Talk:The Family: A Proclamation to the World

message: It seems that there is no scholarly basis for the division of the proclamation into these three sections. I'm considering rewriting and reorganizing this article to something more appropriate. Please comment. Troy385 04:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a good logical break-down of the article. What did you have in mind? DavidBailey 11:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the break-down does indeed make sense, in order for this article to be of greater merit and fit into the encyclopedia format, it needs to have a scholarly basis for the break-down ideas. I have studied the proclamation and took a class on it from the editor of the main scholarly text available on the article: "Strengthening Our Families: An In-Depth Look at the Proclamation on the Family." Edited by David C. Dollahite. Published by the School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, 2000. This 400+ page text has several dozen authors— LDS and secular scholars and professors— who broke down the article into nearly every sentence and intensely analyzed it. They suggested no such break-down as in this wiki-page and therefore it may be more appropriate to touch on several of the scholarly points instead. I believe this article could be a lot more in-depth and really help people to learn what this proclamation is about. Would you be willing to help me in this endeavor? I also believe a new version of this scholarly text is now available.Troy385 16:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: The status section desparately needs a rewrite or elimination. I'd be in favor of a sentence or two somewhere else in the article.
Copies of the proclamation as distributed by the Church do not include the signatures of the Brethren, but a statement that it was presented by President Hinckley at the general RS meeting at the bottom. Look at one. It is only addressed from the fifteen in the opening paragraph. The Living Christ testimony does, however, include signatures; I think this is where the confusion is coming from. The second paragraph speaks generally about the authority of statements like this, but I'm not sure that it really belongs here. 71.237.79.210 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Status" Section 

message: This proclamation is pretty controversial outside of Mormonism - I am a little surprised this article doesn't speak more about that controversy and criticism - especially against the homosexual community.--Descartes1979 (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it doesn't because you haven't added it yet (with references, of course). Ground Zero | t 19:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you are adding it, Descartes. Here's an article to use. tedder (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No criticism section? 

message: Are these "citation needed" really necessary? I can come up with a half a dozen for each of those two (in fact, I've already added 4 to the first one, still have a few more I could add). – Ajltalk 17:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the cites are necessary. Great work AJ1772 - awaiting the cites for the second one.--Descartes1979 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I had one quick question though. I'm okay with putting the refs all into one tag, separating them with "; ", but I think it would make it slightly more readable if they were separated with "". Thoughts? – Ajltalk 18:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Good suggestions - I went ahead and made one of the changes. Honestly though, as it relates to the multiple citations, I don't feel strongly about it - if you want to clean it up with break tags, or use a different citation style, that sounds good to me. I could even be persuaded to revert back to the multiple ref tags. Ultimately it is a cosmetic change and not a content change so I am kind of indifferent.--Descartes1979 (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've went ahead and cleaned it up with break tags, and IMO, it now looks much better.  – Ajltalk 20:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: An edit by John Foxe (here) removed this sentence ("It is common for Mormons to frame the proclamation for display in Church buildings and the homes of church members.") and replaced it with this one ("Mormons have framed the proclamation for display in church buildings and in homes of members.").
In my opinion, the feeling I get from the second sentence makes me want a citation, but unless some news agency goes around (or has already gone around), I think the sentence should be change back to the original, which make me less inclined to throw a citation needed tag on it (even though the second sentence is factually true).
Thoughts/opinions? – Ajltalk 22:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the second is factually true and easier to find a cite for. There must be some evidence for both versions. Optimally it'd be nice to find a cite for the former version or simply revert it to the former version, which is a little stronger-worded. Unfortunately the rationale for preferring the former version has a lot of WP:OR involved! tedder (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History (2) 

message: I just thought I would mention that this page has been submitted for full protection. – Ajltalk 22:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not "full protection" which would permintly lock the page, "Tempory Full Proction".  If this isn't and edit war, which is the situation where "Tempory Full Proction" is needed, then by hevens when is there "Edit Wars"?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 06:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection request 

message: This article from the Human Rights Campaign is currently used as a source for the following two assertions:
* "[the proclamation] has been heavily criticized by the gay rights advocacy groups."
* "The Human Rights Campaign has noted that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are marginalized in the LDS Church, and cited the proclamation as one source of this antagonistic view."
However, neither of these statements is clearly supported by the source.
Regarding the first point, the HRC article does state that "Support of such ballot measures brought wide-spread criticism both from outside and inside the church" referring to the church's political involvement with the issue around the years 1998-2000 in Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, etc. It makes no mention of direct criticism of the proclamation. I'm sure there is criticism of the proclamation by gay rights advocacy groups, but this source doesn't really support it. The adjective "heavily" seems like original research and/or peacockery rather than an objetive measure.
Regarding the second, the HRC article never uses the word "marginalized" or anything of the sort that I can see. The closest it gets is this paragraph:
:...leaders expect of gays and lesbians the same celibacy they require of unmarried heterosexuals. Gay and lesbians can participate fully in church activities as long as they abide by the rule of celibacy, with some restrictions. For example, while a heterosexual adult would be expected to date, gays and lesbians would be viewed with suspicion for similar activities. Leaders counsel gay and lesbian members to avoid associations with LGBT groups and individuals, lest they succumb to the temptation of sexual activity.
It does say "with some restrictions", but never uses wording that suggests that this is a significantly "bad thing", as the wording "marginalized" suggests. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that I agree with the particular words you chose in the wording change you introduced here, but I agree that "marginalized" needed to be removed. I'm not really sure on how to further improve the particular wording though... – Ajltalk 07:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to pull the rhetoric down a bit more.  Someone with a better grasp of LGBT issues might know where to find an appropriate quotation.--John Foxe (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Foxe has more than adequately addressed the two issues I raised, and improved upon the wording Ajl was concerned about. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of HRC source 

message: I changed the reference from this:
:Sympathetic articles and books published in response to "The Proclamation" include : "Strengthening Our Families: An In-Depth Loom at the Proclamation on the Family" available at http://deseretbook.com/item/5012751/Strengthening_Our_Families_An_In_Depth_Look_at_the_Proclamation_on_the_Family or "Helping and Healing our Families: Principles and practices inspired by 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World'" available at http://deseretbook.com/store/product?sku=4940474
To read the following:
:Sympathetic articles and books published in response to "The Proclamation" include : "Strengthening Our Families: An In-Depth Loom at the Proclamation on the Family" available at Deseret Book or "Helping and Healing our Families: Principles and practices inspired by 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World'", also available at Desert Book
However, I'm still not happy with it.  Perhaps we can change the links to a  template?  Or something along those lines?  Anyone else have thoughts on this? – Ajltalk 07:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The links shouldn't be inline, they should be refs only, and that will be a magnet for spam- I mean, I'm betting the other Mormon bookstores sell it, as well as Amazon, so advertising availability isn't the best. tedder (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, providing the ISBN is preferable to saying "available at Bookstore X" so that the reader can decide for herself where to get it. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited reference in last section 

message: The question was asked before and not answered about the existence of an article on "The Living Christ." I have done a search and found no article on the document, "The Living Christ" which was another key document presented to the LDS Church during Hinckley's presidency deserves some mention here at WP. Is there anyone interested in taking this one on?--Canadiandy talk 07:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so it's known.  This was done in August 2011 by User:Good Olfactory.  See The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Living Christ 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://lds.org/manual/marriage-and-family-relations-instructors-manual/lesson-1-the-family-is-central-to-the-creators-plan?lang=eng
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511233917/http://lds.org/manual/marriage-and-family-relations-instructors-manual/lesson-10-the-sacred-roles-of-fathers-and-mothers-part-1-fathers-roles?lang=eng to http://lds.org/manual/marriage-and-family-relations-instructors-manual/lesson-10-the-sacred-roles-of-fathers-and-mothers-part-1-fathers-roles?lang=eng
*Added  tag to http://lds.org/manual/marriage-and-family-relations-instructors-manual/lesson-11-the-sacred-roles-of-fathers-and-mothers-part-2-mothers-roles?lang=eng
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified