Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Watch the changes and you will see. ... (Granted, there is a lot to read through.) Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Other important websites (like and which are official LDS Church sites.

A while ago, other 'external sites' were listed. The list grew and some WP editors said, "Enough!" Now, just one site reference remains and that is not enough. Here on TALK, I plan to revisit a list which I will ponder and compose for review. It is a disservice to Wikipedia readers to not see some of the available websites from the LDS Church. As another example, Lynnette and I are very active in INDEXING, part of which is very popular and could link to the upcoming 1940 Census (to be released to the public on April 2nd, 2012). That is just one of many examples. Another is the emphasis of LDS youth and the presence the LDS Church has on the web for them. I agree that the list could become too expansive, but with careful selectivity, more than just one external link will be a great addition to our superb and great Wikipedia article. Give me the weekend to ponder and produce a 'first draft' list. Others can jump in. Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a case for including a link to here in the ELs, but I think most of the other links you're referring to are properly housed elsewhere on enwp (e.g., FamilySearch, Mormon Channel, YM/YW) and easily accessible via —Eustress talk 22:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
It's been a while, I'll add the link. —Eustress talk 13:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Translation to Bicol

I'd like to inform you that I've been trying to translate this site into our local dialect, Bicol/Bikol, and you can find such translation at this link An Simbahan ni Jesukristo nin mga Banal sa Huring-aldaw. I'm a member of the Church and this work I would love to finish because it could certainly help some of our members who Bicolanos. I need help for all links of references that the site would need. For your information, I have completely translated into Bicol the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price which were published through my blogs. And of the present, I'm still editing some of the part. My handwritten translation for the two standards of the Church were already submitted to Translation Manager (Ms. Paz) based in Manila. I need your full approval to continue my translation into Bicol, and I intend to finish it. All I need is a formal acknowledgement authorizing me to continue doing it. Thanks.Geopoet (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Brother, what can you say about this post. Thanks a lot. Geopoet (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"Mormon moment" block quote

There is a block quote in the Media and arts section that seems out of place and undue in the article. Any objections to its removal or any suggestions how to better integrate it? —Eustress talk 13:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be reworded in its introductory sentence, but removing it . . . (?) ... It has interesting media and art information. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


I noticed when looking through this article that it has several disambiguation problems. When referring to the LDS Church, LDS WP pages should be where the links lead to, rather than general Latter Day Saint movement pages. I don't have time to fix them all myself, but I just wanted to bring it up here so that anyone who would care to can take care of this. Am I just crazy, or do you think this would be a good idea? Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

April Conference (semi-annual) statistics announced

As you may know, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds two world conferences each year, April Conference and October Conference. Today, the statistics and financial report for 2011 were given as follows:

  • Financial Report: The leadership council distributes tithing funds and safeguards them. Certified auditors verified for 2011.
  • 2011 Statistical Report: 2,946 stakes; 340 missions; 608 districts (in missions); 28,784 wards and branches; 14,441,346 members on record; 119,917 new children of record in the church; and 281,312 converts baptized; 55,410 full-time missionaries serving; 22,299 service (senior) missionaries (some living at home); two temples were dedicated, bringing total to 136 operating temples.
I'm listing this here in case it is needed in the article, and also FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
It appears that this information has already been included in the article. Thanks for reposting them. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, of the ten data points, I only find one mentioned in the Article. There remains over 14million members of the church (and so that is not changed) but the reference in the footnote says this is the statistic of the church itself (implying it could be suspect) and is dated 2009 and 2006. Not a problem, but what I provide here is FYI to anchor our own understanding. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, you can check out our complete LDS conference outline (we made ourselves) at


and you can also check the news briefs at . . . Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Largest church originating on American soil"?

Regarding this edit (which has been made and reverted twice), the statement in the cited source is this: "Emerging in an atmosphere of intense religious activity (later referred to as the Second Great Awakening), there was little indication at the time that Mormonism would eventually become the largest church to originate on American soil." In my view, this is a reasonable item to include in the article. From the context of the statement, it is overwhelmingly clear that "American soil" is being used here specifically with reference to the United States, so I would suggest replacing "on American soil" with "in the United States", but otherwise I believe the statement is appropriate. — Richwales 22:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement is pretty much full of vagueness though. "Largest" in what way? By "church", are they saying any religion, a Christian denomination, or Christian offshoot/cult/sect? By "America", well you covered that above. In addition, if you get past those words that aren't clear, how well researched is the claim? Are there Native American religions with more followers (current or historical)? And so on.... pretty much is just a peacock phrase that isn't really super clear. -- Avanu (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there is any need to be obtuse or to inflict others with a similar dimmness. The quote is crystal clear to those that read English with a minimal understanding. I am sure that "largest" does not mean a big building, waist size, but actually means largest church by membership. Church means exactly what it says without any need for a qualifier i.e. should we qualify this church or that church as a cult; according to whom? A church in this context is just a church; nothing more and nothing less. It is so much easier to just take things as presented without trying to fog it up, dumb it down, or exaggerate what is actually stated. Life is so much easier without any need to be coy or silly. --StormRider 07:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Mormon anti-LGBT Tactics and Hate Acts Needs own Section

It is appalling that gay people in the United States and other nations are denied the basic civil right of marriage. It is also noteworthy to point out that the largest anti-LGBT organization in North America is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is also mind-boggling that the numerous gay suicides of the Fall of 2010 as a result of Thomas S. Monson's bigoted speech at General Conference have been ignored here. Needless to say, many gay and Lesbian children of LDS couples have war-stories about the bullying, hatred and discrimination they received within the Church and more often than not in their own families. Hatred towards the Gay Community has by the very actions of the LDS Organization over many years has clearly proven to be a Modus Operandi of the entire Church. One might also consider the fact that the Church is a corporation yet still maintains a tax-exempt status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooor-Matt (talkcontribs) 07:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This issue is already covered to a fair extent at Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While I could agree that a little bit more can/should be said on the subject in this article, I would caution everyone that the discussion must remain even-handed and neutral, and that polemics are not appropriate either in any article or in any talk page. — Richwales 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The controversies belong with the parent article. Moving them to external pages seems like a defensive play.swampfoot (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
"Strict-constructionist" churches typically take an official stance against the gay lifestyle. What's special about the Mormons? I find it hard to believe there are more Mormons in America than there are Catholics or Baptists, for example. As regards the OP's editorializing about marriage being a "civil right", that question is yet to be finally decided by the courts. There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution about marriage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing in the Constitution barring same-sex marriage. That said, the constitution also does not guarantee a person will have their views honored by a religious organization. It is a double edged sword.
The term 'Homophobia' is a one-sided term. Many people are innately put off by many practices, and are not necessarily 'phobic'. Maybe the practices are the problem, sometimes.
Asking for a 'Mormon anti-LBGT Tactics and Hate Acts' section is like asking for a pre-loaded section title. In an encyclopedia, such would not be appropriate. A discussion of the organization's views on 'non-traditional' marriages might be warranted. This is en encyclopedia.
There is overwhelming pressure placed on children who are raised by parents of a compulsory faith.
swampfoot (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Mormonism vs Traditional Christianity

Has anyone considered a section on how Mormonism and Christianity compare? It seems like that's what people come to this page are looking for. If it's Christianity, how does it differ from the Christianity of Catholics and protestants?Jasonnewyork (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

See Mormonism and Christianity. There is a 'See also' link to it at this article. 72Dino (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Perfect. Sorry I missed it. And thanks for the response.Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering out loud here, but should Mormonism be included in the Christianity portal? It seems so far removed from traditional Christianity that perhaps it warrants it's own sect name. Brain696 (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Mormonism should be kept in the Christianity portal, because this is how Christianity is defined: "The mainstream Christian belief is that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human and the savior of humanity." Mormons follow this definition, so they are Christians, albeit a more unique form of Christian. Don't think of it as being "removed" from traditional Christianity, but more added upon it (except for the whole Trinity thing - that's removed). Kupiakos (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Kupiakos
I think it is more of a self-identifying feature. The LDS Church calls itself Christian from numerous reliable sources (you can quote numerous General Conference talks, interviews, and even news conferences when asked this question). It is like other things on Wikipedia, where generally it is not defined from outside but a self-identifying feature like gender preference, and even "race". If you have fair skin, blue eyes, and Swedish ancestry but want to call yourself a black African, knock yourself out. Find reliable sources on the issue at hand of course and other things of WP:FIVE, but it is up to the person or organization itself for how it wants to be identified. Anything else is original research. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I added "There are some differences between Mormonism and Christianity." to the lede to reflect this discussion. (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Following criticism, I rephrased it to " There are significant differences between Mormonism and Nicene Christianity. " please suggest an improved phrasing, but I think this is something that should be in the first paragraph. (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. At present this article is not objective. (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your talk page is highly offensive. - swampfoot (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
1. The LDS organization falls within the category of Abrahmic religions, and much less within western 'christianity'. Regardless of it's name, were one to investigate the full extent of it's practices, were one allowed free access, one would find it bears little resemblance to what Jesus taught, even without presuming the validity of the entire 'south- american' set of 'scriptures', which validity has an extremely low probability, by any objective view.
2. Persons using the phrase 'The Church' herein are presuming much. 'This Church' would be more objective. - swampfoot (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Like it or not, by WP's definition, the LDS Church 'is' Christian. It's in the very name of the Church: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those who say it bears little resemblance to what Jesus taught speak out of ignorance of the Church's doctrines and practices. People use the phrase "The Church" because that is the correct way to refer to this organization. Within the LDS portal, that is the accepted moniker. At the end of the day, what it comes down to is this: If you don't like reading about LDS doctrines and practices, if you have nothing useful to contribute to the improvement of LDS articles, don't read or edit them. At least, that's my perspective. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

People use the phrase "The Church" to refer to the LDS church within the organization. If you were to use that phrase anywhere but Utah among non-Mormons, the first response you would receive is "Uhh...what church?" I agree it is highly presumptive of the LDS Church to want to be known as "The Church," like they are the only one (or only true one, as they believe). --Manway 23:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Manway is correct. "The Church" (capitalized) is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Drop the caps and it's fine. If "church" is to be capitalized it needs to be part of the name of the church ("LDS Church" is appropriate). See MOS:LDSJARGON for further details. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether this page should be included in category 'Organizations that Oppose Same-sex Marriage'

It seems that if any organization should be included in the below-listed category, it should by the LDS Church.

