Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 8

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 19:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try www.adherents.com.  They might have something.  The Jade Knight 17:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS Church Membership history 

message: The membership paragraph in the introduction seems excessive for an intro to me. Perhaps we could give a membership section (I'm thinking between Name of the Church and Major Beliefs)? This way, we could add in stuff like membership history, et al. Suggestions?
By the way, if no one comments on it to object, I'll probably take the liberty of doing it myself - that introduction is way too long. --Trevdna 23:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New section?

message: What is the source for that, please? That seems preposterous and not in line with such other sources such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
<insert flame war here> <--- kidding btw ;)
:I'm guessing that's justified by lumping all the non-Mormon Christians together, so the order of adherents in the US would be something like 1. Christianity 2. Judaism 3. <something else> 4. Mormons. I don't know where that leaves the people who spent so much time on Wikipedia arguing that Mormons should be included in Christianty, but that looks like how they are thinking. DJ Clayworth 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It is the fourth largest religion in the United States." 

message: Consider the "History" section.
Does this statement really belong there?
"Over time, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the priesthood and its keys lost to the earth from resurrected beings who held the authority anciently, including John the Baptist (May 15, 1829, Aaronic Priesthood), the apostles Peter, James and John (May or June 1829, Melchizidek Priesthood), and the ancient prophet Elijah (April 3, 1836). These priesthoods brought with them the restoration of the authority to perform baptism and other ordinances."
Seems to me that needs to be qualified with a HUGE "Church members believe" and put in the doctrine section; it's clearly not an uncomplicated statement of historical fact in the same way that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was officially organized by Joseph Smith, Jr. and five associates on 6 April 1830, in Fayette, New York" is.  Thparkth 20:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the entire section could be preceeded by a statement something like "The following is a summary of the major events recorded with church historical records.  Church members believe these events to be true, while some non-members may discount portions of this history.".  It certainly is part of the history of the Church, even though non-Mormons would tend to dispute it. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 21:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you have a topic about a religion do you really think there need to have constant reminders that the subject is about a religion.  In the eyes of some all religion is mythology and it is most certainly about issues of faith.  I tend to resist qualifiers to all religious articles such as purported, they say, or they believe.  It is redundant to constantly remind the reader that the topic is a religious topic, an issue of faith.  As a topic of faith some believe it and some don't.  This is not simply germaine to the Mormon faith, but all faiths.  When we bend over so far to accomodate those of different/opposing faiths, we very easily turn into leaving that ever so slight tinge of "this is really a load of crap, but these Mormons believe it".  A qualifier that makes sense is Church History if one wishes to emphasize that it is a topic of faith, but I think you are underestimating readers.  Storm Rider 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may Story Rider, a statement about Oliver Cowdery receiving mystical powers from people who had been dead for more than a thousand years is clearly a faith statement, and not a historical statement. It either needs to be explicitly qualified, or moved into "major beliefs". Having that kind of statement unqualified and unquestioned in the "history" section isn't going to make anyone beleive it's a brute fact of history, but it certainly gives the impression that the article is not NPOV but rather is biased towards acceptance of LDS beliefs. I don't happen to think that's the intention; I think this paragraph just ended up in the wrong section. I'm going to add a qualifying statement to it; feel free to revert if you feel the urge :) Thparkth 01:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can it not be verifiable. 1) It is attested to by more than just one person, 2) it is documented. Trödel•talk 12:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think one has to be careful with both verification, and with tone here.  Ideally we should present such things in the context of what various people report as having been the case, with some indication where it's disputed or controversial, without it drifting into "load of crap" territory.  If a whole section is clearly designated as a description of Mormon belief, that's fair enough, but a history section should be somewhat careful about recording the day-to-day interwoven too tightly with matters of faith.  If something's not controversial as such, but is essentially just a question of religious belief, I'd favour formulations like such-and-such "being said to have happened", as opposed to "have happened" on the one hand, or X, Y and Z say it happened, while P, Q, and R say they're full of it, on the other.  Alai 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiable history vs. statements of belief 

message: It's too big! And full of stuff like "Lay clergy has a strong tradition in the church, as area and local authorities are unpaid and continue in their normal occupations while serving in leadership positions" which is interesting, true, relevent, but nothing to do with "major beliefs". Maybe the section could be broken up? Thparkth 20:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have talked about this, do you have any new (and welcome!) suggestions?-The Scurvy Eye 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We *could* break it up into the traditional theological concerns like christology, eschatology etc... but maybe not too accessible to the lay reader. Thparkth 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it perhaps be easier to read if it was broken down into subcategories using the articles of faith? that would provide thirteen sections. and the articles of faith were originally written to summarize the beliefs of the LDS church, making them an ideal template for the beliefe descriptions here. although there is content in the Main Beliefs section that does not fall under any of these articles, it is at least my oppinion that statements such as the lack of payment to clergy members should idealy be categorized differently anyway. suggestions? --Master Runner 02:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That huge "Major Beliefs" section 

message: Two things stuck out in the brief seminary section to me that needed verification:
:1. Attendance at Seminary is voluntary, although this does help when applying to Brigham Young University. I've heard this before, and am fairly certain that it's true, but I'd imagine it's an advantage that applies across the board to Church-run universities. Does anyone know more about this that they could add in?
:2. Seminary graduation aides some missionaries in obtaining visas to a few foreign countires. This one sounds like more of a stretch. While I can imagine that it may provide some small advantage, should a consulate take the time to extensively investigate a visa applicant's character, I doubt that there's objective proof of a consistent pattern of LDS seminary grads receiving visas more often than non-seminary grads. Without something to back it up, this content probably needs to go. Tijuana Brass 17:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it some countries require that missionaries must have some degree of training to be allowed in...graduating from seminary meets their requirements.  As far as and BYU schools, if it helps at one, it helps at all of them.  Storm Rider 18:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seminary 

message: "There is debate within the church as to whether or not a female is a capable of committing the sins necessitating inheritance of a kingdom without glory."
What?  I've been a member of the Church my whole life and have never heard of any debate about this.  I've never come across any doctrine that says that women are not capable of the same sin/goodness as men. —This unsigned comment was added by 157.127.124.134 (talk • contribs) .
:Yup. here are a couple of statements by GAs on the matter as quoted on a number of web sites:
::Nov 29,1893 - Presidents Wilford Woodruff and George Q Cannon meet with three apostles and James E. Talmage: "That there will also be daughters of Perdition there is no doubt in the minds of the brethren."
::Mar 26,1903 - Joseph F. Smith tells apostles "there would be no daughters of perdition" in final judgement.
:You can also find both references in The Mormon Hierarchy - Extenions of Power, D. Michael Quinn, Appendix V. I'm not a fan of Quinn, as his research is good, but his conclusions I find stretching and unsupportable. 
:You may also want to read the sections about "Perdition" in the Miracle of Foregiveness and in Mormon Doctrine for context. In addition, if you are a temple-attending Mormon, you may want to discuss what is different between the mens and womens initatory ordinances with a member of the temple presidency.  
:To be a son of perdition, you must have a "sure knowledge." You have to recieve certain ordinances and see certain things and then turn and fight against the truth. You must have that sure knowledge, have gone through the temple, and hold the priesthood (this is the debatable aspect - what constitutes "holding" priesthood authority). I'm not sure who all qualifies for this, but not many who are alive can qualify to become one. 
:One of the attributes of those who receieve telestial glory are those who murder - both spiritually and physically. Therefore, most anti-Mormon activists who are former members of the church who fight against Mormonism, probably do not qualify. Undoubtedly, some may, but the vast majority will be considered spiritual "murderers" and end up in the TLK. Most discussion on the topic is speculative in any case - it mostly has become a cultural doctrine that is not specified in the scriptures. Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above post was mine, before I made an account.  I had seen some of the items that you mentioned before, but I hadn't really considered it a "debate within the Church".  I think I would come down on the side of there being daughters of perdition, but I don't think that this is a big enough "debate" to be included in the article.  It's also not a big enough deal to worry about, so I don't think it needs to be removed.  Interesting though.  Thanks.  Aranhamo 02:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree this issue is totally not notable in the context of a general topic article such as this. Trödel 12:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am totally against this trivia making it into the general article.  While someone may have made a statement about his own personal unsurety on a speculative topic more than 100 years ago, that does not mean there is a debate within the church as to the answer--and as many people have argued here, no one has ever heard of the issue, so it's not really an "issue."  So I am yet another returned missionary, went to BYU, taught seminary (paid, in Provo), still live in Orem, and have been a member of the church for 30 years; who has never heard of this argument. It is not "cultural doctrine" except in perhaps remote enough circles that this discussion would be incomplete without discussing the subregions where said "cultural doctrine" exists. --Mrcolj 13:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daughters of Perdition 

message: While garments is an issue peculiar to few religions, is it well-known enough to be on the list of what Mormons are "widely known for?"  I mean, if you ask people what they know Mormons for, every thing on that list would get 5x the response rate of garments, no? While the non-LDS editors of this topic surely are a bit more sophisticated as to the topic than the general public, I've heard enough stories of people saying they hadn't heard of garments until they had been members for quite a while that I can't believe it's what Mormons are "known for." -Mrcolj 13:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: C.S. Lewis refers to "funny underwear" in Prince Caspian, and I recently heard a comedy sketch that refered to Mormon underwear, so at least some people think they are known well enough that people would understand the reference.  When I was first investigating the church, my sister and brother in law had both heard about garments, even though they knew little else about the church (including how to pronounce Moroni.) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read Prince Caspian a few times and never really noticed that comment by Lewis.  Is there any proof that it is in reference to Mormonism?  I don't think most people are aware of our use of garments, but it's probably well enough known that it could be included.  I would only hope that the subject is treated respectfully, as the subject is quite sacred to Mormons. Aranhamo 21:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I have very ocassionally had people ask me about them, I still don't think it's a common enough concern to justify the term "what they're known for."  And those who study the topic know that the clergy of most religions throughout history wear some sort of sacred underclothing, including those of most christian religions.  Mormons just don't believe in clergy... -Mrcolj 20:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I simplified because it's a little off-topic.  But Mormons believe in clergy with a very lower-case C, but they don't use the word "clergy" ever since it doesn't really apply.  Nevertheless, my point was that garments are a clergical issue in many churches, and in Mormonism most everyone's clergy, so most everyone wears garments.  I think there's been little enough disagreement with my point after a legit amount of time that I'm justified in removing that line.--Mrcolj 22:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Widely known for"... garments

message: Someone may wish to check the United States article. It currently refers to Mormonism as not being a part of Christianity. I do not have the time to deal with it nor the expertise (I being raised Buddhist). Polisci 20:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you could mention here or on the talk page of the United States article specifically which part you are referring to.  I am Mormon, and I looked over the United States article and did not see anything relating to Mormons that I objected to. Aranhamo 21:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: United States

message: Alienus has been introducing the concept of "earthly" polygamy and has been reverted twice that I remember.  After my revert I think I have come to understand what he is trying to say...Male LDS may be sealed to more than one woman.  He attempts to make a distinction that in the eternities LDS and FLDS are similar.  
This is a debatable issue and would introduce a plethora of things to discuss the differences, authority being one of the main ones.  
I suggest that the purpose of the sentence is only to say that LDS should not be confused with those who practice polygamy today.  To attempt to clarify earthly introduces a whole other level of conversation that is best addressed later where polygamy is discussed and in that specific article.  Storm Rider (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree.  I understand what he was trying to say, but I think using "earthly" polygamy is just confusing and the issue is better discussed elsewhere.  Aranhamo 14:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd second that. It's an interesting topic, and merits note here, but would fit better into an article focusing on LDS polygamy; i.e. plural marriage. Tijuana Brass 17:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I reverted for a number of doctrinal reasons. As the church today does not teach about Polygamy, we can't get clarification on it. A recent letter allows for what could be considered eternal polyandrous marriages, when doing work for the dead. Obviously, that is not the intent, nor the application, nor the doctrine. The plain fact is that since 1890 and 1904, Church members are not required or even suggested to be bound by polygamy either her or in the afterlife. It is strictly a cultural teaching promulgated via policy - and not doctrinal. -Visorstuff 18:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, Alienus wrote in his edit summary, "a widower can be sealed to his second wife, a widow cannot be sealed to her second husband." I know what he is saying, however, that is not neccessarily the case in all instances. In addition, a deseased women may be sealed in proxy to multiple deseased males. Its pretty complicated. Let's keep it simple. -Visorstuff 18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earthly Polygamy

message: Bisric changed the article to say that baptism is "rarely" performed before age 8.  I changed it back to "never" pending some source being cited to the contrary.  D&C 68:25-27 clearly establishes the age of eight as the minimum age for baptism. Aranhamo 00:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bisric is correct. Rarely is appropriate. My Grandfather was baptized a few weeks prior due to the flu epidemic, and I'm aware of a few more cases. Rarely was a good example. Absolutes when it comes to the church are not wise. I'm not reverting, rather clarifying, rather than showing you my g-pa's ordinance work. -Visorstuff 00:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it much better the way you did it.  With just "rarely", I think it gave the wrong impression that baptisms could be performed much earlier.  In the case of your grandfather, it was simply pragmatism to perform his baptism a little earlier than, but still very near to, his eighth birthday.  A couple of weeks one way or the other is no big deal, but I thought "rarely" made it sound like it could be performed years earlier in certain situations. Aranhamo 14:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Both "rarely" and "never" should be omitted.  Whether there have been exceptions does not grammatically negate the rule.  For example, "people can't fly" does not need to be "people rarely fly" just because some people jump off buildings or fly in planes. Baptism doesn't happen before the age of 8, and if it does, it does not happen statistically significantly often enough to justify the word "rarely." --Mrcolj 21:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baptism Age 

message: A couple of edits have gone back and forth on this, so I looked it up at www.dictionary.com and they're both correct and mean the same thing.  So it doesn't much matter which one is used.  Aranhamo 00:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it doesn't matter, then I recommend using the one used by the LDS Church, especially since the article is about the LDS Church. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 00:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. The term "proselyte" is the one used by the LDS Church. Tijuana Brass 01:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I corrected was the bizarre "proselytingpro", which doesn't exist. I myself prefer "proselytizing" to "proselyting" but agree that both are in use. I do, however, dissent from 日本穣 Nihonjoe's argument: just because Mormons themselves use "prosleyting" is not a good argument to use it here as Wikipedia is not intended specifically for Mormons. It would be different if the word were a technical term specific to Mormonism, but this isn't.Bill 02:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Proselytingpro" was clearly an error, so thanks for fixing it; nobody is contesting that. However, when writing an article about a particular group/organization/religion/whatever, unless it causes some sort of significant problem, the linguistics used by those both within the group and those without who describe it will commonly be used. As "proselyte" is the word of choice in the LDS world (as opposed to "proselytize"), it makes more sense to use it, since they have the same exact meaning. Tijuana Brass 03:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Despite the Church's name, its focus on Jesus as the Savior of mankind, its family values, and many of the Gospel teachings it shares with other branches of Christianity, theologians and members of those other branches consider the difference between LDS practices and doctrines—such as the contrast between the Church's doctrine of the Godhead and the mainstream Christian doctrine of the Triune God —so fundamental that they do not regard Latter-day Saints as Christians. In their view, a non-mainstream understanding of Jesus Christ makes His saving grace null and void, and Latter-day Saints are understood to be lost with adherents of all other religions because of the differences in their understanding of Christ. Latter-day Saints counter that it is mainstream Christianity that misunderstands the nature of God. They hold that the mainstream concept of God was corrupted by the introduction of Platonic realism, Neoplatonism, and extreme Asceticism into the early Christian church and that these influences continued through what they term the Great Apostasy. For continued discussion on this subject see Mormonism and Christianity.
I would request each of you before reverting any portion to read the article in its entirety first.  There is still too much repetition that has resulted from edits over the life of the article without taking into consideration the whole article.  Also, I certainly have not got everthing and everyone's help would be appreciated.  Storm Rider (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proselyting vs. proselytizing 

message: Someone from 208.18.58.254 made a few edits today.  A couple of things were just plain wrong, and I corrected those.  What does everyone thing about the other edits made by this anonymous person?  Aranhamo 21:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would revert them all - although harmless in general they are too colloquial for an encyclopedic article. Some of the comments are really not notable in the section they are in - though they might be in the sub-articles. Trödel 21:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous Edits April 18th 

message: This is just a note to state that there is a section at the bottom of the Parable of the Sower article about Latter-day Saint interpretations of the Parable. 
I would like some members of the Latter-day Saint church to take a look at it and see if it presents their views neutrally or not. One of the views expressed looks distinctly odd, and there are two references to people I can't find articles about on wikipedia. 
ThanksClinkophonist 22:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a little cleanup on it. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Parable of the Sower]] 

message: So, there's a bunch of edits.  So, I kind of like some of them, but they're apologetic (pro-Mormon) generally, and some are non-essential.  So I'm going to edit back some of them, in interest of neutrality and brevity. Novel-Technology 05:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Come On Reaverdrop, Let's keep it short

message: Can we get a cite for the part about blacks being ordained to the priesthood during Joseph Smith's lifetime?  Aranhamo 16:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose from here to the end of this section be refactored (i.e. moved to an archive) as not helping improve the article. - Trödel 21:14, 27 April 2006 
Off topic discussion moved from here to User_talk:Reaverdrop#Relocated_off-topic_discussion_on_race_and_the_LDS_Church, unless there are any objections. - Reaverdrop 18:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No racial discrimination under Joseph Smith

message: ::I propose from here to the end of this section be refactored (i.e. moved to an archive) as not helping improve the article. - Trödel 21:14, 27 April 2006 
Off topic discussion moved from here to User_talk:Reaverdrop#Relocated_off-topic_discussion_on_race_and_the_LDS_Church, unless there are any objections. - Reaverdrop 18:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off topic discussion 

message: This is posted here merely for historical reasons. But I recall that myths about utah depression, divorce and suicide regularly appear on the page. Here's a pretty decent online source about such "statistics." . -Visorstuff 00:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other brought up stats

message: This issue was discussed years ago. It has been brought up time and time again. I have to assume since the article was at Church that the consensus was to *NOT* put it at The Church. I think there's Wikipedia guidlines that apply. I'm moving it back *for now*. Novel-Technology 18:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with your revert Novel-Technology. However, I truly am saddend by the consensus decision that was made, because "The" is truly part of the name. Sigh. It was not a matter of wiki guidelines, however, (see The George Washington University and The Beatles for example), but an example of the ramifications of the word "The" in promoting one church over another. We reached a compromise in nameing. Anyone want to take up the re-name discussion again? -Visorstuff 18:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norge, what have you done?! 

message: Is it just me, or is this article WAY too big? Can't we condense some of the sections and refer in each section to an article that will expound more on that section's topic? Does anyone else feel this way? --TrustTruth 23:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is getting lengthy.  To get started, the Scripture section here is longer than the article Standard Works of the Church.  Perhaps we could reverse that, and have just a summary here.  WBardwin 00:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! Novel-Technology 02:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. I think what should be done is that any section that has third-level headings (=== ===), should be moved into its own article, and in its place a brief summary left behind in this article. This would include: Major Beliefs, Meetings, and Culture and Practices. --Kmsiever 19:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Length 

message: Thanks, guys, for modifying my quick and dirty addition on the value of the atonement.  I thought the section was heavily weighted toward works without it.  Much improved now.  WBardwin 21:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure my edit is correct, however. My edit tip-toed very close to a line on the difference between justification and sanctification - however, the Atonement is what makes both possible, regardless of the process or how it is given. I guess it is accurate enough? -Visorstuff 22:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Reaverdrop made a significant change to this section.  I decided to revert to Visorstuff's version, so that we can discuss the issue here.  I am looking for a good balance between the faith and works issues on the atonement, and felt Visor's was pretty good.  This is often a confusing point for people in and out of the church and should be stated as clearly as possible.  So ...... can we work out revisions here before modifying the article?  WBardwin 19:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atonement 

message: I was confused when first reading this section and have a couple (or 3) suggestions.
* Since there is only one entry under 'Official websites of the Church' the heading of 'Primary websites' is redundant and needs to be removed.
* The second entry 'Additional websites' seems to be another branch of 'Official websites'. This may be cleared up by getting rid of the 'Primary websites' listed above or may need to be changed to 'Unaffiliated websites'. (The next heading can then be changed to 'Church-friendly websites').
* Also, there is no pattern to the capitalization in the headings throughout the article. Would look better with all the words except articles capitalized.Hoquiam72 09:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is my understanding that in section headings, only the first word is capitalised in most instances. --Kmsiever 19:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: ...as Visorstuff said in making a revert. But the Proclamation on the Family refers to our "heavenly parents", and is signed by the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve; the Church believes anything any of the apostles say when moved by the Spirit is equivalent to scripture, and putting all fifteen signatures on a pronouncement seems like a pretty rare and serious way of emphasizing its authoritativeness; if the Proclamation isn't canon, then what is the difference between canon and continued revelation from God directed to the entire world, which is what the First Presidency is entitled to give, and if there's a difference, wouldn't that leave nothing they could do to make it canon besides actually put it into a new edition of the D&C? - Reaverdrop 03:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a change to this - I think the wording before can not be described as generally agreed upon by Latter-day Saints Trödel 19:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I tweaked your change a bit.  Support sounded a bit strong (IMHO). wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll have to second Lutz on this as a popular belief - several missionaries in my mission believed we were not supposed to pray to a heavenly mother because we wouldn't know which one to pray to. - Reaverdrop 02:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks be to God that we are not bound by every word that has come out of the mouths of missionaries.  Lutz and Reaver cites instances of pure spectulation.  Visor's comments on spiritual bodies, IMHO, would also fall way out there on the speculative scale.  My knee-jerk reaction is to say that is almost heresy, but sometimes I can be rigid about the role our Heavenly Father has played and Jesus Christ.  The role of Creator is limited to the Godhead and no one else.  We are speaking of mysteries without the benefit of guiding scripture; it would best be left to evening speculative discussions.  Cheers!  Storm Rider (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother in Heaven: "if its not supported in canon, its not doctrinal..." 

message: I don't know if it is appropriate to mention here but someone has added an incorrect statement to the tithe page concerning LDS doctrine and tithes and they included a link to this page. Would some of you experienced editors take a look and I will follow the dialogue and see what happens? Hoquiam72 03:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked the statement a bit.  Most active members are expected to pay a full tithe, but they can still be considered in "full fellowship" without being a full tithe payer.  They can't be called to certain callings, nor can they go to the temple, but tithing has nothing to do with fellowship. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought ALL active members are expected to pay a full tithe.  The only possible exception that I can think of may be a church disciplinary action that might suggest that the member does NOT pay thithing. Leon7 20:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Expected? Yes. Required? No. --Kmsiever 21:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tithe

message: "Usually, the young men participate in the Boy Scouts of America program."  Is this accurate for international Saints as well?  My suspicion is that it may not be. I mean obviously it would probably be Boy Scouts of Somewhereelse not America, but do they even do Boy Scouts at all? Novel-Technology 00:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My quick response is that LDS are affiliated with the international scouting program, but I can't confirm that at present.  I do believe that LDS scouts in Britain conform with the British program model.  I'll ask next time I get dragged to the Scout office.  WBardwin 04:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: After talking to people at the US scout office, my understanding is that scouting is encouraged for all LDS boys around the world, and that boys in each country adhere in practice to their country's program.  If the church unit does not have enough boys for a troop, the boys are encouraged to join a "traditional" troop sponsored by another local organization.  When the LDS branch/ward has enough boys, they adopt the modified LDS model (which includes such variances as not supporting the Tiger program for kids under 8 years), but welcome non-LDS boys as members.  No Boy Scout employee had a written source for this information to hand, but it might be available in Church policy documents.  WBardwin 18:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was a scoutmaster some time ago, there was a church document that outlined the agreement between the LDS church and the Boy Scouts of America.  Possibly there are similar documents for other countries. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boy Scouts Internationally? 

message: Every other religion that gets bashed on South Park has had the occurance placed in their article. Is that a possibility for the Mormons? Mitch 18:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: South Park's contribution to the Mormon image has been discussed, but not very favorably.  See both Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 9 and the current Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr..  Your opinion always welcome.  WBardwin 18:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a quick mention that the premise "Every other religion that gets bashed on South park has had the occurence placed in their article" is not correct the links to South Park only show two religions mentioned - this talk page and Mormon. Secondly - this article has so much ground to cover - I would say, in context, it is not that notable. Trödel 17:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: South Park