Talk:Dieter F. Uchtdorf

message: The following is cited, so it should be fairly straightforward to elaborate:  "On May 12, 2006 Uchtdorf dedicated Slovakia for the preaching of the gospel."  As it stands, however, I have no idea what it means, and I suspect that it would be similarly opaque to most non-LDS.  Translation, please?  Alai (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's something the LDS Church does for each country just prior to it sending missionaries in to preach. A person, usually a church apostle, goes to the country and gives a prayer/blessing on the country in preparation for the influx of Mormon missionaries. It's significant in that it generally only occurs once for every country in the world (unless there has been a large time gap since the last Mormon missionaries visited, in which case it might be done again). I agree that this needs to be worded better somehow to make it understandable. Zoporific 03:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I get the general idea now.  Can we perhaps say he "conducted a ceremony/service/prayer of dedication", then, or some such form of words?  I've dropped a note at WP:LDS.  Perhaps someone can find or start a related article that would help put this in context.  Alai (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Zoporific is correct in his/her assessment. As a Latter-day Saint, I can tell you that every time the Church is officially recognized and permitted to enter into another country (after the needed signatures have been gathered for the government to authorize such a course of action) an apostle (that is, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or First Presidency) is sent to offer a prayer of dedication. This dedicatory prayer (similar to those given for temple dedications) invokes the blessings of the Lord upon the country in question and, if the apostle feels so inspired, on the surrounding countries as well, and asks the Lord to prosper the work of the gospel in that nation. It would be equally appropriate to say that "he conducted a ceremony/service/prayer of dedication", however, our job as Wiki editors is to make pages concise in most cases, rather than more verbose. It is more pertinent to say that the land was "dedicated" than to say it any other way because otherwise, you would also need to change the page describing temple dedications. After all, the principle of dedication in the Church is basically the same, whether it be dedication of a home, church building, temple, country, etc. As such, I don't believe it would be productive to change the terminology in this case UNLESS you intend to also change the terminology for the other types of dedications as well. After all, a dedication is a dedication, no matter what is being dedicated. Anyways, that's my two cents on the matter. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is a thing that happens so often in the church (dedicating buildings, that is, not just countries), perhaps writing a Dedication (LDS Church) would be helpful, and then when used the article could be linked to instead of a verbose explanation given each time? Snocrates 00:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the further edits; I wasn't by any means wedded to my wording, just trying to remove the editorial adoption of (as I suspected) LDS-particular form of words.  Much better to report same, and describe.  As a reader I found it a jarring and tortuous usage to say someone "decidated a country", as it's for me quite clearly not at all the same thing as dedicating a building that demonstrably "belongs" to the religion performing the rite in question.  The article on dedication covers the first sense, as it's used by many a denomination, but certainly not the second, which may indeed merit a separate article for its LDS-specific usage.  (I suppose it's a "had not the competence to do it" sort of thing, at bottom.  The LDS in Slovakia can obviously dedicate its mission, but can it "set aside" a whole country "for a particular purpose" (of being preached to by LDS missionaries)?  Not in the common-or-garden, M-W sense of the word, they can't.)  Alai (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The LDS people cannot do it, but an apostle can. And though the idea of dedication is similar in principle, there is one important difference. That is: prayers of dedication, be it of a home, Church building, temple, or country are not just used to present whatever it is officially to the Lord. They are used to invite His Spirit to be there so that His will can be done regarding whatever it is. I hope that clarifies the question. But perhaps it would be useful to expand the Wiki "dedication" page to explain both definitions better. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was fairly clear that I was including apostles et al in my statement about LDS's realm of competence, which I think it's inarguable is the LDS church, and not entire countries.  My point is that there's a strong disconnect between the LDS usage of this word here, in which a Sufficiently Advanced LDS can "dedicate a country", and the general meaning of the word "dedicate", in which the LDS church, in whole or in part, cannot do so.  For that reason, and especially as we don't yet have an article on the LDS usage, we should be careful about Wikipedia's "editorial voice" using the word in the former sense (as distinct from directly reporting same).  Alai (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I quite understand what you're getting at. Just because a home is dedicated doesn't necessarily mean the Church is always present there. The same applies to countries. The purpose of dedicating a country is to officially accept the recognition of the government to have Church missionaries accepted to proselyte in the country. Besides that, even if there's not an official "Wiki page" on this context of dedication, the fact remains that this context is used in numerous Church publications. Each time a land is dedicated by the Church, an account of said dedication is contained in a later edition of the Ensign. The closest I could come to finding a reference for this on the Church website was an account of the growth in Slovakia in video form on the Church's Newsroom. The reference given for verification of this dedication has expired, so it might be wise to find another one. But in each of the references I've found relating to the dedication of a land by the Church, "dedication" is ALWAYS the word used by the Church to describe it. Since this is a Church related issue, my feeling is that we should use official Church terminology, explaining it as necessary, perhaps through another Wiki page. But I do not feel that the word "dedicated" should be removed or replaced simply because it's not understood. If that was the case, then many words used by WP would have to be explained, particularly pertaining to the Church. Of course, it's a moot point anyways, because an explanation is given in the article at any rate. I have no objection to the phrase as it now stands, however, I would recommend forming a Wiki page to discuss this definition of "dedicated" to eliminate the supposed "confusion" that the unexplained usage of this LDS-endorsed term might create. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovakia got dedicated? 

message: Why is an emeritus degree from byu (2008) in the section on early life?  perhaps it would fit better elsewhere?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.112.54 (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all relative. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Life? 

message: This article was recently moved from Dieter F. Uchtdorf to just Dieter Uchtdorf with the edit summary that there is no need for the middle name in the title.  However, he is most commonly referred to with the middle initial (see most of the references).  I am reverting the move.  Further discussion, if needed, can take place here.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It keeps him unique. (Watching him conduct LDS Conf, just now.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyone who knows Uchtdorf knows that, at least since his call as a General Authority in 1994, he has been referred to as "Dieter F. Uchtdorf." So I would be opposed to the move as well. Dieter F. Uchtdorf he is, and Dieter F. Uchtdorf he should remain until otherwise indicated. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  — As you can see, this article remains "Dieter F. Uchtdorf". Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common name 

message: I am wondering if we should include President Uchtdorf's meeting with Obama and others on immigration in this article.  Here is mormon.com, not an official Church site, take on it.   There have also been articles and editorials in various news organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for that. It is notable. LDS Church leaders always support and pray for the occupant of the oval office. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

text: BTW, mormon.com is an official site of the LDS Church, but mormonchurch.com is not. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: By-the-way, BTW, it is http://Mormon.org/ (not .com) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

text: BTW-BTW-BTW:  Mormon.com links over to Mormon.org so everything is Cool. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigration meeting with President Obama 

message: The article stated Since Uchtdorf faced conscription into the newly formed Bundeswehr, he chose instead to volunteer for the West German Air Force in 1959. This sounds as if Uchtdorf avoided being conscripted into the Bundeswehr by instead volunteering for the West German Air Force. Until the reunification of Germany in 1990, the term "Bundeswehr" applied to the West German armed forces in general, which included 3 service branches (army, air force, navy), and was chiefly staffed by conscripted West German citizens. By comparison, the communist East German armed forces were called "Nationale Volksarmee" (National People's Army) and had 4 service branches (army, air force, navy, border troops). Like most West German conscripts with suitable qualifications, Uchtdorf was allowed to opt for the branch in which to complete his term of service, and he chose the air force. I have therefore replaced the somewhat ambiguous sentence with When Uchtdorf was conscripted into the newly formed Bundeswehr in 1959, he volunteered for the air force, at age 19, to become a fighter pilot. Cyan22 (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  military service