Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 5

message: I made some significant edits to Salamander Letter. Can someone review and edit? Cogden's or anyone elses expertise on the matter would be helpful. I've only studied the matter lightly and do not consider myself an expert here. -Visorstuff 17:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Salamander Letter

message: This option is currently winning.
* Oppose The term fundamentalist is ambiguous, euphemistic, and opposed by mainstream Mormons. Tom Haws 22:56, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
* Support short, simple, and fairly descriptive, and standard.  Mormon does not really require LDS membership, though it sounds like it doesn't. Nereocystis 19:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about this further, I'm not sure we'd actually need to qualify Mormon fundamentalists by stating what church they belong to. While most Mormon fundamentalists are not associated with the LDS church, some are, and just haven't been excommunicated yet. There are also people who have been excommunicated from the LDS church, but who still consider themselves to be members of the church, and others who affiliate with Mormon fundamentalists and share their belief system, but don't practice polygamy themselves and otherwise remain active in the LDS church (though, doubtlessly, without a temple recommend). Basically, I just think that Mormon fundamentalism is a religious philosophy cutting across denominational lines, rather than a religious affiliation. COGDEN 01:22, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
*Strongly Support. The groups to whom this term applies already accept it, and call themselves by this name. It also has popular support among the community at large. If you were to stop someone on the sidewalk in SLC, and ask them what a "Mormon Fundamentalist" was, they certainly wouldn't point to the Church Office Building. They would generally have the correct idea of whom this term applies to. Also, I think the name itself clearly separates the "fundamentalists" from "mainstream" Mormons. If anyone is concerned about it, I think a simple statement within the article is sufficient to remove any confusion of this in any reader's mind. KevinM 02:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormon fundamentalists

message: * Oppose This is not only long, but still ("fundamentalist") euphemistic. Tom Haws 18:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
* Slightly oppose branches suggest they are part of the LDS Church, as a Mormon branch is a congregation (see Ward (Mormonism) Nereocystis 19:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamentalist branches of the Latter Day Saint movement

message: * Weakly support Rather long, but very descriptive and in line with our style. Tom Haws 18:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
* Weakly oppose, suggests Mormon congregation. Nereocystis 19:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Polygamist branches of the Latter Day Saint movement

message: * Support Tom Haws 18:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
* Weakly oppose, suggests Mormon congregation. Nereocystis 19:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Polygamist branches of Mormonism

message: * Support Tom Haws 18:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
* Slightly oppose short, simple, but suggests not as good as the original. Nereocystis 17:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormonism-derived polygamy

message: * Support Tom Haws 18:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
* Slightly oppose  Nereocystis 17:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormon-related polygamy

message: * Support Tom Haws 18:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
* Slightly oppose this and previous one go hand in hand.  One describes practices, the other describes people. Nereocystis 19:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormon-related polygamists

message: * Slightly oppose Fundamentalist is a fine word, but the derived part is starting to bother me.  This also describes people opposed to priesthood ordination of men of African descent, for better or worse. Nereocystis 17:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormonism-derived fundamentalists

message: * Weakly Support  Sigh.  A slightly different connotation than the two I oppose below. Tom Haws 16:28, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
* Slight oppose this includes both pre-Manifesto and post-Manifesto polygamy.  I would prefer different words or clear delineation, but I'm not sure why. Nereocystis 17:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormon Polygamy

message: * Oppose   Due to the dwarfing dominance of the LDS Church, the de facto meaning of Mormon is LDS Church.  It is very reasonable to try to avoid implying that LDS Church are polygamists.  And yet what else can we call the fellows in Colorado City? I think that Polygamist branches of Mormonism is winning above.  Only weak opposition.  Tom Haws 16:28, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
* Oppose pre- and post-Manifesto confusion. Nereocystis 17:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Polygamist Mormons (not Mormon Polygamists)

message: * Oppose See my comment above. Tom Haws 16:28, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
* Oppose See my comment above. Nereocystis 17:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormon Polygamists

message: * Weakly oppose This is probably factually accurate, but it sounds like Latter-day Saint polygamists, which would be confusing, since there aren't supposed to be any of the latter. Given a choice, Polygamist branches of the Latter Day Saint movement would be better. COGDEN 17:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
*Oppose.  I have a big problem with this.  Very few people get the distinction between Latter-day Saint and Latter Day Saint.  This does not work at all. Storm Rider 04:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latter Day Saint polygamists

message: According to this poll Wikipedia:Lds/polls#.28Capitalization.29.2C_.2821_Feb_2005.29, 
:To comply with Wikipedia policy, all references to "the Church" or "The Church" shall be replaced with either "the LDS Church" (if that is the church in question), "the church", or an appropriately more specific term (the church leadership, the church members, the church organization, the church president).
If this is true, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Style_Guidelines and its supporting documents should be changed.  I prefer "LDS Church", in most cases.Nereocystis 18:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Church" vs "The LDS Church" or "the church"

message: We have our share of vandals -- but probably more than our share of anon's as well.  What about a separate "Alert" page we could all "watch" with a list of known vandals, the LDS policy on dealing with newbies and anons, and a place for current alerts like the ones above.  Moogle may have ideas in terms of the page/revision efforts.  What does everyone think?  Would you actually monitor such a page?  WBardwin 18:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me.  I'd certainly add it to my watchlist -- not that that isn't getting far too long already...  Alai 18:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume this would be a page where we could report when an LDS related page got vandalized.  I think the IP of anons might be a problem, since there could be a valid user that DHCP assigns the same address of a vandal.  I like the idea, and would certainly add it to my watchlist. wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  - Talk 21:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Update -- has returned to JS and been reverted.  I will remove category on Hyrum as well.  WBardwin 21:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make an Alert Page? 

message: I just saw that the LDS Church—or Mormon movement if you prefer—isn't listed in this template.  Don't know if you care or not, but I thought I'd mention it.  I already noted the omission on its talk page.  Chime in if you like.  I know this could open up the whole can of worms:
:Mormons are not Christian!
:Oh, yeah?  Why not?
:Because they don't believe in Jesus Christ.
:Yes, they do.  See the name of the Church.
:Well, it's not the same Jesus Christ as every other Christian beleives in.
:How so?
:Because they don't accept the Nicene Creed.
:Why does that matter?
:It just does.
:...and so on...
:^) — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:20, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
:I will check out the Christianity page and change the Template accordingly.  After checking, the problem seems to be in the Restorationism article.  Could I get a little help fleshing it out? Tom Haws 16:35, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
::Seems to be a case of "mystery deletion", I've restored (as it were) an old version.  Frecklefoot's characterisation seems a little harsh to me:  the whole point of Nicea is that it does try to define the nature of Christ, thus the "same Christ" criterion is not completely baseless.  (Whether it's appropriate or not is another matter.  Certainly on that basis you'd have to conclude not just the LDS but the Arians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians and Modalists were all non-Christians too.)  Alai 21:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Alai.  Tom Haws 04:04, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, if I seemed harsh, but I've seen many conversations like that on many Mormon-related Talk pages.  Mormons beleive in Christ, and that he is the Savior.  They don't beleive in the Trinity, however, or accept all the points of the Nicene Creed, and because of that, many "Christians" claim that Mormons aren't Christian.  I just think it's silly.  If Mormons beleive in Jesus Christ, why aren't they Christian?  The name of the church even includes Jesus Christ, whereas most other churches don't!  Mormons are Christian, like it or not... Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:45, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Not at all, no problem.  I just wanted to observe that it was a technically defensible PoV, and it's the gist of the basis of the major denoms not accepting Mormon baptisms, for example.  Though as a certain Notable Mormon said to me recently, "I figgur we don't take theirs, so they don't take ours", is perhaps as viable an account of that latter.  I certainly can't see why anyone would exclude Mormons, but include any other non-trins, as some seemingly do.  (I don't personally subscribe to either of said PoVs, btw -- though I'm not sure it's exactly down to me to define Christian in the first place.)  Alai 03:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormons aren't Christian?

message: I know I haven't been much help because work and real life have kept me on a wikivacation for the past few months, but I think that we should either (1) Put somebody in charge of the Fortnight Article, or (2) Eliminate having a Fortnight Article.  Isn't it embarrassing that it's still Emma Smith after all these months?  --John Hamer 00:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agreed - I have been off and on lately but it is embarrassing. Do we want to nominate someone to manage the "Semi-Annual article" :) Trödel|talk 01:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I think everyone's done with Emma Hale Smith.  I'm unilaterly deciding to close that article and declaring that the new article will be Joseph F. Smith.  Tentatively, I'm switching this to a monthly project.  If there's interest and people help whipping Joseph F. Smith into shape, we can decide where to go next. --John Hamer 04:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fortnight Article

message: Trödel has found that the existing article is a copyright vio.  So can we pitch in and do a quick rewrite?  My only current source is a bio by Michael Quinn -- I have expressed my concerns about using it on the Clark talk page.  Does anyone have a copy of Frank W. Fox's "J. Reuben Clark:  The Public Years"?   Will look for more references.  WBardwin 16:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[J. Reuben Clark]] 

message: I have a few pages I've been working on in my spare time. It started just to get dates straight and such, but it's kind of grown since then.
* List of Members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS) - Duplicates what's currently in Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but adds additional, relevant information. So large it needs to be its own article. Should we remove the list from Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and put a link to this?
* Chronology of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS) - I found this to be most useful and relevant as I've studied who came into the quorum and why. I think I have most of the events mapped out.
* List of Members of the First Presidency (LDS) - Like the list article above, this lists who was in the FP when. I need to put in specific dates.
* Chronology of the First Presidency (LDS) - Like the chronology above, I think this is particularly useful.
Some other articles I've been mulling about:
* List of Members of & Chronology of Quorums of the Seventy (LDS)
* List of Members of & Chronology of Presiding Bishopric (LDS)
* List of Members of & Chronology of Presiding Patriarch (LDS)
Thoughts? Jgardner 22:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Members of ... 

message: What is the preferred and/or proper spelling of Newel(l?) K. Whitney? Should we have both pointing to the same article? Jgardner 17:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LDS/Brighamite materials seem to consistantly use Newel.  I would use a redirect on Newell.  WBardwin 18:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, fixing it now. I see on the internet it seems about half and half, so we'll keep the misspelled one. Jgardner 22:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newel or Newell? 

message: This is kind of off-topic, but I'm shocked and disgusted that the 'pedia doesn't have an article on J. Willard Marriott!  I'd write it myself, but I don't really think I could do him justice.  Does someone else what to take a crack at it?  Though not a Mormon leader, he was noted for being LDS, and was a close personal friend of Ezra Taft Benson.  Trivia:  When the Church was having difficulty financing completion of the Washington D.C. Temple, Marriott asked Benson to let him pay for the whole thing himself (Benson refused, of course, saying the money had to come from all members of the Church). — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
:Please, add it yourself. Do some research on him, and add it. You might want to make appropriate links, namely to Marriott Hotels, Ezra T. Benson, etc... If you don't do it, who will? If not now, when? (to paraphrase a certain GA) ;-)Jgardner 22:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: J. Willard Marriott

message: Does anyone else think it'd be helpful to have an article describing dispensation?  It's a concept central to LDS theology and is used in a few articles.  Or is it just a dictionary definition, not worthy of an article?  What the Church says. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:33, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
:The article that you linked to has more information that I would have been able to add to the Wikipedia.  But if you have more information, you could and should certainly create an article. Val42 03:38, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
:I think there's already a page like that. Maybe under dispensationalism or something. Should we set it up as a redirect or no? Cookiecaper 15:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispensation

message: I've decided the RS presidents each deserve articles with succession boxes.  Started on Zina D. H. Young.  Quite a plural marriage puzzle/see talk page.  Comments and assistance welcome. WBardwin 07:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS Relief Society Presidents 

message: I think we should start a drive toward making Joseph Smith, Jr. a featured article. Of course I don't know that it's ready for nomination right away, but we should get working on it. I know it's already a focal point on the project, but it being his bicentennial year and with all the associated celebrations &c. it seems fitting that he should be a featured article sometime before the year closes. Maybe his birthday, December 23, is a good date to shoot for. I'm not extremely familiar with the featured article procedure so I don't know if we can pull that off, but it'd be cool. It'd also be cool to see it sooner, so maybe we should do that. Cookiecaper 04:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: K I'm submitting this for peer review, although it's not ready for featured article yet. It'll be good to see what people farther from the project have to say I think. Cookiecaper 14:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph Smith as featured article 

message: More than a month ago, [Talk:Polygamous_clans_of_Utah#Rename_article_to_.27.27Polygamist_branches_of_Mormonism.27.27 I suggested] renaming the article "Polygamous clans of Utah", since the groups are not necessarily clans, and are not limited to Utah.  My current suggestion is "Polygamous Mormon fundamentalist sects", which is a bit awkward, but seems to describe the article.  I'll allow a few days of comments, then make a change, if there isn't too much objection. Nereocystis 16:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename title "Polygamous clans of Utah"->"Polygamous Mormon fundamentalist sects"?

message: Does Nauvoo, Alabama have any historical ties to Nauvoo, Illinois?  It seems like a rather unusual name for it not to.  I see that both started out in respective Hancock Counties. I also see that Winston County, Alabama (formerly Hancock) refused to join the Confederacy, which made me wonder whether it contrasts demographically with the surrounding counties. -- Beland 03:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well -- interesting little question.  I didn't know, but this link says the town was renamed after Nauvoo, Illinois.    But it doesn't say why.  Maybe more research is in order.  WBardwin 04:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  Well, I posted an expansion tag on the Alabama article.  Perhaps someone will chance upon it some day. Thanks!  -- Beland 03:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I spent quite some time on Google, but to no avail.  I assumed Tom Carroll was an LDS missionary and found mentions of Carroll's in early church history serving in the south, but still could not put a finger on it.  Storm Rider 03:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nauvoo question 

message: I see that this page is part of, and the only page in the "Mormon martyrs" category. Unless someone is trying to make a dumb joke, I do not see why it belongs there. I think it ought to be removed from the category, and, unless there are other pages which rightfully belong in the category, it ought to be deleted. Isaac Crumm 04:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category