Admittedly, users may not feel listing this one political stance is representative, but WP can't advance on the premise that all categories/edits/pages must be produced at once in order to be included. If we feel categories should be produced for anti-abortion, etc, then that's another job to do. As for this, I'd suggest the category should be included. --Chronotopian (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  • We categorize things by characteristics that are central to them. It never works to categorize a Church by the political stances it has taken. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spends most of its time, energy and resources on preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. It's time, energy and resources spent in support of the legal definition of marriage as a man/women institution is very limited. If we are going to categorize it by this stance, it should also be placed in Category:Organizations opposed to the Equal Rights Admendment among others. It never works to categorize a Church by the political stances it has taken, because political stances are not the primary reason for the Church to exist. It is always a case of giving undue weight. There is no rule that says a category needs to include everything that could possibly be put there. Putting articles in categories is based on the article, and limited to how relevant to the article the subject is. Categorizing a Church by the political stance it has taken always amounts to undue weight. Also, contrary to what Chronotopian has said, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not a primary sponsorer of Proposition 8. The Church did not officially endorse the measure until after it was placed on the ballot. The Church was not an official sponsor, those were all individuals. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not the first organization to be involved. Also, the Church has played absolutely no role in the subsequent judicial battle. The Church has made no attempt to encorage members to donate to the Prop 8 defense fund. It has sent no lawyers, which has lead to private internal communications by the Church being made public because it was not proactively defending its internal communication rights. The only speaking on behald of the Church done at trial was done by a lawyer acting for the Official Sponsors who recognized as not relevant to the case Church communications, but since there was no lawyer for the Church present the district judge was able to brush aside and ignore these important issues and cojntinue with his overly braod fishing expedition. To categorize the Church by this one positon is to overemphasize one aspect at the expense of understanding its whole position. Since the Church does not excommunicate people for actively supporting a redefinition of marriage but it does for adultry, an actions based, logical categorization scheme would have it in Category:Organizations opposed to adultry sooner. Categorizing Church by political stances will lead to a disorganized mess that we do not want to go into.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd look at it a different way. Though opposition to same-sex marriage may not be a major part of the church's doctrine or overall message, the church's opposition to same-sex marriage is a very notable and prominent factor in the sociopolitical debate. I don't think that including the church in the category should be interpreted that it's a major defining characteristic of the church, but rather that in terms of the category's criteria, the church is widely documented in reliable sources to qualify. I think the category should be re-added. alanyst 17:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree, and would say that this is one of the differences and benefits of categories over text in an article entry - it draws together contextual connections with other articles. --Chronotopian (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage is a sub-cat of Category:Political organizations by issue. Thus the category contents should be limited to political organizations. It should not include every organizations that has ever taken a stance for the continuation of man/woman marriage. The fact that it does not include The Becket Fund, which unlike The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has filed amicus Curaie briefs at both the district and appeals court level of the Prop 8 case arguing for the preservation of Prop 8, shows that mere support of man/woman marriage is not enough. The Becket Fund's position as only caring a about how law effects religious freedom means that an attempt to so categorize it would fail. The fact is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a political organiztion, missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not advance politcal positions. I know this first hand because I was in Nevada as a missionary during the strugle over Prop 2, more or less the same as Proposition 8 in California, and we never in any way were encoraged as missionaries to do anything to advance Propostion 2. Churches are not political organizations and should not be put in categories that are part of the political organizations hierarchy. Otherwise based on the amount of actual politcal action on the matter, the Roman Catholic Church should be put in Category:Organizations opposed to legal divorce if we hope for Wikipedia to ever be more than an encyclopedia reflecting presentist, American concerns.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point about the category hierarchy. The church doesn't seem to fit under the moniker of "political organizations" per se, though it certainly has political influence. The question then becomes whether the category's hierarchy needs to be changed/broadened so that organizations that are not inherently political entities belong, or else the category be renamed to Category:Political organizations that oppose same sex-marriage to better reflect the scope. If the latter, then the category ought to go; if the former, it should stay. alanyst 17:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Some of the other organisations in the category are churches, but all the same, I'd be happy with changing the hierarchy of the category to fit with a narrower definition of political action. --Chronotopian (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the new hierarchy would go alongside this one - ? Seems to be a precedent here. --Chronotopian (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • As an example of the sort of thing that does belong in this category look at the article on Oregon Defense of Marriage Coalition. This is an organization that had as its sole purpose to promote a measure to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That is very different from a Church which does not have that as even one of its central purposes. The category is meant to be used in a very different set of circumstances than one finds with a Church, especially a Church that has not taken a proactive stance on this issue in most places it exists. As far as I know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has only actively taken a position on this matter in the US and Argentina, and even in the US it did not proactively try to influence the debate on the issue in some states where it has come up. Maine, Nebraska, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Alaska and some other states yes, but I have seen no evidence that the church ever tried to influence the debate on this matter in New York, Connecticut or Massachusetts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I removed the problematic parent category here. 72Dino (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
As this issue would seem to be satisfactorily resolved, I'll restore the category. --Chronotopian (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Economy of Salt Lake City

While it is true that the economy of Salt Lake City is very dependent on the actions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, both as a direct body and through the many businesses it owns (such as the Deseret News, Deseret Book, the City Creek Shopping Center and others) it is more debatable that this category applies to the Church as a body. The church expends huge amounts of money in building buildings, printing materials, and running operations. With the devolving of many operations to area presidencies and their staffs, the Church does many things far beyond Salt Lake City. The SLC economy is still heavily dependent on the actions of the Church, but categorizing a 14+ million member church under the economy of a city with less than 200,000 people just does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I support this move. While certainly the Catholic Church is important to the economy of Rome, it is hardly the most significant element either. I'm sure you can give other examples. I really don't see what the church itself deserves to do with that category. Welfare Square (if it was actually made into an article... something I would actually suggest) might be much more appropriate particularly since it actually is in Salt Lake City and deals with economics, or if the commercial enterprises under Deseret Management Corporation were involved. For the church as a whole, it really doesn't fit. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The placement of wlefare square in that category would actually work. I am surprised there is no article on it. Also City Creek Center would work there. I am less certain about the placement of say Deseret Book there, since although its flagship store is in SLC, it has stores in lots of cities in the western United States and even a few outside that region I believe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
There are three points worth considering, regarding the LDS organization's worldwide headquarters in Salt Lake City.
  • Within it's membership, the LDS organization is generally refers to Salt Lake City as 'Zion'.
  • The oversight for the vast holdings of the LDS organization ultimately defer to administration by efforts of the worldwide headquarters.
  • The LDS organization has by default an overwhelming (not illegal) majority influence over most democratic processes within Salt Lake City, so there is no arguing the influence of the organization's overwhelming impact on the city's economics.
In the interest of a complete encyclopedic reference within this article, I see no reason why this, and other sections, cannot be expanded or sub-categorized within this article itself, regardless of the size of the content. Again, this is an encyclopedia, and neutrality is paramount.swampfoot (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
There are already articles addressing the items you've mentioned:
  1. Zion (Latter Day Saints)
  2. Finances of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
  3. Less than half of Salt Lake City is LDS, and the majority of Latter-day Saints live outside of the United States, so I don't see why there would be so much emphasis on SLC. 72Dino (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You may be correct about the demographics within the City's municipal boundaries. If one expands a concentric ring outward a mere few miles, or perhaps minutes by car, or perhaps one or two area codes by phone, one will find LDS membership numbers which easily outweigh any other single group. Such demographics impact heavily on municipal decision making.
swampfoot (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Two area codes out from SLC is nearly the entire inter-mountain western USA. I don't think that is the standard you are looking for here. The point being made here is that the category being discussed simply isn't appropriate for this particular article, particularly given that there are other articles that do go into the specific economic enterprises for which the LDS Church is involved with and in particular have a much more direct impact upon Salt Lake City. Those specific enterprises would be more of what somebody actually using those categories would be interested in finding anyway, and their connection to the LDS Church is noted clearly in those articles. Besides, everything you mention here in regards to SLC could also apply to Utah as a whole, or even more so. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Church structure (for infobox)

