Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 10

message: Please be reminded that this webpage was created with one purpose in mind. To discuss the content on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wiki. Comments or arguments that do not contribute to the construction and improvement of this article are not neccesary, and only hinder this wiki's progress. These include arguments on items not discussed in this wiki, such as reasons why the LDS religion is wrong as compared to others, hate messages, unprovoked arguments on undiscussed topics, and messages advocating the LDS religion without an opposing argument.  Please keep Wikipedia a constructive and hate-free community.  Thanks,  70.65.169.165 21:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion Topics

message: I was just looking at the major beliefs section, and it is my prominent belief (get it) that it would be better in a different order. I propose the following order:
:1-First Principles, with all of its sub headings in their current order
:2-Plan of Salvation
:3-Scriptures
:4-Priesthood
:5-Godhead
:6-Church Leadership
I believe that this order is more conducive to the precedence that Church members place on their beliefs, as is evidenced by the order of the missionary lessons (Plan of Salvation second) and discussion during Sunday School, along with sacrament meeting talks. We rarely have a talk on the Godhead's composition during sacrament meeting, but talks on the Plan of Salvation, the Book of Mormon, and each of the 1st principles, are much more prevalent. Likewise, testimonies concerning the nature of the Godhead are rarely borne, but testimonies on the value of faith, the Book of Mormon, and Priesthood power are frequent. The order which I proposed, I feel, is clearly more adequate than the current one to express this. Any objections or agreements? This is a rather major change, so discussion would be nice. --Pahoran513 17:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above order seems fine to me. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 22:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think agency deserves its own section in that list. --Lethargy 05:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Would you write it? --Pahoran513 16:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No promises, but perhaps I could work on something... --Lethargy 22:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Beliefs Section 

message: I am proposing that the Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be merged into a yet to be created, and named, article that would cover the following subjects:
# Intelligences
# Spirit bodies
# Light of Chirst
# Holy Ghost
# Teaching that flow from above:
## Acquiring knowledge/truth spiritually
## All men have ability to discern truth
## Animals have spirits too - and we should respect them - Animals article merge
## others stuff...
The article could pull together some info from the following articles: Holy Spirit#Non-Trinitarian Christian views, Pre-existence#Pre-mortal existence in Mormonism, Godhead (Mormonism), Plan of salvation, First War in Heaven, Animals, etc. Light of Christ could also be merged and redirected to the new article. 
This would be a more coherent presentation of the theology and its implications. It would also allow sections on the related topics in the Mormonism articles - or in the non Latter Day Saint movement related articles to be summarized more succinctly while pointing those interested to a full treatment of the information. Comments, thoughts? Help on a name would be especially helpful (see also: Talk:Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#New merge target) --Trödel 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me.  How about "Spirituality (Mormonism)" for a title? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm - I was thinking of an article that would be specific to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - that way we can summarize on the Mormonism articles some - which has the benefit that the CJC would not dominate those articles in a words/article sense. It has the additional benefit of being able to pull all related info into a coherent theology, being able to be specific rather than general (as in most Mormonism articles), and the source material for other groups within Mormonism - at least from my research - was sparse.  -- 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An LDS-specific article is fine, but I'd really like to see an article that reviews multiple religious treatments on the significance of animals in relation to the human family. CS Lewis wrote a fascinating essay titled "Animal Pain" compiled in "The Problem of Pain" (ISBN:0006280935/0805420495). Potential issues that could be addressed in a general religion perspective article may be the significance of animal sacrifice, dietary and food preparation customs, animals as deity (literal or metaphorical scriptural presentation and varying religious interpretations; mythological importance and its influence upon religion and culture), among other issues. I'm not launching an objection to your proposal, Trödel, but I think we could take this idea one notch higher that could serve your proposal better in the long run. A premature disentanglement from other Christian/religious perspectives may have people thinking this may yet be another visit to the strange world of LDS peculiarity. A general religion article on animals may be a little more solidified as a root concept, and thus may not have as many merge proposals because it could bring users interested in the topic together from multiple religions to describe their perspectives. The general quality of such an article would most likely reach a larger audience and probably be of better quality simply due to magnitute of traffic on its discussion page. LDS perspectives could certainly be represented there briefly and also internally linked to page you propose. Piewalker 19:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like your suggestion also - I think both would make good articles. --Trödel 00:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article on Spirit/Holy Ghost/Light of Christ/Intelligences 

message: In the archives there was talk about shortening this article by creating a new article about the Culture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I went ahead and created it. However, it is mostly just a copy and paste from this article with a brief introduction added. Please contribute to it. --Pahoran513 04:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article 

message: I am suggesting that the above article be merged with the main LDS article.  It is little more than a paragraph critical of the church Tithing program and looks more like a blurb on corporate Mormonism than a legitimate article.  Bytebear 18:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should definitely merge the article into the "finances" section of this page, to the extent it is not redundant. Branch-off articles are supposed to be larger than the summaries that replace them. The time for a branch-off is not ripe. COGDEN 06:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Financial prosperity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] 

