Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 11

message: I beg you, Trödel, please don't make us go through the same discussion that you can read on this page. We had an agreement, there is no reason to change the text to a more controversial solution. --Martin C. 17:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is you who introduced the non-neutral language, I merely restored the neutral version after your edit. All objective measures include CJC under the "Christianity" label - polls of religious identity, governmental statistics, books on religions, etc. --Trödel 17:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but that is simply untrue. The LDS church is considered non-Christian by an overwhelming majority of Christian churches, you cannot just say their opinion doesn't matter. Polls of religious identity? Of course every LDS member thinks the church is Christian, but why should only their opinion matter? Govermental statistics? Which goverment, what statistics? Books on religions - which books? You cannot say that every book on religion classifies the LDS church as Christian. Definition of NPOV: don't give predominance to either view, simply say who thinks what. That's exactly what I did. --Martin C. 17:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Adding: please read the conversation on this very page, including yourself and others who didn't object to (and some actually praised) the solution back then. Simply changing the text to something not agreed upon when nobody's watching and then calling it "a stable situation" is quite  absurd. You cannot say "LDS church is Christian" is neutral while "LDS members view the church as Christian" is not. You stated that the "claim of non-Christianity" (that is, the majority opinion) is already dealt in the article - which means that the opening paragraph says that this view is wrong. That's not NPOV. --Martin C. 17:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: One last point: it seems that when you said the situation "has been stable for some time", that meant exactly 12 days - after an anonymous edit. --Martin C. 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I did, I was wrong see #COTM proposal for my support that this article should be overhauled. --Trödel 18:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have anything to answer, please do it here on the talk page and refrain from reverting. I can make my point once more, this time really clearly: We cannot make the article say X if X is highly controversial, even if we personally agree with X. We can only tell that group P believes X and group Q believes non-X. We cannot make the encyclopedia side with either party. --Martin C. 18:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If you opine that "members believe that..." is not encyclopedic tone, then make it better - "the church teaches that...." or "the official LDS doctrine is that..." or whatever, but whatever you do, don't make the text present the LDS opinion as a fact. That's simply not neutral. Actually, I can do it for you. --Martin C. 18:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But in this case X is not highly controversial. But only controversial amongst a certain group of people. Furthermore it is not a widely held schalarly position. --Trödel 19:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's like saying that, say, the role of the pope as the God-ordained successor of Peter is "only controversial amongst a certain group of people" - that is, amongst all Christians except Catholics (and in that case, the certain group comprises less than half of self-described Christendom; in this case, some 95 %). You are also incorrect in stating that considering non-trinitarians non-Christians is "not a widely held schalarly [sic] position" - in fact, it is the dominating stance among theologians in the world we live in. You see, we cannot exclude confessional stances from affecting the encyclopedic formulation only when they disagree with us - the LDS stance is just as confessional as the trinitarian. --Martin C. 19:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Hi Martin C.  I changed a paragraph in the Trinity section because the corresponding reference didn't fit.  It read "An opinion held by the Catholic church, Orthodox church, and most Protestant churches...." and I changed it to "An opinion held by many Christian denominations..."  The reference does not state the official position of the Catholic or Orthodox church.  If we want it to read the other way, there needs to be an appropriate reference, preferrably an official statement by the Catholic and/or Orthodox church. Sylverdin 19:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Sylverdin. I'll get back to this. --Martin C. 19:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sylverdin, why is "most" a weasel word in your view? --Martin C. 21:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's listed under Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words#Examples. --Masamage 21:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alongside with many, which is a synonym for the suggested much in this case. But most is more precise in this case than much - and it's even verifiable (Catholics alone comprise more than 50 % of Christians, add Orthodoxy and mainstream Protestantism to that). --Martin C. 22:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Rather than explain here, I attempted a rewrite of the first two paragraphs that I hope will be more accurately and neutrally. I urge comments here rather than continued reversion as I changed it in a way, I hope, that would avoid this issue. --Trödel 20:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with the current revision, thank you. (I don't quite see why you were unhappy with my version, though; in my view, "view" is more neutral than "claim", so actually the current revision seems to be less favourable to Mormons than the previous one was.) --Martin C. 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Martin C.  I looked at the references you have for the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church's stands on Mormons not being Christian.  The reference for the catholic church only states that the baptisms are invalid, not that the LDS church isn't Christian. Therefore it shouldn't be used as a reference in this case. The Orthodox reference is the same, validity of baptism being the issue.  In addition, it does not even mention the LDS church.  Neither reference states that the respective church sees Mormons as non christians.  Therefore, I still don't think that the references are adequate to justify what you have stated as fact.  I'm not disuputing it as a fact, just urging you to find better fitting references before making changes.  If references can't be found, I suggest leaving out the section. Sylverdin 22:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sylverdin, we are talking about churches with a very strict view about what makes you a Christian: a valid baptism. Do I have to underline that in the article? -Martin C. 22:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might be good to do that, yes.  On the other hand, maybe we're beating this to death.  I would suggest wait and see what other users suggest before changing anything.  I'm only one user and haven't worked on this article alot, so I'm not up to speed on what is being done to make it better.  I'd wait for more input from other users who are far more knowledgeable than I; I'm sure it would help to come to a common concensus. Sylverdin 22:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps I'll just reformulate what's already in the section; actually the underlining was part of my original idea, but I kind of failed to formulate it properly. Let's then wait and see (which is BTW a very good advice, thank you). --Martin C. 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph

message: I know I am risking making some people very unhappy - but the more I think about it the more I wonder - why do we even need to include this at all in the article - We should be tryign to explain what the church is and what it believes. There are other articles that compare the beliefs to other religions --Trödel 23:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very true, come to think of it. If "Christian" is a word that means so many different things to different people, it's only complicating things unnecessarily to use it, and we should leave it out entirely. --Masamage 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe that the article should at least mention and link to other articles that deal with the controversies. But I agree that the headline "Nature of God" wasn't the best place to deal with this one. Certainly leaving it out is better than the very weasel-worded "some Christians believe..." that it used to have. --Martin C. 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your edit. Looks good. --Masamage 00:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  There is a link to Mormonism and Christianity under the Growth into an international church section. Sylverdin 23:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not sure I agree that this needs to be said in the Nature of God section. In the different catholicism articles I have read they mostly just articulate the belief of the group - and then have a section on how they broke apart with other catholic traditions. I think we should do the same here - will copyedit the recent change - but still think it is completely unnecessary. --Trödel 03:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing paragraph 

message: I've just seen the whole issue about apostles being "spiritual witnesses" and "witnesses of the Living Christ" and have to agree with Trodel. It does seem a bit POV and "Mormon" to include an additional description of the office. If a casual reader wishes to know more about the office, he/she will click on the link. I would definitely support a removal of that phrase from the article. Pahoran513 23:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just added the "spiritual witnesses" as an alternative phrase, but have no real preference.  Most readers probably won't think about Apostle as an office or function, as they are understood in the LDS church, however.  WBardwin 03:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Apostle/witness issue

message: one thing i'm a little confused about. isn't the new Jerusalem supplsed to be located within jackson county? the article seems to imply that they are in 2 seperate locations. Javawizard 23:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that there will be Jerusalem and new Jerusalem. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eschatology 

message: I'm not convinced that women were given the priesthood.  I'm more inclined to believe they thought they could exercise some priesthood power.  I'm away on a business trip and won't be home until this weekend, but I recall reading in a book containing various writings of Mormon women, including one passage where an early prominent women (Eliza Snow maybe?) felt she was able to exercise the priesthood through the temple ordinances.  I will look when I get home to come up with the reference, unless  somebody beats me to it.  I also recall hearing that women frequently were set apart to perform blessings, but I'm not sure I ever found a source to confirm that. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally it is the same priesthood . It is an appendage to the Melch Priesthood just like any office in the priesthood like Bishop, EQ Pres, etc; however I know of no reliable source for doctrine that descibes how the priesthood operates in the temple for Women (i.e. by what way do they administer in ordinances). --Trödel 17:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When recently asked, <I>"Will there ever be women priests in the Mormon church</I>"?  <B>Gordon B. Hinckley, president of the church</B>, said in The Boston Globe: <I>"Insofar as I can see, no. The women have their place.... they have a voice in determining policy and doing many things in the church. I haven't found any complaint among our women. I'm sure there are a few, a handful somewhere who may be disaffected for one reason or another, but I've never seen any evidence of it.</I>"</I> Duke53 | Talk 18:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  and...--Trödel 18:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  and ... <I>what</I> ? Duke53 | Talk 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the whole "women and the priesthood" section should be removed. It is too "fringe" and not indicative of the history nor the teachings of the churchIsaac Crumm 04:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women and the Priesthood 

message: At the end of the "Worship Services" section is this:
Women usually attend wearing a bikini or other revealing swimsuit, while men wear slacks with or without a shirt. Children are also expected to come to church meetings wearing casual clothing.
It seems "out of place" (?) and probably incorrect. Someone with editing experience might want to correct it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.147.129.196 (talk • contribs) 13:14, December 14, 2006  (UTC)
:I don't see that in the article. It only talks about normal church-clothes. Guess someone already fixed it. --Masamage 08:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this be removed?

message: I was looking back at some old edits and thought you'd all be interested to read an early, early version of this article. Very interesting how far we've come. -Visorstuff 00:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A date in history

message: I just made a bunch of changes in an effort to get this article to a more managable size - and removed only 4kb from 75kb to 71kb. I think further efforts need to be made in this area even if it means more summarization and the creation of additional articles. --Trödel 23:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The culture section could be condensed a lot with a brief mention of the various programs of the church.  Also the Education section duplicates some info on Institute which could be condensed as well.  Bytebear 07:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Works for me.  There are only two subsection under it which could easily go under Beiefs with no problem. Bytebear 04:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being concise 

message: Why is it that references to a highly documented event in the history of the early mormon church in Utah is continually removed from the article? If there is to be a section about the History of the church, and this article is to be unbiased rather than the evangelical tool of the Mormon church, as it appears to be, then the entire history MUST be presented, NOT just the good, but the bad as well. This bears fully on the history of the church, and should not be removed.Mountain Meadows Massacre. I am not suggesting the entire story be rehashed but a brief sentence ought to be in the article with a link to the well verified and supported wiki entry on the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.80.32 (talk • contribs) 
:I'm pretty sure no one disagrees. Your link is badly formatted, but that's the only problem I see. --Masamage 16:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, looks like someone does, and they have a good reason. It is a really long article already. --Masamage 18:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Dude, check your facts. Fawn Brodie is not "the current expert on the massacre"; she has been dead for 26 years. Moreover, she was anything but an "LDS member" most of her adult life.--204.126.173.139 20:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Juanita Brooks was the LDS historian dealing with MMM.  Please note that Bagley's book has not been particularly well received by historians, LDS or not -- many concerns about his level of speculation in the book, and his use of the facts available (which are, and have always been, limted).  Please note tht activity in the article, as of May 2007, has turned quite ugly and POV.  WBardwin 17:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mountain Meadows Massacre

message: A new user, GutenMorning made a number of edits, most of which were reverted.  None of the edits had an edit summary.  One of the edits was a section from Church History about the death of Joseph Smith.  The edit summary of the revert called it "obviously vandalism", but I disagree.
I agree that the addition probably should not have been added as part of the article, but could have very easily gone into a footnote.  I realize that this page gets vandalized on a regular basis, and I'm as guilty as the next one at summarily reverting edits.  But (IMHO) we should also remember to take it easy on the new editors.  We were all newbies at some point. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by GutenMorning 

message: A recent edit by 84.146.236.121 was reverted on the grounds of POV push:
:The Book of Mormon never actually countenanced any form of curse-based discrimination. It stated that the Lord "denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile". (). In fact, prejudice against people of dark skin was condemned:
:O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness..." ().
Although there is some POV, it balances out an equally (IMHO) POV edit that talks about the Nephite/Lamanite skin color in the Book of Mormon, which is off-topic, since the section is really about African-Americans not getting the priesthood for a while.
It seems to me that we should either add this back in w/o the POV comments, or remove the off-topic paragraphs about skin color in the Book of Mormon.
Thoughts? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacks and Mormonism 

message: is there any criticism of Mormon beliefs and practices? why was it not included on the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.56.216.83 (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there are two other articles already about that. --Masamage 19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The relevant discussion of that on WP can be found at Theosis#Deification in Mormonism and in the article that section links to. The basic idea you're probably thinking of is that the church teaches that there is opportunity for people to become "as Heavenly Father is," continue progressing forever, create their own worlds, and have their own spirit children. --Masamage 08:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The topic is the LDS church; not the Book of Mormon. This article is more akin to Roman Catholic church than the books of Jonah or Daniel. In comparing the two you will find far more criticism in this article than in it or any other church's main article. I suspect this has more to do with your personal beliefs than the quality of the article. It is not surprising to me that the criticism section of Islam consists of nine sentences with references to three articles. The truth is in that with only a few minutes of research you will find a plethora of articles that are critical of the church and there is not a single article that exists that does not contain its own criticism of the church, its doctrine, theology, beliefs, or people. SPECIAL??? only it that it leads in criticism. Please do some more research and you will find this to be a far more accurate position than the one you have presented. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason there is no criticism is, there's no praise or apologetics either (or at least there shouldn't be), because this is a summary article and very long one at that, with all the necessary summary factual information. There just isn't room for either criticism or praise here. That's for the sub-articles. COGDEN 07:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Criticism? 

message: I think if any mention is going to be made of Kolob, it should at least be accurate. (For what it's worth, I don't think it's appropriate to have a mention of Kolob on the page about the Church itself. Maybe on a page about Latter Day Saint theology, but not on one about the legal structure called TCOJCOLDS.)
Anyway, the Church does not teach that God the Father and Jesus Christ "live on a planet named Kolob". This is a favourite misquote of anti-Mormon types, who fail to actually report what the Book of Abraham actually says about Kolob. Please--no more statements that God lives on a planet named Kolob, 'cos we all know that no one actually teaches or believes that! SESmith 02:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. Remember to sign your comments. ^^ --Masamage 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the reminder to sign, and I apologize for forgetting. It was not my intention to try to leave an anonymous message. SESmith 02:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. Everyone does it now and then. ^^ --Masamage 02:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There already is an article on Kolob. Interestingly enough, Battlestar Galactica, written by a Mormon, mentions a planet called Kobol.  Just a bit of trivia.  Both items are trivia, and do not deserve attention in this article. Bytebear 04:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kolob 

message: The article now includes the text:
:all people who have lived past the age of eight must participate in each of the saving ordinances, either in person or by proxy after they are dead.
This is not entirely true as I understand it.  If a child dies at 9, are endowments performed?  Since the temple rituals are not given until someone is an adult, it would be odd that a child (over the age of 8, but not yet an adult) would be endowed, and certainly not sealed to a spouse.  There needs to be more distinction on age specific ordinances.  Bytebear 18:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that statement represents current church doctrine. The only people excused from having each and every saving ordinance are the under-eight or mentally-under-eight crowd. Everyone else has to eventually get them all (except ordination if you are a female and, arguably, the Second anointing). COGDEN 21:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In theory, maybe.  But in practice?  In theory, we will also practice plural marriage after death, but that is currently not practiced and denounced.  The current wording implies that we perform marriages of/for our dead children.  Bytebear 23:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marriage/Sealing is not an essential ordinance for those who have died before they could be married, such as children, nor will it affect their exaltation. Other temple ordinances would be performed. We forget that to be exalted, marriage is required for those of us who can live the commandment, but it is not essential to become a god or an exalted being. A prime example is Christ, who was made a God prior to mortality. However, for those of us who know the law, we must obey to be exalted. there is always an exception to the rule, but we don't teach exceptions in the church, we teach the doctrine and the "general rule" , . -Visorstuff 01:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest changes on Ordanances 

message: Under "God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost", the last part of the first paragraph, it reads "...and does not officially use the symbol of the Christian cross." This kind of implies that rather than discouraging the use of the symbol, the church simply doesn't use it. I think it would be more appropriate if it read somthing like "...and discourages the use of the symbol of the Christian cross." Sorry to make a big deal out of it, but to me, a cross is like having a picture of the car your brother died in. Shouldn't you find a nice picture of your brother instead?
It isn't a huge change, but I'm not that great at expressing myself with words, so someone else could probably do it more correctly than me. Besides that, rather than simply making the change, I wanted to have a visible reason. I also apologise if I'm doing somthing horribly wrong here...I don't edit Wikipedia very often.(207.183.175.31 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the church actively discourages it as a point of doctrine, so it would be disingenuous to say so. A lot of individual members feel very strongly about it, but that's a personal thing, not an official thing. --Masamage ♫ 18:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The physical cross is not used by the church in it's architectural adoration, but the personal use of it is not considered a sin by any means.  You will not be excommunicated or admonished for wearing a cross, but culturally, you may get some odd looks in church simply because it is not common.  Bytebear 03:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is true for North America, but in many areas of Latin America and the Philippines (and probably elsewhere as well) it's more common for Latter-day Saints to wear the cross than not. The church has taken no steps to stop this, as far as I know.SESmith 04:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's part of the reason I didn't just edit it...I wasn't sure if I was 100% correct. Anyway, I'm done pushing for this one. (207.183.175.31 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I live in Latin America and I have never ever seen a LDS wearing the cross... ♠Tom@sBat 02:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whereas I live in the US, and I have seen it. Go figure. I think it's mostly among converts from other Christian denominations that do use and love the cross. --Masamage ♫ 05:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmmm... but I suppose thay gradually stop using it as they start reinforcing their faith in the new religion... Don´t they? ♠Tom@sBat 22:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard anyone discourage wearing a cross; some do, but most don't. We do have instances where leaders of the church have answered the question why are buildings are not adorned with the cross and the answer is (essentially) we celebrate and believe in a living Jesus Christ and do not celebrate the instrument of His death. Interestingly, I was surprised to see a large cross at a gathering of saints that crossed the plains in the background of the picture. Today, I doubt you would see that, but I suspect it was not an issue in the early church. It really is a matter of personal choice. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the statement above by Storm Rider. I've never heard a church leader (local or general) say anything about the cross apart from stories about answers they gave when asked point blank about the lack of crosses in LDS buildings. I've also never heard any member in church give a sermon on the issue. I don't think it's a very live issue in the church at all.  -SESmith 04:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the symbol of the Christian cross 

message: This phrasing seems like it could be cleaned up, or at least made less ambiguous. It seems to be hinting that the church doesn't really have Jesus Christ as its central focus. Everything I've heard from the church officially (i.e., in General conference (Latter Day Saints) addresses) seems to indicate that the focus is a matter of fact, rather than idea. I was unwilling to edit this myself because of my relative inexperience with Wikipedia, but this seems like a fairly important (if small) issue. If anyone could provide proper phrasing and citation to indicate Christ's centrality as fact (or, as the case may somehow be, fiction), I'd appreciate it. -Infiniteseries 04:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe something like "The church is emphatic about its central focus on Jesus Christ"? --Masamage ♫ 04:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. The original wording was mine, and I phrased it that way because I know from experience with the Mormonism and Christianity article that many people disagree that the church's central focus is on Jesus. First, they don't agree that the Mormon Jesus is the Jesus, and second, they don't think Jesus is brought up much in typical church services (and they might have a point there, to be perfectly honest). We need to be responsive to those who hold that viewpoint, and phrase it in a way that is NPOV. COGDEN 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to respectfully disagree.  There are articles about the differences and criticisms of the church.  Let those articles deal with the issues of which Jesus is right.  The issue is "Does the LDS Church emphasize Jesus Christ?", not by how much, or as much as other churches.  Does the Catholic article talk about emphasizing Mary?  Certainly they do more so than LDS empahsize Joseph Smith.  So, the argument becomes moot because it is an argument of degree.  How much do they emphasize Jesus.  Clearly LDS emphasize Jesus as the main focus of their worship, and none other.  They have never changed that position from the day the Book of Mormon was published stating that the purpose is to convince mankind that Jesus is the Christ. Bytebear 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, but not every person with a notable perspective would agree, and that's where we have to be careful about NPOV. We can't say "Jesus is the central focus of the church" consistently with NPOV. Maybe we can say "the church promotes Jesus as its central focus". That sounds pretty neutral to me. COGDEN 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds better.  The wording should not imply the church is defensive about their beliefs or changing their beliefs because of criticism.  I think the leadership is bewildered by such accusations more than anything.  Bytebear 18:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The church emphatically promotes the idea that its central focus is Jesus." 

message: The introduction's last line says:
:In recent decades, however, the church has united with traditional Christian churches in promoting humanitarian and moral causes.
I don't think humanitarian cooperation with other churches is "recent".  Can I assume it is a dirivative of the idea that the church is "trying to pass itself off as Christian?"  I think it's fine to say that the LDS Church has done many humanitarian endeavours with both Christians and non-Christians alike, and show some references.  I know the whole "Christian" think is touchy, and I think the intro does a very good job of stepping around land mines, but this line of text seems awkward, like the only way Christian faiths accept Mormons is if they are giving money to a cause, which they would just as easily accept Jews or Hindus, etc. Bytebear 22:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro text 

message: "You cannot make that claim. Other churches feel they are the 1830 church. avoid POV" 
It was a goofy edit and one I would have reverted too, but what is going on with this reason? --Masamage ♫ 03:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all the church established in 1830 was the "Church of Christ" and not the LDS Church.  Second, other groups claim they are the true "Church of Christ", not just LDS.  So you have to be careful about claims that the LDS church was THAT church, and not just founded from THAT church.  Bytebear 04:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's...weird, but at least it makes sense now. Thanks~ --Masamage ♫ 04:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am tired so I don't know if I am making complete sense.  Bytebear 04:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summary? 

