Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 6

message: There's a lot of articles about people in the Book of Mormon that little is known about and are mentioned in only one or two verses.  I don't think these deserve their own article.  Couldn't we just merge these (and create a space for other people in the Book of Mormon) into Various Book of Mormon people or an article with a similar name? Antley 00:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Book of Mormon People

message: I hope no one is upset, but I have created some "shortcuts" to these pages (I really get tired of typing such a long name):  
wikipedia:lds - project page
wikipedia talk:lds - talk
wikipedia:lds/polls - polls
wikipedia:lds/requested stubs - stubs
wikipedia:lds/articles needed - articles needed
- Moogle 08:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well.  I have created the corresponding wp: title articles for those above now as well, and have created some others as part of organizing the Articles in Progress section of the project page. – moogle  03:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: As noted above, I have created pages related to the Articles in Progress section, I was thinking it could be much like the Wikipedia:Community_Portal#Things you can do, but I have come here to seek your approval first.  They are /Articles to Expand wp:lds/expand, /Articles for Peer Review wp:lds/review, and /Articles to Cleanup wp:lds/cleanup.  – moogle  04:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also 

message: While starting a discussion on the Talk:Nephi (disambiguation) page, it occured to me that we should have a page that traces the caretakers of the plates in the Book of Mormon.  By this, I mean those from Nephi to Moroni who took care of the Brass Plates and other associated records.  I'm willing to research enough to do this page, but I want to make sure that such a page (or such information) isn't already present.  I figured that this would be the best place to ask. Val42 18:25, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
:I'm unaware of an article directly related to that topic.  This link - List of articles about Mormonism is a good place to start looking.  But (confession time) I for one am not very good at updating this list when I create a new article, so there may be more Mormon related articles out there.  Sounds worthwhile, but you could also do a section on being "caretaker of the plates" in each of the prophets' articles -- and maybe make a BofM sub-category specifically for them.  I would have no preference.  WBardwin 21:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Caretakers of the plates

message: I would like to propose that someone start a WikiPortal about the LDS movement. Portals are a great way to get readers involved in a subject. Please contact me if you are interested. — —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  Recent work on Portal:Utah has made a nice intro to the state.  WBardwin 20:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: LDS WikiPortal?

message: I have just recently had some excellent discussion on the Christianity page regarding the LDS church/people being non-Christian.  Many groups accuse various groups/church of being non-Christian for denying what they suppose are gospel "essentials".  These "essentials" descend from the Creeds and councils of the historical/traditional Christian churches.  Given that the LDS movement is part of the restorationist movement, the "essentials" have no meaning.  In reality, we view them as the doctrines created by man; Christ was a bit more blunt than this in the First Vision.
I would like to propose that on all articles related to the LDS Movement, in particular, and Restorationists generally, that we clarify that when restorationists groups are accused of being non-Christian they are being accused of not being part of the historical or traditional Christian churches.  
None of the historic Christian chruches has been set up as an aribtor of defining "Christian", but they most certainly can say that Restorationists are not part of their branch of Christianty.  Is this something the group can support or am I violating some tenant of WIKI?  Storm Rider 06:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  Your reasoning is generally good here, and I think a carefully worded couple of sentences would be helpful.  But, I'm afraid the average Protestant editor/reader is not well informed enough to understand the historical distinction.  Sadly, religious history is not very well taught and/or understood, in America at least.  Be glad to help.  WBardwin 19:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Will support. May want to get User:Wesley's thoughts as well. -Visorstuff 21:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Christian 

message: User:Dr U has created this article on the family connections of Joseph Smith and other early Mormons as part of a series dealing with prominent political families in the United States.  He does not believe it will be very "religious" in its approach or perspective.  I would suggest each of us look it over.  See also Udall family, Cannon Family.  He appears willing to listen and discuss ideas. WBardwin 04:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Smith family and Richards family were also created. I think one of the failures is that this only goes back into LDS history, and not American History. If it did, most of these families would tie into each other. Young, Cannon, Pratt and Smith were all relatives and could be connected farther back into American history, thus showing a much larger group. For example, many of the new visitors centers show a chart where Joseph Smith and George W. Bush are related via the Hogan line. Showing the larger family would show Smith and Young, Pratt and Udalls as all part of a great political machine who all desended from the mayflower group. To me this is much more impressive. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 17:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Smith Family]] 

message: Are the Angel Moroni statues currently resting on some temples public domain? This mainly applies to older temples. For instance, the Salt Lake temple was completed in 1890 or 1890-something if I remember right. Wouldn't Mahonri Young's statue of the Angel Moroni which is presently affixed to the Salt Lake temple and subsequent Moroni statues which are based off of this design be in the public domain? The SLC one is over 100 years old. Cookiecaper 04:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angel Moroni copyright question 

message: In a couple of places (Helaman, Ammon) I've referenced the LDS Book of Mormon index in disamibiguating BoM characters. I hope no one objects if I continue to do so. Otherwise we need either circumlocutions ("Nephi the Disciple", "Helaman, the son of Helaman") or somewhat arbitrary numbering (I've never heard or seen the name "Helaman II" used anywhere but here). I don't think the superscripted names, e.g., "Helaman²" are appropriate for article titles -- no one would ever search under those names -- but they are useful in a disambiguation article and it seems to me that the LDS index is a useful standard for their numbering. Unless someone objects (or beats me to it) I'll rework the Nephi and Mosiah disambiguation pages as well.--andersonpd 20:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not object to the link, but I think most readers would look for a identifier in the article and only a few would read the link to understand the distinction. Ideas for consideration/discussion:
*1) At one point we talked about making a list article of BofM people.  Basic information could be placed in a table with people listed in date sequence with basic information.  That could be a common reference for all BofM articles. 
*2) How about referring to all Book of Mormon characters with their patronymic (when known) and a description, i.e. Alma son of Alma, religious leader?  Precedent in BofM culture of origin.  
*3) The commonly used BofM dates would also be a way of setting one Nephi off from another.
WBardwin 02:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, many Book of Mormon commentaries and religion teachers at BYU/CES refer to Helaman as Helaman and Helaman II, as well as other figures. It is common - in the LDS educational system. That said, I'm excited to see what you come up with. -Visorstuff 17:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Not standardizing the references in the articles, just tying all the articles to the list for reference and context.  WBardwin 19:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Mormon Index use for disambiguation 

message: Missed you all.  Tom Haws 20:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi, everybody

message: Just did a quick rearranging of external links at Mormonism and Christianity, but I'd like a second opinion on whether all of the "anti-Mormon" links listed should be left. I did a quick check and all addressed the issue of Mormonism and Christianity in one way or another, but that's not exactly the issue, as there are hundreds of pages criticizing the LDS church. My concern is whether they offer something sufficiently unique or noteworthy enough that it adds to the article by their inclusion. I'm a little bit sleepy, so someone want to double check it for me? Thanks. Deadsalmon 02:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormonism and Christianity 

message: I've been back so short from holiday, and this is kind of off-topic, but I know this subject interests many of us here, so I'm inviting you all to take a look at my cute working model for article ratings using the  template.  Visit my user page or Reformed Egyptian. Maybe one of you could even make it look better.  :-P Tom Haws 06:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article ratings

message: Information about The Book of Mormon has been removed from both of these articles. It was taken from History of the Americas first and placed in Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact a while ago, but now people are removing it from there too. A non-WP:LDS editor has added something to the talk page of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact about this, and I believe that we need to start monitoring these articles and putting Book of Mormon things in there. What do you all think? Cookiecaper 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've watched the pages periodically, but didn't notice the deletion. Do you have the fancy script to find all mentions of the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormism references that we can update the List of articles about Mormonism with (or was that Cool Hand Luke)? We can then then divide up what articles need to be monitored and by whom to ensure thoughts are included. Each of us could take specialty areas of interest and experise to our backgrounds. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 22:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I don't have that script, I think it was Cool Hand Luke. I'd be willing to take a few articles though, so yeah, it'd be a good idea to run that again. Cookiecaper 00:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've replaced the excised Book of Mormon paragraph (citing the  talk page discussion) in History of the Americas.  I'll watch this one. WBardwin 07:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of the Americas]] / [[Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact]] 

message: The Spanish LDS area is in its infancy.  Needs a community.  I am working on the following at es.  Feel free to join me if you speak any Spanish.
* Fleshing out LDS articles.
* Starting WP:SUD project.
* Welcoming new LDS editors.
--Tom Haws 23:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish Wikipedia

message: I recently added a little to the Isaac Morley stub.  In regard to the related information in United Order, do we need to beef up that section or do we need a seperate article on the Morley Family/Rigdon commune?  Many of Rigdon's people (about 3000?) joined the church and quite a few were involved in these Ohio utopian experiments.  WBardwin 03:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's time to address it on its own, but for now, as part of an existing article. Jsut my 2 cents. -Visorstuff 20:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Order/Isaac Morley 

message: I have been too lazy/busy/cheap to get an LDS Church Almanac, but I'd like to prepare a historical graph of membership trends for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Does anybody have a table of membership numbers from 1830 to now in at least 10 year increments (and preferably annual) they could give me?  Tom Haws 19:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS Church Membership history 

message: I'd like to try to clean up and improve the pages about the story of the fiery furnace. The story of the fiery furnance has a lot of importance in the Jewish and Christian traditions, and had has a lot of cultural impact; Wikipedia ought to have better information about it. I've started by poking at the pages and suggesting some merges; I'm not sure what if any importance the story has in the LDS movement, but I'd appreciate any help from project members on whatever relating to this subject,  specifically to help avoid sectarian bias in the articles and include a lot of solid information about many perspectives. Please leave any comments on the talk page of fiery furnace. Thanks! -- Tetraminoe 14:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiery Furnace 

message: A new editor, Wandering Scribe, just created this article.  It has been (somewhat hurriedly, I think) tagged AFD.  Please express your preference and opinion.  WBardwin 02:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Faith-promoting history (LDS)]] 

message: I saw several Temple articles, and decided to make a thorough List article which is linked to from the Temple (Mormonism) article.  Someone has it up for deletion now.  Do you think that this list should exist? Bhludzin 03:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what value it has outside of being a list that exists on the LDS.org page as well. For it to stay it will need to add some value. If you make some proposals for it to change and be more valuable, different and in some way unique from the listing on LDS.org, then it should stay. Look forward to a response. -Visorstuff 06:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I copied material here from the comments section for expanded discussion.  I have no opinion, really, on the list article.  But for Wiki purposes, a link to existing LDS.org page on each temple related article seems adequate.  However, a history of LDS temples/temple building (the historian in me emerges yet again), with temples listed and discussed by date and architectural style, etc., could be a useful tool and would tie to existing one temple articles.  The relevant section on Temple (Mormonism) could be broken out and expanded into an independent article.  Comments?  WBardwin 08:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] 

message: We have had a very stubborn editor on this article in the last week, persisting in placing the same POV information into the article.  I've left a number of messages and he's now coming  to the talk page.  Unfortunately, the reverting is moving toward an edit war and I should back off.  If some others have time to watch and chime in, perhaps we can get the editor to do a little reading and express his POV a little more effectively.  Thank you.  WBardwin 04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mountain Meadows Massacre]] 

message: Maybe we need something like a welcoming committee. Visorstuff mentioned that we need to work our newbie-welcoming skills in some extra-Wiki communication and I agree; in fact, I was thinking about it earlier that day. So I think maybe we should form an official welcoming committee or message or something to help new members to the project and/or something to help both anonymous and registered editors that obliviously change articles relevant to WP:LDS. I recently joined Esperanza (click the green e in my name) and received a rather friendly form message on my talk page containing salutations and tips for getting involved with and remaining active in the project. This might be a good thing for us.
Similarly, maybe we need some guidelines about how we handle anonymous editors. For instance, as long as an edit isn't blatant vandalism, I try to preserve some part of it, even if I have to rewrite the whole thing. This shows anonymous editors that their help is welcome and necessary. I've noticed that many good faith edits are completely reverted sometimes with unfriendly edit summaries. We should do something about that too.
What do you all say? cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 07:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as you know, I am not around a lot anymore.  But I consider this (welcoming anonymous editors personally and cheerfully) one of my main guiding principles here.  I am very please with what you are suggesting.  There is nothing as warm as an extemporaneously typed personal greeting of thanks and welcome.  Tom Haws 16:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it too.  I may create an LDSWelcomeShort just shortening it a bit unless all think we could shorten LDSWelcome itself?  Tom Haws 22:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm yes that's a good template. I'll work on the derivatives over the next few days. We also need a welcome message for new project participants. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 01:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been dormant a long time.  My work with JWHA has taken precedence, but I was saddened by the extensive and (in my opinion) poor edits to the Danite article.  It's apparently a vigorous newbie, but the person seems to be more of an LDS apologist than a neutral historian. --John Hamer 03:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcoming new participants / handling anonymous and well-intentioned but oblivious editors 

message: Been looking over some of the articles covered by this project and thought that it may be a good idea if somebody goes over them to do a little non-content related cleanup; namely, fixing grammar/spelling, spacing, other format issues, and toning down (or possibly adding) any excessive wikilinks. Additionally, the external links could use a little bit of maintenance, just to sort out the most relevant. I'd be glad to start on the first one, as long as there's no objections. The second could be a little controversial at times, so it may be good to first make a list of the articles to be reviewed so that others can be involved in deciding what's to stay. I've already made a post to this effect at Latter Day Saint before realizing that its something that may be of interest to the community, by the way. At any rate, advice and ideas are welcome, as always. Deadsalmon 05:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first idea looks fine, but there's plenty to do as it is, so you might be the only one to do that for a while. Adding more wikilinks would be fine, but getting rid of them... well... why would we want to??? What's the point or getting rid of references? --Trevdna 22:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because if something is Wikilinked more than once it's annoying, or something. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cookie's right, it's quite irritating to read an article that has a link every two or three words.The Scurvy Eye 00:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly. See WP:MOS for more on that one. Keep in mind that they are there to assist in the perusal of the encyclopedia. I'd aim to follow two general guidelines — first, generally keeping each unique link to one mention per article (for example, only linking the word "temples" once, rather than every time it shows up), and second, keeping it relevant. It's really not useful to link every word in an article, of course; just the relevant ones to the topic at hand. Keeps it uncluttered and prevents the useful links from being lost in a sea of random content. Deadsalmon 06:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting / Links 

message: Is this project really about the Latter-Day Saint movement or is it really about the LDS church? I thought it was about the movement, but the "default"/"normally"/"usually" "Smith followers believe X" type of statements on WP are always really talking about the Utah/Brighamite church's view. I didn't join this project to help polish up articles on LDS-specific doctrine(s) and that seems to be the main focus here, which now has me confused ... --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  21:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If only by statistics, it is more likely that the majority of people interested in LDS movement topics on Wiki will be Brighamite, whether actively involved in the church or not.  We also are lucky enough to have project members who belong to the smaller denominations (like you) or who are interested in religious history.  We have some very active and productive members who focus on the very early history of the movement, particular historic events,  biographies of early leaders, or early doctrines - all prior to the schism after Joseph Smith's death.  There is so much work to do in all areas, but Wiki is particularly weak on events, people and history of the various denominations after the major schism.  So, what did you join to do?  What are you interested in?  Narrow it down and work on that.  Best wishes.  WBardwin 00:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, Nerd42.  Yes, we definitely desire for it to be an LDS movement project.  One of the greatest values you could provide would be to bring to our collective attention any areas that are problematic as you describe.  We would consider such problems violations of the NPOV policy, with the reservation of course that the preponderance of Brighamite size is sometimes a consideration.  Tom Haws 15:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion about the project 

message: I was just on the LDS.org web site to see what their usage rights are on their news media section of the web site. Has anyone tried contacting them to see if they would release some of the images for Wiki to use? Sue Anne 23:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS Temples Pictures 

message: Whenever I've completed a task (mostly peer review), I will remove it from the list, to end excess clutter. I've done it with about three peer reviews so far, and moved one article from expand to peer review. However, I noticed that some will cross out the item from the list, so it is understood that it once had that task done, but is now completed. Does anyone have any thoughts or opinion on this? I would just as soon continue to delete the items from the lists, but if anyone minds, I could cross them off as well. Please respond. --Trevdna 03:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think we should just cross them out untill the page gets too cluttered.  I like to have a record of what's been done (just my opinion).-The Scurvy Eye 04:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sometimes I ask for peer review while the article is in process, so that another pair of eyes and another POV can  review the material.  After all, in Wiki World, what is ever finished?  So -- I would vote for crossing through rather than deleting. WBardwin 08:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interests of minimizing clutter, how about removing a crossout after three months? If someone decides any significant changes need to be made in that period, they can remove the crossout, and it's not like it can't be added to the list again after deletion. I'm worried that if we let the page keep building and building, we'll have an overwhelming amount of articles that need work on our hands. Like WBardwin just mentioned, given the constantly changing nature of wiki, removals are anything but permanent — this'd just be a convenience. Deadsalmon 03:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... there's a poll page we could go to with the 3 month thing (but it's inactive). At any rate, I'll cross out the tasks I'm completed with. Should I add back in the ones I'm done with (James E. FaustJohn Whitmer Historical Association (from peer review) and Emma Hale Smith (from collaborate/expand)? --Trevdna 15:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the time being, I'd think that it's your call — if you think it would benefit from further review, leave them in for a while. I'm going to go take a crack at setting the poll up. Deadsalmon 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When I'm done with a task... 

message: Today, I rewrote the introduction for Latter Day Saint movement with the purpose being so that new Wikipedia readers didn't think that it was an article about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Similar comments have been made by new readers about the Mormonism article, but I don't see an easy way to do it.  Val42 05:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mormonism should probably say that, for example, Mother (Lucy Mack) Smith accepted and used the term Mormonism around 1845, though it has since come to imply  things that many of the LDS movement branches would rather not claim.  Therefore historically the roots of the movement are called Mormonism, but currently only the Brighamite brand is called Mormonism.  Tom Haws 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tom, but only to a point. Strangites definitely call themselves Mormons, and Strangites are definitely not Brighamite. Rather I'd consider the Strangites and Brighamites both Mormon, and some independant branches. Rather, Mormonism is the culture and doctrine of the LDS Movement, even pre-1844. However, the culture has diverged into smaller groups (and can be found in CoC, restoration branches, etc.), but Mormonism branches hold many similar things in common which include (for the most part): Respect for priesthood authority or hierarchy (for the most part; and this is not typically found in restorationism movement or protestantism), belief in revelation to a prophet, belief in Joseph smith as a prophet, and so on. Then their is the culture - the rites of passage of priesthood ordinations (moving up the ranks) sometimes based on age, the belief in zion, temple worship, conservativism (for the most part) especially in dress and standards, etc., etc., etc. In addition, when John Taylor used the term to announce the death of Smith, he used the term Mormonism, so it could be argued that it consisted of everyone who did not believe that Smith was an apostate prophet at his death (which would allow for the bickertonites, etc to go either way, but keep CoC as part of mormonism). Just my two cents. BTW, I'm not all the way back yet. -Visorstuff 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's certainly a problem.  While I agree that my friends in the Community of Christ, the Restoration branch movement, and the Remnant church have utterly rejected the term "Mormon" (as far back as the late 19th century when "Mormon" became synonymous with Brigham Young and polygamy), it is still the well-known general term for the movement.  People in the tradition of the Reorganization often use the unique (unknown) term "Latter Day Saintism" --- but I can point out that my friends in the Bickertonite church reject the term "Latter Day Saint."  They call it the "Restoration" movement.  However, "Restoration" is already used by the larger Campellite, Disciples of Christ movement.  Mormons (including Reorganite Mormons) have had this problem since 1830.  "Church of Christ" doesn't work as a brand name because it's too vague.  And the solution of CoJCoLDS or RCoJCoLDS is too long for people to master.  That's why "Mormonism" remains the general term. --John Hamer 04:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormonism for new readers

message: The Japanese Wikipedia is very limited in LDS articles, so I have started an unofficial project to translate into Japanese.  I have started a blog to give a list of resources and needed articles.  Please visit my blog if you are interested.  --Gandalf 04:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very interested in this, as I would like to accomplish the same thing in Spanish, and it seems an uphill battle.  I would like to share war stories.  Tom Haws 18:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How would you describe the state of the Japanese Wikiproject LDS?  I notice you haven't added an interwiki link to the project page.  Could you do that? You can see how there is a espanol link to the Spanish WP:LDS.  Tom Haws 20:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no project page for LDS in Japanese yet.  I started an unofficial page here that has some resources and a list of articles to translate, but that's all I've done so far.  I still have not been able to recruit anyone.  There is a Christianity project page in Japanese found here. --Gandalf 16:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Wikipedia languages 

message: I started [/wiki/Template:LDS Template:LDS], which I made to be akin to [/wiki/Template:Christianity Template:Christianity] or [/wiki/Template:Judaism Template:Judaism]. Do whatever with it -- I just thought it might be an idea. --Antley 03:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. It does a good job of being wide in application, rather than limited itself solely to the Brighamite church. Deadsalmon 08:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:LDS 

message: Please come help out @ mysticism / Talk:Mysticism. Another editor and I have been butting heads over some minor issues, and the article could really use some outside input. Please come lend a hand! Sam Spade Sam Spade 19:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Or maybe it could use some inside output!...--Blainster 17:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling all mystics! 

message: The Joseph Smith article is gained some new editors, but they have a decidely negative POV.  I am focusing my efforts elsewhere at the moment and additional editors are needed to ensure NPOV edits are made and edits are properly referenced.  Also, the article has a mish-mash of references and footnotes.  Someone with more experience could really help improve the article by looking at this area.  Your assitance would be appreciated.  Storm Rider 07:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Assistance on Joseph Smith article

message: This comment by an anonymous user has pointed out another problem with the Mormonism article.  I'm going to rewrite the article, keeping only the information that I think is relevant to a pared down article with links to those denominations that are considered Mormon.  If someone thinks that there should be an article about beliefs held by the church founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. before his death (and many permanent schisms), then feel free to create such an article.  I'll put this comment on the Talk:Mormonism page. Val42 20:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructure of article relationships

message: Had an idea that I wanted some input on... anybody who takes the time to read this talk page is familiar with the tendency on some LDS-related pages to generate a good amount of controversy. Conflict can be good when building a better page, but some of it tends to wander into religious debates. On top of that, a number of newer users and editors misunderstand the purpose of talk pages as a forum to ask questions. While neither are "wrong", per se, it can clutter the talk pages and make it harder to pick out other issues and concerns. So, to address that, I've been bouncing around the idea of creating a template we could stick at the top of some of the more controversial talk pages that could, for example, have a link to the Reference Desk for users asking questions, and a suggestion to take debates to user talk pages. How does the idea go over with some of y'all? Tijuana Brass 20:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds okay in principle.  Let's see an example. 67.106.48.106 05:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of backing away from this one... on second thought, it kind of adds clutter to the page. Individual responses are easy and more helpful in any case. Tijuana Brass 17:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New talk page template 

message: Although I realize that the Salt Lake Temple is one of the most recognizable images attached to Mormonism, I'm a little concerned about its use in our info box.  Since this is for the entire movement -- how about a picture of the more universal Kirtland or Nauvoo temple instead?  Other ideas?  WBardwin 03:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: { {LDS} } Info Box 

message: Novel-Technology and Storm Rider have begun what may be a long-overdue revision of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article to tighten it up some. Given the size of the project, it'd be great to have as many interested editors as possible join in. Tijuana Brass 17:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling all editors... 

message: The following categories have been targeted for deletion or movement by User:Bhoeble.  Please express your opinions ASAP.  Thank you.  WBardwin 08:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Link to the votes. Tijuana Brass 09:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 17 | Attention:  Categories up for deletion or movement]] 

message: I wasn't sure exactly where to put this, but I figured this would cover all of them at once. In my opinion, the External Links section on many of the individual temple pages (see: Halifax Nova Scotia Temple. 
The external links section should be about items specifically related to that temple, not a list of general "Mormon temple" links. Those belong on the Temple (Mormonism). My plan is to go through and prune these list of links heavily. Sue Anne 04:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links on Temple Pages 

message: I added the following note to the Cleanup, Peer review, etc. sections: Please add new entries to the bottom; don't forget to sign and date them. Entries older than three months may be removed. Thank you. I also removed all entries which were added prior to 2006. The page is becoming filled with entries which have long been forgotten; too many articles are going to divide efforts beyond our capacity. Should anybody disagree with either of these changes, let me know — and if I've deleted an article you would still like help with, please replace it and date it so we'll know that it's fresh. I'd also suggest helping out with a new article — cleaning up, POV checking, wikifying, whatever — for every one that you add, so that we'll keep this list from growing so long again. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 08:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project page cleanup 

message: In the article about Polaris, the pole star, there is a new section In religion.  The second bullet seems correct (what Joseph Smith said, not the folk doctrine), but it needs to be cited.  Could someone provide such a citation? Val42 00:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polaris

message: Did anyone else notice that recently (it hadn't changed as of June 22) they changed this site to be more international- by adding the language to the url. So http://scriptures.lds.org/john/3/16 becomes http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/3/16. The good news is that the existing links still work. However, we should probably update overtime to include the "/en/" when editing an article. 
The new searching capability seems much better too btw. --Trödel 19:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't we have a template for this?  Wouldn't updating the template take care of this problem? Val42 23:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only template I know of is  which links to wikisource not lds.org --Trödel 00:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to http://scriptures.lds.org 

message: I was reading the article on atonement and was a bit embarrassed to see so much space devoted to the LDS view (it's about half of the entire article!).  Can a more regular editor take a peek and see if they think it needs some editing too?  --RobertC 07:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atonement article review 

message: I welcome and encourage contributors to this project to help expand Bible study (Christian). This article suffers from a lack of relevent view points, and a lack of information in general. Any help would be appreicated. Good luck, and thanks!--Andrew c 14:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible study 

message: Project members may want to participate in the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 08:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: BRMo is looking for help on getting this article up to featured status in time for the 150th anniversary of the rescue this October. Everyone is welcome (perhaps begged?) to. Please see the talk page and peer review to find or add ways of improving the article. --Lethargy 07:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration: [[Mormon handcart pioneers]] to FA status for 150th anniversary