Template talk:LDS sects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (Rated Template-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This template has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recent Changes[edit]

I wanted to explain my most recent change, just to make my motivations clear. I am hoping to eventually incorporate both {{LDS sects/Granville Hedrick}} and {{LDS sects/Mormon fundamentalist}} into {{LDS sects}}. I really think "list of sect..." page would work better without all three templates, but I agree that the information dose need to appear on the page somehow. My changes will not make any template obsolete since they do need to appear elsewhere.

I think this works for the Mormon fundamentalist sects, which is why I was WP:Bold and did it. I'm still working on the other "Additional XXXX – derived denominations" as they don't quite fit directly. However, any input would be greatly appreciated.

Additionally, I did move True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days to the "Additional fundamentalist denominations" section because it is really doesn't fit as it was. It is nether the next in line going down (as the chart seems to be going biggest to smaller), nor is it even the next biggest Mormon fundamentalist sect (that would be Latter Day Church of Christ).

I have now incorporated the {{LDS sects/Granville Hedrick}} template into this one.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

JCRB not a sect[edit]

The Joint Conference of Restoration Branches is not a sect. It is a conference within the Restoration Branches movement. Significant numbers of persons and branches within the movement do not accept the conference as representative even of the Restoration Branches movement, though it claims to be the only truly representative general conference for the whole RLDS church. "RLDS/Restoration Branches" is the name of the movement, which largely considers itself a movement within the RLDS church, unless at some point a new prophet and apostles are accepted. The Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a sect that has sprung from this movement. If the JCRB were to accept a new prophet and/or apostles, it would be a distinctly different sect. --BenMcLean (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have incorporated this information into a footnote, thanks so much, Ben. ps, do you have an Internet link to a document or publication (or I suppose such a document's or publication's publisher's name (if known), publication name, title (if any), author (if known), and date (if known) that does so) that can be used as a citation to verify this information you've helpfully provided?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The conference has been trying to be very careful about how it uses the RLDS name because of legal threats from Community of Christ, (CoC) including a lawsuit against my own family so I'm not exactly a neutral / objective party in discussing the RLDS / Restoration Branches / JCRB / CoC relationship and have been kind of hesitant to write about it on Wikipedia ever since that lawsuit was filed. Before the lawsuit I was just a member of a church and in that situation it's still OK to write about that church on Wikipedia, but since my own family and the specific congregation where I attend and my father David McLean as it's pastor was sued by the CoC, I've been too close to the situation to cover it objectively I thought. --BenMcLean (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
So very facinating, Ben!

I think schisms do tend to work that way, though.. (Eg within the Brighamite church[es], AUB consider the LDS valid, if misguided, and even themselves to be a part of the more legit rubric of the whole (if that phrase makes any sense.. sorry), whether they "enjoy" actual official membership in the official LDS church or not. In any case, I think that what everything basically boils down to is, when there is a schism, it doesn't really matter so much from an encyclopedia's point of view anyway which group should be considered the more valid according to the religion's original teachings or not. What matters is the name used by a particular group and when it was organized with its present leadership (or something like that).. :~) --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well the point I was trying to make is that the JCRB is not a new sect - at least not at this point. At this point it's a conference within the Restoration Branches movement. This page may be helpful --BenMcLean (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In regard to the JCRB not being a new church but merely a conference of Restoration Branches, the JCRB newsletter Volume 1 Number 3 from November 2006 asks the Conference President this question: "Are you starting a new church?" and he answers: "No, nor do I have any interest in such a thing."

Information and documents about the conference are available through it's official web site http://conferenceofbranches.org/ --BenMcLean (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


I just undid the last edit because I'm not sure what Neelix was trying to do. However the change he made is not correct and I didn't understand what he meant by his edit summery doesn't and what he was trying to do and why.

Every template I have ever seen allows the page to decide what state it is going to use, hence the "|state = {{{state}}}". The variable "State" is feed into the template to override the default, in this case "collapsed". If Neelix was trying to change the default then that is not what he did. I would be happy to fix an issue with the default, if that is what the problem is. However, I would like an explanation of how "collapsed" "does not meet accessibility guidelines as such" per his edit summery.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me on this issue! The article List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement is currently up for a main page slot here, and a concern was raised that this template should prevented from being collapsible in order to conform to our accessibility guidelines before the article goes up on the main page. Any help you can provide in addressing this concern would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I still don't understand. I'm not saying your wrong, I just don't understand what you are getting at. What are you trying to do? Perhaps if I understood what you are trying to make the template do, I would be able to fix the template to do that.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
If your trying to make sure that the template doesn't collapse at all on the "List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement" then the page already dose that. The Template is called out using the {{LDS sects|snip=true|state=expanded}} By including the "state=expanded" then the "Table of provenances" will always be expanded. That is the function of the variable "State". Sometimes it is better to override the normal default, which is what this page is actually doing. The current default is "Collapsed" (since the page has more than one "Navbox" I believe that is the normal requirement) but "List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement" forces it to always be expanded as it was decided that it should always be open, despite the other Navbox at the bottom of the page.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Lint errors[edit]

This template has two lint errors: Missing end tag and Stripped tags. Both errors relate to <small> tags. I strongly believe the errors lie in the three recursive calls to this template. The reason I believe this is I copied this template into my sandbox, replaced all <small> ... </small> with <em> ... </em>, and I still had 1 Missing end tag and 1 Stripped tags, and they were still related to the <small> tag. Then, I commented out the three recursive calls, and the errors went away. Restoring these three recursive calls individually, I found that the first recursive call to LDS sects had 1 Missing end tag and 1 Stripped tags; the second and third recursive calls to LDS sects had only 1 Missing end tag.

  • Missing end tag means that somewhere <small> is missing the closing </small>.
  • Stripped tags means that somewhere </small> is missing the opening <small>.

I've taken it as far as I can, and I leave it to others to finish the task. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)