Talk:Mormons/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"the vast majority of modern Mormons are monogamists"

Within the heading section, the phrase "the vast majority of modern Mormons are monogamists" doesn't reflect reality very well. Perhaps we should change this to say something like, "mainstream Mormons today practice monogamy." This reflects the fact that the 14 million memebers of the LDS church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints) enforce monogamy while also acknowledging the existence of small sects (or splinter gourps) that both practice polygamy and consider themselves in name "mormons". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.2 (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you replace "mainstream" with "most" or "almost all", I think that would be pretty good. I'd like to avoid mainstream if possible, given that it could be construed as implying a mild value judgment. Alternatively, I'm sure there are many other more artful ways to express the main idea. COGDEN 08:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if one includes polygamous Mormons, is it still not true that the "vast majority of modern Mormons are monogamists"? Or is it being suggested that most LDS Church members believe in polygamy but practice enforced monogamy? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

First, I would agree that the vast majority of Mormons are monogamists. If there were a hundred thousand practicing Mormon polygamists (doubtful), that would still constitute less than one percent of Mormons.

Second, I find it strange that this small but controversial issue finds itself in the second paragraph in the introduction. I'm not saying it should be hidden away - it's important, and has its place in a Wikipedia article, but it should not be the focus of the article. --Adjwilley (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)adjwilley

At one time, polygamy was the defining element of Mormonism. That's not the case today, but I think it still retains importance in a definitional sense. A history of polygamy is what separates Mormons from other Latter Day Saint religions such as the Community of Christ. So I think that's one purpose to mention polygamy in the lede. Another purpose might be that in the popular mind at least in the U.S., Mormons are still largely associated with polygamy, as any LDS missionary can attest. If that's the case, it makes sense to clarify the issue in the lede. COGDEN 19:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. Adjwilley (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Adjwilley

I do think it sounds odd to put it in the second sentence. I think switching the second sentence with the fourth sentence makes the lede flow better.Kant66 (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I would support switching the second and third paragraphs. Adjwilley (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Images

The placement of some of the images seems to be a bit of an inside joke, with Reid on the right (top row), Romney on the left (middle row), and Beck in the center (last row) -- was this intentional? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No, just a coincidence. COGDEN 23:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the picture of Brigham Young is already in the body of the article, we could use his spot for somebody else. . . perhaps a little less black-and-white. We're a little heavy on political figures already, but perhaps a popular sports figure like Steve Young or Jimmer Fredette would do. A woman would be nice too since men:women are 7:2 right now in the image, but none come to mind at the moment. I don't know how hard the change would be to implement. Adjwilley (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

US bias

I put the worldwide template on this article because I think it has a very strong US bias. It makes broad statements about Mormons that don't really apply outside the US. Wrad (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please be more specific about what parts of the article have a US bias. COGDEN 10:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The article spends almost the entire time talking about the US. It devotes a grand total of one sentence to Mormons in other countries, when it says they are an international group. This seems disproportionate to me, since most Mormons are not Americans. Wrad (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think that much of the material in this article applies to Mormons everywhere, but there also has to be some sociological material, somewhere, written specifically about non-U.S. Mormons. COGDEN 17:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope that we are now closer to removing the template as there is now a whole paragraph devoted to international Mormons. I wasn't able to find many sources on the subject, and I'm not sure how much there is out there. It is my understanding that the lds church is quite uniform internationally. I've actually heard it compared to McDonalds multiple times. As for the members, the cultures change from country to country, but capturing all that goes beyond the scope of this article. I also think most of the statements on Mormons in this article apply internationally. Adjwilley (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not an ethnic group

To be a mormon, one has to follow some section of their beliefs and practices. Atheistic, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Catholic, etc. "mormons" do not exist. There are different nationalities and ethnicities within the Mormon faith. There is no mormon nation, mormon language, mormon national culture, etc. Those who have rejected the faith completely would not be classified as mormons.

Compare this for example with Punjabi people in northwest India. Not all Punjabis are of the same religion and they are divided into agnostics/atheists, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims yet their ethnic and ancestral Punjabi ties go beyond their respective religious and even national (India vs Pakistan) communities. Epf (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not an "ethnic" group, but in many areas is would be considered a "cultural" group, which is what the article says. I personally know an atheist who is very open about his cultural "Mormonness". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That type of box is part of the Wikipedia ethnic groups project for national cultural groups with a relatively homogenous common culture, language and/or descent. "Mormons" simply refers to anyone who adheres to such religious practices, even if non-practicing. Again, there are no Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, etc. "mormons". Just because someone is of northern European descent and from Utah, does not make him or her mormon. If you do not follow any of the customs of the mormon faiths, what else is there that is mormon ?? I had two mormons come to my door a year ago, one was Chinese and one was a white/European-American, clearly they are not of the same cultural or ethnic group.Epf (talk) 07:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you make sure there is a consensus for removing information before you remove it again. I disagree with your position. Let's see what others think about this issue. I see no reason the "box" as you put it, can't be used in this instance since it's recognized as a cultural groups in many areas. As I said, I know atheists who consider themselves "cultural" or "DNA Mormons", and they, e.g., don't smoke/drink alcohol or coffee, and so forth. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that you raised this same issue at Talk:Mormonism, and users provided a number of sources which discuss Mormons as a cultural group, with some even arguing that it is an ethnic group. Did you see that part of the discussion or are you just ignoring it so you can edit as you prefer? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a split of authority on whether Mormons are an ethnic or ethnoreligious group. Some sociologists say yes, while others say no, or at least not anymore. The sociologists who describe Mormons as an ethnic group were mostly writing in the mid-20th century, when Mormons were arguably less assimilated then they are now. But there's still a split of authority. COGDEN 15:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Mormons are certainly not an ethnic group. Whether a person is Mormon or not is determined by whether they have been baptised into the church. If a person has been baptised but is now non-practising, they are concidered to be an 'in-active' member of the church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.43.82 (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There are sources that argue that it is, which is the point, not what any one of us thinks about it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

From Bushman's Mormonism, a very short introduction (page 35 I think. . . I'm using the Google Books version)

"The Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethin Groups (1980) includes a long entry on the Mormons, one of the few groups in the volume whose inclusion is based on religion rather than national origins or common ancestry. Surveying the entire range of social configurations that evolved within America, the sociologist Thomas F. O'Dea observe that the Mormons 'came closer to evolving an ethnic identity on this continent than any other group.'

"Mormons like to think of themselves as a peculiar people with an overarching identity. If asked who they are, many church members rank their Mormonism above race, national origin, class, or vocation."

Adjwilley (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So, as I understand it, while Mormonism is not necessarily an ethnicity, Mormons have sometimes developed distinguishing customs. Catyacatanne (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

I think there needs to be source support for the statement "Many Mormons are also either independent or non-practicing." 99.56.80.78 (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Linking The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the "See Also" section

There seems to be some disagreement as to whether The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints belongs in the "See Also" section. Wikipedia guidelines state that "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section ... however ... it is ultilmately a matter of editorial judgement and common sense." It also states: "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible."

I argue that the LDS church belongs in the See Also section, while noting that it is already cited in the body of the article. Here are my reasons:

1. Roughly 98% of Mormons are Latter-day Saints.

2. Many people (myself included) use the "See Also" section as a guide for reading. I often skim articles and then click on the links to find out more. This article gives a decent overview of Mormon history and polygamy, but doesn't do a very good job of discussing the teachings, practices, and organization of the LDS church. I'm not saying it should do that; however, when somebody searches Wikipeda for "Mormons," there's a very good chance they're wanting to know about the LDS church, and the best place for them to learn about that is not on the Mormons page.

3. For the reasons stated above, there needs to be a clear link in the "See Also" section - not buried in the body of the text.

4. The proposed link is more relevant to the subject matter than the two links we have currently (All About Mormons ("South Park episode)" and "Black people and the Latter Day Saint movement").

5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page links to Mormons in its "See Also" section - even though Mormons is already linked in the body of the article. That is a relatively well-kept page, and it links here. There's no reason not to have it go both ways.

In conclusion, I only think of two reasons to not have the link. The first is the Wikipedia guideline, which we've already discussed. The other reason would be that the ~2% of non Latter-day Saint Mormons don't want the link to be there for their own reasons.

Please let me know your thoughts. Adjwilley (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Adjwilley

• I just don't think it is necessary at all because the article in question is linked to in the very first paragraph of the article already. The link is far from "buried", as is stated. To add a further link in the "see also" section seems inappropriate because it is not accompanied by another link to Mormon fundamentalism, or Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or other articles about Mormon but non-LDS Church churches. I don't see any need to do anything to reinforce the perception that the article might be slanted towards promotion of the idea that all Mormons are members of the LDS Church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason for not adding Mormon Fundamentalism is because they only make up like 0.3% of Mormons. I could see maybe justifying a link to the Community of Christ. The purpose of the link is not to reinforce any perception that all Mormons are LDS - the article does a pretty good job at refuting that one. The purpose is to make it easier and more accessible for people to learn about Mormons on Wikipedia. I wouldn't call it slanted to have a "See also" link to the church that 98% of Mormons belong to. Adjwilley (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think before you make the changes again, there needs to be a consensus for the change, since it contradicts the applicable guidelines. (Members of Community of Christ are do not self identify as "Mormons", so I doubt such a link would be appropriate. "Mormons" are generally those who followed Brigham Young after Joseph Smith's death, as the article explains.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I usually only favor adding articles to the "See Also" section when it is a related topic that is not yet discussed, or barely discussed, in the article itself. Otherwise, the links are redundant. In many articles, a "see also" section is not even needed, particularly in the most comprehensive articles. I see the section, in part, as a hold-over from paper encyclopedias that do not have the benefit of wikilinks, although there are still many instances where the section is helpful. COGDEN 23:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's also my understanding of the purpose of the "see also" section; I don't see it as an opportunity to "re-emphasize" what an editor might regard as a particularly significant link that was previously seen in the article, since that almost always is subjective and open to dispute. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough Adjwilley (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Polygamy officially ended in 1890, not the early 1900s

Polygamy officially ended in 1890, not the early 1900s. The "1890 Manifesto" that officially ended polygamy is a well-documented fact, and this article should reflect it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qumran1 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The open teaching and authorization of plural marriage ended in 1890 with the Manifesto, but it continued to be practiced quietly by a minority of church leaders in the U.S. into the 20th century, and it continued to openly be taught and practiced in some areas of Canada and Mexico. It wasn't really until the Second Manifesto that plural marriage "ended" definitively in the LDS Church, although men who had been married to multiple wives were never required to divorce their plural wives or anything of that sort, so it did linger on for some time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The language of the first manifesto (1890) seems pretty clear to me, and it was unanimously voted "authoritative and binding" by a general conference. Of course, there will always be a difference between the official policy and how individuals choose to behave.

Here's an example: we say that slavery in the US ended in 1865 with the collapse of the confederacy and 13th amendment. But it took longer than that for everybody to abandon the practice completely. There were slaves as late as 1880 (probably later) and the civil rights movement didn't come around until the mid to late 1900's. Even now, there are thousands of sexual slaves in the United States. So when did slavery end? 1865. That's what we teach in textbooks - that's when the law was passed. Same with the Manifesto.

(Please note: I am not trying to compare polygamy to slavery - I was just using it as an example of differences between official policy and practice.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjwilley (talk • contribs) 16:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I added the appropriate sources. You can read them and come to your own conclusion, but most scholars have determined that authorized plural marriages in the LDS Church did not end in 1890, but that this date signalled an end to the open teaching and open authorization of the practice within the United States. It was not until the Second Manifesto that the church really stopped authorizing new plural marriages, and even then Hardy cites evidence that some were possibly authorized as late as 1918. This is all discussed in more detail with sources in 1890 Manifesto. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Incidentally, the LDS Church itself acknowledges that plural marriage did not end with the Manifesto. As it says here at lds.org:

Just as the practice of plural marriage among the Latter-day Saints began gradually, the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was also gradual. Some plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto, particularly in Mexico and Canada. In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith called for a vote from the Church membership that all post-Manifesto plural marriages be prohibited worldwide.

That statement by the church is consistent with the findings of independent historians. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources. I actually read the entire third article. I would still argue that the official ending was in 1890, but you are right that the practice continued on a smaller scale over the next 15 or so years. I suppose if it hadn't, there would have been no need for a second manifesto. I tried to revise the sentence to suit all parties. I tried not to make it sound awkward, which required me to split the first sentence.

Adjwilley (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)adjwilley

So can we call this one resolved? I do have to apologize for my comment early on about the original "early 1900's" statement not having sources on it. I realize now that it didn't have sources because it was in the lead. That's me getting used to Wikipdeda. So sorry. . . you were right in the first place Good Ol’factory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjwilley (talk • contribs) 00:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Garments are significant for more than encouraging "modesty"

Yes, one purpose of garments is to encourage modesty in dress. But their significance goes far deeper than that. The primary purpose of garments is to remind the wearer of covenants, or promises, they have made with God in the Mormon temple. Hence the symbolic markings on the garment, each of which represents a specific promise to God. These symbolic markings can be found on the breasts and above the right knee. The best way to summarize the garment is this: Garments are an outward expression of an inward commitment to God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qumran1 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that can be explained in a short section on "Dress and appearance", yet to be added, which might also discuss Mormon modesty in general, BYU dress code, attitudes about piercings and tattoos, the dress of Mormon missionaries, and possibly the pioneer garb of many Mormon fundamentalists. COGDEN 00:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I inserted the words "remind them of sacred covenants and" which I think remedies the problem, without having to add a new section. A "Dress and Appearance" section might be a little overkill at the moment because the "culture and practices" is underdeveloped in more significant ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjwilley (talk • contribs) 17:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Culture and Practices section

I'd like to gradually expand the Culture and Practices section a little. . . it's a bit wimpy at the moment. For a start, here is part of the Lead that I copied from Culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I cut some parts out where it goes into too much detail (they had a ton of stuff on abortion). I realize this will need some heavy editing before going up on our article, which is why I posted it here first. I plan to work on it for the next week or two, and welcome all suggestions, criticisms, etc. I will probably need some help making sure this applies to all (or nearly all) of Mormondom, and not just the LDS church.

See also: Culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Cultural Mormon

Mormons have a distinct culture, influenced by their doctrine and history. Mormons and their culture are headquartered in the Intermountain West, but as the faith spreads around the world, many of its more distinctive practices follow. Practices common to Mormons include: attending weekly worship services, participating in lay leadership of the church, paying tithing, fasting on a regular basis, and refraining from work on Sundays when possible. Many LDS young men choose to serve a two year proselyting mission.

Mormons adhere to the Word of Wisdom, a health law or code that prohibits the consumption of tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, and other addictive substances. Mormons also oppose addictive behavior such as viewing pornography and gambling.

Mormons emphasize standards they believe were taught by Jesus Christ, including personal honesty, integrity, obedience to law, chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage. They put a notable emphasis on the family. The concept of a united family which lives and progresses forever is at the core of Latter-day Saint doctrine. Many Mormons hold weekly family home evenings, in which an evening is set aside for family bonding, study, prayer and other wholesome activities. Latter-day Saint fathers who hold the priesthood typically name and bless their children shortly after birth to formally give the child a name and generate a church record for them.

Mormons have a strict law of chastity, requiring abstention from sexual relations outside of marriage and strict fidelity within marriage. All sexual activity (heterosexual and homosexual) outside of marriage is considered a serious sin. Same-sex marriages are not performed or supported by the LDS Church. Church members are encouraged to marry and have children, and Latter-day Saint families tend to be larger than average. Mormons are opposed to abortions, except in some exceptional circumstances, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, or when the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy. Latter-day Saints are counseled not to partake of any form of media that is obscene or pornographic in any way, including media that depicts graphic representations of sex or violence. Tattoos and body piercings are also discouraged, with the exception of a single pair of earrings for LDS women.

Adjwilley (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Adjwilley

• Comment. For many Mormon fundamentalists, even one pair of ear piercings for women would be strongly discouraged. For obvious reasons, Mormon fundamentalists also place less emphasis on obedience to the law—for them, they would feel justified in disobeying secular laws that conflict with their moral conscience. Apart from those two slight differences, everything mentioned above probably applies to Mormon fundamentalists. (Though I am unsure if most fundamentalists have Family Home Evening, Home Teaching, and Visiting Teaching. They probably have things that are very similar, but they may not use that terminology, which was developed in the LDS Church after some of the fundamentalists broke away.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I spent some time today reorganizing the section - it started out pretty scattered, and I tried to organize the topics into paragraphs focused on similar subjects (practices, Word of wisdom/addiction, family/marriage, chastity/abortions/same-sex marriage, etc). I took out the home and visiting teaching (kind of falls under lay leadership) and moved family home evening to the family section. I left the obedience to law unchanged. I think it's an important principle, but still ambiguous enough that it applies to FLDS. (readers are free to interpret "obedience to law" however they want, such as obedience to a higher law.) If I try to say that in the article, or define obedience to law, it just gets complicated, confusing, and messy.

I changed the Tattoos and body piercings part, but I'm afraid that simply saying that piercings are discouraged will be offensive to most LDS women. Saying that excessive piercings are discouraged won't be adequate for fundamentalist and conservative Mormons. Any ideas? Adjwilley (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Adjwilley

I've edited this about as far as I want. Does anybody else want to make some changes before it goes out? Adjwilley (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Style guide URL

The link to the LDS Newsroom Style Guide page should be updated from http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/style-guide to http://newsroom.lds.org/style-guide as this is the current URL. It is currently marked as a dead link in the article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Adjwilley (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Add an Image

[[:Image:Joseph Smith first vision stained glass.jpg|left|thumb|Mormons believe that Joseph Smith, Jr. was called to be a modern-day prophet through, among other events, a visitation from God the Father and Jesus Christ, as well as other heavenly beings.]] I would like to add an image to the article under the Beginnings section. It's the same image that is on the Beginnings section of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which is virtually identical to the Mormons Beginnings section). I copied it from there and changed "Church members" to Mormons. Some reasons for this are that it adds a little color to the article, and it highlights the "first vision" which is pretty much a staple of Mormon belief. Are there any objections to this? Adjwilley (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Some proposed changes to the article

Here are some ideas I've had for improving this article. My goal is to eventually get this article up to at least a B class. . . I realize that will take a lot of time, so I will likely take these on one at a time, unless people want to help out. Here are my proposed changes:

1. Move the First Vision to the first paragraph in the “beginnings” section. That is where it all began in a Mormon’s mind, and it should probably be in the first paragraph (instead of the third). The fact that Smith introduced the expanded story in Nauvoo is interesting, but not central to the purpose of the article. We could take the old sentence out, or leave it with minor changes.

2. Add a section on Beliefs. This would be for stuff that doesn’t fit under the Culture and Practices section. This section would probably include paragraphs or subsections on

a. Scripture: Bible (as far as translated. . .), Book of Mormon, Revelations of Joseph Smith, perhaps a word on modern prophets and personal revelation

b. Mormon Cosmology. Mormons have a fairly unique perspective on the nature of God, the origin of Man, the purpose of life, etc. These should probably be discussed in an article on Mormons. Included would be a brief outline of the Mormon “Plan of Salvation” (pre-earth life, temporal existence, resurrection, etc.)

c. Some of the Mormon ordinances. . . baptism, eucharist (sacrament), sealings, blessings etc. Baby blessings are mentioned in the Culture section, but most Mormons would argue that is less important than the above-mentioned ordinances.

d. A word about “Restoration” (pretty much a staple of Mormon belief)

3. The “Beginnings” and “Pioneer era” subsections are probably sufficiently detailed for the purposes of this article, but the “Modern times” section is wimpy in comparison. I’d like to expand a little on how the Mormons began to re-integrate themselves with the mainstream. This could be a chance to talk about Mormons in other countries and finally get rid of the ugly “worldwide view” tag at the beginning of the article. The sentence about the Church playing a prominent role in political matters should probably go. It is misleading, especially in the Modern times section, since one of the big changes between the pioneer era and modern times is that the LDS church got rid of the Utah theocracy, and now makes significant efforts to stay out of political matters. There are exceptions (prop 8 for example) but they are pretty rare. The humanitarian effort sprouting from the Great Depression is also a significant development.

4. Origins of the word ‘’Mormons.’’ This is probably a good question to answer for people. It is kind of a weird name after all.

5. A short relation to Christianity subsection, probably under the new Beliefs section. This is probably asking for trouble, since Mormons call themselves Christians, while traditional Christians say they're not. (I think they’ve had some trouble with this over on the LDS Church page.) Basically we can say that Mormons believe in Christ as savior and redeemer, and self-identify as Christians, but traditional Christian denominations reject this for so and so reasons.

6. A “Criticism of Mormons” section will probably be necessary too at some point so we can make sure that all points of view are addressed and that the article remains balanced.

Some last thoughts:

I don’t want this article to become a clone of the LDS Church even though some of these sections will resemble sections over there. My goal is to make this a stand-alone article that will clearly explain who/what Mormons are.

I understand that I will have certain biases, but I will do my best to write in a neutral way. I will probably need some help there, and I hope people will be open with their comments and criticisms.

Adjwilley (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Revisions for 1 and 4. The text currently reads:

Mormonism traces its origins to the Church of Christ founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. on April 6, 1830 in Western New York. Initial converts were drawn to the church because of the newly-published Book of Mormon, a self-described chronicle of indigenous American prophets that Smith said he translated from golden plates.

I propose the following revision: (This is a very rough draft. . . I will be changing this over time.)

Mormonism traces its origins to the Church of Christ founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. on April 6, 1830 in Western New York during a period of religious revival known as the Second Great Awakening. Roughly a decade earlier, the young Joseph was seeking a remission of his sins. Confused by the doctrines of competing denominations, he went into a grove of trees to pray about which church to join. During his prayer, Joseph claimed that the Lord appeared to him in a "pillar of light" and instructed him not to join any of the churches. A few years later an angel directed him to a nearby hillside where indigenous American prophets had buried a book written on golden plates. Smith claimed to have translated the book, and in March 1830 he published the Book of Mormon, named after Mormon, the ancient prophet-historian who narrated much of the book. The Book of Mormon drew many initial converts to the church.

Adjwilley (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. My understanding is that the date of the First Vision is uncertain, as Smith's various accounts set it in different years. There is also some historic evidence is that the major revivals in the Palmyra area did not begin until a few years after 1820, which has caused some to question to accuracy of the 1820 date. Rather than saying "ten years earlier", it might be safer to say something like "a number of years earlier", or "as a youth Joseph was seeking a remission of his sins". I realize the current article sets it fairly definitively at Smith's age 14, but it's been something I've thought should probably be changed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you completely on that point. Actually, when I was writing this I wasn't sure what date so say, so being a physicist, I threw out an order of magnitude. I didn't see the problem because in my mind the number 10 only has one significant figure (i.e. 1x10^1). I'll be sure to re-word that. Thank you. Adjwilley (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are some possible fixes. "A decade earlier," "Roughly a decade earlier," "Several years earlier," "A number of years earlier." "As a youth" works fine too. I didn't like it at first, but the more I think about it the better it seems. Any preferences? Adjwilley (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think any of those are fine except the first one, which I think maybe nails down the date too definitely. As long as we are somehow communicating that it was a decade earlier plus or minus a few years, it's sufficient. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Roughly a decade it is. Thank you. Adjwilley (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• To fix the other 14-years-old problem I can replace

He also introduced the church to the story of his First Vision, in which two heavenly "personages" (Mormons interpret them to be God the Father and Jesus) appeared to him at age 14. Long after Smith's death, this vision would come to be regarded by Mormons as the most important event in human history after the resurrection of Jesus.

with

He also introduced the church to the story of his First Vision, in which the Father and the Son appeared to him while he was about 14 years old. Long after Smith's death, this vision would come to be regarded by Mormons as the most important event in human history after the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I specified that he was about 14, replaced the awkward "Mormons interpret them to be God the Father and Jesus" with a less controversial "Father and the Son" (keeping the links). I added a note/citation about Joseph introducing the vision in 1842 (I didn't write it - I copied it from First Vision.) I added the "birth, ministry" before the resurrection, as this was the wording in the listed source. Adjwilley (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Adjwilley, just a comment about your statement a few days ago that you didn't want this article to become a clone of the LDS Church article, I absolutely agree. I see this article as largely a sociology article, about Mormons as a people, drawing from works like The Mormons by Thomas F. O'Dea, and The Angel and the Beehive by Armand Mauss. The LDS Church, on the other hand, is about the church as an institution. I actually think that some of what is currently in the LDS Church article could be deleted from that article and moved here. I think some of the "Mormons"-related material was in the LDS Church article largely because this type of sociological material didn't have a home before now. At the same time, this article should not be about the LDS Church organization. Also, this article needs to be broader than just LDS Mormons, and include at least some discussion of fundamentalists, though that would be a relatively small part of the article, commensurate with their small proportion among Mormons. COGDEN 02:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. You make some good points. I've been drawing heavily from Bushman's Mormonism, a very short introduction but based on your recommendation I'm working to procure copies of the other two books as well. Though I agree with you about the "LDS Church" page, I would be very hesitant to try to move any sections over here. My impression is that there are editors over there who would just as soon delete the Mormons page, rather than move sections to it.

The Fundamentalist issue is something I've though a lot about, but I've been procrastinating it because I'm not quite sure how to handle it yet. I agree that they should be included in the article, but I'm not sure how yet. Here are some of the possibilities I've thought about. (I will list the extremes as well, though I don't think they're necessarily the right options.)

1. Exclude them completely (I definitely don't agree with this, though I think many LDS-Mormons would)

2. Mention them somewhere between the Pioneer era and Modern Times (where they split off) and provide a wikilink to the Fundamentalist Mormon page, then focus the rest of the article on LDS-Mormons. I think I read a WP guideline somewhere that said to do this for small minorities, but I don't think this is the right solution either. I want the article to eventually include all Mormons, practicing, non-practicing, cultural, etc.

3. Mention them (with wikilinks) and write the article in such a way that it doesn't exclude them, but without going out of my way to mention them explicitly. This is what I've been trying to do, and Good Olfactory has helped a lot, pointing out things I'd included that don't apply to fundamentalists (i.e. the one pair of earrings being allowed for women or stress on obedience to law). When there is a conflict like that, I either omit it entirely or specify "LDS" or "LDS Church". So far, I've been focusing on the similarities and ignoring the differences, because I haven't made a decision yet on how to handle it.

4. Do as above, but include differences with notes or parentheses noting where Fundamentalists disagree. I don't really like this way because it makes writing (and reading) awkward. I personally hate reading Wikipedia articles where you can tell there's a conflict, and it's obvious where each party has stuck in their two bits.

5. Insert a section dedicated to Fundamentalists - discuss the differences, history, etc. I disagree with this approach as well, because I think it blows things way out of proportion.

In listing the possibilities in this order, I've obviously biased the discussion by putting my method in the middle. I think the article would be fine if I kept on that track. Personally, I feel like the fundamentalists are ever-so-slightly over-represented in the article. There are currently 3 wikilinks to the Mormon fundamentalism page (lead, end of pioneer era, beginning of modern era), whereas the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is only linked once (in the lead). I haven't changed anything though, and I would like some outside input before I do.

Another reason I like the third option is because I think it will be a more stable article. You won't be getting LDS Mormons reading the article, and then ranting about how the whole article is about polygamy, and you won't get Fundamentalist Mormons coming in and saying "Hey, I don't believe that!" and inserting their two cents or starting a conflict. I suppose my current philosophy is: "Hey, there are so many things to say about Mormons that aren't in this article yet, why worry about the controversial ones. For now, I'm just going to say stuff that everybody can agree with, and I'll deal with the controversy later." Adjwilley (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think #3 is a good approach, at least for the time being. I don't think we should go out of our way to include different or obscure practices by fundamentalists or other Mormon sects, but if a notable difference of distinction arises naturally, it might deserve at least some passing or footnote treatment on a case-by-case-basis. The big issue I'm thinking about is polygamy. Because fundamentalists have received a lot of media coverage, the issue of who, among Mormons, practices polygamy is an important topic. At some point, it might make sense to add a small, distinct summary section that discusses other types of Mormons, including fundamentalists, cultural Mormons, liberal Mormons, gay & lesbian Mormons, etc., just to give the reader a taste of the diversity of these small groups. COGDEN 21:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Adjwilley (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

New Beliefs Section

Scripture

Mormons have a scriptural canon consisting of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and a collection of revelations and writings by Joseph Smith known as the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. Mormons however have a fairly open definition of scripture. As a general rule, anything spoken or written by a prophet, while under inspiration, is considered to be the word of God. Thus, the Bible, written by prophets, is the word of God, so far as it is translated correctly. The Book of Mormon is also believed to have been written by ancient prophets, and is viewed as a companion to the Bible. By this definition, the teachings of Smith's successors are also accepted as scripture, though they are always measured against, and draw heavily from the scriptural canon.

Cosmology

Main article: Mormon cosmology

Mormons believe in "a friendly universe," governed by a God whose work and glory it is to bring his children to immortality and eternal life. Mormons have a fairly unique perspective on the nature of God, the origin of man, and the purpose of life. For example, Mormons believe in a pre-mortal existence where people were literal spirit children of God. In this state, God presented a plan that would allow his children to progress and become more like him. The plan involved the spirits receiving bodies on earth and going through many trials in order to learn and progress. The most important part of the plan involved Jesus, the eldest of God's children, coming to earth as the literal Son of God, to conquer sin and death so that God's other children could return. According to Mormons, every person who lives on earth will be resurrected, and most of them will be received into various kingdoms of glory. To be accepted into the highest kingdom, one has to fully accept Christ.

Ordinances

Main article: Ordinance (Latter Day Saints)

Part of Mormon's accepting Christ is done through covenants and ordinances. For example, covenants associated with baptism, and the Eucharist (commonly called sacrament) involve taking the name of the Son upon themselves, always remembering Him, and keeping his commandments. Mormons perform other ordinances, such as marriages and sealings in dedicated temples.

Because Mormons believe that everyone must receive certain ordinances to be saved, Mormons perform ordinances on behalf of deceased persons. These ordinances are performed vicariously or by "proxy" on behalf of the dead. Mormons believe that the deceased may accept or reject the offered ordinance in the spirit world. Ordinances on behalf of the dead are performed only when a deceased person's genealogical information has been submitted to a temple. See also: Baptism for the dead.

Restoration

Main article: Restoration (Latter Day Saints)

According to Mormons, a Great Apostasy began in Christianity not long after the ascension of Jesus Christ. It was marked with the corruption of Christian doctrine by Greek and other philosophies, with followers dividing into different ideological groups, and the martyrdom of the Apostles which lead to a loss of Priesthood authority to administer the church and its ordinances.

You seem to be trying to stuff too many things into that last sentence. It's a bit awkward. Catyacatanne (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Mormons believe that the Lord re-established the early Christian church as found in the New Testament through Joseph Smith. In particular, Mormons believe that angels such as Peter, James, John, and John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith and others and bestowed various Priesthood authority to them. Mormons believe that their church is the "only true and living church" because of the divine authority restored through Smith. They also maintain that other religions have a portion of the truth and advance many good causes and do much good insofar as they are led by the Light of Christ.

Personal Revelation

Though the LDS church has a hierarchical structure with a president/prophet dictating revelations for the whole church, there is a bottom up aspect as well. Ordinary Mormons have access to the same inspiration that is thought to guide their prophets. Mormons see Joseph Smith's first vision as proof that the heavens are open, and that God answers prayers. They place considerable emphasis on "asking God" to find out if something is true. Most Mormons don't claim to have had heavenly visions like Smith's in response to prayers, but feel that God talks to them in their hearts and minds through the Holy Spirit. Though Mormons have many beliefs that are considered strange in the modernized world, as well as a complicated and sometimes controversial history, they continue to hold onto their beliefs because they believe that God has spoken to them.

I think someone had better explain that personal revelation only supports and is no substitute for prophetic revelation. Catyacatanne (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Relation to Christianity

Main article: Mormonism and Christianity

Mormons believe in Jesus Christ as savior and redeemer, and consider Him to be the central pillar of their religion. Mormons embrace Christian values and self-identify as Christians; however many Christian denominations say that Mormons aren't Christian, on grounds that Mormons don't accept a traditional view of the Trinity. A prominent scholarly view is that Mormonism is a form of Christianity, but is distinct enough from traditional Christianity so as to form a new religious tradition, much as Christianity is more than just a sect of Judaism. See also God in Mormonism

I know it's still rough, but certain changes (citations and references especially) will be easier once I get this into the article. I think I'm going to throw it in, but I'm undecided whether to put it before or after the Culture and Practices section. Before would be nice, because it gives some background and foundation for some of the practices, but it's not as polished or important as the other section, so after might be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjwilley (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if this section could be cut down a bit. We already have the Mormonism article to discuss Mormon beliefs and doctrines. I think this should be a 2-3 paragraph, single-subsection section overview, with the reader directed to Mormonism for more information. COGDEN 22:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand where you're coming from on that, and I've had similar thoughts myself. I'm a little ambivalent about cutting it down at the moment. It's true that Mormonism should be about the beliefs while Mormons should be about the people. At the same time, I think the article on Mormons would be incomplete without a lot of the beliefs discussed here. Also, aside from the "Relation to Christianity" subsection, and possibly the section on Scripture, there isn't a whole lot of overlap with the Mormonism article (beliefs-wise - the history is similar). Restoration is also sort of covered, but cosmology, ordinances, and personal revelation aren't at all.

That said, I could probably start by getting rid of the "Relation to Christianity" section and then maybe trying to get rid of the sub-section headers, while still keeping stuff organized. Thoughts? Adjwilley (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed Relation to Christianity section completely. Adjwilley (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I cut out the sub-section headers, and replaced them with bolded titles for the paragraphs. There are still 5 paragraphs (instead of 3) but I think they are all necessary and helpful. The material is organized in such a way that one paragraph leads to another. Getting rid of the headings certainly makes the section cleaner, and it makes the table of contents more simple as well. If this formatting is acceptable, I think I'll take a similar approach to the Groups within Mormonism section (with bold titles instead of bullets or subsections).

This article will inevitably have some overlap with Mormonism and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I think that's ok. I want to make this article as complete as possible, with plenty of wikilinks to all the other topics. I don't know a lot about Wikipedia, but I think it's nice to have "hub" articles sometimes that link to everything. When I'm looking for some specific topic, I'll often do a Six degrees of Wikipedia type search, trying to navigate my way to the desired article through wikilinks, instead of using wikipedia's search tool (which I don't like). For example, say I was reading about Exaltation and I wanted to go to Baptism for the dead. There's no wikilink between the two, so I have to do it in at least 3 steps, with a "hub" article in between. So I click on Mormonism and look for an article that might get me closer to Baptism for the dead. Perhaps Baptism would get me closer. Note: for this particular example, (which I picked at random), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormonism, and Mormons can all get me there in 3 steps. However, on the Mormonism and LDS Church pages, the two links are in completely different sections ("Relation to Judaism" and "Mormon fundamentalism" sections in the case of Mormonism) whereas on the Mormons page, they're in the same section in a paragraph about "Ordinances." That's probably the main reason I like to put highly relevant articles in the "See Also" section.

Anyway, that's probably enough (or too much) said. . . let me know if you have any thoughts on this. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of the Mormonism article, though, I do think that it could use some cleanup as well.

Ideas for Modern times subsection

Old Modern times section

During the early 20th century, several smaller groups of Mormons broke with the LDS Church over the issue of polygamy, forming several denominations of Mormon fundamentalism. Meanwhile, the LDS Church, representing the vast majority of Mormons, worked to reintegrate itself with the American mainstream. The LDS Church grew substantially and became an international organization, due in part to the spread of missionaries across the globe. The LDS Church became a strong and public champion of the nuclear family and at times played a prominent role in political matters.

New Modern times section outline

Rough outline

• During 20th century Mormons tried to reintegrate with American mainstream.
• With the theocracy dissolved, LDS church tried to take a back seat in political matters
• Increase in patriotism, and more emphasis on family values. Mormons try to become "super-Americans" (that part would probably be a quote in footnote)
• In 1920's and 30's Mormons began migrating out of Utah, a trend hurried by the great depression, as Mormons looked for work wherever they could find it.
• Humanitarian program also started during Great Depression
• Church programs and activities to help preserve the culture, community, and Mormon identity (Stake and cultural centers, seminary, Boy Scouting and young women activities, Sunday meetings, and weekly activities like dances, basketball, camping trips, plays, etc.)
• In latter half of 20th century, "retrenchment" movement, Mormons try to regain status as "peculiar people"
• Started becoming a worldwide religion, esp after WWII, missionaries sent across the globe. Church membership doubles twice (or more. . . looking for citation)
• Worldwide, Mormons try to preserve culture and traditions of their native country (dancing, art, music, dress, etc.) while melding them with Mormon values. (I don't have a citation for this - it's just a trend I've noticed. Ideas?)

• The only thing I would actually drop from the old Modern times section is the sentence on the Fundamentalism split. The last sentence in the Pioneer era pretty much covers that, and could be expanded slightly if needed. It is my impression that Fundamentalists still sort of live in the Pioneer era and didn't really modernize with the rest of Mormons. I am not attempting to force them out of the article, and I still plan on putting them in a new section on "Groups within Mormonism" along with cultural Mormons, etc. Adjwilley (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In terms of melding local customs with church culture, I guess there could be a reference to temple architecture and the inclusion of certain songs in the hymnbook. The "with the theocracy dissolved" line seems a bit much and is arguable. While this is legitimate for pre-1857 Utah, by the time we reach the Modern Times the official theocracy had already been long-dissolved.

Armand Mauss' works might provide some good references here.Kant66 (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually over half way through the book, which is partly why I'm taking a long time writing this section. Adjwilley (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

New Modern times section

During the early 20th century, Mormons began to reintegrate with the American mainstream. They emphasized patriotism and industry, rising in socioeconomic status from the bottom among American religious denominations to middle-class. In 1920's and 30's Mormons began migrating out of Utah, a trend hurried by the great depression, as Mormons looked for work wherever they could find it. As Mormons spread out, church leaders created programs that would help preserve the tight-knit community feel of Mormon culture. In addition to weekly worship services, Mormons began participating in numerous programs such as Boy Scouting, a Young Women's organization, church-sponsored dances, ward basketball, camping trips, plays, and religious education programs for youth and college students.

During the latter half of the century, there was a retrenchment movement in Mormonism in which Mormons became more conservative, attempting to regain their status as a "peculiar people." Though the 1960s and 70s brought positive changes such as Women's Liberation and the Civil Rights Movement, Mormon leaders were alarmed by the erosion of traditional values, the sexual revolution, the widespread use of recreational drugs, moral relativism, and other forces they saw as damaging to the family. Partly to counter this, Mormons put an even greater emphasis on family life, religious education, and missionary work, becoming even more conservative in the process. As a result, Mormons today are probably less integrated with mainstream society than they were in the early 60's.

The LDS church grew rapidly after World War II and became a world-wide organization as missionaries were sent across the globe. By 1996, there were more Mormons outside the United States than in. Internationally, the church is surprisingly uniform, with congregations on all continents teaching the same doctrines. International Mormons tend to absorb a good deal of Mormon culture, possibly because of the church's top-down hierarchy and a heavy missionary presence. At the same time, international Mormons often bring pieces of their own heritage into the church, adapting the gospel to local cultures.

These are random notes that I am keeping here because I have no better place for them yet.

Could somebody please proofread this section for me? I'm getting pretty close to being done with this section, and could use a second pair of eyes. Adjwilley (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Haven't had much input here, so I pasted the current version into the article. I will continue to edit it from there. It's not perfect, and I could still use a second opinion, but I think it's definitely an improvement over the old section. Adjwilley (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The only changes I think I would make are: they "emphasized," not "embraced" patriotism and industry, I think it sounds more objective. I'm not sure if "from the bottom among" is grammatically correct, maybe "from the bottom of"? I'd also drop the whole "though the 1960s and 70s brought" sentence; it's a little unclear as to whether you're making the point that the church thought this. Maybe start it by saying that "throughout the 1960s..." I like the Mauss references, I keep meaning to read him but haven't gotten around to it yet. Kant66 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Made the change to "emphasized." The way they write, it was a little more dramatic then that, but I think this is fine. I didn't change "from the bottom among." The quotation in the book reads "By midcentury, Mormons had risen in socioeconomic status from the very bottom among American religious denominations to the middle-class ranks, and, since then, to virtual parity with such high-status denominations as the Episcopalian and Presbyterian." I think the wording is awkward, but I don't think "from the bottom of" would be the right thing to replace it with. I think the fact that Mormons don't view all the changes of the 60's and 70's as bad is important, and Mauss had said that as well. I added a near-quote in the footnote explaining that Mormons and other Americans viewed many of the changes as positive (in hindsight). Mauss was interesting and very informative, but I kept finding myself asleep on the book :-) -- Adjwilley (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Awkward wording in Beginnings section

Currently reads:

Nauvoo grew rapidly as missionaries sent to Europe and elsewhere converted new converts who then flooded into Nauvoo. Meanwhile, Smith introduced plural marriage to his closest associates. He also established ceremonies to allow righteous Mormons to rule as gods in the afterlife, and a secular institution to govern the Millennial kingdom. He also introduced the church to the story of his First Vision, in which the Father and the Son appeared to him while he was about 14 years old.

I think the main problems lie in the third sentence. The consecutive "He also"s bug me, as does the renaming of links (i.e. "Exaltation"="rule as gods", "Council of Fifty"="secular institution", and "ceremonies"="Sealing"). I can't really put my finger on what else bugs me, other than it's awkward and introduces a bunch of strange concepts (like "millennial kingdom", "rule as gods") abruptly with no explanation. I'll chew on this for a day, but any comments would be helpful. Adjwilley (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Converted new converts" and the two "Nauvoo"s are also a little awkward in the first sentence. Adjwilley (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Recommended replacement

Shortly after their arrival in Nauvoo, the Saints began construction of a new temple. The city grew rapidly as missionary converts migrated westward from Europe and elsewhere. Meanwhile, Smith introduced several doctrinal developments and organizational changes, including temple ceremonies, the doctrines of sealing, eternal progression (or exaltation), plural marriage, the organization of the church into stakes and wards, the organization of the Relief Society for women, and the Council of Fifty, an organization representing a future theodemocratic "Kingdom of God" on the earth. Smith also published the story of his First Vision, in which the Father and the Son appeared to him while he was about 14 years old.

Adjwilley (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I second your suggested changes. It reads a lot better. Kant66 (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I copied and pasted this into the article. I made a couple minor last-minute changes not reflected here (migrated->immigrated, their arrival->arriving) Adjwilley (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Distinctive beliefs"

I don't know if opposition to SSM qualifies as a distinctive belief. A belief worth mentioning, yes, but (depending on which poll you're looking at) one that a majority of Americans have.Kant66 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You're talking about the lead? That could probably be updated. . . When that was written, it was reflecting the article before the new Beliefs section. . . SSM or "distinctive" could go. You make a good point about the distinctiveness, though the LDS church has taken a good deal of heat over the issue recently. (refering to Prop 8) Adjwilley (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the SSM from the lead. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

See Also

The choices for the "see also" seem a bit arbitrary.Kant66 (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 64.45.208.51, 5 July 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} please change the first line from "founded by joseph smith...." to "Restored to the earth by Joseph Smith...."

64.45.208.51 (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that would reflect a neutral point of view. Mormons believe that Smith "restored" the true church to the earth, but most non-Mormons disagree. However, everyone can agree that Smith founded a church or a movement. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: That does not represent a neutral point of view. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Adjwilley (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps a more acceptable term (for Mormons) might be organized. Thoughts? Adjwilley (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Organized" seems best here, but it should definitely be noted somewhere that Mormons believe the church was restored, not just founded, by Smith. Catyacatanne (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The article does explain that in relative detail in the "Restoration" section. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Groups within Mormonism

This section has now been inserted into the main article, above the current section on Beliefs and after the Culture and Practices section.

Latter-day Saints, or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints make up over 99% of Mormons. The beliefs and practices of LDS Mormons are generally guided by the teachings of LDS Church leaders. There are, however, several smaller groups that differ from "mainstream" Mormonism in various ways.

Less active Mormons are LDS Church members who don't actively participate in worship services or church callings. The LDS Church doesn't release statistics on church activity, but it is likely that about 60% of Mormons in the United States and 70% worldwide are less active or inactive. Reasons for inactivity can include lifestyle issues and problems with social integration. Activity rates tend to vary with age, and disengagement occurs most frequently between age 16 and 25. A majority of less active members return to church activity later in life.

International Mormons (or Mormons who live outside of the United States) make up roughly 57% Mormons. Most Mormons are distributed in North and South America, the South Pacific, and Western Europe. The church enforces general doctrinal uniformity, and congregations on all continents teach the same doctrines. International Mormons tend to absorb a good deal of Mormon culture, possibly because of the church's top-down hierarchy and a missionary presence. However, international Mormons often bring pieces of their own heritage into the church, adapting the gospel to local cultures.

Utah Mormons: 13-14% of Mormons live in Utah, and Utah is the center of cultural influence for Mormonism. Utah Mormons are often more "conservative" than Mormons in other parts of the United States. Utah Mormons often place a greater emphasis on pioneer heritage then international Mormons who generally aren't descendents of the Mormon pioneers.

Black Mormons: Black people have been members of Mormon congregations since Joseph Smith's time, but before 1978, black membership was small. (From 1852 to 1978, the LDS Church had a policy against ordaining black men of African descent to the priesthood.) Membership has since grown, and in 1997, there were approximately 500,000 black members of the church (about 5% of the total membership), mostly in Africa, Brazil and the Caribbean. Since then, Black membership has continued to grow substantially, especially in West Africa, where two temples have been built. Many black Mormons are members of the Genesis Group, an organization of black members that predates the priesthood ban, and is officially endorsed by the church. See also: Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

LGBT Mormons: Members of the church who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual may remain in good standing in the church if they abstain from homosexual relations. While there are no official numbers, LDS Family Services estimates that there are on average four or five members per LDS Ward who experience same-sex attraction. Gary Watts, former president of Family Fellowship, estimates that only 10% of homosexuals stay in the church. Others dispute that estimate, saying numbers in support groups for active Latter-day Saints and for self-identified gay Mormons are comparable. Many of these individuals have come forward through different support groups or websites stating their homosexual attractions and concurrent church membership.

Liberal Mormons take an interpretive approach to LDS teachings and scripture. They look to the scriptures for spiritual guidance, but don't necessarily believe the teachings to be literally or uniquely true. For liberal Mormons, revelation is a process through which God gradually brings fallible human beings to greater understanding. Liberal Mormons place doing good and loving fellow human beings above the importance of believing correctly.

Cultural Mormons are Mormons who no longer believe some (or many) of the doctrines of LDS Church, but who self-identify as Mormon. Usually this is a result of having been raised in the LDS faith, or as having converted and spent a large portion of one's life as an active member of the LDS Church. Cultural Mormons may or may not be actively involved with the church, and in some cases may not even be officially members of the church.

"Fundamentalist" Mormons differ from mainstream Mormonism in their practice of plural marriage. There are thought to be between 20,000 and 60,000 members of fundamentalist sects, (0.1-0.4% of Mormons), with roughly half of them practicing polygamy. Some fundamentalist Mormons also practice a form of Christian communalism known as the Law of consecration or the United Order. The largest Mormon fundamentalist groups are the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS Church) and the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB). The LDS church seeks to distance itself from all such polygamous groups.

Ex-Mormons are people who have left the LDS Church. A poll of ex-Mormons found that a majority do not self-identify as a member of another faith, choosing to describe themselves as agnostic, atheist, or simply ex-Mormon. Others either retained belief in God but not in organized religion or became adherents of other faiths. Ex-Mormon attitudes toward Mormons and Mormonism vary widely. Some ex-Mormons actively proselytize against Mormonism, while some provide only support to others leaving the religion. Other ex-Mormons prefer to avoid the subject entirely.

The following will go in the third paragraph of the Modern Times section, to replace material on International Mormons. I also propose putting the picture of the choir at the beginning of Modern Times.

In 1929 the Mormon Tabernacle Choir began broadcasting a weekly performance on national radio, becoming an asset for public relations.

The LDS Church grew rapidly after World War II and became a world-wide organization as missionaries were sent across the globe. During the Great Depression the church started a welfare program to meet the needs of poor members, which has since grown to include a humanitarian branch that provides relief to disaster victims. In 1978, the church made another major step, reversing a policy of excluding black males from the priesthood. The church had previously been criticized for its policy during the Civil Rights Movement, but the change was prompted primarily by problems facing mixed-race converts in Brazil. Mormons greeted the change with joy and relief. Meanwhile, the church continued to expand, doubling in size every 15-20 years. By 1996, there were more Mormons outside the United States than in. The church currently claims a worldwide membership of 14.1 million.

Comments

The "Homosexual Mormons" section in the "Homosexuality in the Church of Jesus Christ..." article has a lot of information on LGBTQ Mormons.

Do "fundamentalist" Mormons count for this article? It just seems like it could open up the can of worms that is all of the dozens of non-LDS groups. However, they are known enough that it might be worth it to put them in here, especially since they self-identify as "Mormon," whereas the RLDS Church (I believe) does not.

For international Mormons it might be good to clarify "Mormons who live outside of the United States," to make sure that the article's tone reflects a non-American-centered worldview.

In terms of the inactive statistic, this site seems fairly accurate: http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/. However, it's obviously not ideal (being a blog), but it could serve for the time being. Also, I would probably change "generally believe in the church" to "may or may not believe," since we really have no idea.

Doesn't Armand Mauss talk about liberal Mormons? It seems like there should be some citable material there. Kant66 (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. They were quite helpful. Fundamentalist Mormons do count for the article, and I've included links to the two largest denominations. You are right as well about members of the RLDS Church (Community of Christ). I don't think Mauss talks about Liberal Mormons in the way the term is used now (I'm still trying to find better sources for that, as my current ones are websites.) I also changed the wording as you requested. The section is coming out of the rough-draft stage into the polishing stage, so any more comments would be helpful. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you should go ahead and insert this into the article. I think that something needs to be said about each of the groups listed above, and this is a good starting point to work with. There might be ways to put some of the above into a hierarchical outline of some sort, but I don't have any suggestions right now. I think that one thing that will improve this section is if we can find more citations to peer reviewed secondary sources, preferably sociology sources. Also, I think Black Mormons can be considered a distinct subgroup of Mormons, considering the faith's unique history with regard to that demographic. COGDEN 00:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I feel the same way about the sources, and I will continue trying to get better ones. I would like to write a little more here before putting it out on the main page. (I don't like making tons of edits on the article, and prefer to do the nitpicking here.) I need to write a half paragraph to fill out the last part of the Modern Times section (from which I am pulling the material on International Mormons). I plan on inserting a sentence or so on the humanitarian program during the Great Depression (since we're talking about WWII already) and then a couple of sentences on the 1978 lifting of the priesthood ban. I'll also try to get a paragraph in this section on Black Mormons (placed after the paragraph on Utah Mormons). Question: Do you think this section should go before or after the "Beliefs" section? -- Adjwilley (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a few more minor points: I think the section on less-active members should say "return to church activity" in lieu of "return to the church," since the former is more precise about their status. On

Maybe replace the sentence starting "the church is surprisingly uniform" with "The Church enforces general uniformity of doctrine across all geographic locales" or something like that, because the latter sentence succinctly explains why that's the case, whereas the former makes it seem like they all spontaneously teach the same doctrine. Also, maybe replace "at the same time" in the last sentence with "however."

With the Black Mormons section it seems like there should be a sentence about the priesthood ban, since that is what really makes this group unique enough to warrant special mention. Also, there could be a mention here of the Genesis Group, the organization of black members that predates the priesthood ban and is officially endorsed by the church.

Also, it just occurred to me that there is no section for the standard-believing Mormons. I believe the internet parlance here is "true-believing Mormon," although some might find this offensive and I'm not sure if it's made it into any kind of secondary print literature, despite the fact that it is heavily used on the internet. Whatever the term used, it seems like there should be a separate section for the standard that most people think of when they think of "Mormon."

Anyway, those are a few suggestions. I second the putting-up motion. Kant66 (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Kant66 (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Black Mormons currently exists as a standalone article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - many of the above groups have standalone articles, and on some of them I copied and pasted parts directly from the lead of the full article. The bolded title actually links to the article. This section is just to give the reader a taste of the diversity and links to the different kinds of Mormons. -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Kant66, I made most of the changes you suggested (inactive Mormons, international uniformity, Genesis, etc.) The priesthood ban is already discussed in the new 3rd paragraph in the "Modern Times" history section, and I have now moved another mention from a footnote to a parenthese in the "Black Mormons" paragraph. I also added a mention in the last sentence of the paragraph (the new sentence on Genesis Group), and it is discussed in depth in the See Also link at the end of the paragraph.

I'd never heard the term "True-believing Mormons", but I know what you're referring to. These are probably the people Mauss calls "Fundamentalist" - a term we can't use here for obvious reasons. I'm not sure what I'd write here, but I can try something. I do agree the group should be mentioned, so I'll chew on it for a while. -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Tempate:LDSaffiliation

Template:LDSaffiliation ( {{LDSaffiliation}} ) is missing from this article, although this template appears on all of the other articles listed in that template. As the article is semi-protected, could someone add it? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I added it - hopefully in the right place. -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks! -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Time to archive?

Just some housekeeping. . . I think it's time to start archiving old sections on the talk page. I would do it myself, but I don't have much experience that way, and I also want to see if anybody is opposed to the idea. Does anybody have experience with MiszaBot or ClueBot? -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Can someone swap Mitt Romney for his father, please

Can someone swap out Mitt Romney picture for his father, please. George Romney has compelling story, worthy of place on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.109.114 (talk • contribs) 19 September 2012

Hmm...In terms of overall notability Mitt beats his dad I think. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 November 2012

Please change [[File:LDS Global Distribution.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.5|Global distribution of LDS Church members in 2009]] to [[File:LDS Global Distribution.svg|thumb|right|upright=1.5|Global Distribution of LDS Church Members in 2009]] because it is now in SVG format for better quality. Skagentech (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Done, though I've kept the capitalization from the article, as I believe that follows Wikipedia's standards. I also nowiki'd your file links so the thumbnails don't display. – RobinHood70 ^talk 09:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for converting that. I guess .svg is better quality than .jpg? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the main reason it's used is that it scales better, since it's based on vector graphics rather than a bitmap. If you resize it very small or very large, a well-designed SVG file will usually be more accurate than a JPG, GIF, BMP, etc. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

new topic

Please include the fact that Mormonism is a type of Christian faith, and not its own branch of religion, Mormons still use today's bibles to study from, and we believe that the book of Mormon is another true testament of Jesus Christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.89.160 (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see the 3rd paragraph of the article which says, "Mormons self-identify as Christian, though some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity. Mormons believe in the Bible, as well as other books of scripture, such as the Book of Mormon." Is this what you were looking for? ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Written vs. Translated

In regards to the recent changes, looking at it more closely, my interpretation is that some parts are his own writing while others are translations. Would the wording "written or translated" work best, perhaps? I'm not a Mormon myself, so I will happily bow to those with better subject knowledge than me—I just want to make sure we're not introducing inaccuracy either way. – RobinHood70 ^talk 23:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. Part of the Pearl of Great Price is Smith's translations (of the Bible and the book of Abraham), while part is simply his writings (autobiographical sketch, articles of faith, etc.) I personally think it's simpler to just say writings than translation of writings or writings and translations. Besides, irregardless of whether they were actual translations or fabrications, they are still writings, so we kind of sidestep the POV problems as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's easier to just use "writings" since it's a complex (and controversial) issue as to what Joseph Smith meant by "translation". The "translation" of the Bible portions (Book of Moses and Joseph Smith—Matthew) wasn't really a traditional process of translations as the term is usually used—he didn't claim to have original source material as he claimed with the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. And even those latter two Smith said he relied almost wholly on revelation as opposed to traditional methods of translation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Infobox template

There's a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Mormons#Replacing pictures that might be of interest. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Request to remove the "Ex-Mormons" subsection from "Groups within Mormonism"

Ex-Mormons are by definition a group outside Mormonism. The format of the article at present suggests that Ex-Mormons are a type of Mormons. That makes no sense. I vote that this subsection be removed entirely. Piguy (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the paragraph itself implies that Ex-Mormons are a type of Mormons. Also, I should probably only note that the paragraph was only recently made into a subsection (over my objections). Just out of curiosity, would your concern be remedied by taking the article back to the paragraph/list form, and dropping the subsection headers? ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the text itself doesn't imply that, but it's placement within the section "Groups within Mormonism" does. It just doesn't make any sense to even have a discussion of Ex-Mormons in the article about Mormons, let alone within the section "Groups within Mormonism." If that group does need to be mentioned, it should be a simple statement directing the reader to the appropriate article; e.g.: "Former Mormons who seek to disassociate themselves from the religion are referred to as Ex-Mormons." Piguy (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying possibly say that under the "Latter-day Saints" subsection where it's talking about less active Mormons? ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be a good place. We'd have to be careful, though. The "Latter-day Saints" subsection is already skewed with more information on less active members than active members. In my opinion, the subsection should be largely about those who more readily accept the label "Latter-day Saints" (i.e. active members), with a smaller reference to less-active and former members. Piguy (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have made the suggested change to the article. Pi-Guy (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Diagram misrepresents Australia

The diagram purporting to represent "Global distribution of LDS Church members in 2009" appears to attribute more than 100,000 members to Australia. This is apparently based on the church's POV claim that it had 123,650 members at 1 January 2010. (See relevant article section.) However, WP's standard for verification is a reliable third-party source, which criterion is more fully met by the official census figure--52,141 in 2006. The diagram should be amended accordingly. Bjenks (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The diagram isn't meant to misrepresent anything. Granted, it is based entirely on the LDS Church's claims, which as far as I know are generally fairly reliable. (They compare reasonably to most secondary sources I know of.) Australia, based on what you say, I would guess is somewhat of an outlier. Selectively changing the Australia statistic would be putting an orange in a box of apples. Replacing all the apples with oranges (tracking down census data for 140 countries) isn't particularly feasible, so I think the best solution is to keep the current diagram and live with the "bad apples". ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Records of the LDS Church are very accurate since they have the names of all the members, including children. I do not expect anyone else to have a count. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

However, third party POV seems more reliable for third party readers. Thus I recommend to use the 2006 data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.131.36.160 (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

LDS Church records represent a fairly accurate count of how many people have been baptized into the church (or, if under 8, added to the membership rolls). However, they are not a very good representation of how many people self-identify as members of the LDS Church. There are many LDS Church members that no longer consider themselves Mormons, though their names remain on the membership rolls until they are either excommunicated or the members themselves take action to remove their names. So it depends entirely on what statistic we are wanting—(1) total church membership based on baptisms, or (2) church self-identification? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone hacked the page and changed all Joseph Smith references to Joseph Stalin

I do not know how to fix. 6/28/2013 Kmoravec (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I undid this vandalism. Thanks for reporting it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 June 2013

All references to Joseph Stalin need to be changed to Joseph Smith.

Lizzzzc (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. The vandalism was reverted. Thanks for reporting it here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Utah History Encyclopedia reference

The Utah History Encyclopedia reference on this article should be replaced with the following one:

Embry, Jessie L. (1994), "Polygamy", in Powell, Allan Kent (ed.), Utah History Encyclopedia, Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, ISBN 0874804256, OCLC 30473917

Thanks. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2013

You seem to be mixing up "Practice" and "Practise" in your article - there are several wrong entries to this effect. E.g. "Practice" is a noun and should be in the form of "a practice" or "the practice". "Practise" is a verb and should be used as such

Snowybeeky (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. The use of practise as a verb is UK / Commonwealth usage. This article is written in US English, as far as I can tell, and the US standard is to use "practice" for the verb as well as the noun. See WP:ENGVAR for more info on how we accommodate both American and British English on Wikipedia. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please link to the spanish site?

http://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mormones

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.56.131 (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That's just a redirect to http://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Movimiento_de_los_Santos_de_los_Últimos_Días which in english is the Latter Day Saint movement article. Not sure that this is the best link. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Evergreen citation

Please change the following ref, found in the Culture and practices section of this article.

From:

{{cite web |url=http://www.evergreeninternational.org/Individuals.htm |title=Resources for Individuals |author= |date= |work= |publisher=Evergreen International |accessdate=November 11, 2011}}

To:

{{citation |url= http://www.evergreeninternational.org/Individuals.htm |title= Resources for Individuals |work= EvergreenInternational.org |publisher= [[Evergreen International]] |archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20121120213658/http://www.evergreeninternational.org/Individuals.htm |archivedate= 2012-11-20}}

Evergreen International is defunct, and this is the last useful archive of this page. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Done ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal: the keystone metaphor

I suggest that the (very short) page Keystone symbol in Mormonism should be merged into this article. I really want to work on the Keystone article, and this separate page arose because of disagreement how/whether to include the Mormon example of the figurative use of "Keystone" in the keystone page itself. (Actually I think some discussion of the various figurative uses is quite appropriate, but that is a separate issue.) Now we have this rather stranded page -- it could be referenced from the Mormons page, but if the keystone is that significant, it should surely merit a direct reference, and all of the content would fit in a small paragraph. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is my first attempt at a merger proposal, and I've gone wrong already. This should probably be on Mormonism Imaginatorium (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a merge to Book of Mormon would be appropriate, since all the examples of its usage relate to the Book of Mormon being the keystone of Mormonism. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Modern times section

The following sentence should be modified from (bold for illustrative purposes only):

During the latter half of the 19th century, there was a retrenchment movement in Mormonism in which Mormons became more conservative, attempting to regain their status as a "peculiar people".

...to instead say:

During the latter half of the 20th century, there was a retrenchment movement in Mormonism in which Mormons became more conservative, attempting to regain their status as a "peculiar people".

19th century = 1801-1900; 20th century = 1901-2000. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppression and excommunication of women

Need a section to describe the Mormon's actions in oppressing Mormon women and supportive view of the Church — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.36.110 (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an article about an group of people defined by their connection to Mormonism; it is not about specific practices of the LDS Church, or recent actions taken by them. Material relating to the topic you are describing can be found at: Mormonism and women, Mormon feminism, Criticism of Mormonism#Gender bias and sexism, Complementarianism, Ordination of women#Latter-day Saints, Ordain Women, Kate Kelly (feminist) (and the rest of Category:Mormon feminists), Mormon blogosphere, Excommunication#The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Disciplinary council, Relief Society, and Young Women (organization), among others. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ref fixes needed

Several ref fixes need to be made, which I can't at this point because the article is semi-protected.

First, in the "Beginnings" section, the following needs to be corrected:

<ref>''Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History'', p. 824; {{Harvtxt|Brodie|1971|pp=393–94}}; {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|pp=539–50}}; Many local Illinoisans were uneasy with Mormon power, and their unease was fanned by the local media after Smith suppressed a newspaper containing an exposé regarding plural marriage, theocracy, and other sensitive and oft misinterpreted issues. The suppression resulted in Smith being arrested, tried, and acquitted for "inciting a riot". On June 25, Smith let himself be arrested and tried for the riot charges again, this time in Carthage, the county seat, where he was incarcerated without bail on a new charge of treason. {{cite web |url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/people/joseph_smith/legal_trials.html |title=Legal Trials of Joseph Smith |author= |date= |work= |publisher=www.lightplanet.com |accessdate=November 11, 2011}}.</ref>

...to instead read:

<ref>''Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History'', p. 824; {{Harvtxt|Brodie|1971|pp=393–94}}; {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|pp=539–50}}; Many local Illinoisans were uneasy with Mormon power, and their unease was fanned by the local media after Smith suppressed a newspaper containing an exposé regarding plural marriage, theocracy, and other sensitive and oft misinterpreted issues. The suppression resulted in Smith being arrested, tried, and acquitted for "inciting a riot". On June 25, Smith let himself be arrested and tried for the riot charges again, this time in Carthage, the county seat, where he was incarcerated without bail on a new charge of treason. {{citation |contribution-url= http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/EoM/id/4208 |contribution= Smith, Joseph: Legal Trials of Joseph Smith |first= Joseph I. |last= Bentley |authorlink= Joseph I. Bentley |pages= 1346–1348 |editor1-last= Ludlow |editor1-first= Daniel H |editor1-link= Daniel H. Ludlow |title= [[Encyclopedia of Mormonism]] |location= New York |publisher= [[Macmillan Publishing]] |year= 1992 |isbn= 0-02-879602-0 |oclc= 24502140}}.</ref>

This lightplanet.com source is just reprinting text from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism without indication of permission, and so is a copyvio that needed fixed.

Second, in the "Pioneer era" section:

<ref name="emigration-religious-freedom">In 2004, the State of Illinois recognized the expulsion of the Latter-day Saints as the "largest forced migration in American history" and stated in the adopted resolution that, "WHEREAS, The biases and prejudices of a less enlightened age in the history of the State of Illinois caused unmeasurable hardship and trauma for the community of Latter-day Saints by the distrust, violence, and inhospitable actions of a dark time in our past; therefore, be it RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NINETY-THIRD GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that we acknowledge the disparity of those past actions and suspicions, regretting the expulsion of the community of Latter-day Saints, a people of faith and hard work." {{cite web |url=http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?GAID=3&SessionID=3&GA=93&DocTypeID=HR&DocNum=0793&LegID=12984&SpecSess=&Session= |title=Official House Resolution HR0793 (LRB093 21726 KEF 49525 r) |author=Illinois General Assembly |date=April 1, 2004 |work= |publisher= }}; "The great Mormon migration of 1846–1847 was but one step in the LDS' quest for religious freedom and growth." {{cite web |url=http://www.nps.gov/mopi/historyculture/index.htm |title=Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail: History & Culture |author= |date= |work= |publisher= }}.</ref>

...should be modified to instead read:

<ref name="emigration-religious-freedom">In 2004, the State of Illinois recognized the expulsion of the Latter-day Saints as the "largest forced migration in American history" and stated in the adopted resolution that, "WHEREAS, The biases and prejudices of a less enlightened age in the history of the State of Illinois caused unmeasurable hardship and trauma for the community of Latter-day Saints by the distrust, violence, and inhospitable actions of a dark time in our past; therefore, be it RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NINETY-THIRD GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that we acknowledge the disparity of those past actions and suspicions, regretting the expulsion of the community of Latter-day Saints, a people of faith and hard work." {{cite web |url=http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?GAID=3&SessionID=3&GA=93&DocTypeID=HR&DocNum=0793&LegID=12984&SpecSess=&Session= |title=Official House Resolution HR0793 (LRB093 21726 KEF 49525 r) |author=Illinois General Assembly |date=April 1, 2004 |work= |publisher= }}; "The great Mormon migration of 1846-1847 was but one step in the Mormons' quest for religious freedom and growth." {{citation |contribution-url= http://www.nps.gov/mopi/historyculture/index.htm |contribution= History & Culture |title= Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail |work= NPS.gov |publisher= [[National Park Service]] |accessdate= 2014-07-09 }}.</ref>

This is a direct quote, but someone changed the word Mormons to say LDS, and this modified ref better describes the source.

Third, also in the "Pioneer era" section:

<ref>{{Harvtxt|O'Dea|1957|pp=91–92}}; {{cite web|url=http://welshmormonhistory.org/ |title=Welsh Mormon History}} During the 1840s and 1850s many thousands of [[Wales|Welsh]] Mormon converts immigrated to America, and today, it is estimated that around 20 percent of the population of [[Utah]] is of Welsh descent.</ref>

...should instead be:

<ref>{{Harvtxt|O'Dea|1957|pp=91–92}}; {{citation |url= http://welshmormon.byu.edu/ |title= Welsh Mormon History |work= WelshMormon.BYU.edu |publisher= [[BYU Research Institutes|Center for Family History and Genealogy]], [[Brigham Young University]] }} During the 1840s and 1850s many thousands of [[Wales|Welsh]] Mormon converts immigrated to America, and today, it is estimated that around 20 percent of the population of [[Utah]] is of Welsh descent.</ref>

...since welshmormonhistory.org was migrated to welshmormon.byu.edu, and currently welshmormonhistory.org appears to be be involved in cybersquatting with completely unrelated Japanese text.

Fourth, also in the "Pioneer era" section:

<ref>See Tullidge, Edward, ''History of Salt Lake City'', pp. 132-35 (Original from the University of Michigan, 1886).</ref>

...to...

<ref>{{citation |last= Tullidge |first= Edward |authorlink= Edward Tullidge |title= History of Salt Lake City |url= https://archive.org/details/historyofsaltlak00tull |contribution-url= https://archive.org/stream/historyofsaltlak00tull#page/n155/mode/2up |contribution= Resignation of Judge Drummond |pages= 132-35 |place= Salt Lake City |publisher= Star Printing Company |year= 1886 |oclc= 13941646 }}</ref>

...as this is a more accurate and complete reference.

Fifth, also in the "Pioneer era" section:

<ref>The LDS Church encourages journalists not to use the word ''Mormon'' in reference to organizations or people that practice polygamy {{cite web |url=http://newsroom.lds.org/style-guide |title=Style Guide — LDS Newsroom |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate=November 11, 2011}}; The church repudiates polygamist groups and excommunicates their members if discovered {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2008|p=91}}; {{cite web|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25396937/ns/us_news-faith/t/mormons-seek-distance-polygamist-sects |title=Mormons seek distance from polygamous sects |year=2008 |publisher=msnbc.com}}.</ref>

...to...

<ref>The LDS Church encourages journalists not to use the word ''Mormon'' in reference to organizations or people that practice polygamy: {{citation |contribution-url= http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide |contribution= Style Guide — The Name of the Church |title= Topics and Background |work= MormonNewsroom.org |publisher= LDS Church |accessdate= 2014-07-09}}. The church repudiates polygamist groups and excommunicates their members if discovered: {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2008|p=91}}; {{citation |url= http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25396937/ns/us_news-faith/t/mormons-seek-distance-polygamist-sects |title= Mormons seek distance from polygamous sects |date= June 26, 2008 |agency= [[Associated Press|AP]] |publisher= NBCNews.com}}.</ref>

...as the URLs have changes, and the references were incomplete.

I'm sure I'll find more, but that's all for now -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Done I know I don't have to tell you the merits of creating an account. Thanks  NQ  talk 22:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

grammar correction

Can't make this simple copyedit right now due to semi-protection. Comma should be taken out of the following sentence (commas used before prepositions only if a new subject and verb follows, here we have only a new verb):

"They believe that Christ's church was restored through Joseph Smith, and is guided by living prophets and apostles."

So should read "...Smith and is guided...".

Alternately, keep comma and change to "...Smith, and that it is guided" (which adds the needed subject). Ath271 (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever fixed. Just noticed that actually the two preceding sentences have the same issue:

"They have a unique view of cosmology, and believe that all people are spirit-children of God" - either remove comma or add subject after existing comma ("and they believe")

"Mormons believe that returning to God requires following the example of Jesus Christ, and accepting his atonement through ordinances such as baptism" - either remove comma or add subject after existing comma ("and that it also requires") Ath271 (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes protection?

Hi. Given that almost all edits to this article in the past few months from IP's and new accounts have been problematic and have been quickly reverted, I would propose that we enable "pending changes" protection here. This would be the same protection that is currently in effect for the Mormonism and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints articles. Any objections? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, and since we had another IP vandalism incident on the article, I've gone ahead and enabled pending changes protection. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

April conference (world annual broadcast)

For editing purposes (especially for statistics and social issues) you may be interested to know that I am keeping brief notes and putting them on my personal TALK page: User_talk:Charles_Edwin_Shipp#LDS_April_Conference.2C_world_broadcast.2C_April_4-5.2C_2015_.28Sat.2FSun.2C_10am.2F2pm_MT.29 -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC) -- PS: I'll add official references later.

---

Help

Mormons are an ethno - religious group? Perciso this response and sources to the wikipedia article in Portuguese. Hallel (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)