Talk:Temple (Latter Day Saints)

message: I have proposed a new WikiProject which would aim to maintain and improve all of the temple articles listed  here. If you have any interest, you can leave comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#LDS Temples WikiProject. --Lethargy 02:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WikiProject proposed 

message: It is not necessary, in my opinion, to have the exact same links in every article about temples. Almost all of them currently contain at least some of these links:
* The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Official Site
* The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Visitors Site
* Mormon Temple Ordinances
* Mormon Temples and Secrecy
* Mormon Temple Worship - BBC Religion & Ethics
* Mormon Temples
* History of Mormon Temples
* Mormon Temples and Masonry
* Resources for the History and Symbolism of Mormon Temples
I am completely fine with having links about the specific temple mentioned in the article, but when general temple information is added to every page, all we are doing is spamming. Some of these links would probably be acceptable in the main temple article (this one), but not every one.
Is anyone opposed to removing general links from these articles? --Lethargy 21:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a template for each temple page which hopefully covers some of these issues.  I was thinking about putting these common links into their own template so they can be changed at a global level.  Bytebear 06:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although that would certainly make them easier to maintain, it would still put links to general sites about temples in each article, rather than links about that specific temple. Wikipedia has a guideline somewhere stating that internal links are preferred over external links; most temple articles already have a See also section which links to this article, where they can find more information and external links about temples in general. --Lethargy 20:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking about it, and I do think that the external links section should be specific to the temple article.  Ideally it should be a reference to the content of the article.  But each temple article should have in the "See Also" section a link to this artcile, and probably to the LDS main arcticle and to list of temples.  So there would still be a set of general links for each temple article. Bytebear 21:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link spam 

message: I'm new to wikipedia, and know that anything mormon is a touchy subject, so am not going to take action myself, but just point out what I assume are problems/irregularites in the "citations"  of the "Controversies" "Exclusive Temple Weddings" section of the article.  
Citation 2 (the first of the paragraph) takes you to an anti-mormon propoganda site with a clearly biased POV, and many speculative, skewed, and some downright false statements about the temple and the church.  I don't see how this link qualifies the statement "When a couple chooses to marry in the temple where a parent does not possess a temple recommend, the parent(s) may feel resentment and pain".  Does that statement need a link? If so it would seem that a newspaper or other article that quotes parents discussing said feelings would do well, whereas just a webpage (a propaganda one at that) arbitrarily stating that it is so ( from the page: "LDS temple rules forbid non-LDS parents from seeing their own children’s temple wedding. This leaves many parents literally standing outside the temple, devastated at being denied this moment in their child’s life. Matters are made worse by the fact that the temple wedding ceremony is so secret that it must not be discussed even with the parents afterward.") doesn't seem like a ligitimate or useful source.  I suspect it may have added to draw people to the site.
Citation 3 supposedly qualifies the statement:  "For those couples who prefer a non-temple marriage first, the couple is required to wait at least one year to be sealed."  The citation takes you to another anti-mormon site that discusses in depth the changes to the temple ceremony and does hit upon the topic, but is not an authoritative source by any means, once again a biased webpage, arbitrarily stating that something is so.  Of course, it is so, but it just doesn't seem like the right citation. Seems footnote 3 would be the correct citation here as it cites official church policy on the topic, verifying the statement, so I do not see the need for the link.  
Citation 4 takes us to the same source as citation 2.  It is meant to qualify the statement "Critics claim that this is simply an intrusive and divisive way used to persuade members to donate more, while at the same time, putting pressure on non-Mormons to convert".  OK, so we are citing the fact that critics claim something... this one is a little different.  The author of the webpage, although making all sorts of arbitrary claims of fact without citation, obviously qualifies as a critic.  However, although he says many things about temple marraiges (some skewed or taken out of context, some false),  he does not say anything about it meant to put pressure on non-Mormons to convert.  And the "this" in "critics claim that this" would seem to be a pronoun referring to the church's specification, per the previous sentence.  
I am not experienced in wikidom; I just wanted to bring these things up as I am probably one of the few people interested in the criticisms to click on the links and once i did it became obvious that they were bogus citations meant to lead readers to propaganda.  
All in all, this paragraph seems to be pretty rough, and could use some organization and cleanup. While the controversies regarding temple marriage definitely exist and should be noted, it could sure be cleaned up, stated more concisely and professionaly, and it seems some legitimite sources should be used. (or none at all would be better than the spam that is currently there.)
Thanks 
--KÆN 04:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Citations/ possible spam 

message: Some time ago, there was a discussion on this page (at its former location) concerning the legality and appropriateness of this article containing specific information on temple ceremonies. After reading through it, I'm not sure if any conclusion was reached. While it's not an issue at the present time, I think it's inevitable that in the future, specific ceremony details will be added. There's also the related question of whether to accept images of things held sacred by CoJCoLDS members: garmets, temple clothing, and depictions of temple ceremonies (whether real or re-enacted). When the issue presents itself, it'd be good to have the question settled — it may prevent a massive edit war, or at least help cool it down some.
For those unfamiliar with why this question is important, a brief explanation is in order. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold the specific details of ceremonies held in temples sacred and secretive. According to official Church policy (link forthcoming), it is not permissible for members to discuss details of ceremonies outside of the temple (i.e. specific wording used in ceremonies). Combine the controversy that exists about LDS Church practices with the curiosity of the general public and the free speech allowed by the internet and Wikipedia, and we've got a recipe for conflict.
As I see it, there are two questions at hand here: 1. Is it legal to display information, whether written or through multimedia, about temple ceremonies on Wikipedia which is not disclosed in LDS Church materials? 2. Is it moral to display such information? Or, perhaps a better way to state the question, Even if it is legal to display such information, should Wikipedia do so?
As I've mentioned before, I think it's important to resolve this issue before it comes to a head. There's a number of policies which could apply here, which I'll start to add in in the near future. For now, I'll create a subsection for each question, although I understand if there's some crossover. I also realize that the questions may need to be revised. Tijuana Brass 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another issue you neglect to mention is this: Is this the appropriate article to have such details?  This article covers temple of all groups within the Latter Day Saint movement, including the Community of Christ, which does not do endowment ceremonies in their temples.  There is an article (Endowment (Latter Day Saints) that covers such details, and this discussion should probably be moved to that article, and any information about the ordinance itself should be discussed there, and not in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bytebear (talk • contribs) 02:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality issues 

message: *Comment - Please refrain from comments that divert from the legal question unnecessarily, such as lengthy theological statements. Statements should be based upon policy and verifiable sources, not personal opinions. As for me, I'm withholding judgment for the time being. However, the precedent set by the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy seems to indicate that at least some material would be allowed. Tijuana Brass 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it legally permissible to display material (be it written, photographic, video, or audio) concerning temple ceremonies that the LDS Church would not want released to the general public?

message: *Comment - I personally am also withholding a decision on this issue. However, I see little precedent to disallow the display of legal, relevant content on Wikipedia. There have been some occasions where material has been censored — usually involving direct office action, from my understanding — but generally, the possibility of material offending others has not been accepted as a reason for removal. With that said, if such content does find its way online, courtesy demands that some sort of warning or notice be set up advising readers, not unlike the  tag. Tijuana Brass 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: If it it permissible, should Wikipedia do so?

message: There used to be a graphic file showing the relative sizes of the temples.  Why was it removed;  it was very helpful?  66.191.19.217 22:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find it in the Temple architecture (LDS Church) Bytebear (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply.  The graphic I referenced included the CoC (RLDS), FLDS and AUB temples as well.  66.191.19.73 (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That image is in the article. Bytebear (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply.  When I posted back in 10/07 it was gone.  Good addition, BTW.  68.113.47.85 (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic? 

message: According to this link the name used prior to Community of Christ was "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" - Capital "D" and no dash.  Only when talking about the Salt Lake based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specifically, should the term "Latter-day Saints" be used.  Bytebear (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree — the RLDS Church always used "Latter Day Saints", not "Latter-day Saints". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community of Christ's old name 

message: Since when do LDS civil weddings not include a ring ceremony?  From my experience, civil ceremonies although simple, are no different than any other wedding ceremony, including exchange of rings.  The article implies a civil wedding is somehow more restrictive than any other wedding ceremony, which isn't the case.  Bytebear (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Using rings in a wedding ceremony are fine and used all the time. The exchanging of rings do not have a place in temple sealing ordinances. They may be exchanged by the couple, but they are not part of the ordinance. Could the editor who keeps making the change please explain his basis for saying they are never a part of marriages of Latter-day Saints outside of a temple? --Storm Rider (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the editor in question (whoever he may be) was referring to the fact that the "ring-exchange" is not an official part of a temple marriage. I know that, most often, rings ARE exchanged outside the temple and during civil marriages, but perhaps the wording (which I'd have to look over) was in this context referring to the lack of a "ring-exchange" as part of the official temple ceremony. If that's the case, then this edit seems to be correct. If not, then it needs to be revised. Clear as mud? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my original comment again.  I am only speaking of an LDS civil wedding.  The article currently implies that ring ceremonies are somewhat taboo, which is incorrect.  They simply are not part of the temple ceremony.  The article should say that Civil weddings are similar to any other traditional wedding.  Bytebear (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ring ceremony 

message: The video called "Between Heaven and Earth", which is being linked to from YouTube, is almost surely running afoul of copyright violation. The copyright for the video is owned by Bonneville Communications. There is nothing on the YouTube link that suggests that it has been placed there with permission or authorisation from the copyright owner. Thus, we should not be providing a link to the video. Please note that according to WP:COPYVIO, "[c]ontributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems." Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: YouTube video

message: I'm not sure why requests for citation are being summarily deleted—twice in recent days for the following sentence: "Temple worship played a prominent role in the Bible's Old Testament, and in the Book of Mormon." While it's true the original request for a citation did not use the proper template to ask for it, that's not really a great reason to simply delete it. I replaced the request with the appropriate {cn} tag and it was removed again. I really don't understand why it would be removed—it's entirely appropriate to add a citation tag for a statement that claims temple worship played a "prominent role" in both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon. It's certainly not a statement that is self-evident and therefore not in need of an appropriate citation. On the substantive merits of the claim, I'm not aware of temple worship playing what I would call a "prominent" role in the Book of Mormon. It's certainly there, and it's mentioned a number of times, but I don't know if I personally would call it "prominent". That's why we need a source that would so describe it and why it's appropriate to ask for one. Otherwise it's just users' subjective opinions as to what constitutes or does not constitute "prominent role". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I think being mentioned 20 times in pretty prominent. And it is something that goes without saying. I do agree that the statement could be considered original research, and we should look for a third party source. But, really, if the question is "Does the Book of Mormon promote temple worship?" the answer needs no citation. Bytebear (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that it needs no citation—WP:RS is just a core WP principle. If you and I disagree about the fact of its "prominence" in the BoM, that should be reason enough to justify a citation tag, which is my whole point. Q.E.D. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you need a citation, I recommend this. Bytebear (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good, but it basically consists of a run-down of the mentions in the book. I'm not sure he's arguing it is of a particular "prominent" role in the book, just that it's definitely "there". It would be good to get some non-apologetic sourcing on it, I suppose, since obviously an LDS Church source is going to frame it from a particular POV. But it's certainly better than nothing. Personally, I would consider "prominent" in the BoM: teachings about Jesus; accounts of wars; a personal visitation of Jesus; quotations from Isaiah and other prophets; accounts of civilisation downfalls as a result of pride; and others. But not temple worship. But that's just my view. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite tag

message: I can't see an obvious difference between this page and Temple (LDS Church), suggesting either it is a content fork or both lead sections need to be adjusted for greater clarity.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That page deals strictly with temples of the Utah-based LDS church, while this is a broader-based one covering temples in all Latter Day Saint sects. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content fork? 

message: Is it true that Mormon Temples are meant to replicatea aspects of solomon's Temple.  and, if so, would someone who knows something about it write it up on Replicas of the Jewish Temple.  thank you.Historicist (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, according to this site  the Mesa Arizona temple is "suggestive of pre-Columbian temples and the Temple of Herod."  It could probably be included in your list All LDS Temples have a baptismal font, designed from the description of the "brazen sea" of Solomon's temple. Also, the visitors' center at Temple Square in Salt Lake City has a model of the Holy Land, including the temple of Solomon.Bytebear (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Temple of Solomon

message: I took all the Cutlerite temple info, which was previously split between two different sections, and combined it into one section, all its own.  While the Cutlerites have never built a temple of their own, per se, their meetinghouse is essentially a temple, as they perform all the temple ordinances (save Eternal marriage, which they don't recognize) there, including the Endowment and Baptism for the Dead.  This gives their meetinghouse the effective status of a temple, even if they don't call it such--hence, my moving it to its own section, instead of leaving it in the "other buildings" and "other denominations" sections.  If anyone disagrees, please contact me before reverting my edits, if you don't mind, and let's talk about it...  Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutlerite information 

message: Hi, I suggest that this article can be merged with Temple (LDS Church). Both articles talk about the same topic. Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra Talk 06:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully oppose - The article you mention is specific to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is but one denomination in the Latter Day Saint movement.  This article, on the other hand, is broader in scope, encompassing temples of other denominations within the movement.  Since the LDS church has so many temples, they should retain an article of their own, while this one remains the broader-focused reference.  But that's just my opinion. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Oppose, while the vast majority (about 98%, so I am probably still not fully conveying how things are) of people in the Latter Day Saint movement are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the terms are not synonymous.  I do have to say that "but one denomination" just does not express what is going on.  However this article has large sections dealing with temples in the Community of Christ and other denominations.  It makes sense to have both articles since they cover different topics, even if there is some overlap.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Other comments? ok, if no other comments, we can remove the template. Indeed, many religious denominations confuse me when I'm doing Wikidata's maintenance. Thank you all. Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra Talk 01:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same topic 

message: I propose to merge Temple (LDS Church) into Temple (Latter Day Saints). It seems they duplicate each other. (Generated using markasduplicate.js.) --Ayack (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I've added about templates to help distinguish the two. Klbrain (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal