Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 12

message: I'm just curious, why isn't this article a candidate for Feature Article? It lists most and many sources, highly informative, and provides a very balanced view of this Church. If anyone should nominate this article (even for Good Article) I shall support it. Ladybug413
:I don't think it's ready yet, though it's making very good progress. It's been a goal of mine (and I'm sure a lot of us) to get this one featured, but it's a difficult task because so much material has to be covered so succinctly. To be FA quality, I think it needs to essentially be a guide, in WP:Summary style, that would provide the reader with a path to find any of the hundreds of LDS-related articles. Maybe not always a direct path, but a clearly-defined one. COGDEN 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it isn't ready yet, has too much detail, has duplicate coverage of some information, ... --Trödel 01:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is my first time on wiki and this has been a favored topic of mine for a while.  If there are any needs for references, I have several older texts published by the Church that might help with establishing facts to help bring these pages up to par.  Just let me know what is needed. Oh, and forgive me if I bludgeon this entry. Garnster 04:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article

message: I think saying missionaries are "paid" is technically accurate, but not the intent of the church.  It was changed to balance the burden of families, and families and individuals do still pay their own way, but through the fund.  Maybe some history of how it was done prior to the general fund needs to be explained, because when I went on my mission (to one of the most expensive missions), decades ago, I had to pay my own way. Bytebear 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's more accurate that they are given a "stipend" to cover basic expenses. If they were truly paid, there would be tax withholding issues, etc. A simple test would be whether in the United States the IRS considers the MSF money missionaries receive as taxable wages, which it does not. In addition, the money given by missionaries' family members to the missionary fund is not tax-deductable in the United States. If you claim that as a deduction and then get audited, you'll get nailed. --TrustTruth 19:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, one of the main reasons for the change in funding was so that money donated to missionaries would be tax-deductible. Technically, to be tax deductible, money for missionaries has to be given to the church as a charitable donation with no strings attached, and the missionaries have to be paid direcly by the church without regard to who donated. Also, under U.S. tax law, certain payments by a tax-exempt organization to full-time clergy (like Catholic priests, etc.) are completely tax-free. Anyone who donated to the missionary fund should take the deduction. COGDEN 18:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to get into an argument over this, but it's not so clear-cut. Publication 526 spells out the specifics.  There is even a specific example for a "son [doing] missionary work" as a disallowed deduction. Basically there is an issue with the family contribution to the general fund still being tied to the individual missionary. You could make the argument for deducting the difference between what you pay and what a mission in, say, Chile, really costs every month. In general, as much as I love tax deductions, I would not risk taking this one. But not everyone gets audited! (I am a CPA but not a tax expert.) --TrustTruth 20:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember this issue coming up during a Bishopric meeting when I was Exec Sec and one of the counselors had a missionary in the field.  At one point, it was customary for people (especially parents) to indicate on the donation slip which missionary they were donating money for.  The ward clerk kept track of how much was donated for each missionary against their costs.  This was changed, however for the above mentioned tax purposes.  The way it works now (or did a couple of years ago) is that people donate to the missionary fund.  If they donate to the general fund, the money goes to Salt Lake, but if they donate to the local fund, it is kept by the unit.  Each month, Salt Lake deducts a fixed amount, based on how many missionaries are in the field, from the unit's account.  If the account is short or if it has an excess doesn't matter.  The missionary gets their living expenses each month regardless.  Each unit tries to raise enough money to support their missionaries, but if they can't, it doesn't make a difference. wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's true then I stand corrected. --TrustTruth 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The change was made because of Davis v. United States, , which incidentally needs an article created for it. -- 12.106.111.10 23:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely stand corrected. As I don't have the expertise to start that article, I added it to the requested articles list. --TrustTruth 23:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's actually a growing list of LDS related law articles that don't yet exist found at :Category talk:Law related to Mormonism -- 12.106.111.10 00:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree that we should look at the practical results and how those doing the missionary work itself view the issue, as opposed to viewing it from technical legal or accounting viewpoints. Do Mormon missionaries think or feel like they are getting paid? From my understanding, they typically feel like they are using their own money, the money of a family member, or the money of friends who have agreed to fund the mission—and this money is certainly going somewhere. Most missionaries would vehemently deny being paid for their work, I would guess. Maybe what the missionaries think isn't 100% legally accurate, but sometimes perception is more important than pedantic accuracy. And I say this even though I am in employment that requires pedantic accuracy. -SESmith 03:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a recently returned missionary, I can state that myself and my missionary associates certainly did not feel that we were getting paid. The money we received was around $5 per day, which doesn't go very far in the UK! I know that's not a legal argument, but for me, that was my money - I had saved for years to go on a mission. I'm sure that's what 99% of missionaries think. Kristmace 01:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missionary Fund 