First gripe's first: Why is the infobox a separate template? It's supposed to be the at-a-glance for this page, so it has no need to show up anywhere else. Second, as for the actual structure, I think it's safe to say that the LDS Church is quasi episcopal in its polity. Not its doctrine. Its structure. It has bishops chosen from among the membership by the next level of the hierarchy, and each level of the hierarchy is chosen by the level above it, until you get to the top. So far as I understand, the LDS Church also claims that there was some kind of restoration of Apostolic succession for the Church, so it even mimics that. The only real difference I can discern between the LDS Church and the Catholic is that the LDS Church has no concept of Holy Orders and thus no full-time lower-level clergy. This is a very important difference on the ground of course, since it means that any sufficiently prominent Mormon can and is indeed likely to have been a bishop (to say nothing of the fact it means the title "bishop" is used for the lowest-level position in the hierarchy), but from the perspective of the overall structural analysis, it would be fair to call it "episcopal." I would argue that when discussing Christian denominations, "hierarchical" is the same thing as "episcopal;" the fact that the Church actually calls one of its levels of church leadership "bishops," and the fact that the term "episcopal" means "rule by bishops" gives strong weight. I admit I would need some sources, but I think they're out there. Lockesdonkey (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

request for unprotection or less protection

I would like to see this page get unprotected because I don't think that this page will be frequently vandalised to the point that it needs protection, feel free to yell at me at my talk page. 0alx0 (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The only current protection applied to this article is "move" protection. According to the article's protection log, it has been move-protected since 2008 on the grounds that it is a "highly visible page" that has no reason to be moved. Although it's probably unlikely anyone would want to try to rename the article now, I don't really see any reason to change the status quo. Are you, by any chance, suggesting that a renaming is in order? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Readers and Wikipedia editors are making changes unhindered; like changing the first line which was then changed back to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS Church or, informally, the Mormon Church) is a Christian primitivist church that considers itself to be a restoration of the church founded by Jesus Christ." The point I am making is that, as pointed out, there is no restriction on editing, apparently. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Meetinghouse" picture isn't a meetinghouse

I'm a Church member and I wanted to mention something: The picture of the "meetinghouse" you have in this article isn't a meetinghouse (ward building, in Church terminology), it's a picture of a stake center. Stake centers and meetinghouses look almost alike, but they're not the same. I have a picture of a meetinghouse to add here, but what should I categorize it under? KellyLeighC (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Stake centers ARE meetinghouses, and that is the terminology the church uses. Bahooka (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I assumed it wanted a ward building. Thanks for correcting me. (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Meetinghouse is the generic term for stake centers and ward buildings, and differentiates these buildings from temples, etc. Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy editing here. Bahooka (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Church membership statistics change request

Change "Members 14,782,473[ii]" to "Members 15,000,000," per church statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agroupaccount (talkcontribs) 18:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Tnks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are latest statistics for Wikipedia editors to edit and improve the Article here, as deemed appropriate. Of high interest is (1) the growth of the Church; (2) International missionary and humanitarian work; (3) new temples, like in Rome; (4) new church leaders; (5) Other.

Here are the statistics (ending December 31, 2013) reported in the 184th General (World) Conference: The number of stakes is 3,050 with 405 missions; 571 districts (within a mission but not big enough to be a stake, yet); 29,253 wards and branches, (a branch is not big enough to be a ward, yet). Total membership is 15,082,028 [adding up the files in the membership computer database. The prophet called it 15million.] The number of children of record added in 2013 was 115,486; and the number of convert baptisms was 282,945 during the year. As of December 31, there were 83,035 fulltime missionaries [young elders, young sister missionaries, and seniors] 34,032 church service missionaries “serving throughout the Church.” One temple in Honduras was dedicated during 2013, bring the total of operating temples up to 141 at the end of the year.

The statistical report was preceded by the Audit Report, “to give reasonable assurance” of funds received and disbursed in the year 2013. — Filling the needs to (1) budget, (2) avoid debt, and (3) plan ahead to save against time of need, same advice to members. [Short and sweet.]

Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Conference talks

FYI, if it helps at all in improving the article, I have recorded what was covered in the conference just ended. LDS world telecasts of conferences occur twice a year, in April and October. The views and instruction of church leaders tell a lot about the LDS church. You will find my personal notes on my TALK page.[1] The linked article to the newsroom has 38 photos. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

True. My thumbNotes are for Wikipedia editors, not WP readers. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

From 2013 conference, statistics: [2] and for Church positions, my notes: [3] (for accuracy.) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

An editor complained about my personal Wikipedia page so I removed my excellent and useful notes. You can find some of them in the Archives. Plus, so much is online now that you can go to 'Mormon News Room' [4] or the LDS History site [5] and so many other official LDS site (not listed in our WP article here) that my notes have diminished value, except to me. — Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a Mormon. Don't judge. Other people don't like it.I think that you should edit the parts that other people don't exactly agree with. Dance3600 (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


I've seen a few edits recently about this line:

" a Christian restorationist church that considers itself to be the restoration of the church founded by Jesus Christ."

The disagreement seems to be whether "the restoration" is NPOV. Not according to the LDS church. It's the very foundation of their religion. In their scriptures (Pearl Of Great Price, Joseph Smith History 1, verses 18 and 19), it states the following (italics mine):

"18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Smith claimed to have restored the pure Church of Jesus Christ. While it would be NPOV to say that the LDS church IS the restoration, I don't believe it's NPOV to say the church CONSIDERS it to be the restoration.

Thoughts? --Manway 16:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant: "While it would be POV to say that the LDS church IS the restoration, I don't believe it's POV to say the church CONSIDERS it to be the restoration."? -- (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
EXACTLY what I meant. Thank you. In the words of Steve Martin, "Some people have a way with words. Other people...well...uh...don't have...way, you know?" Appreciate the clarification. Regards, --Manway 19:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
With that clarification, I agree with you. -- (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I am a Mormon and Joseph Smith did restore the Church, and the reason why is that the world was not being true to the commandments. Dance3600 (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This comment is directed to the editor above and is for informational purposes only. I am also LDS (remember to use correct terminology as requested by Church leaders) and I also know that Joseph Smith restored the Church that existed in Christ's day. But for Wikipedia purposes, we can only say that our Church "considers itself to be a restoration of Christ's original Church" because to do otherwise violates Wikipedia policies about having a neutral point of view. So that's why the current wording exists in this article this way. Hope that helps you. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Differences between LDS and Christians need to include the central issue, very different beliefs about God and the Trinity

Hi I visited another wiki article written from a LDS POV and noticed it misleadingly grouped Mormons with "other Christian groups" and visited this article to find that at the end of the section on "Controversy and Criticism" the central reason why Christians do not regard Mormons as Christian is not mentioned. It is basic common sense to point out in the Controversy and Criticism section the Mormon belief in a trinity of three divine beings (and in the words of this article in another section there is also a belief that Mormons may "become divine beings or 'gods' themselves") decidedly differs from the foundational Christian belief in only one God in three divine persons. Here is what the article currently says: "Many have accused the LDS Church of not being a Christian church at all as a result of disagreements with Apostolic succession and the "Great Apostasy", the Nicene Creed and, more so, Mormon cosmology and its plan of salvation including the doctrines of pre-mortal life, baptism for the dead, three degrees of heaven, and exaltation." Something about the differences between Mormons and Christians about whether there are multiple divine beings or only one God necessarily belongs in this article. There is a Wikipiedia article on Mormon beliefs about God which might be helpful for an editor to ensure this most significant point of controversy is touched on. Elizdelphi (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you did your research a little better, you would discover that the requested wording does indeed exist in other articles relating to the LDS Church, including all the details you proposed for this article. You can find them relatively easily. Happy reading! --Jgstokes (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. The consensus is that this is one of exceptions listed in WP:THE No such user (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SaintsChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – There was a recent dust-up over whether to include (and capitalize) the word "The" in references to this church. In this context, I felt it would be helpful to have a discussion about the article name and how the guideline WP:THE might apply to it. I want to be neutral as to the result of this discussion, but I do want the discussion to take place.

There are some preliminary points which I believe are relatively uncontroversial: (1) the official name of the church includes the capitalized "The", and for the past few decades materials that the church publishes consistently includes and capitalizes the "The", even in running text; (2) the inclusion of the capitalized "The" as part of the church's name has theological significance to the church's adherents: see this article; (3) a special Manual of Style has been developed to address some of these issues; the appropriateness of the existence of this MOS has been questioned; (4) this church claims to be the same institution as the original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but there are also a lot of other churches that claim the same thing; (5) there are a bunch of other churches, past and present, with very similar names, but this one is by far the largest and most prominent of the lot: see here; and (6) almost all non-LDS sources, on a consistent basis, when referring to the church, do not capitalize the "the" in running text. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment As an advocate of using The Bronx as our article title, I have little objection to the article here being called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as long as there is a redirect from Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which I assume there is, but, just as with the Bronx, appearances of the church name within a sentence should be kept at the grammatically correct "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". In other words, I object strongly to the use of a capitalized "The" in the middle of sentences. Therefore, I would normally (very weakly) oppose this requested move. However, I don't believe the name of the article is really all that important, as compared to the mid-sentence usage, and I do not want the current name of the article to be taken as a indication to POV editors that the capitalized "The" is acceptable under all circumstances, therefore, I'm going to stay neutral on the question of the move, unless I see arguments here which are persuasive enough to convince me to take a specific stand. BMK (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    In addition, I am one of those who believe the specialized MOS section made specifically to deal with Mormon-related style matters should be abolished, since it is dominated by adherents of that religion, who do not approach these issues with the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, instead approaching it with what the church wants as being paramount. BMK (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I actually think you'd find the MOS section is largely different than characterized. Though I had no involvement with its development, the guidelines were put together in good faith by experienced editors to do just the opposite - to help avoid POV users who would want to declare what the church or its doctrines might say, in an effort to have it be more encyclopedic in nature. Those who have actively participated in editing articles about the church, or any related issues, continue to try to be balanced, measured and fair, focusing on fact or sourced materials, rather than what the church might view as paramount. There is certainly the occasional person who wants to insert their belief or "testimony" into articles, but that goes away quickly and easily, often backed by what's in the MOS guidelines.ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree largely with what ChristensenMJ has said on the style guide issue. If read, users will find that it clearly does not adopt what the LDS Church wants as being the paramount concern. For instance, the LDS Church wants and prefers people to use the short form "the Church of Jesus Christ" when referring to it, but this short form was unanimously rejected by editors who put together the MOS because of its ambiguity and lack of use by any reliable sources. It was put together by users with connections to a variety of churches in the Latter Day Saint movement (many of which are vehemently opposed to each other) and some with no connection at all. The writing of its guidelines certainly wasn't dominated by users who are members of the LDS Church. As a participant in editing it over the years, I see no evidence that those who have participated in editing it "do not approach these issues with the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind". I would like to see some support for such claims if they are made. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – I don't object to this name change. There is no reason why "The" has to be included in the article title when in most outside sources the "the" is not capitalized. If we do change it, however, we need to also change The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) as well. Ltwin (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, there are reasons such as MOS and not just the project style guide. It is an official name and we shouldn't be dropping words. Is there some part of MOS that you interpret as overriding the official name of an organization?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
"The Episcopal Church" is the official name of the US-based Episcopal Church, but Wikipedia entitles it's page Episcopal Church (United States). "The" is dropped because although "official" it usually would not "be capitalized in running text" (see WP:THE). I don't see why the LDS Church's page should be any different. Ltwin (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I didn't support the use of the capitalization in every use because I am against setting hard fast rules and see such as "Instruction creep". If the institutions official name is "The Church of Jesus Crist of Latter Day Saints" then the article title should reflect that and ignore any other rule about common name or common usage. We are not here to "right great wrongs" just write a factual and accurate encyclopedia and to me, messing with the spelling of official names of people, places and institutions is not just insensitive but original research at the very least. I don't see an MOS going so far as to tell editors they must capitalize with every use because that limits what cannot be expected our guidelines are purposely written to be vague enough to not be instruction but guidance. Changing the article name makes not sense.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – evidence in books suggest that the "The" is not a part of the proper name, or is not considered so by most book editors. Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a member of the church, but I believe naming conventions for Wikipedia suggest disregarding the number of times a name or spelling is used in sources for the most accurate. The MOS states: "Do not ordinarily capitalize the definite article after the first word of a sentence; however, official names (for example, names of corporations and other entities) and some idiomatic expressions, including the titles of artistic works, should be quoted exactly according to common usage."--Mark Miller (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, common usage, but not necessarily the official name. As pointed out elsewhere, some institutions, such as "The Ohio State University" rather obnoxiously insist on the "The", (aside: you'll see this on the TV in the player introductions for NFL games, where all players who graduated from Ohio State are very careful to say "The Ohio State University", to the point of emphasizing "The") but we ignore that, because "Ohio State University" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the school. Unfortunately, with LDS, I think most people don't know the official name of the church, with or without "The", and think of it as something along the lines of the "Mormon Church". BMK (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand that we ignore that many times. I don't understand what part of the MOS supports that. I do see that the MOS suggests that we use whatever is the official name and spelling but then ends the above description with " common usage". I am in the process of researching this for another part of the MOS over official names and what is best practice regionally to ascribe a particular orthography. In most cases, when referring to something of a regional culture, we use the regional orthography regardless of other, prominent common usage in sources. There seems to be some conflicting information in the MOS for religion however, as it suggests that "The" be dropped in church names. Lacking a more specific guideline the project style guide can at least show what the consensus of that part of the encyclopedia is. We shouldn't disregard that simply because there are some unruly editors that may insist on adhering to a more precise interpretation of many subjects that even touch on the LDS church. In fact...another part of our MOS suggests that this be reduced to CJCLDS, or even JCLDS. Consensus will determine this, but I hope editors take some time to look into the different ways the MOS addresses the treatment and style given to these specific church titles in the various parts of the MOS that touch on it. As BMK points out, many don't even know what the name of the church is because "Mormon Church" is the most common. So we already know common name is not being used here.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that we follow sources in general, but the MOS eschews unnecessary embellishments including caps; the usage makes it clear that including "The" as part of the proper name of the church is an unnecessary embellishment. Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. But are they embellishments or just an official part of the spelling of the name? It is a pretty long name but, if anywhere, the title should be the most precise and whatever actual embellishments such as macrons and diacritics should be respected for some titles whenever it is the regional or proper name. Here we are not even talking about a special character but the exclusion of part of the name that I am not sure is supported by our MOS.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As pointed out in the initial thoughts starting this discussion, "The" is part of the church's official name. It is supported by guidelines (WP:THE) for use as part of the official name. As to mid-sentence use, generally most articles use the full name of the church in the first instance, with a short name (typically "LDS Church") then established and used going forward. It would be appropriate to use the full name of the church in that first usage instance, including use of "The". The Google search data doesn't have the ability to represent what is part of the proper name or not, that's not relevant. This is very different to other examples, such as Ohio State University and other similar usages. I agree with editors making that particular point.ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose That is the official corporate name of the organization. The Corporation Of The President Of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. It's pretty clear that's what they want to be called. See [6]. --Manway 17:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is just too easy to teach and inform rather than misinform. The actual, correct name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is not Church of Jesus Christ...; it is not Church of Latter-day Saints, which I see most often by those who are not members refer to the Church. --StormRider 00:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per LDS version of the Doctrine and Covenants 115:4, "The" is a vital and essential part of the Church's official name. I would be unalterably opposed additionally to any omission of the first capitalized "The" because I fully concur with the arguments opposing this move and add my voice to their viewpoints. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    Not to be too obvious, but Wikipedia is not subject to the "Doctrines and Convenants" of the LDS Church. If we should decide, by consensus of the editors participating, that the article should be located at "Mormon Church", that's where it would be located, regardless of what the LDS Church says about it. That being so, I suggest you and other oppose votes cite some Wikipedia policies, or at the very least editing guidelines, to support your views, since "Because the LDS says so, that's why" carries very little weight in a mutli-cultural, multi-religious project such as this. BMK (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    It's getting a little stuffy in here, so I thought we might open up the discussion a bit. I've left neutral pointers to this thread at WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Guid of Copy Editors, and WikiProject Grammar. BMK (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure that all users have globbed on to the idea of this nomination. Some users have simply stated that we should use the "The" because it's included in the official name of the church. Well—as I said in the lead, it's uncontroversial that this is part of the official name, but I was hoping to see discussion on applying the guidelines, including WP:THE and WP:COMMONNAME (and the related considerations of WP:OFFICIALNAME), to this situation. I don't really have a preference as to outcome, but I'd like to see better arguments presented in favor of the current name than just "we have to use the official name". (Not every argument above has been similarly lacking, though.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    Good comment. OPPOSE 1. Why try to fix what is not broken? 2. The name is the name, (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and 'the LDS church' or 'the Mormon church') 3. Why offend many of the readers who come here who are members of the LDS Church? 4. Others who are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not even going to notice the difference, only top WP editors. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    So, does that mean you think we should only stick to proper grammatical usage when the hoi polloi are going to notice if we don't, that it's OK to use bad grammar -- such as capitalizing "The" in the middle of a sentence -- if no one notices? And if we're going to avoid "offending" LDS members (and if they are offended by a grammatical nuance such as this, they must have pretty thin skins), are we going to avoiding "offending" the members of all other organized religions in the world, and allow them to dictate to us exactly how we cite their name, the titles of their clergy, the sacred names of their rituals, etc? Will we never again refer to "Last Rites" because Catholics call it, technically, "Extreme Unction"? If not, why does the LDS get this special treatment? BMK (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The Salt Lake Tribune, which prides itself on being independent from (and a secular counterweight to) the LDS church, appears to capitalize "The" in the full name of the church when used mid-sentence. See, e.g., [7]: "Before the missionaries for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints returned, ...." But the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times all keep "The" lowercase mid-sentence. In terms of common usage, the full name nearly always appears with "the" (whether upper or lowercase) at the front, with rare exceptions. (One recent such exception is in a recent book review in the Los Angeles Times, wherein the reviewer writes "the fledgling Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".) On balance, I believe common usage and the institution's own name for itself both support retaining "The" as part of the article title; but I feel that despite the Salt Lake Tribune style, the mid-sentence "The" should be lower case, following the practice of the larger newspapers. I also observe that it's The Salt Lake Tribune, The New York Times, The Washington Post—but Los Angeles Times. alanyst 23:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Part of the official name or not, the definite article does not appear to be commonly capitalised in running text. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment. Obviously an issue that is very important to some people so I'm giving this another week primarily so that those who are opposed to the move have the opportunity to make a better case. If I closed the RM at this moment the consensus would be to move it. Jenks24 (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Ah, no., just no. An impartial admin does not relist a move in order to allow one side to make more comments. Relisting is only appropriate when there has not been enough participation, regardless of the "side" the participants are on. So, you either close this according to your perception of where the !vote is at this very moment, or I will bring your comment to WP:AN/I, and we'll see what happens then. BMK (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
      • As I said on your talk page, you've got 24 hours to reconsider your action, before I bring this to AN/I. BMK (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Of course those in support can also make further comments, I just thought I would make it clear that if this gets into the RM backlog again without the arguments having changed markedly I will close it as moved. I probably could have worded it better, but I stand by the sentiment. And relisting can be done for a multitude of reasons, not simply because there hasn't been enough participation. Note also that a relist does not prohibit another admin (or even myself I guess) from closing it for another seven days, it can still be closed at any time. Take it to ANI if you wish, I doubt I will be desysopped as you suggested on my talk page. Jenks24 (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
          • If that's the way you want it, I won't wait the 24 hours, then. BMK (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Since you have already announced your intentions and bias here, I would strongly suggest you recuse yourself from any administrative action and instead request an uninvolved 3rd party to step in here to review this discussion. Extending any discussion before action is IMHO reasonable, but don't overdo that either. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As pointed out by Mark Miller, "The" is an essential part of the official name of the organization. If the common name argument was to be applied here, then the article should be renamed to "LDS Church" or "Mormon Church"; neither of which are improvements. I honestly don't understand how Mark's position was not considered the best argument in this RM.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as per WP:THE. This is not a special enough case to merit an exception. Red Slash 07:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
How can you say that. WP:THE lists this page as an example of a case that merits an exception. WP:THE Specifically say it. ---ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasoning of Mark Miller. From my reading of WP:THE, the guideline does allow for a preceding "The" in some cases when the page name is the official name of a group, as is the case here. This would be inline with external style guidelines like the US Government Printing Office Style Manual which states (in 3.11) that "the word the (or its equivalent in a foreign language) is capitalized when used as a part of an official name or title." --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Following an implied standard when it is shown to have valid-reason exceptions, should not override to offend members of the LDS Church. A guideline of Wikipedia is to use common sense. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The official name of the Church includes the article and does merit an exception so far as any guideline that tries to generally remove grammatical articles from Wikipedia article titles. Regardless, it is a tempest in a teapot and something I don't think anybody should object about other than to not engage in edit wars or wheel warring over this topic. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree with you, but there has to be some compelling reason why it should be changed. Wiki goes out of its way not to be legalistic; yet I still have not read any reason why it should change. The rules, which are recommendation not commands, allow for bands or musical publications to use the definite article, if it is on their official website, for proper names (it actually uses this article as an example of such), official titles of literary works (official titles seems to be a respected rule on Wiki), it is even used for corporations when it is their official title. Exactly how is all of this to be overlooked and for what purpose; what is being gained? --StormRider 07:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Keep the status quo, keep the "The", and capitalise in running text. I see it coming down to the nominator's point (2) versus (6). I think (2) wins, because to not capitalise the "The" amounts to using an "incorrect" name, and if it is capitalised in running text, it needs to be in the title. Looking at WP:The, this case is similar to "The New York Times" and "The Crown".
(6) would normally trump (1), except where (6) is "incorrect" usage, and "incorrect" demands further investigation, which (2) provides.
(3) The MOS should be able to cope with this. The MOSers as a group are a little too inflexible with their rules they try to enforce; if the rules can't cope with proper names beginning with "The", then the rules need modification.
I haven't made much of (4) or (5). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:THE, the article should be included in the title when it is part of "the official or commonly used name". —Eustress 16:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "The" is part of the legal and official name of this sect. To remove it goes against WP:THE and commone practice, just like you don't remove "The" from "The Hague"----ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, if you read the page Name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints it become clear that the capitalization of "The" in intentional, deliberate, important and hold a specific meaning for members of the LDS church. To change it the name to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would change the very meaning of the name they have chosen. To institute a change based on the personal preference of some few wikipidanas goes against Wikipedia:Article titles ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Category: Christian new religious movements

The church describes itself as Christian, furthermore, it has been studied as a NRM, as noted on the New religious movements article.


  • Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition, New Religious Movements
  • Paul J. Olson, Public Perception of “Cults” and “New Religious Movements”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2006, 45 (1): 97-106
  • Saliba, J. A. (2003). Understanding new religious movements. Rowman Altamira.
  • Williams, C. N. (2003). America's Opposition to New Religious Movements: Limiting the Freedom of Religion. Law & Psychol. Rev., 27, 171.

Zambelo; talk 07:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It is technically a "Christian new religious movement", but really it is just one church within the broader Latter Day Saint movement, so probably the category is more appropriately placed on Category:Latter Day Saint movement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how it can be described as "new" when it traces its origins to the 1830s, unless of course you are confusing it with newer versions of the same movement that have been established by others. I agree fully with Good Ol’factory. Unless the consensus overwhelmingly decides to include this category (and I don't currently see this as being the case) then this category should be left out. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

A "new" religious movement is generally one that has been established since 1800 or so. It's all relative--200 years is not very long when compared to the histories of Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, even Islam. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I know for Wikipedia purposes we can only say the LDS Church believes itself to be a reestablishment of the Church Christ formed when He was on the earth, but if we were to assume that was true, that would make the Church older than two hundred years and thus not eligible for inclusion under that category anyways. I don't see why you're defending this edit when you were one of the ones who reverted it. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As you say, for Wikipedia purposes, the LDS Church was established in 1830, so it does qualify. The real test is whether it is described this way in sources, which it is. (I don't think I reverted the addition of the category; in any case, I think that the category does apply, but since it applies to the entire Latter Day Saint movement, it makes more sense to me to categorize the movement as a whole rather than the individual churches in the movement.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. I would agree with that assessment. Thanks for clarifying. Sorry if I gave offense. I certainly meant none and hope none was taken. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Quote from a comment I just made on another talk page:

I just clicked on a citation in the LDS article at random: "Hyrum was Joseph's designated successor", citation: "Young, Brigham (October 15, 1844), Times and Seasons 5: 683". Here is a clear example of a conflict of interest degrading the article. Obviously, there is a dispute over who Joseph Smith's successor was, because there are several different Mormon churches in existence.

This article needs more outside sources, especially in its History section. I ask other editors to take a look. Shii (tock) 22:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually there is no conflict of interest.
First your example is flawed. There is no dispute over the fact that Hyrum's was "designated successor", even among the "several different Mormon churches in existence". It was the fact that both died at the same time that lead to the successor issue. This lead to the creating of the multiple sects and multiple successors. Therefore the fact that several sects exist today, doesn't make the cited source WP:unreliable.
Second, per WP:ABOUTSELF, sources are allows from "Self-published and questionable sources" if the information is about the source themselves. The argument you are making that the LDC Church is automatically considered to have a "Conflict of interest" or is automatically considered a Wikipedia:Unreliable source when it comes to LDS Church isn't true. It only means that you need to be careful in how it is use and have to consider sources that disagree with it.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with ARTEST4ECHO. Although I agree this article needs more non-LDS editors who don't have a stake in the game, in this particular case, the idea that Hyrum Smith would have been Joseph's successor had he survived is pretty non-controversial. We probably want to find a secondary source, though. Maybe this is expressed in Bushman's RSR. I know it is expressed in D. Michael Quinn's first Mormon Hierarchy book. COGDEN 00:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


I am posting this topic for the benefit of all well-meaning newbie editors that change this page to read that Jesus Christ was the "founder" of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While we as Latter-day Saints believe that Joseph Smith restored the original church that Jesus Christ established in his day, as Wikipedians, we must be neutral. We cannot therefore say that Jesus Christ was the "founder" of our church, even though he was. We must instead list Joseph Smith, whom we consider the restorer, as the founder. This is done to keep this article within the scope of Wikipedia's requirements to maintain a neutral point of view. While this may differ from what I personally believe, for Wikipedia purposes, that is how we deal with the issue of a founder. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Plus, Joseph Smith referred to himself in the Wentworth letter as the "founder". That ought to settle the issue. COGDEN 00:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Related Wikipedia Books

A recent set of edits has attempted to add a Wikipedia Book named Book:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the see also section of this article. In reviewing that wp:book, I find it both very incomplete and poorly organised in it's current form, and so it is not at this time of any real value to a reader. I'll discuss the improvements that can be made to that wp:book at Book talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I want the broader community of editors interested in the topic of this article to weigh in one whether it is appropriate to include a link to that wp:book (or really or any wp:book created and curated by a single editor) as a see also to this article. Note that there are currently 4 existing wp:books related to the LDS Church I can currently find: Book:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Book:LDS Church, Book:Book of Mormon, Book:Books of the Book of Mormon, Book:Book of Abraham (Mormonism). There is also a redirect, Book:Mormon Church, which leads to Book:LDS Church. Asterisk*Splat 19:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This book was several times in this article and only you Asterisk are dissappointed by it. I think this book is good and fits well in this article. But you are allowed to improve this book, if you want and than we can put it back in the See also section.--Broter (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Your suggestions for improvement are not good. Your Asterisk book is far too long.--Broter (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
As you pointed out at Book talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that work is a community resource, but its usage has not been discussed, which is why I opened this talk section. This is the very first time in any Latter Day Saint movement related article that I can find that a wp:book has been added to an article; if I perhaps overlooked one, that still doesn't change that this is not common in any way. Talking about this in a community forum is helpful; wp:silence and consensus states that "if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so", which I have here. However this discussion at this location is about whether Book:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints &/or Book:LDS Church should be included on this article; the discussion at Book talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should be how to improve that book. In both places arguments other than wp:I don't like it/I like it need to be the primary focus. Asterisk*Splat 22:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that the book which I created is a valuable contribution to this article and should stay on the See also section of this article!--Broter (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What is the inclusion criteria for articles selected when creating that book? The exclusion of articles on core/main topics about the LDS Church is a primary concern of mine, and this has not been properly addressed. To quote help:books "[a] good book focuses on a certain topic and covers it as well as possible." It takes the Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1850 pages to describe that broad topic, and the individual articles included were selected and curated by academic professionals in the field of Mormon studies, based on their documented high degree of expertise. How is the articles in Book talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints anything other than a group of articles that you selected based on your own personal preferences? Without objective criteria, it appears very difficult to justify inclusion/exclusion of any article in any book. As I've been thinking this thru, its become clear to me that we can't rely solely on our own personal judgement; we need to develop community-based inclusion criteria if this book is to be in the community-maintained Books namespace; otherwise it needs to be userfied. Asterisk*Splat 23:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A good place to start is . For example all should be included.--Broter (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I made the book with the help of the .This is the best collection of articles, which I have found.--Broter (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, I think that the book which I created is not as bad as Asterisk claims. Therefore I want to hear the opinions of other editors. Please participate.--Broter (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The book is what I would call a "good start", but it does have its limitations right now. I would prefer that it not be linked to until some major consensus-based work is done on it. As pointed out, the LDS Church is a topic with quite a vast potential, so it really needs to be worked out what is going to be included and what is going to be left out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I added some articles to the book. Everybody is allowed to improve this book. We should make it together.--Broter (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I am a little bit frustrated right now. Please everybody, if you disagree with this book, improve it. The proposed improvements by Asterisk would make the book 2000 pages long. I have more experience than Asterisk with books and I think that the book, in its current form, is the best we have. We should link to it in the See also Section because the book is a improvement for people who want to read the articles. Not to link to it, would be a rejection of the spirit of wikipedia. --Broter (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't characterize things that way and I don't think it's helpful to do so. It's very possible to have a legitimate disagreement about whether or not something should be linked to without one side rejecting the spirit of Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As Asterisk does not participate in the discussion any more and does not have any constructive things to offer; I will insert the book again on the article.--Broter (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I never said I was stopping participating in the discussion, so please do not put words in my mouth. I was busy in real life yesterday; it happens. I anticipate having more time over the next few days, and I'll be focusing my comments about this primarily at Book talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Asterisk*Splat 15:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not the right approach. No consensus has been reached, this shouldn't be turned into just a single user (Asterisk) issue, and to claim there is no longer participation, discussion or contribution is not only unfair, but given the time frame elapsed, not reasonable. Good Ol’factory noted above that it was a "good start" and that some consensus-driven efforts should be made first. Though perhaps challenging, the frustration expressed needs to be set aside and the issues dealt with in good faith and with appropriate civility and discussion. So although I am not involved in this, I removing it again until a more clear path opens. ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Asterisk and I were commenting at the same time and he's removed it already, but I support that for the reasons noted. ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am open for an alternative version of this book but the current alternative by Asterisk is clearly too long. As long as a book is linked to I am happy.--Broter (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be possible to (by consensus) create a list of "core topic" articles that should appear in the book. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm attempting to do something along those lines at User:AsteriskStarSplat/sandbox1, but am still working on it. Feel free to take a look, but until I have this complete, I'd prefer folks respect this as a user page under construction, and not edit it: I don't want to struggle with edit conflicts. Asterisk*Splat 22:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Asterisk: I changed Priesthood (LDS Church) to Priesthood (Latter Day Saints), not the other way around.--Broter (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Asterisk*Splat 21:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The creator of Book:LDS Church;DraculavanHelsing; created another book called Book:Mormon Texts. I think we can still make the Book:LDS Church as a small book about the church and the book Book:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was created by me, as a comprehensive, big book about the Church. But I do not find use for the Book:Mormon Texts.--Broter (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we could make the Book:Mormon Texts, as a book about Doctrine and Covenants. But I hesitate to edit it and ask the community first.--Broter (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I made now myself the Book:LDS Church as a small book about the church.--Broter (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

The LDS Church officially asks for balanced tolerance: (GAY-tolerance and tolerance to Bible beliefs, to paraphrase a lot.)

Headline-1: Mormon leaders call for nationwide measures protecting both gay rights and religious liberties

QUOTE: "SALT LAKE CITY – Mormon church leaders are making a national appeal for a "balanced approach" in the clash between gay rights and religious freedom. The church is promising to support some housing and job protections for gays and lesbians in exchange for legal protections for believers who object to the behavior of others." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: Mormon leaders call for measures protecting gay rights

QUOTE: "It’s not clear how much common ground the Mormons will find with this new campaign. The church insists it is making no changes in doctrine, and still believes it’s against the law of God to have sex outside marriage between a man and a woman. But church leaders who held a rare news conference Tuesday said “we must all learn to live with others who do not share the same beliefs or values.” The language of the new campaign mirrors a website the church launched in 2012 instructing Latter-day Saints to be more accepting and compassionate toward gays. The church made clear then and now that it still opposes gay marriage and insists on its right to apply its own rules within church-affiliated charities, schools, businesses and properties, even those that provide services to non-Mormons." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

View the press briefing at: -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Headline-3: LDS leaders reemphasize protection of religious freedoms, support for LGBT nondiscrimination laws

QUOTE: "Elder Oaks asserted four principles he said were based on fairness for all and rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ:"

  • "We claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience, without harming the health or safety of others.
  • "We acknowledge that the same freedom of conscience must apply to men and women everywhere to follow the religious faith of their choice, or none at all if they so choose.
  • "We believe laws ought to be framed to achieve a balance in protecting the freedoms of all people while respecting those with differing values.
  • "We reject persecution and retaliation of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief, economic circumstances or differences in gender or sexual orientation."

-- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Headline-4: Prominent U.S. Mormon activist appeals against excommunication

QUOTE: "Asked for comment, LDS spokeswoman Kristen Howey said in an email, "The decisions of disciplinary councils are always open to appeal and the Church will proceed accordingly." Last month, a church spokesman said Dehlin was excommunicated by local leaders who determined that he had disputed the divinity of Jesus Christ, labeled the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham as fiction, and denied the church's divine authority. Dehlin's expulsion followed that of feminist Kate Kelly, the founder of the website Ordain Women, who was excommunicated last June after church leaders also found her guilty of apostasy." -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Mute calendar

I find it hard to reconcile with the completeness of the lead that not a single calendar date is put forward (i.e. 1830 or any other), all the more so as this is not a short lead: it presently runs to nearly 500 words, and neither is it presently averse to quantification. — MaxEnt 15:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I figured out that the the early history is covered under a separate movement article. An appropriate addition would then be something like the following:
It is the largest denomination in the Latter Day Saint movement founded by Joseph Smith during the period of religious revival known as the Second Great Awakening, a denomination having settled in Utah while it was still a Mexican territory and founded Salt Lake City under Brigham Young, 2nd President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in 1846–1847.
MaxEnt 15:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Nice work. You could put [brakets] around 'Latter Day Saint movement' -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Why would we want to do that? Do you mean wikilink it with the double brackets? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Latter_Day_Saint_movement for those that want to learn finer points of the distinction. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the wikilinking goes without saying it—it's already wikilinked that way in the text. I think the user was mainly focused on suggesting an addition to the text, not a change to or removal of the wikilinking. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- It's good that [brackets] are there now. -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Footnote ordering

Why are the footnotes disordered and non-continuous, and does anyone know how to fix this? For example, footnote 6 at the bottom is linked with superscript 9 in the text, and some footnote numbers (such as 6) don't appear in the text at all. Some of the early numbers appear in the box to the right, but even those aren't in order right now (2, 3, 1 in one location), and those in the box don't account for all that are missing from the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Yes check.svg Done -- TNKS! They seem in order now, 173 footnotes followed by six bullet items. -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Lack of clarity

This article does not make it sufficiently clear that Mormonism is fundamentally different from all other Christian denominations. Its historical progression as well as its relationship with other denominations are both highly influenced by the fact that it derives itself from a large body of completely original work combined with the original teachings of Christianity, meaning that its worthiness of even being classified under the term "Christianity" is contentious. I am not expecting to have this exact sentence thrust into the opening paragraph, but the obvious difference between Mormonism and conventional Christianity must be stated in the opening sentences because it is a defining feature- perhaps the most defining feature- of Mormonism. (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Since this church is only one of the denominations within Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement, I would think that those issues are ones that would be emphasised the most in the broader articles about Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement. I think this is the case, and there is even an entire article about the issue: Mormonism and Christianity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


So the line in question is: " LDS theology includes the Christian doctrine of salvation only through Jesus Christ..."

Here's the basic problem: That's not what the Scriptures and GAs teach. Specifically:

2 Nephi 25:23: "... to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are save, after all we can do."

So that's a formula that reads, "Man's good works + Christ = Salvation"

Miracle of Forgiveness talks about members that "are doing nothing seriously wrong except in their failures to do the right things to earn their salvation."

That's a formula that says things have to be done = earns salvation. I'll give Spencer Kimball a pass on not mentioning Christ as part of this, but it clearly states that without works, there is no salvation.

How about the current Prophet? Thomas Monson stated in the Spring 1988 GC, "It is the celestial glory which we seek. It is in the presence of God we desire to dwell. It is the forever family in which we want membership. Such blessings must be earned."

The presence of God is salvation. According to him, it must be earned.

So I have two Prophets, and one BoM reference towards earning salvation. I could go on. Any objection to deleting the passage in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Villaged (talkcontribs) 15:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Two points:
  • You guys are arguing over different interpretations of primary sources. If the problem is that primary sources seem to be contradictory or susceptible to multiple interpretations, see what reliable, independent secondary sources say about the LDS doctrine concerning salvation.
  • "Salvation only through Jesus Christ" could mean either that Christ is necessary for salvation (it is only achievable if Christ is involved) or that Christ is sufficient for salvation (Christ is the only essential factor in achieving it). If the problem is that the language is ambiguous, make it more precise.
In any case, I'm glad you're trying to discuss it rather than continuing to edit war. There's no urgency, so don't feel like harm is occurring if the passage stays in or out while this discussion takes place. alanyst 16:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I just read the article titled "Mormonism and Christianity" and under the Salvation section says:

Mormons believe they must not only have faith and repent but also be baptized (by immersion and by a Mormon priesthood holder) and bring forth good works.[81] Mormons consider their weekly Eucharist (the Sacrament) as a means of renewing their baptism and being repeatedly cleansed from sin. Although the grace of Jesus plays a role in salvation, each Mormon must "work out his own salvation".[82] Mormons believe that people not baptized during their lifetime may accept salvation in the afterlife through the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead.[36] Although the Book of Mormon rejected the doctrine of universal reconciliation, Smith later taught that damnation was a temporary state from which the wicked would ultimately escape after they had paid for their sins, to be resurrected into one of the two lesser kingdoms of glory.[35] Villaged (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. I agree with what User:Alanyst said: I don't think the facts are in dispute—this is essentially an interpretation issue. Is the article saying that Christ is necessary for salvation or sufficient for salvation? Mormons teach the former but not the latter, and I don't think we need a ton of quotations here to come to agreement on it. I think the phrase can stay in the article: it is suggesting that Christ is "the way" and that there is no other way, i.e., that he is necessary for salvation. The phrase could perhaps be reworded to clarify its meaning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment. Why don't we just quote the first article of faith? How's this: "Latter-day Saints believe that "through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanjlatimer (talkcontribs) 01:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


That's fine to say on its own, but not in line with what the sentence is talking about, which is "includes Christian doctrine". Obedience to the laws (which laws, Mosaic? LDS? Christ's?) and ordinances (there is no similarity between LDS ordinances and mainline Christianity) isn't recognized by the Christian world at all. Doesn't all of this just go to illustrate that my edit is correct? That the sentences need to be removed: LDS path to salvation isn't the same, nor close, to Christian salvation. And both side's scholars recognize that. And both side's Scriptures recognize that... Villaged (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
They are not identical, to be sure, and everyone agrees on that—but precisely how "close" they are to one another is essentially a POV issue and really depends on what aspects or details one focuses on. Even though the doctrine of it has remained unchanged, even the LDS Church has varied in how it presents it to outsiders. For the past 50 years or so, the LDS Church has tended to characterize them as being reasonably close, with a few significant differences. But earlier in its history, more emphasis was placed on the differences.
I think a decent compromise might be to rephrase it as "LDS theology includes a version of the Christian doctrine of salvation only through Jesus Christ", which would make it clear that they are not identical. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Before I go into some finer points of reply let me suggest this: if we are going to alter the text in the lede, I favor going simpler. Adding "a version of" is IMO too bulky and awkward for the summary nature of the lede. All Christian churches believe in a version of the doctrine and not all of them are exactly the same. The simpler solution would be to remove the word "Christian" and just say "LDS theology includes the doctrine of salvation only through Jesus Christ". How does that option sound?
Personally, I still think that the current sentence is adequate and accurate. I disagree with a few points raised above. The necessary/sufficient distinction doesn't really capture the issue with the LDS vs mainstream Christianity doctrine. With the exception of strict believers in predestination, all Christians would say that the mere existence of the grace of Christ is not by itself sufficient for salvation but that a person needs to do his/her part - do something or make a decision of some kind for the grace to save them. I think that the distinction between LDS and mainstream Christianity on this point is what that part is - whether is as simple as a prayer accepting Jesus as your personal savior, or whether it requires ordinances and covenants. And even the bulk of mainstream Christianity isn't homogeneous on point. For example, look at baptism#Comparative summary and you will see that the LDS are not alone in believing that baptism is necessary for salvation. At least in one case (Churches of Christ) the distinction is made that while baptism is necessary, it is understood as a confessional expression of faith and repentance instead of a "work" that earns salvation. So the idea of ordinances that are necessary but do not "earn" one's salvation is not an idea foreign to mainstream Christianity.
With respect to the use of sources, I cringe when we try to use scripture verses or GA quotes to establish what is LDS doctrine for wikipedia pages. IMO better sources are the instructional manuals that the LDS Church publishes (sunday school, seminary, institute, etc). These aren't primary sources in the sense that they are not authoritative sources like scriptures or statements made by church leaders, but they do represent an attempt to collect those primary sources through some editorial process and distill them down to a coherent theology. They are self-published, but are probably okay here since they are describing the church itself. That said, there a number of these kind of sources that support the statement that the LDS theology includes the doctrine of salvation only through Jesus Christ: [8][9][10]. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

April conference (world annual broadcast)

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.

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Some of these links are dead. Just thought you might want to know. MagmaBit (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-Trinitarian doctrine

The LDS differs from mainstream Christianity in a number of ways. Perhaps the most fundamental is that it is non-Trinitarian (and technically not even monotheistic, believing that God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three separate Gods). This doctrinal difference is critical, and I would have thought that it would have been mentioned in the article. At the moment there are only the vague references to mainstream Churches not accepting that the LDS are Christians.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

👍 Like -- Do a 'FIND' in the article (ctrl-F) on the term 'separate' and you will see five occurances. The first address your excellent point: "From the perspective of Christians who agree with creeds, the most significant area of departure is the rejection by the LDS Church of certain parts of ecumenical creeds such as the Nicene Creed, which defines the predominant view of the Christian God as a Trinity of three separate persons in "one essence". LDS Church theology includes the belief in a "Godhead" composed of God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as three separate Persons who share a unity of purpose or will; however, they are viewed as three distinct Beings making one Godhead." And the last ref. is an abbreviated version saying the same thing. Hope This Helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Correction to "the LDS Church or, informally, the Mormon Church"

Hi, with all due respect, I feel like the line "The LDS church, or informally, The Mormon Church" should have the latter part removed, becoming ("The LDS Church"). The official title of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the LDS church for short, but "Mormon" is a title used when referring informally to members of the church, not the church in question. The church is named after Jesus Christ, not after Mormon, and so it should be referred to as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not the Mormon church. Thanks!! (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

While it may not be the preferred informal term by the church, the term is nonetheless used by the general public. The average person who says Mormons is referring to the church and not to the members collectively. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree. (1) When people say 'Mormons' they (and we) are talking about the members. (2) Secondly, it doesn't really matter and the way the article reads now, as referring also to the church, That's OK. Watch for how the word is used elsewhere in the article here. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk)

Looking at the article, I can see the value in what reader says. But if you do a find (using ctrl-F) in the article, there are 160 occurances of 'Mormon' mostly for 'Book of Mormon' but also the explanation of how 'Mormon Church' has changed now. Also you will find the WP article, Mormon_(word) where there are another 110 occurances of 'Mormon'. If a person feels strongly (and inspired) they should obtain a WP id/pw and see how this article can be improved--not an easy task, although some simple and direct changes could be made. Yes, you could do some simple changes. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

News and directions from 2015 October Conference

For the editors who are interested, there are notes and links on my personal TALK page:

My favorate link is to "notable quotes" with artful pictures from the Provo, Utah, newspaper:

The message of the newly called, set apart, and sustained Apostles of the Quorum of the Twelve was to serve the individual and the needy throughout the world. Enjoy; see what you think. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added links and information and my NOTES are ready for your review (and use in any WP Article editing.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, at the bottom of my personal TALK page, I have notes on the 2016 "Spring general conference"[11] and the stats are already in this article.[12] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox and sidebar

Having been reverted by ChristensenMJ, I'm bringing the discussion to the talk page in line with WP:BRD. WP:TEXTASIMAGES clearly states, "Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image." To do otherwise needlessly hampers accessibility. And it is certainly not abnormal for to use the name field in an infobox when a logo contained therein includes the name – see, e.g, nearly every article about an organization whose logo includes their name and whose article uses {{Infobox organization}} (or {{Infobox company}}, {{Infobox political party}}, {{Infobox publisher}}, etc.).

As well, I'm wondering whether ChristensenMJ intended to undo the other changes made or if he or she simply blanketly reverted everything. The other changes were, namely, the removal of a non-bidirectional sidebar and the removal of the image size from the infobox. Cheers, Graham (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summary, and recognizing the guidelines of what may be well suited in other circumstances, it seems the inclusion of the church's name creates a unnecessary redundancy within the infobox. I understand other circumstances of an organization or business where there is an associated logo that may/may not always directly show the name. That circumstances are likely well suited for the duplication and the text image guidelines noted above. They are guidelines and even though it notes "should almost always be" doesn't provide a mandate that it be so. As to the other points asked about above, yes, I did revert the entire good faith edit - I don't know what impact the image size has on the article/infobox, but I did recognize that box about this article being part of a series on Christianity was removed and didn't feel it needed to be. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
How do you reconcile the inclusion of the sidebar with WP:BIDIRECTIONAL?

I understand other circumstances of an organization or business where there is an associated logo that may/may not always directly show the name.

While 'other stuff exists', I'd be curious to know to which articles you're referring, and just how common that is. Graham (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to say that I side with ChristensenMJ here. His reasons for reverting are sound, while the arguments against the revision are very weak. At least, that's my two cents, for what it's worth. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at this, and I feel that the infobox should have the name of the Church in text in addition to the image logo. This is de rigueur for most infoboxes. The redundancy created is trivial at best, and is well outweighed by the benefit for the various non-image reader scenarios.  White Whirlwind  咨  04:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I could go either way, but on balance, I think we should use the name in the infobox as well as the image logo. It's better to just apply the standard rather than getting into debates over whether the logo is "clear enough" to allow for the text in the infobox to be deleted. There's a good reason to include the text in this case, since the font size in the logo is different for different parts of the name. It's clearly a logo, not Wikipedia text, so the duplication does not look funny to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Information on method of translation

New user Truth-in religion (talk · contribs) has repeatedly tried to insert content that is incomplete, poorly written, and in the wrong place. This has been discussed by multiple other editors on the user's talk page. I invite User:Truth-in religion to discuss their edit here on the talk page. Bahooka (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Section on sacred clothing

Sacred Clothing Added: This is an important component to the Mormon Church:

Mormons believe in the wearing of specific undergarments. LDS scriptures contain references to the wearing of special garments. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints do not publicize the fact that they wear sacred, symbolic undergarments but the garments are required for significant rites of passage to enter into one of their Temples and to receive their “Endowment” a term which means “gift”. As part of that commitment /covenant making process, "active" members of the LDS Church receive a symbolic garment (purchased at the stores on LDS Temple grounds) that they wear as a reminder of the covenants they have entered into. This practice is similar a Roman Catholic priest and the clerical clothing they wear once they have taken holy orders. Catholic priests wear their clerical collars on the outside; Mormon’s wear their garments underneath their clothing. But the concept though is not dramatically different.[1] ^ Gaskill, Alonzo. "Clothed Upon With Glory Sacred Underwear and the Consecrated Life" (PDF). Inter Religious Dialogue.

Beesmill (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The section on sacred clothing has been reinserted a couple of times by an editor. I removed it because of incorrect information and not appropriate in an overview article like this, as follows:
  1. The topic is already addressed at the Temple garment article and is better there where it can be more fully addressed.
  2. There is no citation of the scriptures mentioning garments.
  3. Regarding the no publicizing claim, it is noted by the LDS Church on their website here.
  4. There are many locations to purchase garments besides LDS Temple grounds.
  5. Not all "active" members wear garments, only those who have received their endowment in the temple.
  6. Multiple spelling and grammatical errors.
I cannot tell if the comparisons to other religions are original research or supported by the reference. UPDATE: The last sentences were copied verbatim from the source. I do not believe this section belongs in this article. Bahooka (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THIS....? Unless you had a CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SUBJECT. It's not common knowledge for the general public to know of LDS Doctrine and Scriptures, Only church members would have this knowledge. Why are you spending so much time defending the LDS CHurch? It can only mean one thing. Please adhere to Wikipedia policy, this is not your Bible Study, it's an online source of Facts. Please refer to policy and operate under it. Your intolerance reflects your attitude, lets hope the subject (The Church) and it's editors and all it's members do not share the same intolerance. Thanks
Beesmill (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

mark of cain

It's a fact, Joseph Smith wrote in his memoirs that African Americans are cursed with the "mark of cain". This is an extremely important part of history and is highly controversal. It's most likely a subject, objective readers would like to know. And it comes directly from the source, the LDS Church. Please do not white wash the Wikipedia Article about the LDS Church. If you do not like the way it's written, then improve it. But by deleting it, means that there are editors either ashamed of the facts and truths or are not very good at editing, either way, don't let the public be misled because you have a personal challenge with the articles content, and a personal relationship with the subject. The editors who are deleting the contact obviously, have a "Conflict of interest (COI) which involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. (The word interest refers here to something in which a person has a stake.)[n 1] (NOT A CHURCH STAKE but a STAKE in the subject) Here is the link, please respect Wikipedia.



Beesmill (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Blacks and the LDS Church; In a speech given by LDS President Brigham Young to the Joint Session of the Legislature in Salt Lake City, on Thursday, February 5, 1852, President Young discusses why African Americans should not receive the priesthood. Adam and eve had two sons Cain and Able, Cain, “given more to evil practices than able.” The Lords punishment of Cain was to put a mark upon him which according to Young, “will see it on the countenance of every African upon the face of the earth”. Once the mark is put upon Cain, he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood. According to Young, “people that are commonly called Negroes are the children of Cain.”[1] Today African Americans can receive the priesthood as the practice was overturn in 1978.

That your edit is poorly written is only one of my objections. It also fails WP:RS, UTLM is hardly a RS and citations should not be to other wikipedia articles. It also fails WP:NPOV - rather than reporting criticism or controversy about the LDS Church, it presents a statement by BY (not necessarily LDS doctrine) that you find controversial and deem worthy of criticism. In other words, participating in the debate rather than reporting on the debate. I think it also is a bit WP:UNDUE - again that's a BY quote (primary source) and not necessarily an official teaching of the church. Any one of those reasons is an acceptable reason for removing your edit. A better edit would describe and attribute that kind of criticism and controversy (probably from modern times since BY statements were not controversial at that time) but I can't see that being more than one or two sentences. What are others' thoughts?
Moreover, this article is the collaborative result of Mormon editors, non-Mormon editors, ex-Mormon editors, and editors that have never disclosed their religious affiliations. See WP:AGF - to assume that anyone who disagrees with you of low intent (wanting to whitewash and deceive) and of a COI is an example of not assuming good faith. Also, please familiarize yourself with WP:TALK. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with User:FyzixFighter on all of these points. I don't know what you are thinking, User:Beesmill, but your approach at least comes across as suggestive that the issues of race and the LDS Church have never been considered in this article or elsewhere in Wikipedia before. Of course they have, and to a very detailed extent. There are entire articles about this: Black people and Mormonism and Black people in Mormon doctrine – and indeed an entire category full of related articles at Category:Mormonism and race. It's very common for editors to come to this page, guns all a-blazin', assuming that somehow the LDS Church is managing to censor Wikipedia content about it. It's just not the case if you take the time to investigate more closely. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I understand.....This Page,we are referring to; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is the Front Page for the church. It's design is to capture anyone who does a Google or other Engine search. It's paged ranked to the top, and is written with such care and decorative order that not a sole is to touch it. For all the other facts, these are for other pages because, the crown jewel page is sanitized. It's purpose is a LDS approved page, the other pages you refer to are buried in the engine. It's clever that the Black people and Mormonism is no where to be found, linked to or even slightly hinted anywhere on your main church approved page that sits at the top of all web crawlers. Anyway, what the heck is BY? I am not familiar with Mormon acronyms and lingo. Beesmill (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter and Good Olfactory: I never know quite how to deal with situations like this, where an editor seems to struggle with either English grammar, general reasoning and mental faculties, or some combination of both. I agree that the LDS Church's controversies are properly represented in terms of coverage across the relevant articles, though some articles' encyclopedic and prose quality could use some work.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
(after EC) @Beesmill: Sorry, that was my bad about the acronym - BY is generally used on wikipedia as shorthand (by editors of all stripes) for Brigham Young. So I'm guessing that's a no that you've read WP:AGF and WP:TALK. You might also want to check out WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This article has been written with great care, not to be a promotional page but to adhere as best as possible to WP:NPOV and the other pillars of Wikipedia. Because it is such a high-level article, it has gone through a number of revisions involving editors who are Mormon, non-Mormon, ex-Mormon, and ??? to get to the point where it is. In cases where the article has a pretty deep history and especially when you find your edits being reverted by a number of different editors, its generally advisable to adjust your approach by proposing changes on the talk page and getting consensus, so that it is more likely your edit will stick. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
And @Beesmill:, I would add that this article is not sanitized in the way you are suggesting. There is a section of the article on controversies and criticisms. The article mentions that blacks were barred from the priesthood until 1978. If Black people and Mormonism is not linked to from the article, it certainly could be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your right Olfactory, there is a section of the article on controversies and criticism about "blacks were barred from the priesthood"....That was my edit. So far there are 3 editors and you are 1 of them. Not too sure which one is Mormon, non-Mormon, ex-Mormon, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't matter in the world of objective information. The LDS Church has so much Americana history that it's truly important that the whole story is told. Lets discuss it. It's the #2 ranked item in Google when LDS is typed. You are absolutely right about the careful pin point precision in writing it. It's a clever piece using a piggy back platform to cast words with relatively little meaning contrasted against 90 percent common vernacular. Without Wikipedia, the Species Specific LDS words would not reach the general public in a common internet search. So again you are correct. The Article was written with one goal. All I suggest is that we weave in some educational components. Thanks for your understanding.

Beesmill (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A few points. First, @Beesmill: Did you mean to remove Good Olfactory's addition of the link? Where he had it was IMO a better location than your proposed location. Second, links to Black people and Mormonism and other criticism-related articles are technically in the article - in the LDS Church at the bottom of the page. But it's somewhat hidden so adding the link in an appropriate place, as Good Olfactory did, in the body of the article can be helpful. Third, at least when I try it, googling "LDS" or "Mormon" or "LDS Church" does not bring of this topic as the #2 ranked item - although I don't know if the order/rank is dependent on user search history. Fourth, I'm guessing "Species Specific" is a typo? Even still, the sentence would indicate a "right great wrongs" mindset, which is best to avoid. --FyzixFighter (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I've added what I think is an adequate compromise to mention of the main race-related criticism. As I said before, quoting BY doesn't really show the controversy and criticism, just reports what one editor finds controversial (ie WP:OR). Also, this particular criticism was virtually non-existent prior to the lead up to the Civil Rights Movement. It also IMO fits better with the rest of the paragraph that also focuses on related social issue based criticism. The text probably could use some polish, but I think this is a much better starting point than what was previously being proposed. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)