message: First I'll start that I meet this wonderful man and the "GOD" subject came up and I was raised in a pentalcastle church and he is lds. I would like to know put in simple terms, what is the differance between these two beliefs? Please make it short and simple because I am sooooo confused. Thank you68.118.208.212 07:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can read the article Mormonism and Christianity.  The tildes will sign your edit. wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 13:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the differance? 

message: It is important to represent the movement and make sure if someone was seeking other organizations they can be found quickly.  None of these organizations are obscure and it will help show other parts of the movement in a NPOV manner.Jcg5029 23:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig Reference 

message: God the Father is understood to be the father in premortal life of the spirits of all who inhabit this earth.[8] He is considered both the spirit father and natural father of Jesus with Mary, thus inheriting from the Father power over death.[9] Belief in such a figure is common among members, and she has also been mentioned in talks by church officials, as well as in the hymns of the church.
These sentences make no sense. I think that something has been inadvertently removed in the second sentence (possibly about Mary and/or the relationship of Jesus to God the Father), but I don't know enough about Mormon doctrine to reconstruct. Vgranucci 18:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching that.  I've modified the paragraph to make more sense. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 00:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit 

message: Totally not appropriate. That needs to be merged to the temples article if it's merged anywhere. --Masamage ♫ 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. -SESmith 00:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been no discussion of it at all at Talk:Holy of Holies, so I'm going to change the merge templates around. --Masamage ♫ 01:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this merger template suggestion is malformed. It needs to be discussed on some talk page before adding the tag. I'm removing the tags, since I don't think the merger suggestion will fly anyway. There's enough material on the LDS Holy of Holies, if someone wants, for its own article. COGDEN 04:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No argument here. --Masamage ♫ 04:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy of Holies merge 

message: I'm questioning the abundant use of doctrine and covenants as references throughout this page.  WP:A says that scriptures cannot be used as references.  I understand the need for use in clarification "as in D&C ### states this" but I don't think D&C can be used to make claims as the D&C are considered scriptures.  Am I correct in this assumption? JRN 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide specific examples of improper usage? I think each one would have to be evaluated in a case-by-case basis. -SESmith 22:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An alternative can easily be found at scriptures.lds.org which has abundant references on various topics, using the Topical Guide and Bible Dictionary specifically. Bytebear 22:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Doctrine and Covenants as references 

message: Anyone know what's going on with the Ensign pic? It's acting like there's a nowiki tag around it. --Masamage ♫ 22:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed on this version of the article (diff). Not closing the image link properly on the BoM image was the cause of the symptom; the issue with this first image then influenced the Ensign image too, which _was_ formated properly. -- 65.101.29.133 00:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ensign pic 

message: I checked an older revision of this article.  It used to say "Largely due to the convincing power of this book, which Smith said he translated by a heavenly power, the church rapidly gained a large following who viewed Smith as a prophet."
In this diff, 199.106.103.254 changed it to read "Largely due to the convincing power which comes from the Lord's spirit which accompanies this book, which Smith translated by a heavenly power, the church rapidly gained a large following with Smith as a prophet like Moses, Abraham, and Isaac in Christ's church anciently."
I have reverted 199.106.103.254's edits twice.  My version reads "the church rapidly gained a large following who viewed Smith as a prophet", deleting "largely due to the convincing power of this book" entirely.
I don't think we can know how convincing the Book of Mormon is/was.  Oftentimes, it is the personal charisma and teaching of individuals that is convincing.  People often come to Christ through the personal testimony and witness of individuals not because a book is "convincing".  If this were not true, we could simply put a Bible and/or a Book of Mormon in the hands of every individual on this globe and thereby conver the world in one fell swoop.  Or we could force schoolchildren to read the entire Bible and ensure their salvation forever. 
I know that various LDS editors will want to raise up the Book of Mormon for glorification but this is an encyclopedia.  Let's keep the text encyclopedic.
--Richard 16:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convincing power of the Book of Mormon 

message: The church's Articles of Faith have been copied wholesale into the article several times, and I have deleted them citing Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. There's no need to copy the Articles of Faith anyway, since all the topics therein are discussed elsewhere in the article, and the Scripture section mentions them and citation to the Articles of Faith (Latter Day Saints) Wikipedia article, where a person can learn more. Moreover, the AofF has never been considered a definitive or complete statement of LDS beliefs: it's sole purpose, from the moment Smith included it in the Wentworth letter, has been to serve as a proselytizing tool, which makes it inappropriate to cite verbatim as if it were the church's creed, even if there were no Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources policy. COGDEN 18:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles of faith 

message: I seem to have gotten confused and re-instated a vandalistic edit rather than removing it as I intended.  I must have gotten confused somewhere as to what 156.45.254.11's edit was doing.  Somehow, I thought he was adding vandalism rather than reverting it and so I reverted him which put the vandalism back.  My bad.  --Richard 19:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies for unintended reinstatement of vandalism 

message: I think For the Strength of Youth could be quoted on this topic. See Sexual Purity
:The church teaches one is to "have [no] sexual relations before marriage, and be completely faithful to your spouse after marriage." Additionally, members are advised, "Do not date until you are at least 16 years old." And, "before marriage, do not do anything to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. Do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing... Homosexual activity is a serious sin. If you find yourself struggling with same-gender attraction, seek counsel from your parents and bishop. They will help you."
True to the Faith is also the closest thing there is to a summarized "official doctrine" (outside of Gen Conf and the Scriptures) of the church on many topics. BTW, see Lavina Fielding Anderson's interesting take on this issue in the Winter 2006 issue of Dialogue. Some quotes from Chastity
:"All sexual relations outside of marriage violate the law of chastity and are physically and spiritually dangerous for those who engage in them."
:"Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual activity is a serious sin. It is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality."
:"Merely refraining from sexual intercourse outside of marriage is not sufficient in the Lord’s standard of personal purity. The Lord requires a high moral standard of His disciples, including complete fidelity to one’s spouse in thought and conduct."
However see also:
: "Keeping the Law of Chastity...Decide now to be chaste...Control your thoughts...Stay away from pornography...If you are single and dating, always treat your date with respect...If you are married, be faithful to your spouse in your thoughts, words, and actions...When you stay away from such circumstances, temptation gets no chance to develop."
Which implies that thoughts, although they are a "sin," aren't necessarily breaking the law of chastity in the strictest sense, but the pathway to temptation and breaking the law. How about something like:
::The church teaches that members must "have [no] sexual relations before marriage, and be completely faithful to [one's] spouse after marriage." Additionally, the church expands on that topic through what it calls the law of chastity. Members are taught to be "morally clean in their thoughts, words, and actions" and to abstain from pornography.[19] Members are advised that, "before marriage, [they should] not do anything to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. Do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing... Homosexual activity is a serious sin." Marriage includes most government-recognized marital unions between a man and a woman in addition to Celestial marriages in the temple. However, common law marriage, same-sex marriage and plural marriage are not recognized.[21] The way the law of chastity has been interpretted and taught has varied somewhat according to cultural norms of the time and has included differing standards of modesty.[23] Sexual sins may result in church discipline, including a possible excommunication, in which a member loses their church membership and privileges, but may continue to attend meetings. 
I would take out what is allowed in marriage as there is no official doctrine on the subject. I think this is more closely aligned with that I would call "doctrine." And it clearly outlines that the "law of chastity" tends to include a more expansive view of sexual sin, standards of conduct, and advice on prevention. --Trödel 19:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength of Youth and True to the Faith 

message: The lead sentence of the General authority article states "a general authority is a member of a select body of approximately 100 men with administrative and ecclesiastical authority over the church".  However, if you look at Section 2 "Composition and distinction from General Officers", the table suggests that there are many more general authorities (just add up the number of people in all the rows).  Except User:Joshuajohanson informs us that only the first two Quorums of Seventy are general authorities.  But, if each Quorum of Seventy has 70 members, then we have 140+ general authorities which contradicts the lead sentence (unless you consider 140+ to be approximately 100).  In that case, would you buy this $100 bill from me for approximately 100 dollars?
Something is broken here and I don't know enough to determine how to fix it.  Would somebody who does know please fix it?
--Richard 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is called Quorum of the Seventy because each quorum can have up to seventy members.  They don't  have exactly seventy members.  Also, the around 100 men are current members.  Helvécio Martins is actually dead, so he is no longer part of those 100 men.  His picture was actually part of the section on Blacks and Mormonism, because he was a prominent figure in the history of blacks in the church.  However, that section was combined with the priesthood section, and so I don't think a dead priesthood holder should be used because the section is no longer about blacks in the church.Joshuajohanson 20:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: At the time of the most recent general conference (April 2007) there were 105 general authorities: 3 in the First Presidency, 12 in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, 3 in the Presiding Bishopric, 52 in the First Quorum of the Seventy, 28 in the Second Quorum of the Seventy, and 7 in the Presidency of the Seventy (who I believe are also members of the First Quorum of the Seventy. You were misled, Richard, by the assumption that there were 70 members of each quorum of the seventy. The number of members of those quorums fluctuates, and, as far as I can remember, have never had 70 in both quorums, at least recently -- there may have been a 70 member quorum during Joseph's Smith's time. It may be helpful to realize that 70 is seen more as a limit to the size of the quorum rather than a minimum number. That said, it is an easy assumption to make. Paul D. Anderson 20:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also a few emeritus general authorities -- typically this is due to being unable to continue due to health reasons. Members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are not routinely released for health reasons -- they are lifetime appointments. Paul D. Anderson 20:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the explanation.  Paul, would you please fix this in the General authority article so that others will not be similarly confused?  --Richard 20:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a clarifying footnote, with a reference to a source. Paul D. Anderson 21:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many general authorities are there? 

message: I noticed this paragraph ends with, "but it has cooperated with other churches in promoting humanitarian and moral causes.".  I think it would be better to say, "while allowing others to worship how, where or what they may."
This is a paraphrasing of the 11th article of faith and I think makes clearer what the church is about.  The original sounds as if the LDS church only admits there are other faiths when they are all trying to help someone.  
Mynty 01:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmmmm... That would certainly be an alternative, well thought! But, lets better wait to see what others think about it; or maby you could directly be bold and make the changes right now... It´s up yo you... ♠Tom@sBat 01:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the way it stands now, which describes the behavior of the church instead of a professed belief. --TrustTruth 01:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction Paragraph 

message: I just transferred the following statement from the article page:
:"Missionaries and missin Presidents are not paid. Missionaries' families are asked if possible to donate to a general missionary fund."
Overlooking the misspelling, does anyone have a reference that all Mission Presidents are paid?  Also, Missionaries are not paid to serve missions, but are requested to save a sufficent amount prior to their missions. In addition, as stated, families and wards pay for monthly upkeep. This is different from the church paying for it.  Thoughts? --Storm Rider (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are looking for a reference that mission presidents are not paid.  I have a friend who served as a mission president, and he surely wasn't paid to go.  The top general authorities get a stipend, but I recall LeGrand Richards mentioning that a certain person who was called as a general authority received a stipend less than what they had been paying in tithing (and they sent the stipend back! ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 00:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mission presidents are paid (although I'm sure a few of the wealthiest ones might decline payment). That's clear from church literature (I'll try to find the best citation). Also, genereral authorities are paid, and they get other benefits, which is also clear from church literature. Church literature doesn't say how much they are paid, but some historians have done some digging in church archives and found out some of the figures. They end up doing quite well, actually (not that the money is worth the stress). See, e.g., Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power. Information about what Hinckley is paid, and his other benefits, have also been printed in newspapers. COGDEN 17:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  COGDEN is right here - Mission presidents are, at a minimum, paid with free housing, free car (usually), travel expenses, etc (even if they refuse the stipend). However, unless the mission president declines, they are also paid a sufficient stipend to cover additional expenses. For many it seems small compared to their former salary, but I've been told it is not frugal. I know mission presidents (not senior missionaries - for whom selling a house is much more common) who sold their home in order to not have the mortgage during their mission, and others who had small enough mortgages, or independent sources of income to avoid selling. All my information is from original reasearch. I would say we should definately not include that they are not paid (because it is not true) and try to find a reliable source for the stipend. One comparison could be made to Seminary and Institute Teachers who were traditionally (pre mid-80s) paid very little, but whose salary has improved lately (though from what I understand not to market levels) to attract teachers. Traditionally, Mission presidents were paid very little, if at all, "salary" but had expenses (home/office/car/travel/etc) provided for them.  --Trödel 19:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Payroll questions