message: Regarding the sentence: "They work full-time for the Church, and those who need it receive a stipend from the Church"
I'm not sure this statement is correct. It's my understanding that church leaders are reimbursed for expenses only, like travel expenses. --BigMack 20:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There needs to be NPOV citations.  It has been a clear anti-mormon POV that there IS a paid ministry in the church, but this simply is not comparable to other churches where ministers or Catholic priests choose their callings as a career.  It should be presented that although the LDS leadership is called full time for life, it is not a career, and that they have in most if not all cases already retired from their full time careers and are sustained by their own retirement funds.  Bytebear 01:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church Leadership and the Priesthood 

message: I saw the following article in the Des News that discusses membership statistics  of scientology. Intereesting that the LDS church gets beat up for having incorrect statistics by Anti-Mormons (in fact, their membership numbers are probably the most accurate according to stark and others), however, when you look at the following statement it is consistent with the southern baptist's definition and american penecostal assn definiation. Seems that catholicism and mormons actually define based on baptism/confirmation stats (and a few others). Hmmm. here's the statement:
:"He said membership numbers come from those "on a current mailing list and who participate in various events through the year. They don't participate necessarily on a daily basis. I think the statistics are consistent with how other faiths monitor their membership, and if anything they may be a little low."" (Bob Adams of the Church of Scientology). 
In otherwords, if we used that definition, anyone who is a repeat caller to get the latest "family first" video or has visited a family history library more than once, or attended a sacrament meeting, would be considered part of the LDS church. -Visorstuff 18:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Membership numbers revisited

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support. I'm actually inclined to oppose simply for reasons of simplicity in linking to the article as far as Wiki formatting goes, but it does seem that the "The" is important as can be seen in various points made in the previous move discussion. Sometimes simplicity needs to take a back seat to accuracy. Kafziel 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: There are an awful lot of statements in this article beginning with "members believe...". Something about these statements bothers me. Perhaps it is because in order to back up these statements we would need to cite church officials or doctrine, rather than members. Perhaps it would look better with "the Church teaches..."?
Whatever the reason, something about these statements smells a little fishy... or weaselly. Comments? --Lethargy 02:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, it wouldn't be "members believe", it would probably have to be "the Stake Presidency of the blah blah blah stake gives the following advice about white shirts: "blah blah blah" followed by a citation, which you probably couldn't find in that case. Of course, we also aren't writing about that stake, but about the Church as a whole, so I'm not sure that would even be worthy of mentioning. Also, unless I am mistaken, the Stake Presidency is allowed to make decisions they feel are good (I could have used a better word, but my brain seems to have partially shut down today) for their stakes, but aren't necessarily covered by statements by church leaders. --Lethargy 20:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting that specific example, but rather than many members believe they should be wearing white shirts and a tie, even though there is no church teaching to that effect. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 22:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but in any event, how do we go about verifying what members believe? We need to stick to what we can actually verify with reliable sources, rather than our personal experiences (original research). --Lethargy 22:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Members believe..." 

message: The first paragraph of the History section is causing me trouble. The entire paragraph is what LDS believes is the case, not what is generally accepted. I hate the style of writing where we have to say "according to the LDS" in every sentence, but I can see that there might be confusion. I'm going to try something to make it more explicit. DJ Clayworth 20:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to revise.  But, I would have as much problem with what is "generally accepted" as others would with "what LDS believes."  So, please have your "general"  sources lined up to support revision.  Best wishes.  WBardwin 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I just did the page move as requested.  I checked, and you've got over 1500 links coming in now through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints redirect.  I'll bet a bot could fix all of those.  There are a few more redirects, though I think I snapped all the doubles.  None of them except that big one has more than a hundred incoming links or so, and most have none at all.
Also, I found this page: -Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints-, which is a disambiguation page.  Maybe some of those redirects should be pointed at it?  I don't know. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I've filed a bot request here. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bot is currently working on the issue. I'm going to fix all mainspace (not talk) redirects. Hope that helps, Alphachimp 03:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move, redirects 