message: - Moved to Mmiarchi talk page(talk). All are welcome to join in! Some other interesting theological topics emerging as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmirarchi (talk • contribs).
: The discussion has moved to User talk:Rambler55. Bytebear 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Questions for Mormons 

message: The following entry should be re-evaluated...
"In common with other Restorationist churches, the church [LDS] believes in a Great Apostasy."
I’m assuming "other Restorationist churches" is referring to Christian denominations springing from Martin Luther's Protestant Reformation. This is biased and misleading. No evidence or source has been provided to suggest any Orthodox Christian denomination believes in a "Great Apostasy". Much less an "Apostasy" as defined by Mormonism. Mmirarchi 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin Luther was not a Restorationist, but a Reformist. You might want to look at the article Restorationism to gain a better understanding of the term.  In the context it is applied to the LDS movement, it is accurate. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. --Masamage ♫ 20:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ThirdJcg5029 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WORD CHANGE NEEDED 

message: According to this summary, the LDS Church never officially supported Prohibition. I have heard it said that president of the church Heber J. Grant asked Latter-day Saints to vote against the repeal of Prohibition in 1933. See here.
Our article listed "support of Prohibition" as one of the political issues the church has become involved in, along with opposing MX Missile bases, ERA, same-sex marriage, etc. However, unlike these issues, I can find no official statement from the first presidency, quorum of the twelve, or "the church" on the issue. All I can find are reports about Grant's pleadings with the members.
I've removed support of Prohibition from this list and thought I should open this one up for commenting or discussion of references. -SESmith 03:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice catch. I often wondered why I had never heard about that. --Masamage ♫ 06:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's fair to say that LDS church officially supported opposed the repeal of Prohibition. President Grant made repeated appeals to the church, including statements by him and other general authorities at the April 1833 General Conference, not to adopt the amendment, as did the church magazines and publications. It kind of depends on what you call "official". If the the church actively participated in the campaign, even unofficially or under the radar, I think that counts as an act "by the church". When the Prophet speaks, isn't it supposed to be church policy? Back in the Brigham Young days, it certainly didn't take a signed statement from one of the quorums to set church political policy. When he spoke, the legislature acted and people voted. It's fair to say, for example, that the church supported the vote for women's suffrage in Utah, even though there isn't a signed proclamation from the First Presidency. Same with a 1968 vote to loosen Utah's liquor laws. I don't think there was a signed pronouncement there, either, but there was lots of political activity. COGDEN 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that on the issue of enacting Prohibition in the first place, it might be a differrent story, since apostle-senator Reed Smoot opposed Prohibition, and he convinced Joseph F. Smith to keep a low profile on the issue. COGDEN 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not speak for COgden, but I concur with him in this situation.  Sesmith, I think your standard for "official" position may be unrealistic when applied to the LDS church. As a church they take few "offical" positions in society at large.  The LDS church has taught actively that strict compliance to the Word of Wisdom is requisite for active members to be in good standing. Is this support for Prohibition or did it support Prohibtion? I find it difficult to think that it did not. Grant was not subtle; rather, he was emphatic that drinking was evil. Official support by the LDS church may not require a signed proclamation to have an impact; gambling and playing poker are good examples of when a prophet speaks, saints listen. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that and I'm not doubting the perceived past position of the church—I think it's fairly indisputable. But again, there have been official statements from the church on gambling, so the comparison between the two is inexact. Also, you can sell alcohol and not run afoul of the Word of Wisdom, whereas this would run afoul prohibition. To me, the only question is whether supporting prohibition should be listed in the same category of those political issues for which the church has taken an "official" position by releasing a statement, such as ERA, MX missiles, same-sex marriage, etc. If yes, we need a fairly solid reference which can refer readers to the facts which you cite—Grant being repeatedly emphatic about it, etc. -SESmith 21:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church "support" of Prohibition 

message: The ":Template:Mormon_denomination_tree" (pictured above) has been removed by an editor, who has commented that it is an "ugly and misleading graphic". It previously was a the very bottom of the article.
Should this article have the Mormon denomination tree?—What does everyone think? -SESmith 01:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On my browser, the tree is ugly and is hard to read as the information overlaps.  As it contains only the major schisms in a very small format, it has a high probablity of misleading the reader.  I would suggest a new more comprehensive tree be created as part of a distinct article on the "LDS family" of religious organizations.  Then that article could be linked to all appropriate articles.  WBardwin 01:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm intrigued by this "high probability of misleading". What is the concern here? -SESmith 06:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than the emergence of the Fundamentalist Church(es), this chart only illustrates the major schism(s) at the time of JSmith's death.  That is not historically accurate.  The first small schism occurred some years earlier in Kirtland, Ohio.  Then came the breakup of the larger body of the church in the pressure cooker of Missouri and Nauvoo at the prophet's death.  A few other small groups broke off in the months after the death, many of which died out or were later absorbed into the larger schisms.  The Utah Brighamites also had their share of small splinter groups during the early years before the issue of polygamy triggered the emergence of the Fundamentalists.  So this chart (which truly needs cleanup -- about a dozen words overlap on my browzer) presents a simplified picture of a complicated religious history by focusing on one narrow historic period.  I believe that misleads the uninformed reader.  In addition, the chart's horizontal scale -- focusing on decades of "time" -- is really unnecessary for the information contained in the present chart.  So, I suggest that we make a bigger chart -- or make several showing the actual time frame(s) of the various schisms.  These charts could be a real asset in a new article dealing with this important topic in the LDS movement's history.  The origin of the various schisms is also relevant to the present relationships between the churches, which would also be a good topic to present in the proposed article.  Does such an article make sense to anyone?  Comments?  WBardwin 07:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't find a chart that presents only major denominations resulting from schisms in a church to be "misleading". Overly-simplified for the savvy reader, perhaps, but hardly "misleading". This chart clearly (depending on your browser) presents when the 4 or 5 largest Latter Day Saint denominations emerged. I do understand the general concerns with the ugliness of the chart, its format, lack of comprehensive details etc., but would agree with WBardwin's suggestion that—like most things in WP—those who have a problem with it should replace it with something better. Like TimVickers, to me this seems like a better option than just rejecting it outright because it doesn't meet a higher level of detail or aesthetics. -SESmith 22:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, I also find WBardwin's suggestion for an article on the history of the Latter Day Saint schisms to be a great one. -SESmith 22:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the interest -- I'm copying this discussion to the talk page associated with Category:Latter Day Saint denominations - which could be a title for the proposed article.  Let's talk/outline the article there.  I think there are a few minor schisms which aren't included in this category list.  Can anyone add to the list?  WBardwin 17:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I, too, find the template visually unappealing.  At a minimum, the colors should be toned down.  Having less colors would probably help also.  The layout seems flawed as well.  The title line doesn't line up, and the origins of the branches are difficult to determine.  IMHO, a vertical text list with dates, name, and founder would take less space and be easier to understand. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 03:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion -- in terms of visual appeal, my browser really "loves" the {/{buddhism}/} template.  Good color and clear distinctions in spacing and written material.  WBardwin 20:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormon denomination tree

message: Well, I am not trying to be a pain or anything but I have not noticed much critisism in this article. Without one the article is not as informative as it could be and it also is not as balanced as it could be. So I do not cause a dispute or anything i am wondering if you would have a problem with me starting a small critisism section for this article? Thanks. Have a nice week and God bless:)--James, La gloria è a dio 07:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your interest in the article.  It is just one of many dealing with the complicated issues relating to the Latter Day Saint movement and focuses solely on the current organization, structure, worship, and operations of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Other existing acticles, including Anti-Mormonism and Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may provide the more balanced perspective you are proposing.  You might want to look them over.  However, please feel welcome to bring your ideas and concerns to this talk page as well.  With the length of this page, regular editors like to review and discuss material before adding it to the article.  Best wishes.  WBardwin 07:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what I was thinking was adding a small section with the critisism of the LDS, and then have links to the to articles with critisism in it. Peace:)--James, La gloria è a dio 07:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another article to look over -- Criticism of Mormonism -- it is linked on the page as well.  An outline here for discussion would be helpful.  Best.......WBardwin 07:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay. Great. Thanks a lot:) God bless.--James, La gloria è a dio 07:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I'm going to make the section latter today. I'll place it here and allow people to comment and make suggestions. Peace:)--James, La gloria è a dio 09:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to add that there was previously a criticism section but it became so unwieldy that there was general consensus to just reference a sister article. The problem is that it is very difficult to distill the criticisms of the church into a succinct paragraph or two. Good luck. --TrustTruth 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: "denomination" can be a problematic word because "denominationalism" assumes a certain parity and near-interchangeability between denominations that some branches of Christianity reject.
Methodists, Presbyterians and Lutherans seem to accept the label "Christian denomination".  Catholic and Orthodox churches reject this label because they insist that they are the "true Church" and certainly not "just another Christian denomination".  Jehovah's Witnesses also reject the label for the same reason.
I would have thought that the LDS church would also reject the label for the same reason.  Perhaps I'm wrong?
--Richard 17:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good point, but I don't know what word the church uses to describe what we are looking for, "one of the groups claiming to be descended from the church originally formed by Joseph Smith".  Does someone know and can provide a reference? Val42 17:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have spent some time this afternoon and within the LDS church there is not a clear preference; nothing remotely similar to the conflict that some feel about the term "denomination". Interestingly, the Joseph Smith story talks about other denominations and their apostasy. One may interpert an aversion from this to the term, but it would be an interpretation. Several reference books seem to skirt the issue.  Deonmination is often the equivalent of sect and both are used interchangably.  Richard, I do find it unusual that Mormonism has not echoed in a more definitive manner the same issues that Catholicism feels about the term. Both are equally adament on being the Church of Jesus Christ. Really good topic to explore further. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS as a denomination? 

message: The word "legally" was inserted into the sentence "Joseph Smith legally formed the church".
I assume that this is not intended in contradistinction to "illegally forming the church" so the natural presumption is that it is meant to distinguish between activities prior to the formation of the church as a legal entity.  This seems to be an unnecessary distinction unless there was a formal document like "articles of incorporation" that Smith filed and, even then, I don't see why this is that important.  It would seem to me that legalities like incorporating a church are minor details in the history of the church.  Given that there are no significant hurdles to forming a church as a legal entity, it is pretty much just a formality and therefore not really worth nothing noting. 
: [ most spelling errors on Talk Pages are not worth fixing; this one was ;&) ] --Richard 21:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term legal in this instance probably is a poor choice. The restoration took place over several years. As a boy Joseph Smith had his first vision and is told to prepare himself. He does so and eventually is given the gold plates. In a very short time he translates a portion of the record into what we know today to be the Book of Mormon. Throughout this period there were many additional visions and manifestations. My choice of the word was to designate that a precise event took place, a culmination of his visionary mission. I was not attempting to indicate that legal documents were signed; however, I think that is the case, but I haven't confirmed it by reference. Thank you for reading; your efforts and work is much appreciated. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall that the church was formed using the minimum number of people to legally organize a church, according to local laws.  I agree that the phrase should state that he formed the church w/o any form of the word "legal". -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the language I recall, but I have gone to get a reference for it. IMHO, they functioned as a small group of believers, which I suspect one could call a church, but the church was formally founded in 1830.  --Storm Rider (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the word we are searching for is simply "formally" or "officially" or something in that vein? There were meetings of believers prior to 6 April 1830 but it was on that day that the church as an organization was formally established. Before that you could say a "church" existed in the sense of a group or gathering of believers, but it was all informal and without an officially accepted leadership, etc. -SESmith 02:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why use an adverb at all? "The church became a legal entity on April 6, 1830." --Masamage ♫ 02:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "legally formed the church"? 

message: I missed it, why were these taken out of the Beliefs section?  Thanks Novel-Technology 02:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are spread throughout other sections. Check the section on ordinances, for example. It made sense to discuss baptism and the confirmation together with other ordinances. Faith is discussed throughout the article. COGDEN 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faith, Repentence, Baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost 

message: I read somewhere on another talk page that the correct noun usage of "the Church" is as a proper noun, being that we are talking about a single entity.  Before I go through the article and capitalize "church" everywhere, I wanted some input from others. Bytebear 05:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to bring this up on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints).  There was considerable debate on capitalizing "The" - but I don't remember much discussion on Church vs church in general context.  Best wishes........WBardwin 06:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added a comment on that talk page, so if anyone has concern, please chime in there.  I would like to have the correct usage defined to avoid naming issues or concerns. Bytebear 06:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Church vs. The church 

message: I really can't see why this page has been removed from the Good Articles category.  I have read other articles on subjects with less passion from the wikipedia community which need much more improvement and are left as good articles.  I don't support bad articles getting the name of good articles, but what I am questioning is the reason and motive this article was removed from the Good Articles.  Was it simply because the article is about a church that some people very much disagree with?  Anyway food for thought!  I have read through the article a few times and feel the article deserves Good Article status.  Every article on wikipedia can always be bettered, even those with Good Article status. Redrok84 18:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Nomination 

message: The American Heritage Dictionary defines "restore" as "1. To bring back into existence or use; reestablish: restore law and order. 2. To bring back to an original condition: restore a building..."  Presumably, the article is not claiming that no one was following the teachings of Jesus before Joseph Smith came along. Consequently, the phrase "restored through" asserts that Smith's version removes distortions introduced by other Christian denominations. This is, to say the least, not a matter of universal agreement. If that's the position of the LDS Church, "allegedly restored" would be acceptable. But "as preached by" seems like a more polite way of removing the advocacy. [Please note: Though a resident of Salt Lake City, I am ethnic Jewish and find all Christian sects equally plausible or implausible.] Ribonucleic 21:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Someone must have slipped that in unnoticed recently. --TrustTruth 22:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Restored" is not NPOV 

message: did you guys check out the south park episode of mormons? Hilarious.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.74.80.112 (talk • contribs).
:See Portrayals of Mormons in popular media for more info on how that fits with other depictions of Mormons. -- 159.182.1.4 02:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: South park episode of mormons

message: Some editors are trying hard to, but there's really no point in playing out the "legally justified or not" arguments surrounding the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press on this page. I suggest Nauvoo Expositor might be a better place for that, or even perhaps Death of Joseph Smith, Jr. This article is long enough as it is ... a brief mention should more than suffice. –SESmith 05:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Some article should talk about it, but not this one. --Masamage ♫ 06:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nauvoo Expositor issue

message: I was just looking at the LDS movement template located at the bottom of the page.  Might I suggest that this great Latter Day Saint historical template be placed at the historical section of the article.  It almost appears hidden at the bottom of the page right now.  I think that since the template concerns early church history for this, and other, organizations it should be located in or around the historical section of the article.  What does everybody think???  Jcg5029 03:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it looks more like something that was designed to go at the bottom of an article page. Ubi Terrarum 10:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A history template away from the history section??  Below references??  May I suggest looking at the discussions which helped make this template be formed.  It used to be located on every Latter Day Saint movement site in the early portions on the right hand side.  A major reason why this template was formatted this new way was so it could be placed within an article at a relevant section.  Aka the history.  Jcg5029 20:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I more meant my statement to be a personal opinion as opposed to a guess as to the actual intention. The intention behind its creation doesn't change my perception of what it looks like. I just am of the personal opinion that it looks better at the bottom of an article, that's all. Ubi Terrarum 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I'm not a big fan of that template.  I recall a lot of complaints about the colors being too much.  That is why I prefer it at the bottom of the article (so I don't see it very often. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 21:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I do agree the Utah LDS specific green portion of the template jumps out pretty hard, but the LDS movement portion was toned down and (my thought) looks pretty nice right now.  Would a happy middle ground be separating the two?  Or is the other section also not appealing?  Jcg5029 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think they look like something a programmer came up with when they discovered how to specify color.  (I know, because I've done that! ;^)  Positioning two different kinds of strong green colors isn't my favorite color combination.  Try softer tones, maybe even pastels. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 21:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about earth tones? At the very least, drop the aqua. --TrustTruth 22:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A better idea: how about a little navigation box on the side, instead of a banner template that spans the entire width? We seem to do pretty well with little side navboxes for a lot of other stuff. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 22:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a sidebar template several months ago, and then got changed to the bottom bar.  I never liked the new version, but I think there is room for both, until consensus is met.  Bytebear 02:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sidebar, horizontal bar, bright, pastel—whatever it is, I just prefer to have it out of my way when I'm trying to read an article. On the side is fine, and so is at the bottom of the article. At the top of a section in the middle of an article—no. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS Template 

message: On the map that displays which political entities include LDS temples, the commonwealth of Virginia is colored with dark blue, implying that a temple exists in the state. As far as I know, there is no temple in Virginia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.28.34 (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed this now. SESmith 04:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend adding darker colors for states (or countries) with multiple temples. Bytebear (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Virginia Temple?

message: I think this entry may have been the victim of some vandalism.  Every abbreviation "LDS" is "LSD", even the references at the end.  I don't have the time to go through and change them all.  Just thought someone should know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.147.231 (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give the voluminous back-and-forth discussion that has occurred on this article since its inception, I strongly disagree with this assessment. Any user, Mormon, non-Mormon, whatever, is free to make edits to the article to fix any problems. This has been done in the past and nothing is preventing any user from doing this now. I was just reading the article today and admiring how far it has come at presenting the LDS church from a neutral point of view -- not pro, not against, just a neutral presentation of the facts (with some exceptions of course). In no way does this article warrant a neutrality tag. For these reasons, combined with the fact that the editor who added the tag appears to be a sockpuppet, I move that the tag be removed. --TrustTruth 19:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Does this video describe Mormonism correctly? If so, then it sure does it a lot better than this confusing and lengthy article and also provides some key points of Mormonism that this article does not. For example, it says that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, and God has multiple wives in which he has trillions of spirit-children or whatever they're called who rule other planets as gods. It also says that Mormons believe blacks to be those who remained neutral rather than take the side of Jesus (those who did became the white race) or Lucifer (those who did became demons) and thus were cursed with black skin.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.176.176 (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cartoon comes from the film The God Makers.  Read the article and decide for yourself.  It has been denounced by various anti-defamation organizations as "spiritual pornography". Bytebear (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not an accurate depiction.  It has a few details that are right, but most of it is incorrect and does not describe Mormon belief. Useight (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <I>"It has a few details that are right ... " </I> Would you care to point out the details that <I>are <U>not</U> right</I>? Duke53 | Talk 08:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There have been many rebuttals to the book and film.  There are references on the article.  Bytebear (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where, in Wikipedia, are these 'many rebuttals'? I read the article and can only find some general objections ... nothing rebutting most of the claims in the film, and those objections are not cited. Duke53 | Talk 04:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: <I>"We don't need to have a rebuttal on this stupid movie in wikipedia".</I> Oh, okay. But an editor said (<U><I><S>and this seems to have been changed in the version of this thread now being displayed on my screen</S></I></U>: <I>"It has a few details that are right, but most of it is incorrect and does not describe Mormon belief."</I> Wikipedia does not allow unsourced statements ... <I>cite</I>, cite, <B>cite</B> sources when you make such a declaration, right? Duke53 | Talk 05:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Duke53, you're right that statements need to be cited... if you're talking about statements made in article space that aren't completely uncontroversial. (An uncontroversial statement such as "Africa is a continent" can be left uncited, per common sense.)  Here on a talk page, an editor can offer their own opinions and editorial judgments related to the article, and they don't have to cite anyone else for support.  Assessing the reliability or relevance of a source, for example, is one of the main purposes of these talk pages, and one can say "this source is completely unreliable [or irrelevant] for reasons X, Y, and Z" without citations.  Of course, it does bolster one's arguments if one can show external sources that support what one is saying, but unless those statements are going to wind up in the article, there are no WP policies requiring them to be backed by citations.  Such matters are resolved through discussion, persuasion, and achieving consensus, and citations can help but aren't essential in all cases.  I hope this clarifies things. alanyst /talk/ 06:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor making a blanket statement on a talk page does not bolster his argument one iota ... <I>it is simply his opinion</i>; in fact, an argument could be made that such statements diminish an editor's argument. Duke53 | Talk 06:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to talk about it in a context not related to this article because Wikipedia is not a forum, but Mormons don't believe that God came down and had sex with Mary; nor believe that God has many wives, only one; nor believe that Joseph Smith did more for mankind than Jesus did.  There's three off the top of my head, I don't feel like watching the video again.  And I didn't make any blanket statements like "the video is completely wrong" or anything.  Useight (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: <I>"... <U>but most of it is incorrect</U> ..." </I> qualifies as a blanket statement, IMO. Duke53 | Talk 07:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: <I>"I don't think that you are seriously suggesting that I should have loaded The God Makers article with a bunch of strong pro-LDS rebuttals"</I>. I wasn't suggesting any such thing; all I asked for was an editor to back up claims he made <B>here</B> on this talk page. Duke53 | Talk 00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The God Makers article has several external links to various rebuttals.  You know where to look.  Bytebear (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue of Jesus and Lucifer being brothers is covered in Devil in Christianity fairly extensively.  The problem is, the doctrine isn't that "Jesus and Lucifer are brothers", but that all of the spirits of God are brothers and sisters.  Pointing out two of God's children and saying they are brothers is used in sensationalistic anti-Mormon rhetoric (like the film being discussed), but it does not fully explain the LDS belief.  Interestingly enough, the LDS Bible Dictionary does not touch on this relationship directly.  The article on Angels  does say "The scriptures speak of the devil’s angels. These are those spirits who followed Lucifer and were thrust out in the war in heaven and cast down to the earth" but does not speak of angels as children of God, although it is more clear in the entry "War in Heaven" which says "The conflict that took place in the premortal life among the spirit children of God", but the article on the Councel in heaven  does say "The occasion in premortal life when the Father presented his plan to his spirit children who would come to this earth."  So you can take all of these truths and conclude that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, but there is a lot more to it than just that.  I would be ok with saying something like "Mormons believe that all of God's children are spirit brother's and sisters, including Jesus and the rebellious angels", but that opens another can of worms, in that there is a subtle difference between "spirit brother" and "spiritual brother" as they mean two different things.  It also begs to explain the concept of the Godhead, and the role of Jesus Christ as the "First born of the Father" and the "only begotten of the Father in the flesh", again, two different concepts, as "first born" implies there was a second born, so LDS conclude this to mean first spirit child, and not "in the flesh".  So, adding this little tidbit of trivia opens up enough information to create an entire sub-article (or cover in existing articles).  I think it is not important enough to cover here, but should be, and is covered elsewhere. Bytebear (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube video 

message: ::::The LDS movement has been subject to significant criticism since its early years in New York and Pennsylvania.  The criticism often focused on the church's rapid growth and unusual doctrines.  Criticism continued after the church settled in Missouri, culminating in the 1838 Mormon War.  After the church relocated to Illinois, criticism persisted and led to the assassination of Joseph Smith in 1844.  After Smith's death, the Succession Crisis ensued, and various denominations of the movement struggled for power, levying criticisms against each other, primarily regarding authority or doctrine.  In the late 1800's, many criticized the LDS denomination, the largest branch, for its practice of  polygamy, and federal legislators actively began passing laws designed to weaken the LDS church.  Throughout the history of the movement, critics have questioned the legitimacy of Smith's revelations, and the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.  Notable 20th century critics include Jerald and Sandra Tanner, who published The Changing World of Mormonism  In recent years, the internet has provided a new forum for critics, including sites such as Exmormon.org.  In modern times, criticism often focuses on claims of intolerant attitudes, racism, sexist policies, and secrecy.
:You might want to read Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, a distinct article on the topic.  WBardwin (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a great summary. I agree with presenting it historically, which is much more immune from NPOV problems, because the criticism is an uncontroversial historical fact, whereas the pros and cons of any particular criticism are best merged with the subject matter being criticized, so that you can get both views in the same place and in the same context. COGDEN 01:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else added a new "Criticism" section to the bottom of the article ... the phrasing was a bit crude, so I replaced it with the above paragraph.  Feel free to improve it. Noleander (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Criticism paragraph ... feel free to edit in-place here

message: There is no discussion about whether the Book of Mormon is scientifically correct. Native Americans are NOT the Lost Tribes of Israel. DNA proves it. It is well known. If you want your religion to be accepted, you need to come to terms with this, just as you altered the view of African-Americans surrounding the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the 60s. Until then, you will be seen as a cult. (JDB)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.118 (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Book of Mormon#Historicity for that discussion. Alanraywiki (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If the tribes are lost, how can DNA evidence  prove that they aren't related?  As a biochemist, I question your logic. Ryanfrei (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually that would be very easy, since the lost tribes of Israel are related to the other tribes of Israel (obviously) and we have plenty of descendants of the other tribes left to compare with. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: American Indians and the Book of Mormon

message: I will agree with Dpbsmith 's suggestion that "Mormon terminology should be used with the briefest of possible qualifications in the text. E.g. "the Angel Moroni (as Mormons call him)."" Can we settle on that? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  agreement