Template talk:Mormon fundamentalist leaders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:MFleaders)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (Rated Template-class, Low-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.
 Low  This template has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

List inclusion[edit]

I understand the idea of this template, but the "early Mormon leaders" section needs some clarification in order to convey that those men were not leaders of the FLDS, but instead are claimed as FLDS leaders by the FLDS themselves. --TrustTruth (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This template deals with more than the FLDS. It deals with all fundamentalist Mormons. (You may be aware of that, but I'm unclear from your statement whether you are using that abbreviation to refer to fundamentalist Mormons or whether you are using it in the normal sense to refer to the FLDS Church.) Fundamentalist Mormons recognise these early leaders as "true" prophets, since the movement didn't start until after their tenures. Since the template is dealing exclusively with the beliefs of fundamentalist Mormons, I personally don't see where the problem arises, but I do understand that confusion could result. Adding a simple explanation of "prior to the start of the fundamentalist movement" of something like that should clear up any confusion, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added some (hopefully helpful) explanatory footnotes. I'll leave it up to you, TrustTruth, to remove the disputed template you added if these explanations satisfy you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm, apparently footnotes don't work when on templates because the {reflist} function uses the templates from the article contents of the page the template is placed on. I'll try to convert these footnotes to mere text rather than using the footnote function. Sorry about the inconvenience. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
So I fixed that problem. It's not ideal, but better than before. If anyone else has a better solution, please feel free to try to implement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. I also clarified which are "recognized" and which are "disputed" in the titles. Removed template. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that was also a good change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wendell Loy Nielsen[edit]

Wendell Loy Nielsen should be included in this list. He is legally the new President of the FLDS Church. This puts him at minimum in the same category as William E. Jessop (appointed successor) and Merril Jessop (de facto leader) if not Warren Jeffs. He may or may not be considered the Prophet, but that doesn’t stop the Jessops from being on this list. ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As of Jan 28, 2011 this is no longer true. He has to be remove.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
If he is notable, it is because of his role in the FLDS Church. Yes, it was a former role, but the template doesn't change based on current circumstance. It's meant to list past and present leaders in the church. If Nielsen is listed, he should be listed under FLDS, because he's not otherwise notable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

William E. Jessop[edit]

William E. Jessop is not a part of the FLDS Church. He leads his own church of about 200 people of which he is the prophet. Please see the Daily Beast article With Warren Jeffs in prison for life, a new “prophet” is trying to seize control of the cult from his family. This is an outsider, and not a member of the FLDS Church. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Is he notable for this or for his former role in the FLDS Church? I would say the latter, which is why it makes more sense to include him in the FLDS list. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

FLDS Church list[edit]

  • Note Per the above sources, these above two individuals Wendell Loy Nielsen and William E. Jessop have been moved from the list for FLDS Church members, to the list of independent Mormon fundamentalist leaders - less they create an organization of their own. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
They are not notable for being independents. They are notable for their previous leadership in the FLDS Church. The template is not supposed to reflect the "current situation". It lists present AND PAST leaders. These two are past leaders in the FLDS Church. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
To say that one is the de facto leader and the other is the legal head is pure WP:OR. I have provided sourced to back up my claims otherwise. As stated above - Jessop is the leader of a different organization. Also, Neilson is not a part of the church - much less the legal head. I am not saying they should not be on the list, but they should be in their proper places, and they are not FLDS leaders. As I have provided sourced info above - please respond in kind to justify your reverts. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
My point is not about the details: it is the general point that they are not notable for anything they have done outside the FLDS Church. Nielsen, for instance, was notable for being "the President of the Corporation of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", as the article says. He may not be in that position anymore or even a member of the organization, but that doesn't matter. Notability is not temporary, and neither is the reason for notability. They are notable for having been leaders in the FLDS Church. The template is not a reflection of "current status"; it is a reflection of current and PAST leaders who are been notable. Do you understand this point? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin LeBaron[edit]

While I find the story of Benjamin LeBaron interesting, I'm not 100% sure he should be on this template. Going by the cited sources on Benjamin LeBaron Page, I'm not convinced he should be considered a Mormon Fundamentalist Leader for the following reason:

  1. He is not notable for being a "Mormon Fundamentalist Leader". He is notable for being the founder of the "Sociedad Organizada Segura", a "specialized anti-terrorism force in Chihuahua (Mexico)".
  2. The cited sources never says that he is a leader in the "Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times" (hereafter called CFFT). They sources only hint at him being a possible member of the CFFT. He is only cited as a leader and founder of "Sociedad Organizada Segura". This doesn't make him a "Mormon Fundamentalist Leader".
  3. I'm not sure he is even a member of a "Mormon Fundamentalist" sect. The status of CFFT his highly questionable. The cited sources only refer to it in the past, not as a current group.
  4. Even if the CFFT is an active sect and Benjamin LeBaron is a leader of some kind, I'm no longer sure it is a "Mormon Fundamentalist sect". All the cited sources say it no longer practices polygamy or most of the things that make a sect like this a "Mormon Fundamentalist" sect. It may just be a Latter Day Saint Sect now.

It seems to me that his is a "Political and Social Activist", not a "Mormon Fundamentalist Leader", much like Mitt Romney (Politacal) and Stanford Cazier (Social) are activists who are LDS, but are not "Leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

However, I'm not saying I'm right. There may be some reasons that he should be listed, but I'm just not seeing them. I would like some comments by others before I do anything.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's been five days and no one has commented. I'm going to take him off. However, If someone decides to comment I am more then willing to put him back on until after everyone chimes in.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)