Please change "Thirteen persons identified as members of the LDS Church are serving in the 115th United States Congress" to "Thirteen persons identified as members of the LDS Church served in the 115th United States Congress" because the 115th Congress is done and nobody's serving in it anymore. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello again, everyone! Just wanted to clarify some things here in terms of the differences between the Wikipedia style guide and the new style guidelines issued by the Church last year. The latter notes that the proper style is to refer to the full name of the Church in the first reference to it (which Wikipedia does in the very title of this article), and that subsequent references can use a shortened version of that name. And those guidelines more or less are in accordance with what Wikipedia has already tried to do: the full name of the Church appears in the first reference (which does have the word "day" in the lower case, as it should be), followed by other shorter references to the Church thereafter. If anyone has any questions on this, feel free to ask them here. In the meantime, per Wikipedia's LDS manual of style could be enlightening to some who may have any questions. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
While some people may feel that the changes to the AP style guide should impact Wikipedia, the Wikipedia style guide section on references to the Church is the determining factor as far as Wikipedia purposes are concerned. If anyone wants to post on the discussion about possible changes to the manual of style in this respect, that would be the correct procedure to follow here. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Name and Legal Entities Section
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi all! I agree with the community's current decision to leave church nicknames and abbreviations as currently published, but I noticed in the name and legal entities section of this article that it is phrased like the church still tolerates such nicknames. I propose we change that section to reflect the changes. Thoughts?Rollidan (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe that the nicknames should be removed almost completely, but that is a talk for elsewhere. I agree that, if nothing else, that section should be changed. Rorix the White (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Not done for now: churchofjesuschrist.org redirects to lds.org, so it makes sense to continue to use that url until the site actually moves. Bradv🍁05:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Church website move
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi all! Just informing the community regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the bulk of the main church website, lds.org, has been moved to the new URL, churchofjesuschrist.org. In other words, I would say it is now appropriate to change references and other mentions of the website to reflect that change. Note that the church newsroom, mormonnewsroom.org, has not been moved yet and thus those references should not be changed. I appreciate any additional thoughts. Rollidan (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made an announcement regarding changes to web addresses (URLs) for many of their websites. Due to these announcements, I feel the addresses listed on this page should be updated where needed. These changes are official as of March 5, 2019 (today). However, at the moment the new sites are mostly redirects to the old ones. The changes are as follows:
While these changes are due to the new guidelines set by the Church, which is different from the current Wikipedia guidelines, the websites are actually changing, and therefore I feel should be updated. However, given the conflicts between guidelines, I felt it was best to submit as a request rather than make the edits myself. Neard (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
IMO, this one is easy. Once the new sites are active and not just redirects to the old one, then the external links should be updated. —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I am with C.Fred on this one. The same Church statement noting these changes also states that implementing them will take time, and that until they are fully implemented, the present links will work. Until the links are officially changed, any alterations here would just result in redirects. Best to keep it as is until the changes are officialy in effect. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hwangfan, what's with removing the definite article from in from of Community of Christ, as in this edit? Are there particular grammar rules that only apply to this article? – bradv🍁15:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
It is not grammar. It is a matter of style guidelines that can be known through other sources rather than just primary sources. I included it in my reverse edit from another user. Here is the citation:
“I learned that, actually, the church is not referred to as the Community of Christ; it’s referred to as Community of Christ.”- John Dehlin
Dehlin, John. “590: Stephen M. Veazey- Prophet-President of Community of Christ, Pt. 1.” Mormon Stories, 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxwofUNlsTg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwangfan (talk • contribs) 15:53, September 13, 2019 (UTC)
We have our own manual of style though, and we follow English grammar rules, which are not subject to editorial control by the subject of the article. Please don't change this again. – bradv🍁16:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Understood, this style guide from the Mormon Historical Association Journal with its notation on Community of Christ should fill this gap. CofC's peronal website is undergoing construction and that style guide is unavailable at this time. Pay attention to pg. 5
That's not the Wikipedia style guide, and we don't follow it here. The Community of Christ can use grammatically-incorrect language in their own literature if they like. Also, please sign your posts, and leave my sig alone. – bradv🍁16:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
A lot of us understand where you are coming from. WP does not following the style guidelines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (e.g. it uses "LDS Church" pretty extensively). WP has its own style guidelines and processes for changing those guidelines. Please work through those processes instead of disregarding WP:BRD and other editors' concerns. Again, I recommend self reverting and avoiding back and forth reverting. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2019
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Please remove all references to "Mormons" and "LDS Church". It is not accurate. Russell M. Nelson, President of The Church has said, "What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement." Thus saying so offends people of this religion. Matthew.weller (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Not done: The terminology needs to remain in the article for three reasons. One, it is correct in historic context, as certain events, movements, and the like used the term "Mormon". (I mean, I haven't heard of the Church renaming its major book as The Book of Church of Jesus Christ.) Second, it is the common term that the lay reader will be most familiar with, so it makes the article easier for them to read. Finally, Wikipedia is not censored. Just as we are not obliged to remove pictures of Muhammad from his article, we are not obliged to remove references the "Mormons", "LDS Church", etc. —C.Fred (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Matthew, I understand what you are saying, and I agree, but to get that done, you would need to change Wikipedia style guidelines. Also, C.Fred is correct about the historical part, although the Book of Mormon comment does show that they lack any understanding of the book or why it is named the way it is.
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In his staments on the end of ward level young men presidencies, Elder Cook made the statement that organizations would no longer be called auxiliaries, and their leaders no longer called auxiliary leaders. I am thinking we should end the use of "auxiliary leaders" in this article. I have not yet figured out the wording to reflect the new reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I have removed most uses of "auxiliary" from the article in favor of other ways of phrasing it. Note that the use of auxiliary in the see also section is appropriate considering the main article for auxiliary organizations has not moved. Rollidan (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2019
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
i would like to change the founder. For the founder is not Joseph Smith the true founder is Jesus Christ. Joseph smith dint restore the church through Jesus Christ and God. It is more like they restored it through him. have a great day SomeoneWhoKnowsSomething1 (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia Style Guide re: Use of the Name of the Church
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Wikipedia has explained its determination to keep the terms "Mormon" and "LDS Church", but there is no reason to keep using the term "LDS Church" more than one hundred times in the same article. After the initial usage and explanation, subsequent references can be reduced simply to "the Church".
2601:401:4300:5EF0:2893:263A:E981:3BC9 (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has discontinued the use of the nickname “Mormons” or “Mormon church” because it misleads people about what the church believes in. 24Leditor (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@24Leditor: Common usage is still "Mormon", so that's why it's mention in the intro, to help readers with only passing familiarity with the subject know they're at the right page. Further, CJC is part of the broader Mormonism movement, per Wikipedia's terminology. —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@C.Fred So retain an explanation early in the article about the Church also being known as the Mormon Church and the LDS Church, but there is no reason to perpetuate an archaic form beyond that. Continuous use of "LDS Church" would be like continuing to refer to Facebook as "The Facebook," its original name. As things change, Wikipedia needs to reflect those changes or risk losing its relevance.2601:401:4300:5EF0:2893:263A:E981:3BC9 (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Above and beyond what C.Fred noted in his comment, all references to the Church on Wikipedia are governed by a distinct manual of style, and if you go back and review again the resources released by the Church, you'll find that the change in terminology, as specified by the guidelines, was only meant to be applicable to media outlets and organizations, and not in the same manner to private blogs or other websites, which includes online encyclopedias such as this one. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Jgstokes The request to use the correct name of the Church was not intended for media outlets only:
Two things: First of all, the link you provided appears to be dead. Second of all, to set the record straight, I am a Latter-day Saint who frequently edits aritcles about the Church, and due to my frequent personal perusal of resources provided by the Church, I have read everything there is to read on this matter. And if you go more deeply into researching the issue at hand, the Church President noted that patience should be exercized and understanding shown when some individuals or groups have their own policies that impact how the guidelines are to be implemented. And the fact of the matter is, until otherwise determined, all articles about the Church here on Wikipedia are governed by a different manual of style, which in turn defer to Wikipedia's guidelines for topical manuals of style. So if you want changes to be made to that MOS, there are proper channels to go through, and trying to implement the Nelsonian guidelines on each individual page will not be nearly as effective as working inside the discussions about the relevant manual of style to lead to changes that would satisfy your definition of compliance therewith. So my suggestion would be to take any further discussion to the talk page of the LDS MOS here on Wikipedia. Of course, if you (or anyone else) wants to keep wasting time here on Wikipedia by trying to pursue implementation of these guidelines to an acceptable degree through each individual article, that is your call entirely. I can lead you to a solution, but whether or not you actually take the suggestion is your call entirely. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Inaccurate Map?
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If somebody has the time to get the new logo in a suitably small size and upload it to en.wiki, that will be helpful. The logo currently used is up for deletion from Commons for failure to be properly licensed. —C.Fred (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
There are still many uses of LDS Church throughout the article. Can those be changed to either The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or just the Church once referred to once? To coincide with previous comments on President Nelson's recommendations? Oaktree126 (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion
I noticed that when there is a link to this page in another Wikipedia article, the image it pulls up is not the official church symbol that is the main/first image on this page when it is clicked on. Instead it has a black cross on a white background. Shall we fix that? Susanna Neal (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I also agree with this proposal. I don't see any reason why it might be rejected, and seeing as no one has opposed it. I suggest that the change be made as soon as possible. Reywas85 (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
It appears that the scripting for the image parameter in the {{Infobox Christian denomination}} template is too complex for the page preview engine to render the image from that template in the preview, so it falls through to the next available image. If the cross is not suitable to show in the preview, maybe consider removing the image parameter in the denomination infobox and instead display the official image above the denomination infobox separately. Initial attempt at implementing an alternative did not result in the expected preview image, though it is possible the preview engine caches image at the server side. I will leave further investigation of the matter for other editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Jeffro77 for trying. I don't think it's a scripting thing for the image parameter of the template. Rather, I'm pretty sure it's the algorithm that picks the image for page previews. From what I can tell, it goes through all the images in the lede and scores them based on ????. For whatever reason, the image in the the {{Christianity sidebar}} is scoring higher than the image in the infobox template. Maybe if we found a a few pages that use the infobox and the sidebar in the lede and use the infobox image for the preview, maybe then we could figure out something about the algorithm.
My best guess is it's either the image size or aspect ratio - the algorithm prefers wide rather than tall images, but without some way to probe the scoring or the algorithm, we're fumbling around in the dark on how to force the algorithm to pick the better picture. The one thing I can think of is to put the sidebar in the next section. It'll be awkward positioning for the sidebar, but it might fix the preview problem. I'm going to try that shortly... --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
It seems you're right about it picking an image from the lead based on some kind of criteria. The layout isn't great with the Christianity template in the History section, but nor is it awful. So depending on how much of a concern it is to have the other image in the preview, the current arrangement might be best.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Notes in the References.
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There are notes throughout the References section. They may appear to be quotes from sources. I separated one from its source that happens to be "inaccurate" (40.9 + 47.8 is not greater than 100). I assume another note/quote was rewording of statements in the source article. A separate Notes section should be created and the notes separated from sources/references. This is a task for a "subject matter expert" not me. User-duck (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Related Request for Move (Jan 16)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Jared.h.wood, while I appreciate you mentioning that here, and while it is good to get more eyes and feedback on this matter, you may also want to look at listing this RfC at this project's talk page, where more people may see and thus respond to the RfC. Hope this helps. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Black men and women restricted from the temple
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I have seen some rapid edits and revert over this edit in the criticism section.
During the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s, the LDS Church was criticized for its policy of excluding black men of African descent from the priesthood, and excluding black men and women from the church’s temples, a policy that the church did not change until 1978.
This addition represents true information, but is poorly written. The church website states the following here
Despite this modern reality, for much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.
I'm just not sure that this can be used as a good reference because it is a primary source. In any case, I suggest the following text (or something like it) be used for that paragraph.
The church has been criticized for past policies on race discrimination. From 1852 to 1978 church policy excluded men of black African descent from ordination to the priesthood. During the same period black men and women were not allowed to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances. These policies were criticized during the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s and continue to be criticized today in Internet forums and websites dedicated to assisting people as they withdraw church membership. On 8 June 1978, church president Spencer W. Kimball, rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination and extended temple worship to all worthy Latter-day Saint men and women.
My main reason for removing the recent edit was that existence of the criticism of the temple policy was not supported by the citation (as far as I could tell) and I doubted it was actually part of the 1960s and 1970s criticism of the Church. I'm not saying that they weren't excluded from those temple ordinances, just that the source doesn't mention it as part of the criticism. A secondary reason was that the exclusion from the temples seems to have been specifically to certain ordinances as it appears that blacks were not excluded from proxy baptisms, a nuance that the disputed edit didn't make clear.
At least the first problem I mentioned still exists in the proposed new wording - we need a source that the temple policy was part of the criticism during the civil rights era. Additionally, internet forums and websites as mentioned don't generally qualify as reliable sources. I would leave them out entirely. I would recommend keeping the sentence as is, and move the temple and policy change to a second sentence:
During the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s, the LDS Church was criticized for its policy of excluding black men of African descent from the priesthood. On 8 June 1978, church president Spencer W. Kimball, rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination and extended temple participation in endowment and sealing ordinances to all worthy Latter-day Saint men and women.
@FyzixFighter: I don't know how to find a source that specifically says that the temple policy was criticized in the 60's. Perhaps that language about the civil rights era should be removed. As I searched, every source I read (like this one) mentions both the priesthood ban and the temple restriction. For this reason, I believe that the Wikipedia article should as well. I think that, instead of simply deleting the relevant content, we should reword it so it is more correct (WP:PRESERVE). This will be the best way to stop the edit warring behavior we've been seeing. JHelzer💬00:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The difficult thing of controversy and criticism sections is that it can't be what we as editors think is controversial or worthy of criticism, it has to be notable criticism and controversy that appears in reliable, secondary sources. If we can't find sources, then it fails WP:V. I tried to check the source already in the article for that sentence and was unable to verify that the temple policy was part of the criticism. A necessary prerequisite for WP:PRESERVE is meeting WP:V. The wbur source mentions the former policy, but, imo, doesn't really say it is part of the criticism - maybe I'm splitting hairs, and maybe others will disagree - that's what the talk page is for. Lacking a source for it as part of the criticism, that's why I suggest putting it in a second sentence about the policy change. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, indeed ... at present the page is semi-protected and I was reviewing the page as a Special:PendingChanges patroller. I knew nothing of the subject matter of the paragraph before reading it but I rejected the edit because it was not supported by the cited source. There surely are citable secondary sources that support the edit if it is in fact correct. If so, if someone can find sources - I will look too - they should bring them to the talk page and we can look together to see whether they are reliable secondary sources that support the proposed edit. Alternatively, if you're happy you've found a good source for a proposed edit on this point, be BOLD and go ahead and make the article edit, adding the source. I will clean up formatting the source if someone can find it. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This all seems very fair. I read through the article on Black people and Mormonism and the various sources in that article and realized that I couldn't say anything intelligent without already knowing a good deal about the LDS Church. But from what I read you've summed up the key points very accurately. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
LDS Church is Polytheistic
Latest comment: 3 years ago26 comments10 people in discussion
This has come up here and several other places before. I'm going to paraphrase some things I said many years ago in one of those discussions. There are numerous statements in uniquely LDS scripture that describe a belief in "one God" (eg 2 Nephi 31:21, Mosiah 15:1-5, Alma 11:26-37, Mormon 7:7, D&C 20:28, Moses 1:20). I don't see the theological arguments that the LDS go through to reconcile their scriptures with their concept of the members of the Godhead/Trinity also being separate beings any more invalid than those used in the creeds of the early Christian church. Additionally, there a few modern quotes that show that the LDS self-identify as monotheists. For example, Bruce R. McConkie in "Mormon Doctrine":
"Monotheism is the doctrine or belief that there is but one God. If this is properly interpreted to mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — each of whom is a separate and distinct godly personage — are one God, meaning one Godhead, then true saints are monotheists."
Also, Robert Millet, as the LDS co-author in "Claiming Christ":
"We believe that each of the members of the Godhead posses all of the attributes and qualities of godliness in perfection. We believe that the love and unity that exist among the three persons in the Godhead constitute a divine community that is occasionally referred to simply as “God” (see 2 Nephi 31:21; Alma 11:44; Mormon 7:7). In other words, we have no problem speaking of a Mormon monotheism in the sense that we believe in one God, one Godhead, one Trinity, one collection of divine persons who oversee and bless and save the human family."
Certainly Mormons are not strict monotheists (which also excludes mainstream Christianity) nor traditional Christian (Trinitarian) monotheists, but they are "explicitly and clearly monotheistic in the aim of their worship" (Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion, Volume 2, pg 687). What statements in reliable sources directly support or explicitly use the label "polytheistic"? --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Jesus is a separate God from the Heavenly Father who is also a God. They are separate beings from each other. Yes, they have a same purpose or similar purpose but they are separate entities. You are confusing the Godhead with Gods. Joseph Smith gave a sermon about many Gods. ConnieBland (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
To me, this just sounds like a type of original research – in this case, "original logic". Are there any reliable sources that state that the LDS Church is polytheistic? As demonstrated above, there are some that discuss it as a monotheistic faith. Rather that "polytheistic", I think that what User:ConnieBland may have in mind is henotheism as suggested by the King Follet discourse. I'm not sure that worshipping God and Jesus as part of the same Godhead means that the faith is polytheistic. Good Ol’factory(talk)02:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Every time I bring up the issue of multiple Gods in the LDS church communication here, I get deflections with the word Godhead. I didn't say Godhead, I said Gods. A Godhead is something different than a God or Gods. Putting a bunch of Gods together and calling it a singular Godhead, still means there are distinct Gods in that "pantheon". In LDS' version of Godhead, there are three separate personages or three separate beings with God-level powers, keyword is separate personages, or individuals. This means there is more than one God, three non-trinitarian Gods, since they are unique beings or separate and unique personages. Can we have a conversation about the multiple Gods in the LDS church without deflections of they are united in the same purpose, so they are one God, when they aren't one God, they are different gods, meaning they have their own distinct identities, they are not trinitarian (God taking multiple forms), so that sounds like multiple Gods, hence polytheism. I don't understand why LDS folks are afraid to be honest and admit the religion is polytheistic in nature? This is not original research, it's not original logic, this is a point of fact about multiple Gods in the LDS religion. Why pretend otherwise? ConnieBland (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The points made in my previous comment still stand. It looks like original research or original logic. What you say makes logical sense, but where is a reliable source? There are reliable sources that describe the LDS Church as monotheistic. Whether the Godhead is different from the Gods that compose it is a philosophical/religious point upon which Christians no doubt differ. Essentially, you are equating non-trinitarianism with polytheism, and in most sources these are not the same thing. And BTW, you may wish to not just assume that everyone who might comment here is LDS, because not all of us are. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Not the same, then. Heavenly Mother (Mormonism) indicates it has sometimes been taught God the Father has more than one spouse. So there is the main godhead, which is officially worshiped, and at least one consort goddess which is not. Whatever that is, it's not monotheism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.48.94.32 (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
In the LDS church, clearly a non-trinitarian religion based on their doctrines, Jesus (known elsewhere as Jehova, Joshua, Yeshua) is considered a separate and distinct God from his biological father, who is called the Heavenly Father in the LDS church (known elsewhere as elohim, Yahweh), daddy too is a God. So right there you have two Gods, Jesus and his dad, the Heavenly father. That's not original research nor original logic, that's LDS church doctrine. Then you have the Holy Ghost, who is thought to be a spirit God, also considered a separate and distinct God, from God the father, and God the son, Jesus. That's three Gods, right there, Dad, Son and the spirit Holy Ghost. That's not monotheistic believing in three separate and distinct Gods. Calling three separate and distinct Gods, the Godhead or saying they are of one purpose, doesn't make them one shapeshifting God, like in trinitarianism, especially if the LDS church claims they are three separate, and distinct personages. This is doctrinal, not original logic, not original research, it's in the LDS holybooks. Now, the church teaches eternal progression, so that God the heavenly father, was once a human, who was resurrected and exalted, coming from a long line chain of gods. That's polytheistic or polytheism, not monotheistic, or monotheism. ConnieBland (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
ConnieBland, you may want to take a moment and read WP:Original research. Wikipedia can be a bit confusing for newcomers sometimes. A person can come to a talk page and make valid logical arguments and other editors will ignore then because the person didn't cite any reliable sources. We base the encyclopedia on published sources, not the logical arguments of individuals. In this particular case you have a point that the LDS have many figures that are gods, but they don't worship them in a way that would put them into a polytheism category. They generally just pray to the father. But what I just said is irrelevant. What matters is that scholars of religion—the people publishing the peer-reviewed papers and books—don't categorize the LDS as polytheistic. In fact Richard Bushman, the author of Mormonism: a very short introduction categories it as social trinitarian. ~Awilley (talk)14:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Awilley, going forward I will cite sources for any assertions I propose if they are meant to be included in the encyclopedia's cannon. So I will restate that the LDS church is polytheistic because Joseph Smith it's founding father made unambiguous, and therefore very clear statements about its polytheistic nature during the last year of his life. In 1844 Joseph Smith said, "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods." Source: History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B.H. Roberts, 2nd ed, rev., Salt Lake City: Deseret Books, 1980) or simplified (History of the Church 6:474). Note the keyword Gods, he didn't say God without the letter's' he said God with the letter 's'. A religion with multiple Gods is polytheism, not monotheism. The LDS has at least three Gods according to Joseph Smith in his statement above. ConnieBland (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The appropriate term is Social Trinitarianism or even Henotheism. Richard Bushman has a good explanation,"Critics are wrong when they say Joseph Smith created a heaven of multiple gods like the pagan pantheons of Zeus and Thor. The gods in Joseph Smith’s heaven are not distinct, willful personalities pursuing their own purposes. The Christian trinity was Joseph’s model; the gods are one as Christ and the Father are one, distinct personalities unified in purpose and will. A free intelligence had to become one with God in order to become as God. The gods had formed an eternal alliance, welding their wills into one. The idea of earth life was to join that alliance and participate in the glory and power of the gods. The way to become a god was to conform to the order of heaven and receive light and truth. The unity and order Joseph strove to instill in the Church was a type of the higher unity among the gods in their heavens." Most Muslims interestingly feel that belief in any form of the Trinity is a rejection of monotheism (see Islamic view of the Trinity). By many peoples logic, the Catholic Church is polytheistic, since they actually pray and build statues to Saints, who then interfere in their lives. Why aren't Catholics labeled as polytheistic by the same logic? Regardless, you must cite a source that is representative of the prevailing scholarly view that specifically uses the term "polytheistic", otherwise it is WP:OR or WP:SYNTHEpachamo (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
That's a good explanation by Bushman. One that I have read – sorry, I can't for the life of me remember where – which explains why the church is monotheistic is the following. It focuses on worship. (1) Yes, there are other beings that are exalted "gods", but Latter-day Saints don't worship them. (2) The three members of the Godhead are worshipped, but there are not separate ways of worshipping them individually. Latter-day Saints don't worship God the Father in one way, and Jesus Christ in another way. Hence the unity in the worship is classed as monotheistic. I think it's a little bit too cute by half, but there you go. Good Ol’factory(talk)04:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Mr. Good Olfactory, Here is a laundry list of sourced quote evidence about the LDS church founder Joseph Smith, and many of its important leaders making unambiguous statements about the plurality of Gods (polytheism) in the LDS church. Keep a focus on the word Gods with an 's'.
Plurality of Gods
“I wish to declare I have always an in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods.”
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 6, p. 306
“In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.”
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 6, pp. 307, 308
“If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds.”
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 345, February 18, 1855
“Each God, through his wife or wives, raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters.... [E]ach father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever. As soon as each God has begotten many millions of male and female spirits... he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world... where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones.... The inhabitants of each world are required to reverence, adore, and worship their own personal father who dwells in the Heaven which they formerly inhabited.”
- Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, v. 1, p. 37
“Intelligent beings are organized to become Gods, even the sons of God, to dwell in the presence of the Gods, and become associated with the highest intelligencies [sic] that dwell in eternity.”
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 160, September 2, 1860
"New light is occasionally bursted into our minds, of the sacred scriptures, for which I am truly thankful. We shall by and by learn that we were with God in another world, before the foundation of the world, and had our agency; that we came into this world and have our agency, in order that we may prepare ourselves for a kingdom of glory; become archangels, even the sons of God where the man is neither without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord: A consummation of glory, and happiness, and perfection so greatly to be wished, that I would not miss of it for the fame of ten worlds."
- W.W. Phelps, Latter-day Saint Messenger and Advocate, v. 1, no. 9, p. 130, June 1835
"I will preach on the plurality of Gods.
"Our text says, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." * * * My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. * * *
"Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, "In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, as others have translated it, "The head of the Gods called the Gods together." * * *
"The head God organized the heavens and the earth. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. * * * The head one of the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image. I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He acknowledged I was right. * * *
"In the very beginning, the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through---Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take that view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfections of the Gods."
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 370-372, June 16, 1844
"Women are queens and priestesses but not gods. The Godhead, the 'Presidency of Heaven,' is a presidency of three male deities, similar to a stake presidency whose members each have wives who are responsible for domestic religious education but not ecclesiastical functions."
- Rodney Turner, retired BYU religion professor, Sunstone Panel Discussion, September 7, 1991.
“We don't hear about Heavenly Mother because she is only one of many wives of god.”
- Sister Maxine Hanks, Women and Authority, Ch.11, p.251
@ConnieBland:, You are missing the point. Nobody here denies that Mormonism teaches the plurality of Gods. It is the term "polytheism" that is still problematic and incorrect. Polytheism is the worship of multiple deities, arranged in a pantheon of autonomous superior beings. Mormons don't worship multiple deities, nor do they believe that the plurality of gods have their own agendas and purposes. None of your sources use the term "polytheism". All of the people you quoted would cringe at being called polytheists. Epachamo (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Epachamo, You're moving the goal post by narrowing the definition of Polytheism/polytheistic. It doesn't require that you actually worship multiple Gods or Deities to be a polytheist or practice polytheism, it only requires that you believe they (multiple Gods) exist. Gathering citations Pat Zuckeran. Joseph Smith taught the multiplicity of deities or Gods. Joseph Smith taught that the Heavenly Father is a personage, a separate and a distinct God, and his son Jesus is a personage, a separate and a distinct God, and that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, a separate and a distinct God, these three personages, are separate and distinct Gods, which make up together as a team a non-trinitarian plurality of Gods. Teams of people are not considered one person. A team of separate and distinct Gods are not considered a single God, even if they happen to be father and son, or family-related. There were many Gods family related in Greek mythology, they weren't considered one god because they were father and son, or father and daughter, or a family of Gods.
Christianity has taught monotheism from its foundation, the belief in the existence of one God. Mormonism believes in the existence of a plurality of gods. According to Mormonism, there are an infinite number of planets like earth in the universe, each with their god or gods who were once men who have evolved into godhood. Mormon theologian and Apostle Bruce McConkie states, "[A] plurality of gods exist . . . there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods." Source: Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, (Salt Lake: Bookcraft, 1991), 576-577. This is clearly the belief in polytheism, the belief in multiple Gods. You don't have to worship them all to believe there are multiple Gods. Mormons pray through Jesus Christ, a unique personage, a separate and distinct God. They pray in his name to the heavenly father, who is also a separate and distinct God.
Joseph Smith wrote, "In the beginning, the head of the gods called a council of the gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and (the) people in it." Source: Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 349; quoted in Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults, (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 220. A council of Gods, sounds like a pantheon of Gods, coming together to talk and converse with each other. That's not monotheism. One does not have to worship all those gods, just the belief in them is the only requirement to be polytheistic or believe in polytheism.
Joseph Smith in The Pearl of Great Price states in the Book of Abraham, "And they (the gods) said: let there be light and there was light. And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, . . . and the gods called the light Day and the darkness they (the Gods) called Night. . . ." In these two chapters, the plural designation "gods" is used over fifty times. That's a five zero, not 5 times, but fifty times.
The Mormons/LDS reject the traditional Christian view of the Trinity as being in error. Joseph Smith wrote,
Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God [anyhow]--three in one and one in three. . .It is curious organization… All are crammed into one God according to sectarianism (Christian faith). It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God--he would be a giant or a monster. (Joseph Smith, Teachings, 372) Church president James Talmage stated, "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as distinct in persons and individualities as are any three personages in mortality." James Talmage, The Articles of Faith (Salt Lake: Deseret Book Company, 1984), p 37.
LDS/Mormon theologian Bruce McConkie states, "There are three Gods--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Source: McConkie, p 317. He further explains that, "[T]hree separate personages--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a god, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only gods we worship." Source: McConkie, p 576.
God's progression from man to God is clearly stated throughout Mormon literature. Joseph Smith wrote:
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! . . . I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. . . . He was once a man like us; yea that God himself, the Father dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did. Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 321.
This quote becomes relevant to restate, "I wish to declare I have always an in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods." Joseph Smith, Jr History of the Church, v. 6, p. 306. Belief in a multitude of Gods is all that is needed to be polytheistic, rather than monotheistic, the belief in one and only one God.ConnieBland (talk) 05:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@ConnieBland: Find a scholarly source that agrees with your use of the term "polytheism". Otherwise it is original research, no matter how right you are. Epachamo (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
What about using polytheism or polytheistic, as a placeholder descriptor (a thesaurus word), adjective, or noun, to summarize the nature of Mormonism in the lead. I noticed there aren't many sources in the lead, which tends to provide a birds-eye view summary. The reason I ask this is because there seems to be a long history of polytheism being taught throughout the Church's history (Polytheism as a thesaurus word for Plurality of Gods). The polytheism didn't just come from the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, it was taught by its leaders throughout its bicentennial existence, especially during it's post-Smith era. For instance, “If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds.” - Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 345, February 18, 1855.
Knowing founder J. Smith was killed in 1844, it's clear 1855 is in the relative aftermath given the age of the this "restorationist" religion. We see from all the examples above there are many sources indicating a plurality of Gods, which means many Gods, or Polytheism/Polytheistic. Would using a 'plurality of Gods' be acceptable if Polytheism/Polytheistic is too controversial a term even if it's true and even if it's a perfect thesaurus word for Plurality of Gods? For example, Brigham Young said, “Intelligent beings are organized to become Gods, even the sons of God, to dwell in the presence of the Gods, and become associated with the highest intelligences [sic] that dwell in eternity.” - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 160, September 2, 1860. We see here that all humans have the potential to become Gods and even multitudes of Jesus (Sons of God), because of the way they are organized and the potential to thereby attain eternity and dwell eternally.
More sources, with some repeats, but with greater context. Just before Joseph Smith died, he said, "I will preach on the plurality of Gods.
"Our text says, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." * * * My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. * * * "Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, "In the beginning, the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, as others have translated it, "The head of the Gods called the Gods together." * * * "The head God organized the heavens and the earth. In the beginning, the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. * * * The head one of the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image. I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions, but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He (the learned Jew) acknowledged I was right. * * * "In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through---Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take that view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfections of the Gods." - Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 370-372, June 16, 1844. Joseph Smith is interpreting the bible as Polytheism/Polytheistic, that's not original research or original logic.
The Polytheism of the LDS Church, is not some passing trend that got Whitewashed by nervous Mormon leadership who were afraid of being outside the realm of mainstream credal Christianity, it's still being taught even in modern times, to modern students. Here is an example: "Women are queens and priestesses but not gods. The Godhead, the 'Presidency of Heaven,' is a presidency of three male deities, similar to a stake presidency whose members each have wives who are responsible for domestic religious education but not ecclesiastical functions." - Rodney Turner, retired BYU religion professor, Sunstone Panel Discussion, September 7, 1991. It's even being taught at the premier Mormon university, the epicenter of LDS higher education. Why are we getting hung up on Polytheism/Polytheistic, a thesaurus facsimile word for the Plurality of Gods? Are synonyms not allowed in Wikipedia in such instances?
There is no original logic or original research, this is absolutely incontrovertible proof the founder of the religion taught Polytheism, on many occasions, and even interpreted the bible as being polytheistic. There might not be sources that use the term polytheistic or polytheism to describe Mormonism, but why can't Polytheism be used as a synonym for the Plurality of Gods? ConnieBland (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
"Why can't Polytheism be used as a synonym for the Plurality of Gods?" Because scholars themselves make the distinction. It doesn't matter what you or I think about the subject, only reliable sources, and they are resounding in specifically not using the term "polytheism". Epachamo (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Most monotheistic religions have multiple immortal beings (angels, resurrected individuals, sentinels to heaven, etc.) Islam has the angel Gabriel and various groups in Judaism have ressurected beings and angels as well. Catholics and Orthodox Christians have Saints, and certain Protestant churches believe in angels and certainly in ressurection.
The majority of people who think the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reflects polytheism get confused by the common use of the word "God" and "gods," (both uppercase and lower. There isn't exactly a style guide haha). In effect, god means a perfected immortal being. People who get them confused conflate "god" with "God the Father" (understandibly— it's the same exact word).
The only being that is worshipped by members of the church is God the Father, often refered to as Elohim or El. All others, while important, are not "God the Father."
Now, if you want to edit the article and say Latter-day Saints are polytheistic, you're free to do that as long as you cite your sources which say such. Remember, good sources are all that matters. Have a great day, folks. MihaelMaxenglish1 (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I saw this conversation and I would like to contribute. I am a member of the Church and we don't believe that there is 1 god. We believe in something called the Godhead which includes God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Now we do mainly "worship" God but I would say that we also technically "worship" Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost as well. I could probably find something on the Church website that states this if you would like me to. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
It sounds to me that there is a pretty good argument for it being polytheistic, depending entirely on what definition of polytheistic is being used. We would just need some reliable secondary sources, preferably by modern scholars of the subject. From my perspective, Hinduism seems to have some similarities. Some Hindus believe in a Supreme God, for example Brahma or Vishnu (depending on the specific variety of Hinduism). They could believe in multiple gods' existences without necessarily worshipping more than one god. I don't think the usage of "gods" with lowercase 'g' is any different, but maybe I misunderstand. I find this a very interesting idea, so I honestly hope something appropriate can be written on the subject (if there are in fact any notable scholarly sources, that is). Pythagimedes (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pythagimedes: with your recent comment I'll register my disagreement that this topic should be added to the article. User ConnieBland has done some great original research and makes some good arguments about LDS "polytheism". However I tend to agree with Good Olfactory that it is an important distinction between: 1. believing that other god-like beings exist, and 2. worshiping only one God. It seems that Latter-day Saints do both 1 and 2 so they could be interpreted by others as both polytheistic and monotheistic. Which brings me to my agreement with Epachamo that Wikipedia editors doing original research on the the talk page isn't useful to the content of the article. We would never write, "Latter-day Saint doctrine can be interpreted as polytheistic" in the article. I am therefore opposed to including the concept of polytheism in any Latter Day Saint Movement related article. JHelzer💬23:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
My support for inclusion is conditional on proper sourcing and notability. It doesn't necessarily need a consensus as long as the guidelines are met. I personally don't plan on looking into it. Pythagimedes (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Count me in as opposed as well. There are some "anti-cult" books that exist which claim the LDS Church is polytheistic. These books tend to be sensationalistic and inflammatory. The serious scholars of religion do not classify the LDS Church as polytheistic. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Sources on “Infamous” for the Extermination Order
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
User:Jgstokes, when you reverted my edit about calling the Extermination Order “infamous”, you said that the cited sources did refer to it as infamous.
But, umm... there are actually no citations on that entire paragraph. Can you point me in the direction of a suitable source that we can use?
If there’s a good source, let’s put it up here. And if there’s not, I feel we shouldn’t call it infamous in the body of the text.
"there are actually no citations on that entire paragraph" If it is entirely unsourced, perhaps the paragraph should be removed instead of rephrased. These are typically signs that there is OR in an article. Dimadick (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
First of all, Trevdna, I thank you for your ongoing good faith efforts to continue to improve content here. I am also grateful for the chance to dialogue about this more fully. At the time I made the revert in question, I thought I had recalled seeing something in the existing sourcing that supported the usage of "infamous". But I have looked again, and failed to find what I thought I had seen. With that in mind, I'm inclined to support the suggestion of Dimadick, and also agree that the best course here is to revert the material in question altogether, especially where it lacks sufficient support from available sourcing. I apologize for my delay in respondding to you here. I've been dealing with a mnior illness the last couple of days that has somewhat limited how much time I can put towards other priorities, including Wikipedia. I also apologize if my actions in this matter showed a lack of good faith on my end. Keep uup the great work. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)--Jgstokes (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
No worries! My typical response time is a few days - and in fact the edit/revert itself happened a few days ago, so again, there’s no hurry here.
Thanks for taking the time to do a reference check, also. That’s good dedication.
I’m against removing the passage entirely for being unsourced. I know the item in question actually happened and it just needs someone to go out and find a good source. If this article deleted everything that’s unsourced right now, there would be major holes.
Anyhow, I think I’ll just clip the word “infamous” for now and leave it at that. The rest of that edit was getting a bit ambitious so I’ll wait for consensus when/if I bring back any of those other changes. Or maybe I can go find a source - and match that section to the source.
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I’m going back and forth about including a section on Jesus Christ and the Atonement under Beliefs and Practices. On the one hand, it’s a cornerstone belief - just about everyone who’s ever been in the Church knows that Joseph Smith quote that’s referenced in the article lead. But on the other hand, I can’t think of what else there is to say about it. It’s just like “yeah, Jesus died for you and your sins and was resurrected.” Not much more to say - and really, not a lot that’s different from credal Christianity’s view on it.
Oh and also, if we don’t include a section on it, I think the article lead is due for a rewrite on that. Because the article lead is supposed to offer a summary of what’s to come later in the article body itself, right?
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
So, I just reverted a good faith edit and I wanted to discuss it here. 93.193.170.30 put in the following:
The plan of salvation as taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Can I just vent about this graphic? It’s not a good graphic. It kind of makes the whole plan look confusing and messy. I don’t think it adds anything to the article, since anyone who is interested in the plan of salvation can easily go to the sub article and see the graphic immediately. And lastly, it introduces quite a few concepts and terms that are not discussed anywhere in the article; when shown without any context or explanation, the graphic confuses and distracts, not illuminates.
I hope you don’t take this one personally. We here really do appreciate your contributions.
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There are no less than 4 different places in this article where it’s emphasized that many other Christian churches don’t see the LDS Church as Christian. I mean, I get it, but would anyone mind if I consolidated some of these? Seems excessive to me. —Trevdna (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Mormon Church?
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
No, it should not. "Mormon Church" is still in widespread usage and it is not generally thought to be derogatory any longer (though individual members may disagree with this). Good Ol’factory(talk)02:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Primary Sources in article
Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
So only came across this as was going to revert an edit while patrolling pending revisions, as they were using the Churches own website as the source which really shouldn't be allowed. Been on things like this before, where we don't take what they have to say as a reliable source. The main example I can think of is like on the controversial Proud Boys article, we don't take what they say about themselves there, so why has it been allowed here?
I see it was kind of briefly raised once in the archives but it doesn't appear to have been addressed at the time. NZFC(talk)(cont)03:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
So its seems that it is more than one section and is actually the whole article that uses a lot of primary sources, with their book, churchofjesuschrist.org, MormonNewsroom.org, Newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org, www.thechurchnews.com, and JosephSmith.net, all linking back to the church. Ensign, Liahona, Encyclopedia of Mormonism and Deseret News are all their own publications or own by the church that have also been used as sources. Can see Intellectual Reserve, Inc links back to them as well (Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc.). Honestly unless a book written by someone else or a major newspaper is used, nearly every other reference is from the church itself.NZFC(talk)(cont)05:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
So with that find, this is way over my head and will require more looking to make sure there is secondary sources and primary sources haven't been used for controversial information on the article.NZFC(talk)(cont)05:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
User:NZFC Thanks for your concerns and comments. I originally disagreed with your comments. But then I took the time to review other comparable religious articles, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses or even Islam. I was struck with the very high quality of the references on those pages and, yes, their copious use of scholarly, well-researched sources. So I will take that as an opportunity and an invitation to search out and find higher quality, scholarly sources for this article.
That said, I would still like to take exception to your claim that the article relies on primary sources. I think our understanding of primary vs. secondary sources must be a little different. I was under the impression that the definition of a primary source was more narrow, and therefore that of a secondary source was more broad.
As one recent example, when discussing what a Church’s volume of Scripture contains, the Scripture itself would be inadmissible (primary source), but a Church-produced manual describing the Scripture would (secondary source). As long as the item itself in question is not being used, it is a secondary source. Church magazines and articles - although admittedly a lower quality source than scholarly publications, and perhaps susceptible to bias themselves - should be admissible under this standard, as long as the article itself is not the subject of the WP page.
Kia ora User:Trevdna thanks for your thoughts. My worry is how much primary sources are used in the article compared to anything else, and it appears we do have different thoughts when it comes to what is primary. Something that is still church provided, I would still consider a primary source, as its not a matter of what it is quoting but more where the source is coming from. I'm not saying that everything they write is a lie or anything, but it is usually considered less reliable than good secondary sources. With the Churchs magazines and news articles, my thought is WP:LINKSINACHAIN would apply, where it is possible to have dozens of sources without having secondary or tertiary sources. "If Alice writes down an idea, and Bob simply quotes her work, and Chris refers to Bob's quotation, and Daisy cites Chris, and so forth, you very likely have a string of primary sources, rather than one primary, one secondary, one tertiary, and all subsequent sources with made-up classification names."
That isn't to say primary sources can't be used, but I haven't gone through yet to double-check where I would have considered something to be a primary source, has it been used in something that is likely to be disputed by other users? If it has been, then we really need at least one secondary source to back up what was said, that is my main concern with the article and sources used.NZFC(talk)(cont)
That is a really good point I hadn’t considered. I appreciate the new perspective.
Most of these primary sources are to fairly non-controversial items. And truthfully, most that I’ve been adding recently have been for statements that were previously unsourced entirely (but had sat on the page without controversy for many years). So I considered them “better than nothing” when I put them in. But of course, I haven’t verified that is the case for all primary sources that the article references.
I have removed the tags from the article, it is a problem that stuff can stay unsourced for ages and as you say, it is better to have some source than nothing. Will when I have time, go over it myself but it would be good to try find secondary sources as well where possible. NZFC(talk)(cont)22:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I will work on finding more and better sources over time. I will also tag current and future “better than nothing” primary sources with {{bsn}} tags where appropriate.
I'm glad you brought this up, I noticed that too a while back. On Wikipedia we do not generally allow self-published sources (see WP:SELFPUBLISH) except for basic, noncontroversial information. I would probably consider anything from church-owned publishers as self-published.
As I understand it, if/when the church is being cited as a source, we would just need to specify that in the text so the reader is aware.
I think it's crucial we use third party sources as much as possible, even for things like the history section. Basically, anything coming from the church directly could be challenged as a conflict of interest (this is true for any type of article subject).
Still, I definitely agree that something is better than nothing at all.
After reading WP:SELFPUBLISH, I also found the next section, WP:ABOUTSELF, and I want to cite it here. It takes a much more charitable view of what is acceptable from a self-published article about oneself, namely:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2) it does not involve claims about third parties;
3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.
The sources at issue generally fulfill at least the first 4 requirements here. 5 is still an issue in some places however.
I would like to reopen this discussion. The section where the tag remains - and the article in general - is much improved from March/April when this discussion was active. I've spent a good amount of time tracking down secondary and tertiary sources to integrate them into the article. And many more primary sources (links to the faith's scriptures or words of Church leaders) I've converted into what I will call "quasi-secondary" sources - that is, sources published by a Church subsidiary. That has typically been where better secondary sources have not been available. Very few overtly primary sources remain. Lastly, I believe that all the items that remain cited by "quasi-secondary" sources are entirely non-controversial (for instance, straightforward beliefs of the Church), although I may have missed something.
I would also like to point out that the article on Jehovah’s Witnesses has a decent number of their own “quasi-secondary” sources like that. Their magazines are cited rather often in describing their beliefs, and it is not tagged. To the contrary, it is cited as a Good Article.
In light of that, and the guidelines under WP:SELFPUBLISH which I discussed in April above, I'd like to remove the {{Primary sources}} tag in the Beliefs and Practices. NZFC and Pythagimedes, do you agree, or do you think this section still needs more work? ——Trevdna (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Submitting for GA status
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I plan to nominate this article for Good Article status in the next few days or weeks. I think it's been much improved over the last several months. No cleanup tags remain. Sources - while not perfect - are plentiful and come from a variety of neutral, secondary sources. In the cases where it has been unavoidable to rely on primary (Church-produced) sources, the items in issue are non-controversial, and therefore fulfill the requirements listed under WP:ABOUTSELF. All major aspects relating to the Church are explained in appropriate, neutral summary style. In short, I believe this article now meets the criteria for GA status.
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello again, everyone! I can't believe we have to go over this again, but apparently it is necessary. The church originally established by Joseph Smith in 1830 went by several names until a revelation in 1838 gave the church its' name that is still used today. One of the previously-used name prior to 1838 was the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints). After the revelation in question was received, all other names previously used were discontinued. By contrast, following the 1844 succession crisis following Smith's death, one of the offshoots therefrom was established as the RLDS Church, later renamed the Community of Christ. Having again reiterated these points, it was necessary to do so because an anonymous editor made an incorrect and inaccurate assertion that the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) was the name used by the offshoot started by Smith's posterity. Based on what I have laid out here, I hope it's clear that the edit in question (by the anonymous editor) was both inaccurate and incorrect. Thank you all.––Jgstokes (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Word of Wisdom "Good standing"
Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Technically it is correct that obedience to the Word of Wisdom is required to remain "in good standing". But reality is less binary than that, and the definition "in good standing" is kind of squishy. There are plenty of active LDS who don't follow the Word of Wisdom to the letter, and plenty of cultural Mormons, not in good standing, who do. But my main issue with the "good standing" wording is that it's not significant/important enough to put at the beginning of the section. The second paragraph adequately covers the subject with discussion of temple recommends and how the importance of the Word of Wisdom has evolved over the years. ~Awilley (talk)21:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
FormalDude, thanks for the ping. Awilley, I know that you and I have encoutered one another a fair few times in our effort to improve articles like this. Consequently, I thank you for correcting the issues with the statement not being in Wikipedia's voice (those in the Church believe that Smith received the Word of Wisdom by revelation, but to remain neutral, we cannot portray that belief as a matter of fact as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned). And I know that the "good standing" phrasing is kind of dicey. I have interacted with FormalDude on my Wikipedia talk page over the last 36 hours on that very subject. As far as I'm concerned, Awilley, I think the most recent changes you made allowed for what I had hoped to convey while also helping to address the concerns raised about that wording by FormalDude. With that in mind, I am fully satisifed with the current version remaining as is, but if there are any other ideas for adjustments or improvements from other editors reading this thread, I'd be willing to consider taking those on board. Looks good for now, though. Thank you both again. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you that reality is somewhat different, but the key point being made is that an LSD LDS member who does not follow the Word of Wisdom is generally considered not in good standing because of that.
That's why "good standing" is significant enough to include in the front of the section; it reflects how the Word of Wisdom is considered today. The second paragraph explains that it was not always this way and how requirements have evolved. ––FORMALDUDE(talk)21:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
This is obviously getting pretty nitty though so if nobody else has an issue with the text as is, I'm fine with it. I have no desire to make a dispute out of nothing. ––FORMALDUDE(talk)21:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you. I saw and skimmed the discussion on Jgstoke's page, came here out of curiosity to see the diffs, and then started changing stuff I thought needed changing. My thought on this is, if we are going to equate "has temple recommend" with "good standing"(<--not an LDS specific article) I would note that the church has 15 requirements for a temple recommend, and Word of Wisdom is just one of them. ~Awilley (talk)21:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Another good point, you've fully convinced me the text is better as it stands. Appreciate your other contributions to the article as well! ––FORMALDUDE(talk)21:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
If both of you are satisfied with the current version of the content in question, I am happy to concur with this consensus decision. Thank you both. Also, FormalDude, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints forbids the recreational usage of more harmful drugs, so other editors unfamiliar with you might take issue with you referring to the Church members as "LSD members". You might want to employ the terms "member of the LDS Church" or "member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Much more refined. But I guess my mentioning that makes me the nitpicker now, so I can wear that badge proudly. Thanks again to you both. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
No worries on that. I'm sure everyone knew what you meant. I certainly did, but couldn't resist the chance to rib you about it a little. Truth be told, you are far from the first person to make that mistake, and I'm sure you won't be the last. There was an anecdote I heard at some point about a Church congregation preparing for a public event who had to include a correction in their flyers about the activity to clarify that the performance in question was not an LSD production. Thanks for taking that correction in good humor. Easy mistake to make. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Women's use of Priesthood
Latest comment: 3 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion
User:Epachamo recently reverted my edits regarding women's use of Priesthood power in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, saying: "This needs a secondary source for sure and/or a better explanation. The nuance with this is absolutely lost on the average Wikipedia reader." I'd appreciate people's input on this one, since the fact that women have Priesthood authority in the Church is a fundamental doctrine, yet as Epachmo rightly stated, one that is widely misunderstood (even by many Latter-day Saints). What do people think would constitute a good secondary source? Thanks. TheOtter (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Here's some secondary sources that I found, though I'm not sure they corroborate your claims.
I think we have to be careful with a topic as potentially contentious as this. I'll admit that I'm a bit confused myself by the distinction being exercising priesthood authority and having the priesthood. I prefer to start with a broadly focused high quality source like Bushman's Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction and see what it says about women and priesthood there. (It's a book worth purchasing in my opinion.) If Bushman says something about it, we can definitely use that. If he doesn't, I would question whether it's relevant enough to put in an encyclopedia article. I haven't read the book in a while, but I seem to remember that it talks about both the Relief Society and the Priesthood. I don't remember if it discusses how they relate to each other. ~Awilley (talk)05:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I actually have been able to find a couple other resources not directly affiliated with, supported by, or governed through the Church or its' subsidiary entities. There is this book, by Sheri L. Dew. There are the following pages, which include resources outside of remarks from Church leaders, which can be found here, and here. The second of those two links is from the Gospel Topics essays. Altough those essays are endorsed by and made available through the Church, they have been written by a variety of scholars of Latter-day Saint history, not all of whom are members of the Church. Anoter article from LDS Living (which is not directly owned or governed by the Church) showed up in te search as well. Additionally. Fair Latter-day Saints is anoter entity not directly affiliated with or governed by the Church, and one of their many topics covered is women and the priesthood. I hope these resources are helpful to the matter at hand. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I strongly oppose saying women hold priesthood authority. (Sorry I didn't come check here before making my edits.) But as I said in my edit summary: if women can't give priesthood blessings, be ordained to the priesthood (outside of some oblique and unclear references that are literally done in the temple in private and are therefore inadmissible on Wikipedia), hold priesthood callings, or hold or leadership positions - what are we even trying to say with "priesthood authority"? Also, if the idea is (supposedly) misunderstood by many of the Church members itself, is Wikipedia really the place to try to set the record straight? If we can't show what we mean by "priesthood authority" from a more-or-less secular perspective, then it's just words.
I'd also like to point out that Pres. Oaks' talk 1) simply stated that priesthood authority and blessing *pertains* to women, not that they actually hold them, and 2) should not be enough to nullify the actual fact that women are not ordained to the priesthood in the same way that we speak of it elsewhere in the article - that is, a current priesthood holder or holders actually place their hands on the recipient's head and says you have the Priesthood now.
Also, per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. That means that
Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.
The main problem with links to GA quotes is that they can be simply the GA's opinion, and not necessarily representative of the Church's doctrine as a whole. Therefore we should be careful when using GA quotes - even 1st Pres quotes in General Conference - to say "the Church believes such and such" when that is arguably outside the mainstream beliefs of the Church as a whole. (See also WP:MAINSTREAM.)
Jonathan Stapley's The Power of Godliness: Mormon Liturgy and Cosmology, published by Oxford University Press (2018), is by my understanding the most recent major scholarly treatment of priesthood as understood by Latter-day Saints. Pages 29–33 specifically describe a church understanding of women exercising "priesthood power" and "priesthood authority." Stapley explains this idea goes beyond the mere "opinion" of general authorities; this teaching is contemporary in the church insofar as multiple leaders teach it and because curriculum has been changed to promulgate a belief in women exercising priesthood authority and power:
"In the 2010s, church leaders began to teach that while priesthood offices are specifically reserved for men, church authority is necessarily priesthood authority, with women who hold ecclesiastical positions in the church wielding priesthood authority by delegation." (29)
"Leveraging the heuristic of 'keys' that has been emphasized as part of the Priesthood Correlation reforms, Apostle M. Russell Ballard told participants at Brigham Young University’s August 2013 Education Week... by working under priesthood officers who hold keys, women may wield priesthood authority." (30)
"Oaks made these ideas accessible to the entire church at the April 2014 General Conference. Acknowledging that they represented an important shift in church teachings, he reviewed comments made by Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith at the October 1958 General Relief Society meeting about women wielding authority in the church and in temples... While Oaks quoted [Fielding] Smith’s statements about women having authority, he did not quote [Fielding] Smith’s qualification about authority being distinct from priesthood. Instead, Oaks observed: “We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be?” All authority in the church, according to Oaks, is priesthood." (30–31)
"One immediate consequence of Oaks's sermon was that curriculum editors swiftly updated the Young Women (age twelve to eighteen) Sunday lesson titled 'What are the duties of priesthood holders?' and renamed it 'What are my responsibilities in the work of the priesthood?' Editors replaced sections focusing on priesthood holders and their actions with sections focused on women as 'participants' in the 'work of the priesthood.' " (31)
"Similarly, in her 2013 volume on women and priesthood, Sheri Dew wrote that 'the Lord has made it clear that He desires to have a righteous, pure people who both qualify for and seek to have access to His power, which by definition is priesthood power.' Simply stated, Dew explained, 'priesthood is the power of God. It is the all-encompassing power by which He works.' Such priesthood is manifest in the temple, where 'both men and women are endowed with the same power, which by definition is priesthood power.' Speaking of her status as a single but endowed woman, she stated, 'I do not have a priesthood bearer living in my home, but I do have access to priesthood power in my home.'" (31)
I think Stapley's peer-reviewed, university press, secondary source makes it fairly clear that from a scholarlyperspective, "women have priesthood power" is a current idea in this particular denomination of Mormonism. It has not always been a current idea (see page 29), and it is to some extent a idea with ongoing development, but right now the idea that women have some kind of "priesthood" is a current idea in the church. This is much more than just Oaks's "opinion." The idea has been repeated by other leaders, both men and women, in other settings, ranging from Oaks in General Conference, to sister leaders in the Newsroom, to Ballard in Education Week, to Sheri Dew's Deseret Book published book, to correlated curriculum itself. Accusing people of "gaslighting" for trying to incorporate that information into the article seems unnecessary. I grant that using conference talks as sources veers toward primary research, but the method was deficient rather than the claim itself.
I would propose describing the matter as something along the lines of "women are not ordained to priesthood offices but are believed to exercise 'priesthood power' and/or 'priesthood authority' by delegation to their callings and assignments in church service and through temple worship." A footnote might then add something like, "The belief that women exercise 'priesthood power' or 'priesthood authority' through callings and temple worship has roots in Smith's teachings in Nauvoo but is relatively recent in the church. Through the twentieth century, church curriculum tended to regard priesthood as a male experience tied to offices and did not dwell on what authority ecclesiastically empowered women in church callings. Starting in the 2010s both male and female leaders pivoted toward emphasizing all church power and/or authority as "priesthood" in some degree." P-Makoto (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Another problem with saying uncritically in Wikipedia that women hold priesthood authority is that it *implies* that they hold the priesthood. Which is not the case. The average Wikipedian simply would not understand the distinction between holding the priesthood and (arguably) holding priesthood authority. Including it quite simply confuses the issue. If we are going to say they hold priesthood authority at all, it should probably be in an efn (thus deemphasizing it to the casual reader), and we should explain exactly what it means: what they are allowed to do/not do with authority, what blessings they are taught they will receive by it, and who specifically taught what about the whole thing.-Trevdna (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
There are many things the average Wikipedian might not understand, but education and information access is part of Wikipedia's mission. I would agree that the article should not only say "women hold priesthood" and leave it at that. But by citing Stapley (Jonathan Stapley, The Power of Godliness, Oxford University 2018; see my reply to your other above comment for quotations and excerpts), I think the article could appropriately say something like 'women are not ordained to priesthood offices (such as deacon or elder) but are believed to exercise 'priesthood power' and/or 'priesthood authority' by virtue of their callings and assignments in church service and through temple worship. Thus, women do not serve in bishoprics, high councils, or in similar church leadership positions which the church requires specific male-only priesthood offices to qualify for. Women serving in other callings of the church—both gender neutral, such as missionaries, and women-only, such as Relief Society presidencies—are nevertheless believed to hold "priesthood power" and/or "priesthood authority" to act in their calling as a delegation under the auspices of "priesthood keys" held by a church leader like a bishop or apostle. The church also believes and teaches that women receive and exercise "priesthood power" through temple ordinances, some of which women administer to each other ("Both men and women who have passed through the temple liturgy in turn perform the 'priesthood ordinances' of the temple for others of their own sex," Stapley, 27); this practice operates within the formal liturgy of the temple and does not provide ecclesiastical jurisdiction.'
I would support that only if 1) the body of the text were written in an efn so the main article text remains compliant with WP:SUMMARY and WP:UNDUE, 2) it’s condensed significantly from what you have - that’s an essay and this Wikipedia article is not a collection of essays on Gospel topics, for many reasons, and 3) it includes references to who, exactly, said what. (Eg “President Oaks, a member of the First Presidency, stated that xxxxx. It’s my view that these things are still outside the mainstream of what most Church members believe, or what is emphasized in most mainstream church teaching. Therefore it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to categorically and uncritically state that these are doctrines that “the Church” teaches. Trevdna (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I mean, you get why this article can’t have a 500 or 1000 word essay on how women hold priesthood power, right? If we accept that, we’d have to accept similar length essays on various other gospel topics. And in fact, we’d have to accept essays of that length on every criticism or controversy the church has been involved in since 1820. And then the article would be a 100 page assortment of disjointed essays that no one would ever be interested in reading.
It’s much better to share basic, simple truths than to overwhelm newcomers with detailed doctrinal exposition. Trevdna (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Whether or not you or I believe these are outside the mainstream of what the church teaches seems irrelevant to what qualifies for Wikipedia inclusion. A major scholarly, peer-reviewed, secondary source published by a university press has stated that this is what the church teaches, and has stated that based on robust research and citing multiple official church outlets and in correlated curriculum, the last of which is possibly the most stringent measure of what "the church" teaches. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia—a tertiary source—it seems appropriate for us to defer to the up-to-date secondary literature written by a scholar, not to our personal perceptions of what we think Latter-day Saints and other Mormons are doing.
I am also not sure what you mean by "essay." The several block quotations from Stapley's book were for demonstrative purposes on this talk pages. My proposal for inclusion (indicated by "I think the article could appropriately say something like," followed by a passage encased in single quotation marks) was a paragraph of less than 200 words, a far cry from the 1000 words you speak of. The idea that the church believes women exercise "priesthood" (by which the church means "the power of God" which the page could explain in one sentence) but does not ordain women to priesthood offices (what other churches would term "the priesthood," as in "the brotherhood of priests") seems like a relatively simple, if curious, truth about said church. I would go so far as to wonder if couching these statements in references like "Oaks said XYZ" would be veering too close to primary research, as we would be ignoring the secondary source literature and implying our own interpretation of the primary source (namely, that this is something Oaks thinks and not something promulgated by the church institutionally, which is different from Stapley's interpretation, which is that this teaching has become an institutional teaching of the church).
Finally, I do not think clarifying what the church teaches about women and priesthood would mandate writing at length on "every criticism or controversy the church has been involved in since 1820." Plenty of those controversies are of little significance to church members. By contrast, half the people in the world are women, and at least half the church is women. The church's teaching about how women factor into its priesthood cosmology, which affects how the church operates and is experienced by its members day to day, therefore seems relevant enough to be worth slightly less than 200 words on the Wikipedia page, while, say, the Hofmann forgeries have become of sufficiently little significance (there is no recent scholarship suggesting they loom large in Latter-day Saint consciousness, belief, or praxis) that they can remain an offhand mention and Wikilink on the page.
I have done my best to explain my perplexity at your objection. To reiterate what I feel were my two most important points in this specific reply, my proposed addition is not 1000 words, but rather less than 200; and our personal interpretations of the primary sources are of less significance to Wikipedia than the scholarly secondary source we could cite about this topic (Stapley, The Power of Godliness, Oxford University Press). That is a large part of why I feel my proposed text, or perhaps a slightly revised version of my proposed text, would be a worthwhile addition to the page and would accurately convey what scholarship says is church teaching about priesthood. P-Makoto (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify where I stand on this issue, I am not in anyway propsoing that any of the sources I mentioned in my last comment be quoted extensively in this article. That would make the article much too lengthy, which is never a good thing if it's unnecessary. My suggestion was more that soee key elements on the subject from those sources could be incorporated here on Wikipedia in our own words so there is better information on that in the artice. So I don't think we ened to be overy detaied on specifics in each of those sources. Having a framework from the sources to incorporate contnet here would be similar to how tat's been done on other subjects relevant to the Church and articles about it. Just wanted to clarify that on my end. --Jgstokes (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I took a few days to cool off. Sorry if I was overly contentious. I think we can get this resolved cordially.
Please take a look at what I’ve written. I hope it should satisfy everyone. I would appreciate it if you would give some citations to the part that you wrote. Likewise, if you think that anything I wrote needs a citation - or additional editing - let me know and I’ll get on it. Trevdna (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for looking for a cordial resolution; I agree that we can come to a mutually satisfactory solution.
My difficulty with your edit is that it continues to portray the church's beliefs about men's and women's access to what it terms "priesthood power" as if it were marginal rather than something the institutional church fully endorses. It is not reflecting what the up to date, scholarly, secondary sources on the subject says.
I think part of the difficulty we have had may come from the way the page is organized. Based on the content of Jonathan Stapley's The Power of Godliness (the peer-reviewed, Oxford University Press published, scholarly secondary source), I have created subsubsections for the Priesthood hierarchy subsection. Now there is the subsection Priesthood, with a subsubsection for "Cosmological priesthood power" and another for "ecclesiastical priesthood hierarchy". The use of the word "cosmological" is based on Stapley, who coined the term as a way to distinguish between the church's beliefs about "priesthood power" (accessible to both men and women) and the church's ecclesiastical priesthood hierarchy, which remains male-only.
Something about the wording, phrasing, sourcing, or order in which these additions were made does not sit quite right with me. Why that is the case exactly is something I'm not sure of. In any case, P-Makato should not have implemented such extensive changes until that wording was approved by consensus. I think we need to be very careful to ensure that the content here matches the available sourcing, while it also does not come across as too apologetic, critical, or inaccurate. I can't exactly put my finger on what it is that gives me pause here about the suggested edits, but wanted to note my reservations on them for now. Perhaps if the content in question could be further discussed and fine-tuned here, we might have more middle ground in regards to that question. My suggestion would be that until we have a chance to establish a consensus on this, which may require additional discussion, that the current version be maintained as the status quo. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I think there is a fundamental confusion with the Johnathon Stapley source. He did NOT equate "priesthood power" with the term "cosmological priesthood". Stapley says on page 33 of his book, "The concept of a priesthood of heaven-what I have described as the cosmological priesthood, constituting the material network of salvation, kinship, and government of the Nauvoo Temple cosmology-is essential to understanding the fundamental role of priesthood in the ordering of Latter-day Saints in life and death. That Latter-day Saints grew to use other terms than 'priesthood' when describing this ordering over time allowed for a newer understanding of priesthood rooted in the ecclesiology to take hold." In other words Stapley argues that "priesthood" in the Nauvoo period was used in a different way than later generations of saints. In his book, when he uses the term "Cosmological priesthood", he is referring to "network of salvation, kinship and government". I love his book, and think it groundbreaking and provocative in many ways, but I do not see the term "cosmological priesthood" as having caught on in wider academia at all. I do not think it should be used in this Wikipedia article. Epachamo (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for y'all's patience. Looking back, I was being a bit too bold.
And it seems I accidentally conflate Stapley's cosmological priesthood as a term for Nauvoo temple networks with the post-2010s church discourse on priesthood as a generalized experience. That's my bad, so thank you for catching that, Epachamo.
I think what I would suggest is editing the following paragraph:
Some church leaders and scholars have spoken of women holding or exercising priesthood power. However, women do not participate in functions administered by the priesthood, nor are they formally ordained to the priesthood, as young men and men are. From 2013 to about 2014, the Ordain Women organization actively sought formal priesthood ordination for women.
I would change it to the following:
Since the 2010s, the church teaches both men and women members experience and exercise "priesthood power" through callings, temple liturgies, and family relationships.[Insert here a footnote citation to Stapley, probably pages 27–34, and an explanation that the church's use of priesthood in this case refers to its cosmology of priesthood as "the power of god" rather than referring to its priesthood of "organized clergy"] However, the church does not ordain women to its priesthood offices, and women do not participate in functions administered by priesthood offices and leadership.[this is also covered in the same span of pages from Stapley, so the citation could either be repeated or implied and left blank.]
Reasons for my adjustments:
- Saying "some church leaders and scholars" makes the teaching sound more marginal than secondary sources like Stapley make it sound. Stapley depicts it as a church-wide experience, and I found his case very persuasive, especially when he demonstrated the church's correlated curriculum now teaches this view of priesthood.
- This time when I suggest using "cosmology" in the explanatory footnote, by that I do not mean Stapley's term cosmological priesthood for the Nauvoo-era temple network, but rather the more general religious studies term cosmology for the faith's beliefs about the order and nature of the universe under God's power; in this case the church's cosmology of God and humanity uses the word priesthood to mean "the power of God", as Stapley explains in the chapter. (This is a somewhat curious choice on the church's part, since it makes it more difficult to talk about the church's priesthood, i.e. organized clergy, and be sure of what we're all talking about.) (To explain my earlier edit, I think Stapley's use of the word cosmological and religious studies' more general use of the term cosmology is what led me to accidentally conflate the two.)
- Then I just tried to make another sentence more active voice than passive.
- Ordain Women are certainly relevant, but the statement seemed abrupt if included without also saying the outcome, and I struggled to find a way to say the outcome without getting off track from the basic subject of the church, as it presently exists, and its priesthood organization. "actively sought formal priesthood ordination for women to no avail" sounded non-neutral somehow, as if it was putting down Ordain Women. But then saying, "actively sought formal priesthood ordination for women, only for the church to refuse" sounds non-neutral in the sense that it makes the church sound like a much more active participant, when for the most part it seemed determined to ignore Ordain Women until it began excommunicating leadership. But then bring excommunications up seemed like it'd get the Priesthood hierarchy section even more off track. Hence I suggest excluding the sentence about Ordain Women, since I'm just not sure how to fully integrate it into the passage. Maybe there could be a "See also: Ordain Women" line? P-Makoto (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Query abt logo
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
This revision, putting the subsection under "politics" has some basis but also some problems. For one thing, liberal LDS members might socialize more with gentiles and on a less-judgmental basis, and vice-versa. User:Fred BauderTalk15:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Fred Bauder: Ello Fred! Could you possibly explain what you mean by "gentiles"? I'm LDS myself and, while I don't necessarily like the section, you sourced it reliably (although I don't really like how you provided an example but you probably have a good reason) so I let it stay. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654515:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
My understanding is that people who were not in the church were referred to as "gentiles," but if it is wrong change it. I am a poor editor for the subject, although I have family members who are LDS. User:Fred BauderTalk01:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the Washington Post article mainly focuses on LGBQ issues. The churches my Christian denomination are in communion with have mostly decided that those sexual orientations should not be a barrier to full participation. I think the more significant issue is that family life is at the center of LDS culture and theology; while, the lower classes in America are often no longer forming families. That is not necessarily true of BGBQ people. So, if if matter is political it is because the politics is being driven by changes in culture. User:Fred BauderTalk18:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I can tell you that family life is indeed an important part of our religion (although I wouldn't necessarily say it's the center). Could you possibly explain what you mean by "the lower classes in America are often no longer forming families"? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654515:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Interesting. I had not heard of this happening (probably because politicians try and get involved and I despise politics). Thanks for informing me. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654516:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
So you just claimed "the lower classes" are no longer forming families and then link an article talking about middle class. What about upper class people who go get higher education instead of having families straight out of high school? Get your facts straight before you make claims. - Skamz 135.180.162.101 (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Why does "Intellectual Reserve" redirect here, if it isn't mentioned once in the article?
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Intellectual Reserve is a nonprofit corporation wholly owned by the church which holds the church's intellectual property, such as copyrights, trademarks, and other media. This is probably done to keep all of this intellectual property under one roof, so to speak. This could probably be added to in the article, like you suggested. Rollidan (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm struggling with how to handle polygamy. I feel like it deserves its own section under controversy - it most certainly was the largest controversy in the Church's first 100 years! - but so much of the material is already handled under the "History" section. Should one or the other be pruned? Should we keep the information in both places although it's redundant? Am I mistaken and should we take the section under controversy back out? Not seeing a great resolution here - thoughts from anyone? Trevdna (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Polygamy should definitely remain in the history section. It was basically the number one defining characteristic of the early church. In general, I dislike "controversy" sections. It's easy to make a list of controversies. It's more professional to work them into the rest of the article and discuss them in the context of what's relevant. ~Awilley (talk)00:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Respect for the name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Some users on Wikipedia insist on replacing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the phrase "LDS Church". Our leadership has clearly requested that those in the media respect our desire to be referred to by more accurate shortened names of the church, like "The Church" or "The Church of Jesus Christ". Here is a link where a prominent church leader explains the reasoning behind this: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng
May you help Wikipedia respect this? I think it would be better to refer to all religions by their preferred title, than to disrespect good people of the faith. May we please remove any references such as "LDS Church" and "Mormon Church" from this article? We worship Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, not the prophet Mormon.
Wikipedia follows reliable sources and all of the major press still uses "LDS Church" and "Mormon Church". Until that changes, Wikipedia will not either. We're not here to hasten the adoption of new titles. ––FormalDude(talk)03:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
From what I have heard, the AP Style guide/stylebook has been updated out of respect for our religion. If the Associated Press, a solid, well-respected institution used by virtually all major news sources, can respect our faith, couldn't Wikipedia do it too? I believe it can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.112.18 (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the media. Anyone who says otherwise is mistaken. The guidelines therefore are not as applicable here, and even if the Church said they were, that would have no bearing on the matter. Insisting immediate compliance with the guidelines violates what has been said in relation to the guidelines themselves. There is a right and a wrong way to go about this. All articles about the Church fall under the Latter Day Saint movement project, as regulated by MOS:LDS. So the right way to go about this is working within Wikipedia guidelines to change the MOS, which will lead to changes at the project level, and only then should changes to articles within the project be considered and implemented. Please take the opportunity to be part of that correct process. Otherwise, the changes won't be possible. Jgstokes (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The source given for the claim that LDS is a Christian Denomination is from the Unitarian Universalists, who do not speak for the vast majority of Christians. Can we find a source that would be accepted by most Christians/Denominations? Lincoln1809 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Lincoln1809, I found a scholarly article from Luther College. I had looked at several other sources not connected to the Church, but most of them were from several years ago when the usage of "Mormon" in referring to Latter-day Saints was still in the mainstream usage. Maybe other editors might be able to point to other sources on this point. As a member of the Church, I can confirm we do consider ourselves to be Christians, but as far as whether other Christian faiths accept us into that category, that's another question. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The metric for the quality of any source should be WP:RS. Such a source may or may not be accepted by most Christians/denominations. While the reference cited is hosted on a Unitarian Universalists site, they are not the publisher. The list comes from the 2012 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches which is actually published by a United Methodist publishing house and is an annual project by the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the US. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
(As a separate note, I can personally attest that I and other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus Christ as our literal Lord and Savior, and are therefore very much Christians - followers of and believers in - Jesus Christ. If you would like to learn more about our beliefs in Jesus Christ, we even have a website or two about that. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist Representatives from the Church would be happy to visit you and show you more. -Mike Olson) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.112.18 (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Peer Review - any objections?
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This article has grown extensively even since it passed GA 2 years ago. Does anyone mind if I put it up for a peer review? One to bring in third parties to evaluate the changes, but two to see if the wider community thinks it may be approaching - dare I say it - Featured Article level? Trevdna (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Could you provide a link to the peer review? I was about to revert some of your source-blanking edits until I saw this. ~Awilley (talk)00:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Oof, sorry I just noticed this. The link to the peer review is at the top of the talk page for as long as it is live. Then it will be included under "Article Milestones" after it is complete. Trevdna (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 18 December 2022
Latest comment: 1 year ago43 comments24 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a legally-incorporated entity lawfully established with that name. While the policies in question would support an elimination of the "The' as mentioned, Wikipedia should not have the prerogative to remove "The" in the name of the Church. That would not be consistent with Wikipedia regulations as I understand them. If we were not talking about an incorporated entity lawfully established in the US, those parameters might apply, but since "The" in the capital form is the first word in a legally-incorporated entity, to remove the first word or have it in the lower case would be pejorative, and thus disingenuous and ill-advised. Jgstokes (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
The argument citing policies about the use of "The" here would have probably applied to this article prior to when the Church became a legally-incorporated entity, but since it is incorporated under that name, as I stated above, it would actually violate policy and be more disingenuous to remove the first "The" or to put it in lower case. Of course, if Wikipedia is in the habit of disregarding naming conventions for legally incorporated entities, my point here is moot, but I don't think that is the case. Thanks. Jgstokes (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
We often title articles of incorporated entities something different than their legally incorporated name. There are many such examples. AT&T not "AT&T Inc.", Google not "Google LLC", Comcast not "Comcast Corporation", Amazon (company) not "Amazon.com, Inc." There are literally hundreds if not thousands of examples I could give. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
See WP:OFFICIAL. What the church calls itself or what its legal name may be is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia. To suggest it's in any way pejorative is frankly laughable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - Previous discussion from 2014 at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 18#Requested move and 2018 at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 18#Requested move 17 May 2018 resulted in consensus not to move per WP:THE. As was pointed out at the RFC regarding in-sentence capitalization, that issue was completely separate from the question of WP:THE and the inclusion of "The" in the article title, so similarly the result of the RFC does not illicit a change in article title here. I think that it's important to consider the complete WP:THE guideline. WP:THE states that a definite article should be included at the beginning of the title of a Wikipedia article only if certain conditions are met, which can include official or commonly used proper name beginning with "The". That is the condition that applies here. Also of note, WP:THE explicitly lists this article as one of the examples in the list of exceptions for proper names (WP:THE#Other proper names). Because of the explicit call out, WP:THE would need to change first otherwise the move would contradict the guideline. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - I think that those previous RM discussions came to the correct conclusion, and consensus has stayed pretty consistent between those 4 years. The "The" has not been removed from common or official usage, and as such it is unnecessary to remove it. As FyzixFighter has pointed out, WP:THE does cite this as an example of when "The" is appropriate. As both the common and the official name use the word "The", the word should stay. Rollidan (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Referencing this article being used as an example in WP:THE is tautologous. It's only there because a previous RM came to that conclusion. If this RM comes to a different conclusion, then the example will be removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
OpposeAn LDS church in Houston, Texas, 2012 It seems a bit backwards to propose a move per WP:THE when WP:THE#Other proper names specifically lists the LDS Church as an exception. That page provides lots of examples where we use "The" in the article title but "the" in running prose. (Do a Ctrl+F for "the Beatles" in our article at The Beatles for instance.) I think the main argument for leaving the The is that many sources do the same, notably the AP Styleguide and the styleguide of the Salt Lake Tribune (a large Utah newspaper that is independent of the church). That's in addition to the church itself using the The literally everywhere...its logo, a plaque on every church building and temple, and every missionary tag. LDS missionary name tags~Awilley (talk)23:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC) Follow up: Responding to the comments saying that the church is listed as an exception at WP:THE only because of past failed move requests... ok, let's say for sake of argument that the inclusion at WP:THE is circular...it's only there because we haven't moved this page. That still doesn't change the fact that WP:THE explicitly allows for a wide range of exceptions for groups, teams, companies, and other proper names, and that the church's leading "The" is capitalized as often or more often than many of the other examples in running prose in reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. And the fact that we decided to no longer capitalize the leading "The" on Wikipedia doesn't mean we must move the main article. Many of the other examples at WP:THE also use lowercase in running prose. ~Awilley (talk)04:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Support. Very obvious per WP:THE. Almost never seen uppercased in running text except by the church itself. The church's (and its members') own preferences are completely and utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia's naming conventions and it's long overdue that this anomaly is removed. We've finally managed to get the definite articles removed from Canadian regiments; time to do the same with the LDS. Two of the most annoying breaches of WP:THE left on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Fixed. Nobody is saying that Wikipedia is bound by the AP Stylebook. I just mentioned it to illustrate that a lot of sources (those who do follow the AP Stylebook) do capitalize it. ~Awilley (talk)04:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Support: The ultimate source of the exceptional inclusion of "The" in the name of this topic seems to clearly be self-promotion by the church itself. Like "The Ohio State University", the church's persistent inclusion (and capitalization) of the definite article is an attempt by the institution to declare that it is the only institution that deserves its designation, so no one else can (in their opinion) claim to deserve its title. Wikipedia should value its independence from the subject institution. Like, Britannica, Wikipedia should not defer to such promotional campaigns. Wikipedia has similarly not included "The" in the article about Ohio State University (a decision that has been repeatedly challenged and upheld in RM discussions). — BarrelProof (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
You would be correct that the church's insistence on uppercase "The" is self-serving. I can assure you that's not my reason for opposing this move. I do my best to follow independent sources, which is why I've been quite vocal in opposing the attempted deprecation of the word Mormon. One of the reasons I get a bit O.C.D. about things like the uppercase The, the lowercase d in day, and the hyphen, is that if you leave one of these things out you could very well be naming a different church. You can get a taste of the variety of denominations by reading the first two paragraphs of Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints). There's a more complete list at List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement. ~Awilley (talk)04:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Support per nom and WP:UCN (" Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title.") After reviewing the oppose comments here and comments in two previous move discussions, I see no evidence of widespread use of the article "capitalized in running text" that would warrant ignoring the WP:THE guideline. Arguments for retaining the article seem mostly to be based on official usage (not always relevant per WP:OFFICIALNAMES) and the fact that the article is almost always used in prose. The latter is simply a function of English grammar where descriptive-style proper names containing "of" use an article (e.g. TheUnited States of America is a member of theOrganization of American States but not theCommonwealth of Nations.) and is not a special feature of this name requiring a violation of WP:THE. — AjaxSmack01:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
CommentAwilley would rightly report the inconsistency at WP:THE. I would suggest that this is an anachronism resulting from the outcome of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC on mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church. The reason for LDS being listed at WP:THE as an exception no longer applies in consequence of the RfC. We could close this discussion without prejudice and resolve the inconsistency at WP:THE. Alternatively, we might continue this discussion, specifically acknowledging the inconsistency and that the purpose of this RM is in part, to resolve the inconsistency - ie whether LDS should be an exception at WP:THE. In that case, an argument here could not rely on the exception at WP:THE, since it would become an intrinsic part of the question to be resolved here. We would need to make a notification at WP:THE accordingly. Some thoughts? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
(after EC) Agreed - The only new argument not used in the previous three move discussions is the recent RfC. I feel it is slightly disingenuous to use the RfC since a significant part of those arguments was that WP:THE and MOS:CAPS were completely separate questions. In fact, when the discrepancy was brought up by one editor, another editor who supported the lower-case result stated that "The guidance to include "The" at the front of article titles for those entities is in no way in conflict with the guidance to use lowercase "the" in sentences. The same "the" would be lowercase in title when not in the initial position. I.e., use sentence case." If that was truly the case and an honest argument, then use of the RfC result to me seems like a hypocritical argument.
I also agree that the decision should not depend on the theological motivations for why the church includes it as part of their formal name. That includes arguing against its inclusion because we want to avoid the appearance of kowtowing to the theological argument. The theological motivation is irrelevant to both options. Unlike the mid-sentence capitalization discussion, this does not involve the creation of specific carveout as the caveat for official/proper names already exists in WP:THE and there are several similar articles.--FyzixFighter (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - Wikipedia should follow scholarly convention, not set it. Scholars use "the" in the title. This is the common name. Unlike "The Ohio State", this is not an issue for any scholar or even the most ardent LDS Church critic that that I'm aware of. Anyone supporting this name change has the burden of proof to show that convention has changed. Epachamo (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I don't have a strong opinion on the actual question, but I want to point out that the listing of the LDS church on WP:THE is not a valid argument against the change. The reason why we have guidelines is to codify common practices in order to prevent WP:LOCALCONSENSUS from forming contrary to generally accepted consensus. But if it's just a single example on a guideline page, then a sufficiently widely advertised RM is capable of overriding and removing that entry if necessary. Of course, the general principles espoused at THE continue to hold and can be legitimately used to argue for or against this move. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠21:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Weak Support per nom. I wouldn't be heartbroken if we keep it as-is. But I sure hope we can make a decision on this and stick to it. No point in revisiting the matter every two years. Trevdna (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Although Wikipedia is not bound by the AP Stylebook, a major stylebook's capitalization of "The" in this particular instance may be considered a determining factor in favor of the retention of "The". Even more convincing are the numerous examples of "The" use in English Wikipedia main title headers provided by Awilley above [at 23:31, 20 December 2022] and comment by Cinderella157 [at 02:28, 23 December 2022]. Among those multiple uses, all (or a reasonable number, such as 50, or at least 20) that are considered ineligible for "The", should be bundled into a nomination, rather than nominating a single such entry. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)01:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Awilley's comparison to other incorporated organizations whose Wikipedia pages also incorporate a sentence-case "the" is apt, as is his point about the pragmatic value of precisely parsing Latter Day Saint denominations. As an editor who has contributed to pages with inter-Mormon subjects, I would be disheartened to see Wikipedia eliminate one more way to parse out a denomination, which makes for one more way the LDS Church takes on the appearance of being the monolithic and only Mormonism, rather than one among several. To the discussion I would add that there are other Christian denominations and movements referred to with a "the" in common usage and which are described in Wikipedia pages which include a sentence-case "the" in the article title: the Christian Community, the Infinite Way, and the Pentecostal Mission. While not as directly comparable, also of interest may be The Church of Almighty God, as although the article about the organization is titled Eastern Lightning (another name for the group), the alternative name is given at the article's beginning as "The Church of Almighty God", with the the bolded as well. Including "the" in the article title has utilitarian value, and it is not unprecedented. For my stated reasons, I oppose this proposed move. P-Makoto (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC on mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I fell like the LDS church has more articles about criticism than other religions. I don’t think that we need an article about every bad thing this religion has done. Also I don’t think 8 septet articles about why the Book of Mormon is historically inaccurate is needed. It looks like people took every possible anti-Mormon source and put it in. I just don’t see why Wikipedia needs so many different articles. I can see one for criticism and one for historical accuracy but Wikipedia has so many articles while other religions don’t seam to have as many. LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps a fair point. If you'd like to prune some of these points, that's entirely your prerogative to do so. In defense of the article as it stands, however, the church has been involved in a good number of controversies over its 193-year history. I've tried to explain them all as succinctly as possible, but there is something of a minimum length that it needs to be, for the reader to understand what the nature of the criticism/controversy is. Also, I've tried to prune it as it gets longer; for instance, when the SEC thing came out under finances, I took back out several sections that had been there for a while about the whistleblower's original accusations, back-and-forth from 3rd parties, etc.
When I started adding in some of the controversies that I felt were missing (admittedly a while ago at this point), my rule of thumb that I tried to use was "Is this criticism/controversy at least as notable as the least notable controversy that's currently in the article?" If it wasn't, I left it out. At that point - and still to this day - I feel that the least notable one is the one about Jewish people and baptisms for the dead. So based on that, I added in sections about the scriptural controversies, the Indian Placement Program, and polygamy. Someone else added in the section on the sexual abuse, and I tried to create the shortest possible summary of it.
But again, I feel very strongly that no one WP:OWNs this article, myself included. If you disagree with the article's balance, please be WP:BOLD and prune sections that you feel take the article into POV territory. My vote on the first section to go would be the Jewish people & baptisms for the dead - although that's just my gut feeling. No offense to Jewish people who may have been offended by that one. Trevdna (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
And one more thing: I - and others who've worked on the article - have tried to use as few truly anti-Mormon sources as possible. You will find no Mormon Stories or CES Letters here. The one "Mormonism 101" source was only included because I don't have direct access to the more neutral scholarly sources that underlie their criticism (Quinn 1993 I believe), and I've been reprimanded before for using sources that I don't actually have access to myself. (If someone else could work on that, I'd appreciate it, actually.) Meanwhile, the one on Mormonthink is only used because it's a link to a primary source document that had been published by the church itself; and it is supported by other sources, including active church-published material. All other sources are reputable, respectable, and neutral: either news articles or scholarly books. If you have a particular source that you feel is unreliable for being unfairly biased and therefore anti-Mormon, feel free to tag it, discuss it and/or remove it boldly. Trevdna (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Black people controversy
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Someone else rewrote the criticism and controversy section on black people. I’d just like to note that, as it now stands, it doesn’t actually discuss any explicit criticism or controversy. It just seems to list a bunch of stuff that a perfectly reasonable observer could probably disagree with. I think this section is supposed to actually discuss the “criticism” or “controversy” associated with it. Could we include things like “the NAACP protested this on xx date” or “Mr. Critic said this is discriminatory.” Not to be obtuse about it, but I think an important part of the encyclopedia’s NPOV policy is that there are no assumptions made about what represents the “correct” thing to think about any of this. Trevdna (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Spoken article
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion
What should we do about the spoken article here? It's from 2007, so the article was almost 100% different than it is now. It seems to me like it's time for a refresh.
Hey Trevdna, I'm not able to promise anything, but I've been wanting to try contributing to Spoken Wikipedia ever since I heard of it. I'm likely your best chance since the relevant wikiproject seems fairly inactive. I think the last time I looked into doing anything like this involved being frustrated with the file format but I might be able to eventually figure it out. Clovermoss🍀(talk)04:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping up and volunteering! I've gone ahead and removed the link from the article page (just today, actually), but if you want to create a more recent version, I think that would be fantastic - we could definitely bring the link back at that point. Trevdna (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
We'll see if I can figure it out, as I said, can't promise anything since I don't actually have prior experience and just a pre-existing interest. I agree completely with removing the 2007 version since it's completely outdated. Clovermoss🍀(talk)04:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@Trevdna: I'm under the impression that you've been actively editing this article over time? If that's still the case, can you let me know when you're done with that? It seems best to attempt this after any major rewrites have been completed so it'll be as up-to-date as possible. Clovermoss🍀(talk)11:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, that’s a hard one to answer. My style is to make smaller edits over a period of months. I work it in with social media scrolling in mindless moments throughout my day.
I’ll circle back to this when I feel like it’s mostly there but it might not be for a few more months at least. I’ve been trying to get the Joseph Smith article to FA status, then I might try for this one… but maybe not. Joseph Smith has been hard enough, and this one is probably further off than that one. So it’s not entirely clear to me when I will get this to a point I would say “finished” but I’ll let you know if/when I figure it out. Trevdna (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Name of the church
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The name changed from "Church of Christ" to "Church of the Latter-Day Saints", and remained as such for six years before "of Jesus Christ" was added back to it. That name is still printed on one of the earlier temples (Nauvoo or Kirtland?). The current revelation in the D&C was altered from its original form in the Book of Commandments to state the name in its final form. One or more early Church leaders left the church when the name changed the first time, interpreting the change as the church falling into apostasy from the original command (and as commanded in the BoM) that it should be called "The Church of Christ". I'm leaving this here for someone else to find the correct references to corroborate this info. 2601:602:D100:2990:A5ED:752:BA4E:8E08 (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Humanitarian Aid Headline
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I just found this SL Trib headline which speaks of a $44 million humanitarian donation by the Church. Which would surpass last year’s $32 million by quite a bit and would qualify as the church’s new “largest one-time” contribution. But reading the article, it turns out that $44 million is to several different groups, which makes it seems much less impressive to me. As long as it’s going to several different groups, it seems like it’s not one single contribution, but rather several contributions grouped under one headline.
So my point is, I was going to include it, but now I’m leaning against it, but I want community input about it too. What does everyone think? Trevdna (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Please restore my edit. Thank you.
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments5 people in discussion
A section of the text quoting the historian Sydney E. Ahlstrom was deleted, even if the wikipedia article on Mormonism has the same quote and wasn't deleted. Also, Mormonism calls itself a Christian denomination but it's not accepted by the other historical Christian denominations that are all trinitarian and only follow the Bible and not 3 extra doctrinal books like the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price all written in the 19th century. So the only way to call the LDS Church or Mormonism "a Christian denomination" is to add "it calls itself a Christian denomination" since no other historical, trinitarian, mainstream Christian group calls the LDS Church "Christian". Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
This isn't the first time that line of reasoning has been raised, and the overwhelming consensus determination has been to keep the current wording as the status quo. Others can weigh in, and if a majority agrees with you, that will be the consensus decision. But in the interim, my advice is to try an argument that hasn't been rehashed ad nauseum here already. The archives contain prior discussions on this same matter that may prove illuminating. Jgstokes (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Ok, how can I make it into a vote? Also why can I add the Sydney E. Ahlstrom quote that was allowed and approved on the wikipedia article on Mormonism?
Also instead of "calls itself" maybe "self-titled Christian denomination" sounds better? Because no big Christian group sees Mormons as Christians other Mormons so there isn't a consensus in the academia or in the rest of the Christian countries that approve Mormonism as a Christian denomination. Maybe "religious denomination belonging to Mormonism that has roots in Christianity" sounds better and doesn't hurt Mormons' feelings while still being historically and theologically accurate? Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Since a previous consensus exists, I would agree with Jgstokes's suggestion to review the prior discussions. If you have a new argument that wasn't included in those discussions, that would help. Otherwise you'll need to argue how the prior consensus has changed. The prior discussions used reliable academic sources (where there is general agreement) and self-identification as a basis for the consensus. What other Christian denominations think is largely irrelevant as WP is a secular encyclopedia. Any of the equivocations you suggest start to enter into No true Scotsman territory which the WP community in practice tries to avoid.
As for the Ahlstrom quote, my objections would be that the quote is about Mormonism which is actually a larger group than this single church. I also think that it would be undue weight in the lede here. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
What about this point I raised: " maybe "religious denomination belonging to Mormonism that has roots in Christianity" sounds better and doesn't hurt Mormons' feelings while still being historically and theologically accurate?"
" What other Christian denominations think is largely irrelevant as WP is a secular encyclopedia." Since Mormons/LDS call themselves Christians I think the historical Christians' perspective on whether or not Mormons/LDS should be taken intro consideration, wikipedia would have no opinion on the matter either way since it's secular and not Christian. It's like you're saying "What other Judaism denominations think is largely irrelevant as WP is a secular encyclopedia" or "What other Muslim denominations think is largely irrelevant as WP is a secular encyclopedia" when it should be self-evident that what the historical, mainstream view of these religions in accepting or not a relatively new denomination should be the most important thing and wikipedia wouldn't care any particular way, just write what most of the people of a certain religion find if a new denomination adheres to its canons and creed or not. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
As I said, any of the equivocations you suggest enter into No true Scotsman territory, which is a logical fallacy that most editors try to avoid. WP should not care about hurting the feelings of members of the church - certainly MOS:LDS makes no effort to appease members of the church. The current wording is accurate based on reliable scholarly sources, and is not based on whether or not it hurts someone's feelings, so I don't see a need to change the text to cater to a subset of mainline Christian groups' objections. Such objections are addressed already in the third paragraph of the lede, where the view is adequately qualified as a sectarian (as opposed to scholarly) view. Again, WP follows reliable scholarly sources, the majority of which place this church (and Mormonism in general) within Christianity. This is the pattern used for other non-mainstream Christian denominations (eg Jehovah's Witnesses) and non-mainstream Muslim groups (eg Ahmadiyya). You are welcome to try to see if consensus has changed, but you should review the previous discussions that led to the current consensus before doing so. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Can I get a consensus here to change the protection status of this article, from Pending Changes review, to semi-protected? There have been a huge number of disruptive IP address edits, mostly focused on either the name of the Church or it’s founder, which have been hashed and rehashed here already. Meanwhile, I can’t think of a single substantial edit that has been made by an IP address since… well I’m not sure when. Additionally, the Joseph Smith article has been semi-protected for years and has seen a huge improvement in these disruptive edits over edit wars of yesteryear. And finally, I will just mention I’ve already tried to go and get it done, but when I went to the request for protection page, they said “already protected”. So I’d like to gain consensus here before I go back and re-request.
Alright, since I received no objections, I've put in the request. We'll see if it's accepted this time. Trevdna (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
There is danger in what is being asked here, though I do believe there is valid grounds for the sentiment. On the one hand, there are many disgrunted former church members who would be eager to "expose" things, and that can get out of control. On the other hand, there is legitimate factual information that is entirely relevant, that is being deliberately blocked by individual(s) who simply do not like it, or who have been taught to believe that anything negative about the church is intrinsically false or with mal-intent; and the truth deserves equal protection from both sides.
The fact is, that there is a dedicated section on the page about the name of the church, and *some* of its history, but it cherry-picked to exclude an important change that many people seeking to know what's what, have to right to know.
If this article deserves protection, then it should be equally applied to "haters" and "zealots". How about this: we let factual citations rule, and/or restrict questionable edits with a request to provide citation to sources, and then let anything through that is supported by references.
Also, it worthwhile to consider that if many unaffiliated people routinely raise the same concern, then regardless of any personal opinion about resources and interpretations, it's entirely legitimate (and intellectually honest) to say things like "Many people / members / exmembers feel or believe xyz, and cite abc for it. Many (the other) disagree because of zyx". And/or, many pages have a "criticisms of" or "reception" section, often with points *and* counterpoints.
But if that's too complicated, how about we let things be governed by citations rather than somebody(s) lording over a topic that they have a vested side in??
For real, this is NOT the place for information control!
Replying to myself: It appears that the "name of the church" section is no longer present -- and that somewhat changes the context here. I can see how such a section makes sense, given how many denominations exist in the latter day saint movement; though given the complexity of that, and the turmoil around the topic, I think it's entirely fair to instead have a brief mention & link to another page that lists and compares the different denominations & names, and/or shows a historical mapping of which came from what, with name changes included. That way, the topic is covered for anyone wanting to know the history, but not pushed in the face of anyone just wanting to read about the LDS faith as it currently exists. 2601:602:D100:2990:EDC9:93E:557E:C1C4 (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I see that this suggestion is already entirely covered in the disambiguation header! Well, perhaps anyone with similar sentiment or reaction will come across this and see that the concern is resolved, and perhaps not quite as it appears, depending on what context they come into.
I actually now agree that some level of protection would be great, given that this has been hashed out perhaps many times over, and the page as it currently exists appears entirely reasonable and unbiased on this topic. 2601:602:D100:2990:EDC9:93E:557E:C1C4 (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
As stated in the text of article citations 8 and 166, the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have asked not to be called the Mormon church nor the LDS church. It is socially inappropriate to continue to call a group by a name that they feel is disrespectful. The fact that members feel it is disrespectufl is supported by the statement in the Semi-protected article request that, “There have been a huge number of ‘disruptive’ IP address edits ... focused on the name of the Church”.
Similarly, there is no justification in trying to perpetuate a name that is offensive to the members of this church. Isn't it time to upgrade this article with the terms that the leadership and members have asked to be called? The unofficial names and nicknames that have been previously used are addressed fully in the ‘Name and legal entities’ section and this should be maintained. 2601:681:8300:9A3:1F0:B377:2249:10EE (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Official abandonment of polygamy NOT 1890
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This is too spicy to just put up as an edit, so I'm putting it here instead. The current article reads:
...Relations with the United States markedly improved after 1890, such that Utah was admitted as a U.S. state in 1896. Relations further improved after 1904, when church president Joseph F. Smith again disavowed polygamy before the United States Congress and issued a "Second Manifesto"...
As written, the article implies that the LDS Church had been stamping out polygamy starting in 1890. To be blunt, this is this is historical revisionism. Church leadership was complicit in continuing polygamous marriages in secret. For example, during the hearings, Apostle Marriner W. Merrill testified under oath that he had married Hilda before 1890, despite the committee having evidence that he married her in 1901 in the Logan Temple. Most serious historians consider the 1890 Manifesto to be a smokescreen to hide the continued practice of polygamy in order to avoid the dissolution and seizure of church assets under the Edmunds-Tucker act of 1887. Further, the timing of the schisms that lead to the fundamentalist branches make no sense if the the church leaders had not been continuing to promote polygamy in secret for 20 years in between the First and Second Manifestos. The fundamentalists have a much more accurate accounting of the church teachings during those 30 years than the current LDS narrative since their entire existence revolves around that dispute.
I understand that LDS believers won't like language like "lied under oath" when describing the actions of the apostles and prophet of the LDS Church. But it is also not acceptable to present a whitewashed version of history. I propose the section be edited as follows:
...Relations with the United States markedly improved after 1890, such that Utah was admitted as a U.S. state in 1896. However, during the 1904 Reed Smoot hearings, it was revealed that at least some church leaders had continued to practice polygamy in secret. Following the hearings, Joseph F. Smith again disavowed polygamy and issued a "Second Manifesto" which resulted in the excommunications of high-ranking church leaders who continued to conduct polygamous marriages in secret...
On the one hand, it seems like it might be leaning into controversy a little bit much for an NPOV passage. Plenty of ink (err.. bits?) has been spilled on this topic, but a POV can be adopted simply by the inclusion or emphasis of one thing or another when we, by necessity, can't include everything about the topic. And there's already plenty of stuff on controversial bits on the church here already.
On the other, this seems like pretty verifiable stuff and I'm not sure how to trim down what you've written any further.
I assume you've got a reliable source for what you've written?
Also, for clarity, I would recommend we add "had", so "...high-ranking church leaders who [had] continued to conduct polygamous marriages in secret..." Trevdna (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I understand the desire to uphold NPOV, and I feel my proposed edit does. However, as it stands, the article is NOT NPOV because it presents an inaccurate narrative that was created by the LDS church itself. The primary source of controversy around the LDS church is its own practice of making absolute statements about things that later can be falsified, not because its beliefs are impolite.
My sources are already cited in the proposed edits, and I attempted to focus on existing pages instead of introducing new ones. The transcripts for the Smoot hearings are hundreds of pages, but the details I shared come straight from them. Frogontrombone (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I just did a detailed review on the pending changes added by Leavittja and ultimately reverted them (aside from one sentence that I partially restored), but I would like to note a few things that deserve further discussion.
Leavittja removed that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both made statements in support of Black enslavement and replaced it by saying they both supported abolition of slavery. I was able to verify that they both made statements in support of slavery, and that Smith later supported the abolition of slavery in his 1844 presidential campaign. I could not find where a source says Young supported the abolition of slavery. Takeaway: we should probably add somewhere that Smith supported the abolition of slavery in his presidential campaign.
Leavittja additionally added a sentence directly after their statement that they both supported abolition, saying "This often led to massive outrage among pro-slavery advocates in the 1800s." I was unable to verify this with the book source used (The Mormon Church and Blacks: A Documentary History) as I do not have access to it, but it doesn't look like the book says that from what I can gather using Google Book's preview.
Leavittja also changed that slavery was legalized in Utah when Brigham Young was governor to say that it was legalized by him amidst national political tension. I could not verify this with the sources used, but it sounds plausible.
If anyone can provide sources to verify these claims, that would be much appreciated. Even better if you can provide a quote from a source that directly verifies it. ––FormalDude(talk)05:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Great points, I should have been more careful with my sources, . Here is an article from Utah Division of State History that says "Slavery was legal in Utah as a result of the Compromise of 1850," (https://historytogo.utah.gov/slavery/#:~:text=Slavery%20was%20legal%20in%20Utah,slaves%20with%20them%20when%20they). This compromise was made to keep the Senate balanced and Utah was not given a choice like some states on the matter of slavery. Here is an article that explains the a bit more of the complicated history of the Latter-day Saint movement and slavery including details regarding political and religious persecution as a result of mostly abolitionist sentiment among early Saints (page 298) and Slavery being legalized in Utah as part of the Compromise of 1850 (page 299) (https://www.jstor.org/stable/272985). Brigham Young never considered himself pro-slavery or an abolitionist. Brigham Young's stance is therefore painted as both abolitionist and pro-slavery, depending on historian. He supported Joseph Smith's candidacy for presidency which included the "breaking down of slavery" (https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/chapter-1-race-slavery-and-freedom-utah-slaves-and-saints.htm#:~:text=In%20his%201844%20campaign%20for,opposition%20to%20slavery%20did%20not). Joseph Smith wrote definitively into Latter-day Saint doctrine "it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another," (1833, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/101?lang=eng#:~:text=78%20That%20every%20man%20may,abondage%20one%20to%20another.). And Brigham Young, being a Latter-day Saint would have necessarily believed that. His silence on the matter might be attributed to rocky relations between Utah and the Federal government and his personal attempt to "obe[y], hono[r], and sustai[n] the law" (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng&id=12#p12). With this evidence, however, it is not definitive enough to say Brigham Young was abolitionist. Saying Brigham Young was pro-slavery is also tricky. While you can find quotes where he seems to support slavery (and I did add a source to a quote where he does that was deleted), he almost always dances around the issue and never gives a direct answer which is not his characteristic style. I'm going to take in your feedback, do more research, and make another attempt at editing. Thank you for your help. Leavittja (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional info. I think the current text that Young has made statements in support of slavery strikes good balance, unless there is a more definitive source about his opinion on it. I'd support adding that Smith later supported abolition when he ran for office. As for the LDS doctrine he wrote, I'd like a secondary source before we add that.
I recommend proposing your future edits here on the talk page before making them to the article so that other editors may weigh in and we can hopefully avoid reverts. ––FormalDude(talk)06:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
@Leavittja: Can you point to any quote or historian that states Brigham Young did not consider himself "pro-slavery"? He literally said, "We must believe in slavery." I'm not sure how this is dancing around the issue at all. D&C 101:79 is not referring to chattel slavery as is abundantly clear from the surrounding verses, nor do historians interpret it this way. It is referring to oppressive government in Missouri who were keeping the saints in Missouri in bondage. Epachamo (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
You probably didn't find any statements by Young in favor of the abolition of slavery because he himself was a slave holder and taught on many occasions that slavery was mandated as a divine punishment by God: incidentally, a position even slightly more extreme than the nascent white-supremacist movement started by John C. Calhoun at the same time that Young was making his own statements.
While it's rather trivial to find statements by Young in support of slavery along these lines of reasoning, the majority of sources claim Young never owned slaves or claimed to support slavery. The Journal of Discourses and the 1851 Utah census both disprove these revisionist narratives. The 1851 census lists Flake Green as Young's slave.
I will note, to their credit, that both my sources are hosted on LDS church servers, despite many more sources by them claiming the opposite.
I do say I am surprised to see Young portrayed as an abolitionist, since he was rather adamant that he was pro-slavery.
>> You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham. ~ Prophet Brigham Young, New York Herald, May 4, 1855, as cited in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1973, p. 56
I would not be surprised if Young also said he was in favor of abolition. He was well known for saying contradictory things, depending on his audience.
Smith did go both ways, though he primarily seemed to view race paternalistically like most of his contemporaries. That is to say, he seemed to view slavery as a necessary evil for a morally impoverished being, but not as a moral good or divine mandate as Young would later posit.
Not done for now: churchofjesuschrist.org redirects to lds.org, so it makes sense to continue to use that url until the site actually moves. Bradv🍁 05:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
_(2).jpg)