message: There are a lot of entries in this section that have been tagged as needing citations, but more than that some don't even mention why they are controversial, and others contain weasel words. A few of those that have particular problems which cannot be addressed with  or  include:
*Child sexual abuse in the Mormon Church.  Brian Evenson's novel Father of Lies addresses his criticisms of how the Church deals with child abuse.
:I shouldn't need to read his book to hear what his criticism was.
* Women cannot be ordained to priesthood offices.
:What specific problems has this caused?
*Cultural preservation and educational programs including the Polynesian Cultural Center and the Indian Placement Program.
:What criticism have these attracted?
*The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially ended the practice of polygamy with the 1890 Manifesto and, since 1904, has excommunicated members known to practice polygamy and prohibited polygamists from joining the Church. However, references to polygamy remain in LDS scriptures, such as Doctrines & Covenants 132.
:Has this angered some
"On June 9, 1978, a new revelation was announced, permitting all "worthy" males to receive the Priesthood."
:Somewhere in Wikipedia's manual of style it states that you should not place quotes around words, as we have done with "worthy". This obviously implies that we have a problem with the statement. Perhaps we could just provide an actual quote? --Lethargy 16:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. Also, I've removed the conjecture about not being able to be a state that was popularized by western historian Dale Morgan. This was his opinion. Wilford Woodruff said, "I should have let all the temples go out of our hands I should have gone to prison myself...had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did." I think that the Mormons had a history of civil disobedience for items that went against their belief, and to say that they wanted statehood more than to obey what they saw as God's law is laughable when you think about mormon history. Pure speculation. I'll try to fix some of these this morning. -Visorstuff 16:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I had a few edit conflicts while trying to add some tags to the C&C section earlier, I noticed you were working on it :). I think I've tagged enough statements though, so it isn't a problem anymore. Good luck, and thanks for your willingness to help out. --Lethargy 16:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not speculation at all. You may want to check other sources than the footnotes of OD1 to determine causes of the cancellation of plural marriage. Todd Compton is a good start. That begin said, nothing in Woodruff's statement is in conflict of doing it because of statehood. --Kmsiever 17:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure worthy is the word used in the actual quote. Maybe we just need some info about what it means to be worthy of the priesthood? Or maybe it's clear enough already. :) --Masamage 17:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is used in the quote, but the way it is presented makes it sound like we doubt what is meant by "worthy" (exactly the way I just used quotes). A more complete quote would solve this problem. --Lethargy 17:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Visorstuff fixed it. --Lethargy 17:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless I am very much mistaken, I may be coming down with pink eye, so I may have to take a break from commenting and tagging (aka whining), although I think what I have added is sufficient. I would prefer it if we didn't use the terms "some" or "others", even when sources are provided, which is something I am not particularly good at myself. For instance: "Some in the Islamic community have criticized the Church's humanitarian service efforts as proseltyzing in many parts of the world, particularly after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and assosiated tsunami." Could be changed to something like: "in the wake of the 2004 earthquake in the Indian Ocean and the resulting earthquake, the efforts of the LDS Church were criticized by [insert name of person or group criticizing] as “taking food from the mouth of Ghanaians.”" possibly followed by a larger quote using my personal favorite :
--Lethargy 17:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I started feeling like it too :). Actually, I used to —OK, probably still do— have the same problem. Since reading WP:AWW though, I try to take special care to avoid them and notify others when they use them too much. It's difficult though, as "some" seems to come much easier than "Joe Smith, editor of blah.com" As a side note, I love the way we have weasel words and peacock terms. I think we need animal names for everything to avoid. --Lethargy 19:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this section as whole is that it is redundant with other articles.  It would make for a cleaner reading if the readers were redirected to articles that are on point.  For example,  this section is a very weak section regarding controversies.  It would be better to have the reader go to "controversies regarding the church of jesus christ of latter day saints" or "criticisms of mormonism".  One of the first steps when starting a new article is to search to see if any other articles are similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolphr (talk • contribs) 23:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism and controversy section sources 

message: I removed: "(In a similar way, many times Biblical prophets speak in the first person as though they are the mouthpiece of the Lord, , , ).  
This is a particular interpretation of the Bible, presumably specific to the LDS. Firstly and most importantly it needs to be referenced. Secondly, while these prophets do indeed speak in the first person, since they are (claiming to) speak the very words of God, in most interpretations of scripture they don't claim to be omniscient or in any way God. DJ Clayworth 16:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, scriptures are not appropriate references because they have a wide variety of interpretations. If they are quoted by a church leader perhaps we can use them. --Lethargy 18:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific biblical interpretation

message: Is there a better temple image out there?  The one on the site has some relections of light on the corner which makes it look kinda funny.  Bytebear 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikimedia Commons has a few more. --Lethargy 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  I found an image that I like better, but still don't know if I have found the perfect image yet.  66.151.81.244 22:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salt Lake Temple Image 

message: There seem to be two things missing from here that I would have thought of as major beliefs. One is the status of Joseph Smith as a prophet. The second is the presence of pre-Columbian Christian civilisations in the Americas. Surely both of these deserve a mention. DJ Clayworth 13:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree --Trödel 15:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Not only that, there is no major or minor section on the Book of Mormon.  It is mentioned in a few places here and there, but there is no paragraph explaining what the book is.  This is critical and needs to be addressed. I really wonder if a whole restructuring of the topics is in order.  How did this become a featured article in the first place? What did that version look like and is it better than what we have now? Bytebear 18:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a featured article, it's a good article, but I see your point. If you feel it no longer meets the criteria (and I wouldn't disagree with you), you can submit it for review. It might give us some useful input into how to fix it. --Lethargy 22:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake.  I think it is a pretty good article.  I made some bold changes today (including a blurb on the Book of Mormon in the intro paragraph as well as in the History section).  I hope you approve, and feel free to make improvements.  I think sometimes we end up discussing too much and not just making the article better. Bytebear 04:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a whole section on Scriptures which describes the BoM in reasonable detail. DJ Clayworth 19:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A while ago, a draft version was created.  Is there a reason why it didn't replace the current intro?  (Or, was it replaced and what we have is the result of subsequent changes?) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major beliefs

message: I see several edits where additions of "Members believe ..." or "The church claims ...".  I really think these although well intended do not really balance POV, in that the original statement isn't really NPOV to begin with.  For example:
:The church claims to be the divine restoration of the church established by Jesus Christ in New Testament times.  Following the ascension of Jesus into heaven, He continued to direct His church through His Apostles, but as men rejected them and began to kill them, the authentic Christian church, along with its authority and many of its teachings, began to disappear. This led ultimately to the Great Apostasy.
was changed to:
:The church claims to be the divine restoration of the church established by Jesus Christ in New Testament times. Members believe that following the ascension of Jesus into heaven, He continued to direct His church through His Apostles, but as men rejected them and began to kill them, the authentic Christian church, along with its authority and many of its teachings, began to disappear, leading to what the LDS Church calls the Great Apostasy. 
Is it just me or is it overkill to add NPOV statements three times in the same paragraph?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytebear (talk • contribs) 23:08, 12 October 2006
The problem (as I see it) is that if we state church doctrine and phrase it as if it were facts, that is POV.  Indisputed facts can be stated plainly, but beliefs must be labeled as such.  Again, IANAL, IMHO, etc. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we only need to state that it is a belief once - as once a position has been properly identified, it should be presented sympathetically, and to emphasize that it is a belief has negative implications. --Trödel 04:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV vs NPOV 

message: I don't have an issue with the citation, or their coorelation.  But I do think it is not really a controversy or even criticsm.  The implication is that tithing should be abolished or that church members ae being pushed too hard into giving funds to the church (which is a criticsm but only to those who oppose the church, or organized religion in general).   A couple things to consider.  First, the church is not going to abolish tithing, and any reputable study would not suggest such a thing.  Second, the church has always encouraged its members to be self sufficient and not rely on government intervention including bankruptsy.  I think maybe a section on conserns or Church conserns.  It is not just a criticsm from outside sources, but a real consern of the leadership within the church. Bytebear 20:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because a church's authorities are not inclined to abolish something because of adherence to a dogma does not de-ligitimize criticism of the same. In fact, it strengthens the criticism to show a problem with not the surface practice but the foundation of it. CyberAnth 21:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is this.  Tithes and offerings are not controverial in and of themselves.  All churches that I know of ask for donations of one kind or another, and it is clearly a biblical principal.  And the bankrupsy issue being discussed is not a critism or controversy. It is an issue within the church, so my point is valid.  The criticsm presented is that "tithing is bad".  This is simply not true. Bytebear 21:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Another issue is that the Deseret News article not once mentions the Church in any way.  There is some reference to culture, lage families, charitable doations, and low income levels.  To attribute this reference to the church and define one factor (charitable donations) to tithing is a bit too speculative for my tastes, even if it seems obvious to an inside observer. Also does it affect the church as a whole?  Are there any studies that say that Mormons around the world are going bankrupt or in poverty because the church takes their money?  To attribute an issue with at most maybe 200,000 members of a 12 million member church is wrong.  If you want this information in Wikipedia, put it in the Utah article, where it belongs.Bytebear 21:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cont.

message: I am working on beefing up the History section of the article.  I added a good solid paragraph from the Utah article about early settlement, but it lacks citations.  It even has a fairly even handed paragraph on Mountain Meadows Masacre, so don't accuse me of pro-LDS POV.  I also changed the polygamy section to Plural Marriage.  I think the main paragraph should be moved to the Beliefs section however as it is too broad to fit into any one paragraph of history. So PLEASE help make the article better by adding citations and correcting my errors. 
And if anyone is reading Rough Stone Rolling, please highlight and annotate it.  It's a great resource that we should be citing left and right. 
Bytebear 05:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the church 

message: Hi I've moved the disambig page to -=The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (disambiguation)=- please do not link to it but link all pages to the appropriate article. The origianal Disambig page was the same name as this articl minus the THE and minus the hyphen. It was catching all sorts of links that were supposed to be sent here instead. So i switched it. :) Peace. --Home Computer 15:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this change causes some problems. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints page refers to multiple churches, whereas The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (note the spelling and the The) refers to only one church, and thus needs no disambiguation. I'm changing it back. COGDEN 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If you think that this is a problem, then we should call the disambiguation page Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (disambiguation). The spelling and hyphenation here make a huge difference. While it is arguably correct to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (because it was an early alternate spelling, though now incorrect), it is entirely incorrect to refer, for example, to refer to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Personally, though, I don't care about misappropriated links. People who spell The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints incorrectly should change their spelling. COGDEN 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your suggestion. If you feel like doing that I fully support it. just as long as the old name still directly refers to the new name as per the hundred or so missed links. :) Thanks for talking this out. --Home Computer 21:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it, but it still seems awkward to me. I'd rather that people correct their Wikipedia articles to refer to the proper church. COGDEN 23:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Disambig page for Main page 

message: An image is repeated (picture of a vitraux).
I replaced the image with that of the Christus Statue.  I think a good picture would be of a baptism or of laying on of hands for the obvious sections. Bytebear 22:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a ton of great pictures at newsroom.lds.org but I assume they are invalid for use due to copyright issues.  That just sucks. Bytebear 00:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same images 

message: I've reverted the edits that incorporated this into the rest of the article. This section is a summary of a daughter article and needs to stay. CovenantD 04:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with the section remaining separate, but you reverted my own unrelated edits to the section headings. --Lethargy 04:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the sheer number of edits used to wipe out the controversies section, it will be easier for you to just redo your sections headings edit. CovenantD 04:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   I am a bit upset.  I worked very hard to incorporate each and every criticism into the article, and now your revert has screwed up everything I did today.  Please don't blindly revert changes, because you not only reverted the changes to that section but to all the other work that was done.  If you want the section in, thats fine, but had you read the article or seen my changes, I think I did a very fair job of representing those issues in the article. Bytebear 05:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ok, I am calmer now.  I have cleaned up the reverts that were lost when CovenantD reverted edits.  I have incorporated all of the important criticisms into the section to which they apply.  There are two very prominant links to criticisms at the end of the article, so I really don't thing we need the redundancy.  If you have a specific criticism that needs to be addressed, find a place in the article and put it in, or let's discuss it here.  See my commends above about the ban on priesthood and how it has no context as a bullet point in a list, but has better context in the Priesthood section of the article. Bytebear 05:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Summary style. This article followed that format. Please return it to the form laid out in the style guide. CovenantD 06:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am well familiar with Wikipedia's style guide.  This article did not follow it.  I think it does follow it much better now. I didn't see anything about requiring a "Controveries" section, but I did read somethign about using well formed paragraphs and avoiding POV branching, which is exacly what I did when I integrated the controveries section into the article.  I also added each section with a "See also" or "Main article" template, which is also encouraged. So, before you criticize my edits, maybe you need to know what you are talking about. Bytebear 06:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading through earlier sections of this talk page, I see that there is strong desire to have a controversies section, even citing precedent for it in other articles. I wish you wouldn't so completely disregard that. CovenantD 23:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a strong desire for this to be more balanced, something difficult to achieve if we separate the controversy stuff into its own section. That being said, we could just do both. --Lethargy 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism and controversy 

message: Should this be moved to the Culture section rather than the Beliefs section.  Maybe break the section up on doctrinal vs. cultural lines?  Thoughts. Bytebear 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts on the subject is that the Church's stand on family is not so much a cultural standpoint as it is a "doctrine" of belief.  Perhaps there are some cultural aspects, such as large family size and earlier than average marriage age.  However, I think that most of it lies more in the realm of beliefs (or doctrines taught by the Church).  The Proclamation, Eternal Marriage, Family Home Evening, and Same-gender marriage opposition seem to be less "cultural" than they are "teachings".  But yes, I agree that there could be something said about families in the cuture section. For example:, why Brigham Young University has one of the youngest marriage ages of any univeristy ;).  But back to serious matters, maybe we should change the section heading to read "Eternal Family" rather than "Emphasis on Family" as that displays more of a belief than a cultural idea.  What do you think?  Sylverdin 20:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasis on Family 

message: I don't feel that the Worship service section adds very much useful information to the article, and for the sake of making the article shorter, and therefore easier to read, I think it should be removed or severely shortened, mentioning just the sacrament and testimony meeting perhaps. Additionally, it is not referenced enough, and is mostly original research and possibly incorrect, for instance "Although all women and girls meet together briefly at the beginning of the hour for a prayer, hymn, and announcements..." this is not done in my stake. --Lethargy 22:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a spinoff article Latter-day Saint worship services? It is getting a bit long and detailed. Bytebear 23:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Worship services in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with a redirect from the one you suggested. Latter-day Saint worship services sounds more like the name for a category than an actual article. --Lethargy 23:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having done a bit of research, I will make a new article called Service of worship (Mormonism). Bytebear 06:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the Worship service section 

message: For problems with neutrality, original research, lack of references, and stability, I have delisted this from GA standard. If you disagree, you can seek a review at Wikipedia:Good articles/Review. --Lethargy 23:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted from GA status

message: It seems that there are a number of individuals with very strong ideas concerning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  While having strong ideas is a good thing, it is also neccessary to share those ideas and feelings with respect.  And we can't simply wait for the other person or persons to be respectful first.  We have to begin it ourselves.  Just a little reminder to remember that respect is essential in our conversations (EVEN if we don't agree with the other user). Have a great day (or night, whatever time zone you're in!) Sylverdin 19:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Respect in Discussion

message: This article is getting ridiculously long. As of now, it's 181 kB, which is twice as long as the article for the Roman Catholic Church, which has a history about five times as long, and 100 times the membership. The problem is, everyone thinks this page has to be everything to everybody, and we end up duplicating work that goes on in other pages. Much of this article is about church history, which is extensively covered in several other articles, including History of the Latter Day Saint movement and History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Another problem is that the article goes into too much detail on the various doctrinal issues, which are explained ad nauseum on other pages. There is no need to repeat everything here. There are too many other issues that should be discussed on this page to fill it up with duplicate historical or theological information. Considering interest in this article, it should have obtained featured status long ago. This article should essentially be a summary article—an introduction to meatier articles elsewhere. Is anybody interested in helping with the pruning? COGDEN 00:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you COGDEN, this issue arises every six months or so, as folks keep thinking minor details need to be added in. I think however, that the current dispute by Duke53 will need to be resolved before cutting. -Visorstuff 00:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made an attempt to take some of the longer sections and putting them in separate articles, for example Service of worship (Mormonism) which still needs clean up on that page.  I think the beliefs and practices section should be a one or two paragraph summary with a "Main" link.  I think the history section is pretty close to what I would like included, although it could be paired down in length.  Even the Book of Mormon section could be reduced a bit.  Do we really need the entire summary page quoted?  Let's figure out the main sections, have each link to a "main" article and reduce each section to a paragraph of two. Bytebear 01:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't realize there was such redundancy and we should take advantage of it.  If we can merge in the info from the Worship article into these other articles, I am for that.  The original section on Worship service had Sacrament meeting, Sunday school, Primary, as well as General Conference.  I also think Stake Conference should be added somewhere.  So, I looked around and found Service of worship which seemed like a fairly comprehensive article on protestant services in general, and in keeping with the naming convention I used (Mormonism) although it is recommended to use (Latter Day Saints).  Funny, but there is no specific naming convention for (Latter-day Saints), so I figured I would go with the most common naming convention. And I agree that the fervor needs to die down a bit before we start cutting (which is what I intended when I opted to ignore the issue).  Bytebear 05:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the naming conventions definitely need a reworking. I've updated the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) with what I think are becoming the de facto best practices, but the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saint) are a bit confusing. The conventions currently suggest the parenthetical (LDS Church), but I wonder whether (Latter-day Saint) (or (Latter-day Saints)) might be better. We just haven't yet really had articles that needed the very-specific parenthetical. I'm also torn between (Latter Day Saint) and (Latter Day Saints) as parentheticals. In many situations, such as the name of the above Manual of Style, the parenthetical (Latter Day Saint) seems strange, as if the Manual itself were a Latter Day Saint. Do you have a good reason, Visorstuff, to favor the singular form? COGDEN 22:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the plural (Latter Day Saints) should rule over the singular form (Latter Day Saint). I completely agree with you on that, and will suppport it fully. It is the style used by the associated press as they talk abou "other Latter Day Saints churches," but I'm not so sure of Latter-day Saints over Latter-day Saint. I'm undecided on that one. My reasoning is that you may be talking about the "Latter-day Saint Church" as it is referred to in historical documents. Its not referred to in the plural in historical documents. I need more time to noodle that one before making my decision on what I prefer. Thoughts to persuade me? -Visorstuff 23:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the specific church-based parenthetical, maybe we should stick with (LDS Church) as it is now in the naming conventions. Of course, I still haven't seen an article where I think the parenthetical is justified. COGDEN 18:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 'I've copied this discussion thread to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saint). COGDEN 18:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure, but my first impression is to go with the first choice. The article is about the worship services of the LDS church. It's not about worship services in the context of the Latter Day Saint movement. Also, I don't personally like the term service of worship, which sounds like badly-translated Latin. The service of worship article ought to be merged into the church service article, in my opinion. Maybe Church services of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a possibility. COGDEN 21:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would go with the first one, which is close to (of instead of in), but better than what I suggested above. Also, I'm guessing that the other denominations have different meetings than the LDS Church, so this should have its own article. --Lethargy 21:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok,  I will make the change. Bytebear 21:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly agree with removing the obscure and speculative stuff, like Heavenly Mother and Jehovah in the OT. --Lethargy 01:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed the obscure stuff. Everything I removed can be seen here. We could still include a see also for Heavenly Mother, but I'm not sure if it should go in The Godhead or the See also section. --Lethargy 02:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made a paragraph out of the info on Pearl of Great Price.  The wording may need a bit of polishing but it's better than a bullet list. Bytebear 03:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I was about to say that the First principles and ordinances of the Gospel section be rewritten to be much shorter, but I see you beat me to it. I completely agree: this and the Plan of Salvation section need to be a lot less wordy, we should try to keep it as simple as possible and avoid deviating from what the sources state. I'm thinking we should use a sledgehammer rather than a chisel and completely rewrite these sections. --Lethargy 23:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of this article 

message: I changed the article Service of worship (Mormonism) to Latter-day Saint worship services, but I still wonder if this should be the correct usage.  What about these conventions ( I use Priesthood as an example with info from the  naming convention guide):
Articles about the religion, doctrines, belief systems, and cultures of the Latter Day Saint movement, and that could apply to more than one Latter Day Saint denomination, should use the word "Mormonism".
* Mormonism and Priesthood - contrasting rather than inclusive as in Mormonism and Catholicism
* Priesthood (Latter Day Saint) - preferred and seemingly correct as priesthood is not specific to the LDS Church.
* Priesthood (Mormonism) - acceptable, but should redirect to Pristhood (Latter Day Saint)
Articles about only one Latter Day Saint denomination should use the full name of the denomination as it exists on the denomination's Wikipedia page.
* Priesthood of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - preferred.
* Priesthood (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
* Priesthood (Latter-day Saint) - redirects to Priesthood (Mormonism) as it should. although both should redirect to Pristhood (Latter Day Saint)
* Latter-day Saint Priesthood
So which should we use?
# Worship services of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
# Worship services (Latter Day Saint)
# Service of worship of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
# Service of worship (Latter Day Saint)
I am leaning toward the second as we can add info for other denominations somewhere in the article and "Services of worship" sounds too hoity toity. Bytebear 20:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but my first impression is to go with the first choice. The article is about the worship services of the LDS church. It's not about worship services in the context of the Latter Day Saint movement. Also, I don't personally like the term service of worship, which sounds like badly-translated Latin. The service of worship article ought to be merged into the church service article, in my opinion. Maybe Church services of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a possibility. COGDEN 21:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would go with the first one, which is close to (of instead of in), but better than what I suggested above. Also, I'm guessing that the other denominations have different meetings than the LDS Church, so this should have its own article. --Lethargy 21:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok,  I will make the change. Bytebear 21:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming Conventions

message: Here are my suggestions for areas that can be summarized These are my opinions, so please give constructive feedback:
#The intro sounds good and is a fairly good length.
#The history subsection titles look good
# merge "The church today" into the history section
## shorten the subsections "Name of the Church", "Gordon B. Hinkley" and "Current membership" into a few paragraphs.
## Spin off Name of Church to a separate article if needed.
# "Sacred Texts"
## Remove the intro paragraph from "Book of Mormon"
## Beef up D&C
## Change PoGP into a paragraph from a bullet list
# "Other publications" - Could be shortened
# Beliefs and practices 
## Needs a ton of trimming
## spin off First Principals and Ordanances.  Maybe into the Articles of Faith article?
## Shorten Godhead to 
### Role of Jesus Christ
#### Jehovah in OT (too obscure to mention here)
### diff between trinity
### physical aspects
### Exhaultation (maybe a separate section than Godhead, maybe Salvation of Man?)
### Heavenly Mother (too obscure to mention here)
## Continued Revelation could be shortened, and Hinkley could be moved here.
## Leadership and the Priesthood should be shortend a lot.
### get rid of the loss of authority, as it is covered in the intro, the early history, and beliefs.
## Plan of Salvation - I can see this whole section removed without a tear.
## Tithes and offerings - actually not a bad section
## Emphasis on Family - Again, I could take it or leave it. Maybe shorten and move to the culture section
## Missionary program - I like the quote and the paragraph is good with me. 
## Important to note, and maybe make it parallel the Priesthood section.  Needs to be beefed up and add links to Women and Mormonism
# Worship services - was shortened,  could still be tightened up a bitl
# Other metings.  A bit long, spin it out to separate articles?
# Temples - suprisingly short which is good considering all that you could add.
## I would like to see something on Eternal Families here
# Education - good example to what a section should be like.  Short but with a spinoff article
#Culture and Practices.  also short, and other than the Word of Wisdom which could be merged into Beliefs, I could see this section go.
# Finances -  I think this section isn't all that important, but thats just me.  Tithing is mentioned in Beliefs.  Holdings should be spun off or removed.  
##Social and welfare should be mentioned as a program of the church maybe.  
##"Other programs" can be scrapped as far as I am concerned. maybe a mention of Boy Scouts, but even that isn't so critical to the church as a whole. (More a concern for the Boy Scouts I think).
# Controveries is just right.  Too many to pick and choose what to display, so the links work well.
Bytebear 23:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with removing the obscure and speculative stuff, like Heavenly Mother and Jehovah in the OT. --Lethargy 01:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed the obscure stuff. Everything I removed can be seen here. We could still include a see also for Heavenly Mother, but I'm not sure if it should go in The Godhead or the See also section. --Lethargy 02:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made a paragraph out of the info on Pearl of Great Price.  The wording may need a bit of polishing but it's better than a bullet list. Bytebear 03:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I was about to say that the First principles and ordinances of the Gospel section be rewritten to be much shorter, but I see you beat me to it. I completely agree: this and the Plan of Salvation section need to be a lot less wordy, we should try to keep it as simple as possible and avoid deviating from what the sources state. I'm thinking we should use a sledgehammer rather than a chisel and completely rewrite these sections. --Lethargy 23:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for what to change

message: I think the tags at the top of the article are not useful in identifying what sections/areas need improvement. For example, the intro has no weasel words that I can find and some sections have no neutrality problems - we should move tags to those sections that need the specific help.
:Agreed, let's see if we can find which sections they are referring to and move them there. --Lethargy 19:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the tag was for, but there are sort of weaselly statements such as:
*"Traditional Christians sometimes take umbrage at the Church's rejection of Trinity,and even have called the Church "non-Christian" for not accepting the creeds and beliefs held by the larger Christian Community." - I added a  tag.
*"This claim has caused some strife amongst other Christian religions who reject the LDS belief in exclusive authority." - already tagged for citation.
*"Additionally, at times when President Hinckley's predecessors were in poor health, Hinckley performed many of the duties of the Church's presidency as established by precedent and revelation." - I guess "many" could be explained.
*"Many callings are limited to priesthood holders, with qualifications usually related to the particular calling." - how many are many?
*The Culture and practices section. - already tagged as needing citations, I switched to the  template.
--Lethargy 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: Converts from areas where polygamy is an accepted practice typically must end such relationships.
This is probably a pretty rare thing, which explains why I have never heard this before. I would assume that this policy applies to those practicing polygamy where it is illegal as well, and I'm not sure if "typically" is accurate or not. Can we find a source which verifies this? --Lethargy 02:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the 'typically' is weird. If this is true (which it seems like it would be, but we do need a source), it'd be true for everybody. --Masamage 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requirement for converts to give up polygamy 

message: It appears that the image was deleted.  Was there a source statement for that image?  It looks like a bunch of non-sourced images were deleted recently.
Also, I noticed a red category on requested images. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a copyrighted painting that was erroneously uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which doesn't allow images whose use is based solely on fair use. The fair use claim is a bit questionable, anyway, since the image was a large, high-resolution picture. COGDEN 06:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Christ visiting America deleted? 

message: If you read The Godhead, 3rd paragraph, Joseph Smith comment is: 
These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; --> yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible . . . Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children . . . It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.[46] 
(Yea, that God himself, ...)Does this sound right or has someone changed the comment?
:That sounds right to me. Joseph Smith often used Biblical language, like "yea" in place of "yes" or "indeed." Thanks for checking on that. ^^ --Masamage 19:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Vandalism? 10-31-06 

message: In an attempt to remove the non-neutrality tag from the article, can anyone and everyone chime in on what issues you feel are not neutral and what needs better or less coverage? If you feel the article is neutral note that as well. Bytebear 05:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I believe that the article needs a significant amount of revision to remove jargon.  While people who are familiar with the topic may already know what the Godhead is, the casual inquirer isn't going to automatically understand that part.  I believe that religions generally attempt to describe God and the relationship between God and man.  Accordingly I believe that a note on the nature of God should come before faith in JC.  The changes I've made have been scrapped, although the dispensations part has remained.  I'd like to see a consensus reached on article order and I recommend the LDS Articles of Faith as the starting point.  Article one, quoting from memory, states that the LDS Church believes in God the Eternal Father, Son JC, and the Holy Ghost. Eljamin 17:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; you raise a very good point. We just need to be careful about our wording, is all. --Masamage 19:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I absolutely agree we need to reduce jargon. As to your suggestion to use the LDS Articles of Faith as a starting point for this article, I'm not sure that's the best idea. Some of the Articles, honestly, aren't that notable for purposes of a Wikipedia article. For example, what church doesn't believe in being "honest, true, chaste, benevolent," etc. (Art. 13), or believe in worship according to one's conscience (Art. 11). And Article of Faith 1 doesn't actually say anything notable about the Godhead. At the same time, there are numerous beliefs of the church that are not included in the Articles, which are extremely notable. For example, temples, the Endowment, sealings, work for the dead, tithing, etc. These are much more notable, for example, than the church's rejection of Original Sin (Art. 2) or its belief that Zion will be located in North America (Art. 10). COGDEN 19:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although those are excellent references to use when we do state that the church rejects Original Sin and encourages its members not to persecute people of other faiths. --Masamage 19:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon 

message: I'd like to change the heading away from Godhead and to a less jargony title like, "The Nature of God."  I would do it myself, but I'm afraid that I'd unlink a lot of things elsewhere in Wikipedia.  I don't know much about editing.
I also disagree with the factual points made in the Godhead section.  Although it is true that the LDS church proclaims that God ("Elohim") is omnipotent, what is meant by that is quite different from what an evangelist Christian means, for example.  He would insist that Elohim created everything ex nihilo - out of nothing.  A simple reading of D&C 93:29 reveals that the D&C proclaims that Elohim is incapable of creating or destroying intelligence and that man is co-eternal with Elohim.  These are blasphemous beliefs according to many Christians.  A reading of BH Roberts (http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=5) also raises a lot of points that fly in the face of the Wikipedia Godhead section.  One can argue that BH Roberts is expressing BH Roberts opinion which is not the same as the 12 LDS Apostles officially blessing something as THE TRUTH, and I take that point as somewhat valid, but not enough to enable us to entirely dismiss these writings.
I further quote:
“The Holy Ghost as a personage of Spirit can no more be omnipresent in person than can the Father or the Son, but by his intelligence, his knowledge, his power and influence, over and through the laws of nature, he is and can be omnipresent throughout all the works of God” (Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939], p. 61).
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/aaronic%20priesthood.htm/ap3.htm/17%20the%20holy%20ghost.htm
So the omnipresent part needs to be qualified, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eljamin (talk • contribs) 
: I agree with "Nature of God", and I think the entire belief section should reference scripture as a primary source, then Ensign articles, and then outside references.  Because this section is about what the church professes to believe, I don't consider this to be NPOV, although others may disagree.  I would start the section on the nature of god with D&C 130:22: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."  The D&C has a ton of scriptural references to the nature and makeup of deity and they should be referenced. Bytebear 00:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally try to avoid scripture references, since many religions interpret them differently. IMO the best sources would be church manuals, general conference talks, the Ensign, etc. --Lethargy 02:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godhead 

message: In the name of trimming down this article, I have removed several paragraphs from the article which I consider too in-depth for an overview article such as this one. The largest removal was the last four paragraphs of "The Godhead" which you can find here. The other removal was the first two paragraphs from the Missionary program section.
Since we are trying to shorten this article, I may have more removals to post later. --Lethargy 23:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed info