Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in California

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 15 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Skywkamp.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco from Mormon settlements

Because they aren't Mormon settlements. Each was founded by Franciscan missionaries decades before the Mormon church even existed! To say otherwise smacks of POV Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The wording states "significant role in establishing and settling communities"; as I indicated in my last edit summary, significant role doesn't mean first, primary, or exclusive. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Even with the wording as is, it's both misleading and not born about by reliable primary sources. And inaccurate, since each of those communities had existed for decades before the Mormons arrived. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, from your perspective, was the arrival of the Mormon Battalion significant to the history of LA? How about the arrival of the Brooklyn in SF? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly in either case, and certainly not to the establishment and settlement of those communities. Reading the articles you linked, it seems apparant that the majority of both the Brooklyn and the Batallion did not stay in LA or San Francisco for more than a couple of years. If there was such a significant Mormon influence in those two cities, why did it take until the 1920s for stakes to be established there? And why should they be mentioned in the establishment and settlement if they didn't arrive until decades after the cities were founded? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

To answer the question "why did it take until the 1920s", the reason is because until then, Mormons pretty much all gathered into Utah. It was, in fact, around 1920 when they started to migrate out of Utah. The trend was accelerated by the Great Depression, as Mormons looked for work wherever they could find it. They went to places like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle. All of this can be found on page 105 of Richard Bushman's Mormonism: a very short introduction if you're looking for a source. -- Adjwilley (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

But by the 1920s, the three cities in question had already been established and settled; and therefore shouldn't be listed here Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as the article text continues to describe LDS involvement in these communities, I'm not going to argue about inclusion/exclusion of those 3 continuities on the list; it's just not worth the digital ink. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Mormons formed substantial communities when bands of settlers from Utah arrived in Southern California in waves from 1852 to the late 1890's, not intentionally as permanent residents and/or had limited contact with the nearest stakes and temples in Utah. The Mormons whom arrived in L.A. during the 1870's Land Rush of Southern California as many Mormons then tend to live in the district of Lincoln Heights and San Francisco (esp. Oakland in their neighborhood called "Brooklyn" before 1900) have contributed to the development of these cities to become thriving urban areas, involved in establishment of businesses as well churches and/or community organization of Mormons wherever there wasn't a church around. The Sierra Nevadas (i.e. Donner Pass, Colfax Pass and Mother Lode Country region facing the San Joaquin Valley), the High Desert (i.e. Mono Lake, Owens Valley and the San Bernardino colony in the Mojave Desert) and the foothills of San Diego was known for small settlements and farming properties by the Mormon settlers in the late half of the 19th century. In L.A. the Mormons are involved in the growth of towns like Watts and Inglewood; and Mormon wards are numerous in some of these small towns and areas around Barstow and Temecula to have higher ratio of Mormons per population to include them as part of the Mormon Corridor. 71.102.21.238 (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

But L.A., San Francisco, and San Diego were not founded by the Mormons, and have always been composed of mostly non-Mormons, so they don't belong pbp 16:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The article text simply says, "had a significant role in establishing and settling communities". Requiring that the communities be "founded" by Mormons is setting the bar pretty high. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Had a significant role in establishing and settling communities" is too vague. Founding a community, while a high benchmark, is a clear one. Consider this: the Methodists established the second church in Los Angeles (after the Catholics) and the second church in Whittier (after the Quakers). But since the Catholics and Quakers had a much, much greater impact on Los Angeles and Whittier, whether or not the Methodists had a significant role is debatable. So to is it debatable as to how significant a role the Mormons had in the founding and setting of Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego...as repeatedly noted, all three have always been predominantly non-Mormon. pbp 22:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, pbp. Each religious, ethnic group and social demographics are involved in city foundation. But some are more prevalent or more renowned than others, like the case of the Irish in Boston, the Jews as an ethnoreligious group in New York, GLBT people in San Francisco and so on. The Mormons of Cal. are over-represented in ratio of their population, even though the state's 3 largest cities aren't originally Mormon settlements to begin with. Sensational reporting I call it, in part of the LDS church's support of the anti-same sex marriage initiative Prop. 8 back in 2008 was originally passed by the majority of Californian voters, and the current Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney tries to woo in votes in the nation's most populous state. Mike D 26 (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This thread is about the founding of these cities. This is WP:NOTAFORUM, so please don't go off topic into 21st century politics when we're talking about the 19th century. 72Dino (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, 72Dino. "Colonies" of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists (Loma Linda, Cal.) by settlers from Utah (Mormons) are part of the history of late 19th century era Los Angeles, with the rest of Southern California known for being a hub of Restorationist religious Movements in American Christianity.

I can't find really enough information on Bing, Google and Yahoo in regards to the settlement of the Morongo Basin in the High Desert (California) of San Bernardino County relating to (not limited to) Mormon pioneers in the late 19th century period on a road known as "Utah Trail" or two split forks Adobe Road and Bagdad Highway, from the National Trails Highway (US route 66 replaced by Interstate 40) to the North to the Twentynine Palms Highway (State Route 62), but the "trail" named for Utah was replaced by Amboy Road in the 1920's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentynine_Palms#History - Checked the article paragraph on the history of Twentynine Palms.

It has been settled: Mormons never officially established the state's largest cities, therefore it should not be readmitted again. Mike D 26 (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Chart

What does everyone think of including a chart for membership (from here), instead of a table? Or we can even display them side-by-side, like this:

Year LDS Membership 1846 230 1920 3,800 1930 21,254 1940 44,800 1950 102,000 1960 217,600 1970 349,000 1980 541,000 1991 721,000 1999 740,000 2008 755,747 2012 777,061

The only problem with it is that the data points aren't equal, so the membership growth is a little skewed. Any thoughts? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 03:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The Chart's fine and could be added. I don't see any objection. Dmm1169 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in California. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081217021703/http://newsroom.lds.org:80/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues to http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in California/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

;LDS C-Class This article has up-to-date information in the form of membership and wards. It gives a brief history, particularly the most key historical points. It lacks information on lesser events. Criteria for C-Class Article The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. Criteria to become a B-Class Article The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards. B-Class articles should meet the six B-Class criteria. More detailed criteria B {{B-Class}} The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. LDS Mid-Importance While crucial parts of church history occurred in California, individually, California does not represent the majority of the LDS Church. Therefore, mid-importance is placed on this article.

Last edited at 17:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 08:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)