Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 5

Joseph Smith, Jr. Article

Given the length and complex contents of the JSmith,Jr article, perhaps it's time to split it (suggested in another way on the Smith talk page) into: Joseph Smith, Jr - a straightforward biography similar to other church leaders at the time. And Joseph Smith, the LDS Prophet - an account of his visions, mission, church service, writings and opposition perspectives. Both would have to have some summary information from the other, but would focus doctrinal issues more in one article. We would have to put a strong redirect at the head of each page.

Disadvantages could include: two pages for people to vandalize; a tendency for people to think either/both articles are "missing" vital information; and the development of contradictory information over time. I think the bio could be handled pretty easily from the existing information, but coming up with a really great doctrinal/religious page could be challenging. What do you all think? Would this be a good group project? Be glad to help. WBardwin 04:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are on to something, however, I do not think you can seperate the two 'parts of Smith' - regardless of how long the article is, once you try to seperate "the Prophet" from his "biography" you have too many natualistic introductions that leave out the context of what made the man who he was. That said, perhaps we can introduce new articles about Smith - which I do think is a good idea - such as Joseph Smith and Polygamy, Joseph Smith and new doctrines, Joseph Smith childhood, Joseph Smith Kirtland period, etc. This would allow the main page to have a good overview and more detail on the associated pages (with links from these sections to the new pages). A more thourough discussion can then ensue. If you agree then place this on the main page under the polling section and let's vote to see if we as a project are up to the challenge. I'll gladly contribute and think it would be good timing, especially in light of his 200th birthday this year. -Visorstuff 19:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's way too long, but I don't know if you're going to be able to make the Life vs. Prophet split. For one thing, despite how long the thing is, I don't think there's much there about his life. For example, there's no mention of any of his kids being born or any other family events. All of that stuff really needs to be added. One thing that's obvious, however, is that it's a very uneven bio. Some parts are very brief and then some are over-elaborated. For example, "Smith's Death in Carthage" is just way too long for a summary bio. Some of the too long sections could be pruned off as sub-articles. Also, the bio is far too much a history of the Latter Day Saint movement and the LDS church --- and as a result has redundancies with other project articles. Anyhow, I agree that it needs work! --John Hamer 07:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would consider Joseph Smith in the same light as others would consider Jesus, Mohammed, or other central religious figures. We can separate out fact from religion in the Joseph Smith article, I believe, by labelling things appropriately. No need for two separate pages. Jgardner 20:10, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for responding to my original idea. John Hamer's points make a great deal of sense to me. With the article sooo long, we have to define the issues that make it about Joseph and his life and contributions. Then other information can be pruned away or transferred to other topics. The addition of a section on his family and personal life is very appropriate - but then other things have to go!

This muddying of topics is apparent in other LDS/Mormonism articles as well. We insert a little too much history in biographies and a little to much biography in history, as well as dashes of theology, doctrine, practice and culture. That, I guess, is a part of the evolving nature of this encyclopedia. People place a sentence here and there, and others add to it, and then....... A hard look at all the articles would be very good. Could we establish some new sub categories? See the ongoing discussion on splitting up the History of the LDS movement (see: Talk:History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Comments welcome. WBardwin 22:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Mormonism

The article about Anti-Mormonism is a mess - see Talk:Anti-Mormonism. I've proposed a restructure, as it is becoming an apologetic/critic page, not an encyclopedic entry. Hawstom and I both think this is the worst page in the project, currently (although the misperceptions page is just as bad). Comments needed on restructure of messy page. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 23:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you can wrestle that long, bizarre amalgum of sentences into something resembling an encyclopedia article on the topic of "Anti-Mormonism," more power to you! :) I say, go for it. I can give you some help on the "historic opposition" part, if you're still going to have a historic opposition part. --John Hamer 06:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Anti-Mormonism#Criticisms_of_Mormonism.

Cheers,

Sam Spade 00:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I continue to have the lurking feeling there might be a definitional problem with the whole article. A common theme on the article talk page is "No, that's an honest/legtimatate criticism of, or difference with Mormonism, so it's not 'anti-Mormon' and doesn't belong here". Which is an open and commendable attitude, but it does seem to leave us in the situation where we can only write there about the "dishonest" and "illegitimate" a-M's, and that's always going to have PoV issues in tone, and since one is naturally going to hestitate to flat out say "group X is and person Y dishonestly make illegitimate criticisms of Mormonisms", it's going to further lead to vagueness and difficulties in verification. Which is i think exactly what we see in the current article. So I'm thinking (still) that a more broadly defined "criticisms" or as Tom says, "Opposition" page might be easier to write in that sense, as it avoids having to "pre-classify" criticisms according to their supposed merit. Instead we can just say what opposition there is, what criticisms are made, and comment as neutrally as possible on how accepted or rebutted they are on the facts, how they're regarded by LDSers, fellow non-LDS, etc. Alai 16:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm also wondering if maybe part of the sentiment we need to address is a desire to have clearly and prominently referenced those things for which Mormons are notorious. This is neither opposition nor anti-Mormonism, it is simply a desire to clear up confusions by saying, "These are the people who used to be poygamists, didn't give the priesthood to blacks 1850's to 1970's, have 50,000 missionaries in white shirts and ties often on bikes, don't drink even coffee or use tobacco, and have closed temple ceremonies." As Sam Spade says, "they don't drink wine, they used to have extra wives and lots of guns, they feel the USA is the promised land, Joseph Smith had family that were masons, they say Jesus came to america, the Indians were jews, and have "the book of mormon" that explains all this and more which they'll come to your door and give you for free!" Is this part of what we are aiming at? Tom Haws 17:16, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Its certainly what i was aiming at, and i think its what would be most satisfying to mormons, anti-mormons, and lay users alike, since it will bring to the surface various accusations (most at least rooted in fact) and clarify the various expert POV's on them (anti-mormon X says mormons have magical underpants, impartial source Y scoffs and points to web pages offering ordinary 19th century undergarments, CJCLDS refuses to comment on their underpants...). Thats what I was looking for and didn't find when I came to the page. Sam Spade 17:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One would certainly hope that at Wikipedia one could get the complete story on just what the Mormon underwear thingie is all about anyway, etc. Thanks for helping clarify. What do you others think? How can we do this? And where? Tom Haws 19:05, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I get real uncomfortable when we start trying to present a page where we can talk about how anti-mormons talk abou the LDS people. Particularly, when we think things are "rooted in fact". Things rooted in fact and mixed with outlandish lies are still just lies at the end of the day. The challenge is having an article that does address "mystical underwear" (Where do people come up with these names?!? it is like saying "voodoo charms christians wear around their necks to celebrate the torture of their God) in a respectful manner. In doing so, one will have to come very close, if not flagrant disregard, to POV guidlines. Anti-Mormons, by their nature, attempt to describe the LDS church in as outlandish, abhorrent, devil-inspired manner as possible. Yes, I agree it can be a great article, but it will be a huge challenge to complete it without having tons of edits from polemical writers on both sides of the issue. Storm Rider

It may be that this is not a page you would want to be involved in due to the attendant discomfort. Or you may be able to count to ten and help make sure it turns out well. But anyway, I was thinking that these items of notoriety Sam Spade was talking about referencing might also be a part of Anti-Mormonism, as in "Anti-mormons typically invent absurd terms for some of the things Mormons are widely known for. For example they refer to the "garment" Mormons receive when they take their priestly temple vows as magic or mystical underwear." The Anti-Mormon article can mention how Anti-Mormons make much sinister and ridiculous of the distinctive features of Mormonism. But these distinctive features certainly shouldn't be relegated to the Anti-Mormonism article. One thing I liked about Jehovah's Witnesses before was how it started out with their distictive features: Tom Haws 22:36, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses...widely known for

• Use of the Hebrew name of God, Yahweh, more commonly rendered Jehovah in English
• Neutral stand in all political affairs and military conflicts
• Visible proselytizing, including personal visits to neighbours, and conducting free home study courses using their literature and the Bible.

-Tom Haws 22:36, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I still believe that this can be a great article. It will be a great opportunity for both sides to come to a greater understanding of the other. However, I also understand that this belief is based in the rather naive concept that everyone is seeking truth. Anti-Mormonism, what I consider the true definition, is not based upon seeking truth, but rather to cast scurrilous allegations; the more outlandish, the better. The byproduct is individuals who are convinced, as Sam stated, that something is based upon fact and thus is true when in reality it has nothing to do with truth or reality. Tom, I like the idea of first presenting what makes Mormonism unique within Christianity today. Then after stating what is so, juxtaposing it with what are commonly held statements within A-M literature. And you are right, counting to ten (or sometimes 1,000 helps when it gets a little too thick).

This one has great potential -- for good and ill. But, as a history freak, I think a discussion of historic Anti-Mormonism would be an important segment, and would allow us to point out that dissenters often become the most virulent Anti-Mormons. I suspect that modern/current Anti-Mormon issues have similar roots. See: Mormonism and Christianity. Many of those that don't might actually be better addressed in a segment like Anti-Mormon folklore (at least I've never seen horns on my forehead). A strong outline might be a very good place to start. WBardwin 09:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We should probably select the articles that should explain these "disinctive features" of Mormonism. Here is a list of the articles I think we should select from. I am particularly interested in hearing Sam Spade's opinion of which of these articles he wishes would confront these distinctive features head on. Feel free to add to this list and vote on your favorit article(s) to include these things. Tom Haws 14:29, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Mormonism
• Mormon
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Mormonism and Christianity
• Anti-Mormonism

I think there is a more fundamental issue we need to address and that is an LDS index of sorts and how it relates to what people outside the mormon faith would call things. As we think about this distinctive features idea and where it belongs - it seems logical if you ahve good ideas on how to index thing to make it easier to find stuff you want to know if you don't know the Mormon name for it: like mystical underpants has an article Temple garment (Mormonism) but few would know to look for temple garment. Trödel|talk 15:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That link to Temple garment (Mormonism) is exactly the sort of thing that I want to do here, which is leading curious mormons, anti-mormons and ordinary folk to explanations of seemingly bizarre or curious claims. One by one, I'd like to go down the list of criticisms and objections to mormonism, and elaborate on the wilder claims, the mormon rebuttels, and the facts which can be verified. That is exactly what I think all intellectually honest readers and editors want, a through reference containing the continuum of opinions regarding such matters. Where should it be placed? I think it should be located either at Anti-Mormonism or Criticisms of Mormonism. I suspect the latter may be for the best, as "anti-" mormonism appears to be a specific attempt to attack mormons, which is entirely different from my intent, and what i expect the intent of most readers will be. While I think everyone would be best served by an article presenting all sides of the discussion, I also think a separate article on intense and aggressive persecution of mormons has a place. I'm open minded about the naming of the article of course, and am curious as to the thoughts of editors here on "Criticisms of Mormonism" as an article title, as well as other points I have made. Sam Spade 15:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms of Mormonism - Theological or Criticisms of Mormonism - Cultural? Two very different issues and probably audiences. WBardwin 17:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, but I doubt we'll have enough content for both right away? Sam Spade 19:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the past when we have talked about "Criticisms of..." or "Controversies regarding..." it has been generally thought that those weren't the best foundations for an article. However, that was in the past. Perhaps such article titles are our only solution now.

• However, I am still brainstorming article titles: Mormonism and society, Mormonism and the world, Latter-day Saints and society, a special article Understanding Latter-day Saints or Deciphering Latter-day Saints, LDS mysteries, LDS weirdness.
• Then again, perhaps we simply need a little section we use to reference these items: "Latter-day Saints are widely known for their closed temple ceremonies and covenant undergarments, their abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee, their historic polygamy, belief in the Book of Mormon teachings that America is the promised land to which Israelites were anciently led and whom Jesus visited, and their active proselytizing in full-time white-shirted pairs." Wikify that fully and you would have everything Sam is looking for. Tom Haws 04:59, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Project Organization

As evidenced by my confusion, I feel that this project page needs reorganization. As it stands, the project page looks like a discussion page, which it should not.

I think that the polls should be handled so that they are located at a Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/polls page and then the results would be posted on the project page and later implemented into a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints), which of course would have a link on the project page, and eventually added to the {{Style}} template. Old polls would then be archived, and then only polls that are open would be on that page (as opposed to the project page which has old pages there), although this requires a consensus as to how long a poll should be open (i.e. let the polls begin).

I think that this should actually go here, though it could be argued that an easier way to do this would to make comments on individual pages that appear as:

Please see my comment at the talk page of the WikiProject Mormonism 

Regarding the aforementioned possible title for the manual of style and the alternate use for the project page (to see if you were paying attention), I think we need to address Val42's comment, which might require a move for the project page.

Additionally, concerning Wikipedia:Latter Day Saint Collaboration of the fortnight and this statement:

The current Latter Day Saint Collaboration of the fortnight is Emma Hale Smith.
The next winner will be selected on Sunday, 12 December 2004

Perhaps this page needs to be revised as well. Shall we consider a move to Wikipedia:Latter Day Saint 90 Day Collaboration or Wikipedia:Latter Day Saint Six-month Collaboration

Finally, I request your comments concerning this comment.

I have made some of the above changes, but have left the project page in its original form. Be sure to discuss these things and when consensus has been reached make the applicable changes. Moogle 08:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the above sentinments. Count on no opposition from me. I say be bold regarding these ideas. Tom Haws 16:24, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Also agree. Feel absolutely free to move discussions to the talk page, perhaps leaving a "pointer" behind. (I don't see having a list of RFC as a bad idea, as long as the comments don't happen on the project page.) Establishing a coherent structure might be more difficult. Anyone have an example wikiprojectpage they can hold up as a good model? Alai 06:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salamander Letter

I made some significant edits to Salamander Letter. Can someone review and edit? Cogden's or anyone elses expertise on the matter would be helpful. I've only studied the matter lightly and do not consider myself an expert here. -Visorstuff 17:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Featured article canditates

It is time to nominate Mormonism and Christianity as a Wikipedia featured article. Before doing so, I want to leave notice here for a while in case anybody wants to add any images or references to improve its chance of success. It is a very nice article that had immense attention and focus in late 2003 and early 2004, and has been extremely stable since then. It is a shining example of the best Wikipedia can do. Any others? Anti-Mormonism? (Just kidding!) Tom Haws 17:40, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Please vote for or against this article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mormonism and Christianity. Tom Haws 05:40, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Timeline?

I think we need a timeline for our project's articles. Here's my proposal:

• Why? It would help organize related events and give better insight into the various periods of mormon history.
• How?
  • We would have decade pages from Joseph Smith's First Vision until the present day.
  • We would only have year pages for periods with a lot of events (like Nauvoo period)
  • After 1844, we can have separate timelines for LDS and CoC.
  • Pages on mormonism would link both to the timeline and the specific dates of wikipedia. Specific dates go to wikipedia standard date pages. A note about the decade would be placed in the article (ex: See 1940s (LDS))
  • General notes on the period of history would be added to the timeline page, as well as a chronological list of events in that period.

Let's discuss. Jgardner 09:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Cookiecaper 13:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The decades are done. See 19th century (Mormonism) and 1940s (LDS) to see my work. I'm not sure how to handle CoC in the 1820s-1840s (IE, should 1880 link to 1880 (LDS) or 1880 (CoC)?) Jgardner

Sister Hinckley's Article Deleted

I'm not sure if anyone noticed this or not, so I thought I'd bring it up here and make sure you were all okay with it. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Marjorie Pay Hinckley. Marjorie Pay Hinckley now redirects to Gordon B. Hinckley. Cookiecaper 14:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I noticed it too late - wasn't on my watchlist - but saw when the information got deleted (aka merged) on her husband's page. I think the best thing is to describe her in a little more detail on GBH until an encyclopedic claim can be supported Trödel|talk 01:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the beginning of a trend for "minor" LDS figures. See notice just posted on Parley P. Pratt. If we can't defend his viability, as an apostle, and a fairly prominent one, we won't have much chance maintining a string of apostles over time. Any ideas on how we can boost the importance of these people to a wider audience? ...talk more about their roles in the Western expansion of America? ...on the promotion of religious pluralism in the United States? WBardwin 01:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Wrong approach. Let's avoid obfuscation of the underlying issue. Let's simply say they are important historical figures in the Latter Day Saint Movement. We wouldn't delete any important historical figure of any significant movement. That said, I am not sure that every apostle of the LDS church needs an article. Is that defensible? But PPP, yes! Some of the people can go in lists unless they "need" their own article. Tom Haws 15:07, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Update: It appears that the intro of the PPP article failed to explain succinctly why he was important. As a matter of practice, we need to be sure every article explains in the first few sentences who they were and why they are important/notable in the world. It has been fixed, and the notice removed. Tom Haws 15:25, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is any basis to delete any articles on any LDS apostle, even a minor one (which PPP certainly isn't), any more than there is a basis to delete an article on any non-notable U.S. Congressperson or any non-notable Secretary of the Treasury. Their notability arises from their title or position, even if they weren't notable for what they did. Regarding Marjorie Hinckley, however, I am ambivalent. I'm inclined to wait and see what happens: if people start talking about her personal/family history and using it as some sort of inspirational model, then clearly she should have an article; but for now, I'm personally not sure what there is to write about her other than that she was GBH's wife. On the other hand, nobody has complained about the articles for several non-notable First Ladies of the United States who have no notability apart from their choice of spouse. See, for example, Anna Harrison. COGDEN 19:07, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Use of "Mormon fundamentalist"

Should the term "Mormon fundamentalist" be used to describe people who consider themselves "Mormon fundamentalist". The most common Mormon fundamentalists follow most of the teaching of the LDS church before the Manifesto, usually including polygamy. The [LDS church opposes the use of "Mormon fundamentalist". Here is a reasonable, unofficial article on Mormon fundamentalists. I like the phrase because it is simple and descriptive, and used by the fundamentalists themselves, though there is room for being confused with members of the LDS church. There is a discussion on the topic at Talk:Polygamy#Mormon_fundamentalists_-_so-called_and_otherwise. Nereocystis 18:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Mormon fundamentalists seems to be the preferred term in use. Let's throw around some possible replacements: Tom Haws 18:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the LDS church is opposed to the term Mormon fundamentalist more because of the use of the word Mormon than the use of the word fundamentalist. Mormon or LDS suggest affiliation with the official LDS church. While there is some validity to the argument, Mormon or LDS really needs to be used to be descriptive. Fundamentalist may have more than one use, but it is descriptive. The official LDS position seems to require something like

polygamists who follow some of the teachings of the LDS Church of the 19th century but are not members of the LDS Church because no members of the Church today can enter into polygamy without being excommunicated. Polygamist groups in Utah, other parts of the American West and elsewhere have nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is too awkward for me. Nereocystis 19:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Derived is kind of an awkward word but I like it better since it clearly distinguishes that it is not a continuing affiliation. Trodel 21:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite follow; as I understand it, the LDS Church would prefer we don't use the terms "Mormon", "Mormonism", "Latter Day Saint" for any denomination but them, but we don't follow this here, as it'd have both practical and POV issues. So why are we speaking of more modern splits as being somehow less "Mormon" than the several older ones? To be guided by how "controversial" a group is would surely be a mistake. Alai 00:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The CoJCoLDS is mainly concerned with the term Mormon Church. I don't think the church can, or does, attempt to make an exclusive claim to the term Latter Day Saint, considering that there have long been denominations that use that phrase explicitly in their name. Also, I don't think the church is as concerned with the term Mormon used as an adjective, or Mormonism, although I'm sure that if the church could have its way, it would prefer that groups such as the FLDS didn't consider themselves to be under the umbrella of Mormonism. From the LDS church's point of view, it is a good idea to convince the media to use terminology that portrays the church in a positive light, while distancing the church from polygamist sects. The fact is, though, that this is the point of view of the LDS church, which the Wikipedia must respect, but probably cannot adopt, any more than it can adopt the POV that the FLDS church is true Mormonism. COGDEN 17:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on the practicalities of what they can in fact reasonably or effectively do, and on the correctness of the respect-not-adopt attitude. But I believe their claim is rather broader than you suggest (or at least, has been in at least this

instance). Alai 17:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Better suggestions needed. Tom Haws

Alai has convinced me that Mormon-derived, and similar phrases isn't as nice as I had thought. Nereocystis 17:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

And likewise, you make a very good point about LDS Church of the term "Branch". I suppose that "church", "denomination", or "denominational body", would be alternatives, though I'm not sure any of them sound that great in context. Alai 23:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Other well established churches would use the word "schism - formal division or separation from a church." Not a very LDS/Mormon sounding term, but could be used with dates and the names of the "fundamentalist" movements. And our schisms could be classified as major (or historical - as in the initial breakups around the time of Joseph's death) or minor (modern?). Or even grouped in categories like leadership disputes and polygamist theology. WBardwin 01:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Mormon fundamentalists

This option is currently winning.

• Oppose The term fundamentalist is ambiguous, euphemistic, and opposed by mainstream Mormons. Tom Haws 22:56, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support short, simple, and fairly descriptive, and standard. Mormon does not really require LDS membership, though it sounds like it doesn't. Nereocystis 19:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Trodel 21:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak support I think this is reasonable in contexts where the contentiousness has been made clear, or where it's clearly a self-descriptor. Alai 00:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support This is standard, well understood by outsiders and insiders alike, accepted and even embraced by fundamentalists such as the FLDS, and not clearly offensive to members of the CoJCoLDS. It also implies some degree of separation from mainstream Mormonism. COGDEN 17:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly Support This is the standard usage. These people are called Mormon Fundamentalists and they call themselves that. They are Mormons. They are descended from the early church in exactly the same way as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is. They are part of the Mormon movement and part of the Latter Day Saint movement. They argue that they are the only true Mormons and that the members of the larger LDS church are "apostates." It's exactly the same question as "are Mormons Christian"? Most Mormons are different from mainline Christians but they generally consider themselves the true Christians and consider the non-Mormon Christians to be in a state of Apostacy. In the same way that I would argue that we can call Mormon a branch of Christianity — Mormon Christianity or whathaveyou — Fundamentalist Mormons are a branch of Mormonism. --John Hamer 00:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is an odd case though. Fundamentalists might not find the term offensive or confusing, but others often do. "Fundamentalist" has a different connotation outside of Mormonism which might lead readers to believe that fundamentalists are simply very devout Mormons. For this reason, we'd need an explaination on each first use, but there's too much precedent in favour of the term to use another. Cool Hand Luke 00:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thinking about this further, I'm not sure we'd actually need to qualify Mormon fundamentalists by stating what church they belong to. While most Mormon fundamentalists are not associated with the LDS church, some are, and just haven't been excommunicated yet. There are also people who have been excommunicated from the LDS church, but who still consider themselves to be members of the church, and others who affiliate with Mormon fundamentalists and share their belief system, but don't practice polygamy themselves and otherwise remain active in the LDS church (though, doubtlessly, without a temple recommend). Basically, I just think that Mormon fundamentalism is a religious philosophy cutting across denominational lines, rather than a religious affiliation. COGDEN 01:22, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly Support. The groups to whom this term applies already accept it, and call themselves by this name. It also has popular support among the community at large. If you were to stop someone on the sidewalk in SLC, and ask them what a "Mormon Fundamentalist" was, they certainly wouldn't point to the Church Office Building. They would generally have the correct idea of whom this term applies to. Also, I think the name itself clearly separates the "fundamentalists" from "mainstream" Mormons. If anyone is concerned about it, I think a simple statement within the article is sufficient to remove any confusion of this in any reader's mind. KevinM 02:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. However, I do concurr with Cool Hand; fundamentalist is defined differently outside of the LDS church. I suspect the LDS church chaffes at the very mention of FLDS, but it is what it is; diverse sects of the LDS church. I would hope to see qualifiers when it is used, because I am more doubtful that the general reader of WIKI has a concept of this subject. Mormon, far more often than not, is a descriptor of the LDS membership. Other groups of very small numbers attempt to claim it, but I think in doing so it is the tail attempting to wag the dog. Storm Rider 04:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• This option (winning at this moment) still leaves us having to say Mormon fundamentalists (outside of the LDS Church). LDS members won't allow it any other way from what I can see. I'm not saying this is a reason to oppose. It's just a fact of life. Tom Haws 22:59, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Fundamentalist branches of the Latter Day Saint movement

• Oppose This is not only long, but still ("fundamentalist") euphemistic. Tom Haws 18:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Slightly oppose branches suggest they are part of the LDS Church, as a Mormon branch is a congregation (see Ward (Mormonism) Nereocystis 19:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Branches of the LDS movement surely in no way implies membership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! Alai 00:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Slightly oppose Trodel 21:17, 18 May 2005
• OpposeStorm Rider 01:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weakly support It seems wordy, but would be an accurate and NPOV description. I prefer Mormon fundamentalists, however. COGDEN 17:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This euphamism is unclear. One might imagine that the Restoration Branch Movement or the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or other conservative branches of the Reorganization could fall under this heading. --John Hamer 00:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polygamist branches of the Latter Day Saint movement

• Weakly support Rather long, but very descriptive and in line with our style. Tom Haws 18:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose, suggests Mormon congregation. Nereocystis 19:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Trodel 21:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weakly support I would rather consider Polygamist Schisms of the Latter Day Saint movement. See my comment above. WBardwin 01:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weakly support It seems wordy, but would be an accurate and NPOV description. COGDEN 17:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Are we going to go through and change all the references to "plural marriage" — the preferred Latter Day Saint usage to "polygamy." I think this is a negative phrase.--John Hamer 00:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polygamist branches of Mormonism

• Support Tom Haws 18:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose, suggests Mormon congregation. Nereocystis 19:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Slightly oppose agree branches implies still part of the tree Trodel 21:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • And they aren't? Why not? Alai 00:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support This seems to better define the group without the confusion generated by some of the other terms. Storm Rider 01:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose Given the choice, I would prefer Polygamist branches of the Latter Day Saint movement, even though it's wordier. Mormon fundamentalists is my preference. COGDEN 17:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Again, this makes use of the term "polygamist," which Mormons generally consider negative. I'd rather have "Mormons who have not rejected the New and Ever-Lasting Covenant of Celestial Marriage" — if we're going to have a euphamistic phrase. Mainstream Latter-day Saints in Utah refer to Mormon Fundamentalists as "Polygs" — which is a kind of slur like "Kype," "Frog," "Wog," or "Nip." Also, plural marriage isn't the only thing that sets these groups apart. They also haven't rejected other early doctrines. --John Hamer 00:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is an appropriate descriptor for the groups. Yes, John, they have additional beliefs, but this seems to be the reall driver behind their activity. I don't really see to many of the ready to sever themselves from the LDS church over the Adam-God theory. Further, negative connotation is in the eye of the beholder. Heck, call the FLDS polygamists and they say thank-you; there is no slur there. Storm Rider 04:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Mormonism-derived polygamy

• Support Tom Haws 18:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Slightly oppose short, simple, but suggests not as good as the original. Nereocystis 17:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support Mormonism is better than Mormon: since Mormon (prophet) is a person and Mormonism is the movement. And like in the naming convention we decided upon it is better than Latter Day Saint movement derived polygamy which is long and awkward. I would also support Trodel 21:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Not a "common term" descriptor, and seems to embed "not Mormon" POV uncritically. (By way of analogy, we report the Catholic Church, etc, as saying that LDSs are in effect not Christian, but if we started calling the LDS Church "Christian-derived", people would quite rightly hit the roof.) Alai 00:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose this just seems too awkward. Storm Rider 01:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a point of view. Polygamists such as the FLDS consider themselves to be Mormonism, not merely to be derived from it. COGDEN 17:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I completely agree with everything Alai said. --John Hamer 00:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mormon-related polygamy

• Support Tom Haws 18:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Slightly oppose Nereocystis 17:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Slightly oppose Trodel 21:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose, as per previous option. Alai 00:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• OpposeStorm Rider 01:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This is redundant, and describes the practice, not the people. Almost all American polygamy is Mormon-related. It also sounds too similar to "gang-related violence". COGDEN 17:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Alai. --John Hamer 00:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mormon-related polygamists

• Support Tom Haws 18:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Slightly oppose this and previous one go hand in hand. One describes practices, the other describes people. Nereocystis 19:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Slightly oppose aren't they all related :) Trodel 21:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose, as above. Alai 00:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Storm Rider 01:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This is redundant and too broad. COGDEN 17:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Again "polygamy" is considered a negative by Mormons, including Mormon Fundamentalists. These people aren't related to Mormons, they are Mormons. --John Hamer 00:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mormonism-derived fundamentalists

• Slightly oppose Fundamentalist is a fine word, but the derived part is starting to bother me. This also describes people opposed to priesthood ordination of men of African descent, for better or worse. Nereocystis 17:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support Note that I changed it from Mormon-derived to Mormonism-derived Trodel 21:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Ambiguous. Nereocystis is correct, but still I ask myself, what is a fundamentalist, and what is this term trying to say about a person?Tom Haws 21:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose, yet again. Alai 00:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose How are they more fundamental? The answer should guide the proper terms to use. Storm Rider 01:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a point of view. Fundamentalists such as the FLDS consider themselves to be Mormonism, not merely to be derived from it. COGDEN 17:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I agre with COGDEN. --John Hamer 00:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mormon Polygamy

• Weakly Support Sigh. A slightly different connotation than the two I oppose below. Tom Haws 16:28, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Slight oppose this includes both pre-Manifesto and post-Manifesto polygamy. I would prefer different words or clear delineation, but I'm not sure why. Nereocystis 17:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. Based upon my comments regarding Mormon above, this just does not work. Storm Rider 04:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Polygamist Mormons (not Mormon Polygamists)

• Oppose Due to the dwarfing dominance of the LDS Church, the de facto meaning of Mormon is LDS Church. It is very reasonable to try to avoid implying that LDS Church are polygamists. And yet what else can we call the fellows in Colorado City? I think that Polygamist branches of Mormonism is winning above. Only weak opposition. Tom Haws 16:28, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose pre- and post-Manifesto confusion. Nereocystis 17:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose I prefer Mormon fundamentalists, except when referring to pre-Manifesto Mormons, who were polygamist but not fundamentalist. COGDEN 17:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ditto to Tom's comments. Storm Rider 04:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Mormon Polygamists

• Oppose See my comment above. Tom Haws 16:28, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose See my comment above. Nereocystis 17:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose I prefer Mormon fundamentalists, except when referring to pre-Manifesto Mormons, who were polygamist but not fundamentalist. COGDEN 17:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Same comments as above. Storm Rider 04:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint fundamentalists

• Weakly oppose The description of polygamy as being fundamentalist does not really apply to the Latter Day Saint movement as a whole. Polygamy probably wasn't sufficiently widespread and established within the movement during Joseph Smith's time for the practice to be considered fundamental by non-Brighamites. I may be wrong, but I don't think a secret teaching can be considered fundamental. COGDEN 17:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint polygamists

• Weakly oppose This is probably factually accurate, but it sounds like Latter-day Saint polygamists, which would be confusing, since there aren't supposed to be any of the latter. Given a choice, Polygamist branches of the Latter Day Saint movement would be better. COGDEN 17:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have a big problem with this. Very few people get the distinction between Latter-day Saint and Latter Day Saint. This does not work at all. Storm Rider 04:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

"The Church" vs "The LDS Church" or "the church"

According to this poll Wikipedia:Lds/polls#.28Capitalization.29.2C_.2821_Feb_2005.29,

To comply with Wikipedia policy, all references to "the Church" or "The Church" shall be replaced with either "the LDS Church" (if that is the church in question), "the church", or an appropriately more specific term (the church leadership, the church members, the church organization, the church president).

If this is true, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Style_Guidelines and its supporting documents should be changed. I prefer "LDS Church", in most cases.Nereocystis 18:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

They should, yes. This rather got stalled because over and above the usual inertia, there's the issue of whether other "Churches/churches" would/should be treated similarly, or if we were being over-cautious and inconsistent here. (There was some discussion on this at Wikipedia_Talk:Manual of Style, without any real conclusion.)

I agree with your preference (on second and subsequent usages), the issue really only arises in cases where saying "LDS Church" too often in a row seems stylistically undesirable, or where the existing text says "the Church". Alai 00:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow. This topic is more confusing than I had expected. The Church still make me think of the one and only true Church, but it may not be as bad as it think. I still prefer LDS Church, however. Nereocystis 04:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

128.252.144.88 is mischievious

See his contributions. He's making not cool edits. I thought I'd bring it up. I reverted his edits to GBH twice now. Cookiecaper 20:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

24.107.143.100 [1] has also been doing edits -- little word changes which slightly affect the meaning of the section. Some may be vandalism, others POV. Please take a look at the material. WBardwin 21:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

69.17.114.116. I'm just going offline but could someone monitor this anon. I noticed a number of edits (see Willard Richards), changing names in some of our apostles succession boxes among other things. I think they misunderstand the box's purpose and are placing the person called after the apostle's death. I left them a note to that effect, but we might have clean up to do. I'll check back tomorrow. Thanks. WBardwin 07:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

69.17.114.116 was me. Jgardner 22:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

209.158.164.133 vandalized First Presidency. Maybe we should keep a list of vandals on our front page? Jgardner 17:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I just caught 217.237.151.99 vandalizing Brigham Young. Jgardner 28 June 2005 16:07 (UTC)

Make an Alert Page?

We have our share of vandals -- but probably more than our share of anon's as well. What about a separate "Alert" page we could all "watch" with a list of known vandals, the LDS policy on dealing with newbies and anons, and a place for current alerts like the ones above. Moogle may have ideas in terms of the page/revision efforts. What does everyone think? Would you actually monitor such a page? WBardwin 18:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd certainly add it to my watchlist -- not that that isn't getting far too long already... Alai 18:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I assume this would be a page where we could report when an LDS related page got vandalized. I think the IP of anons might be a problem, since there could be a valid user that DHCP assigns the same address of a vandal. I like the idea, and would certainly add it to my watchlist. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 21:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Alert: Young editor with a history of confusing and contentious edits has weighed in on Joseph Smith, Jr (see User:Gabrielsimon). I've politely referred him to the talk page. WBardwin 00:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alert: User:149.169.29.84 has been making a large number of edits on various pages during the last two weeks or so. The edits

• remove material which the editor "finds inappropriate for an encyclopedia."
• sometimes focus on LDS related articles/LDS persons,
• remove material that may present a negative image of the person. Please see Zenna Henderson.
• adding articles to Category:Latter Day Saints,
• extensively revised List of Latter-day Saints, mostly shuffling blocks of material.

Probably good intentioned, but might be creating POV problems. I'll be away most of the weekend. Could the group look into these edits? Thanks. WBardwin 03:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Alert: User:66.87.28.66 has been making a large number of relatively minor edits to Joseph Smith, Jr., most of them dealing with old, discussed topics. I replaced only the polygyny/polygamy/plural marriage one. I have guided this editor and a User:Val42 to the discussion page before they reinvent the variously laboriously discussed wheels. Everyone, please look over the August 31st history. Thanks. WBardwin 03:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Alert: User:151.205.82.176 has created a brand new Category:Mormon martyrs and placed Hyrum Smith in it. I doubt this category will hold up -- admins, what do you think? If I'm not mistaken, this is the same editor I reverted a while back on the Joseph Smith, Jr. article for saying that JS was a Mormon martyr not a Christian martyr. S/he apparently has been making POV edits on other religious topics. I would expect them back at JS on this same issue. WBardwin 21:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Update -- has returned to JS and been reverted. I will remove category on Hyrum as well. WBardwin 21:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Polls

Sorry I am late to the party, but I thought there was a point in creating a poll page. Was I wrong? Based on the usage thus far and Mormon Fundamentalism, it seems as though I was mistaken.

– moogle 20:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but if it isn't on Watchlists, it doesn't get used. This page is on Watchlists. I don't mind having polls on the talk page, myself. Tom Haws 16:35, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Mormons aren't Christian?

I just saw that the LDS Church—or Mormon movement if you prefer—isn't listed in this template. Don't know if you care or not, but I thought I'd mention it. I already noted the omission on its talk page. Chime in if you like. I know this could open up the whole can of worms:

Mormons are not Christian!

Oh, yeah? Why not?

Because they don't believe in Jesus Christ.

Yes, they do. See the name of the Church.

Well, it's not the same Jesus Christ as every other Christian beleives in.

How so?

Because they don't accept the Nicene Creed.

Why does that matter?

It just does.

...and so on...

:^) — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:20, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I will check out the Christianity page and change the Template accordingly. After checking, the problem seems to be in the Restorationism article. Could I get a little help fleshing it out? Tom Haws 16:35, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be a case of "mystery deletion", I've restored (as it were) an old version. Frecklefoot's characterisation seems a little harsh to me: the whole point of Nicea is that it does try to define the nature of Christ, thus the "same Christ" criterion is not completely baseless. (Whether it's appropriate or not is another matter. Certainly on that basis you'd have to conclude not just the LDS but the Arians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians and Modalists were all non-Christians too.) Alai 21:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Alai. Tom Haws 04:04, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, if I seemed harsh, but I've seen many conversations like that on many Mormon-related Talk pages. Mormons beleive in Christ, and that he is the Savior. They don't beleive in the Trinity, however, or accept all the points of the Nicene Creed, and because of that, many "Christians" claim that Mormons aren't Christian. I just think it's silly. If Mormons beleive in Jesus Christ, why aren't they Christian? The name of the church even includes Jesus Christ, whereas most other churches don't! Mormons are Christian, like it or not... Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:45, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, no problem. I just wanted to observe that it was a technically defensible PoV, and it's the gist of the basis of the major denoms not accepting Mormon baptisms, for example. Though as a certain Notable Mormon said to me recently, "I figgur we don't take theirs, so they don't take ours", is perhaps as viable an account of that latter. I certainly can't see why anyone would exclude Mormons, but include any other non-trins, as some seemingly do. (I don't personally subscribe to either of said PoVs, btw -- though I'm not sure it's exactly down to me to define Christian in the first place.) Alai 03:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It's the age-old question of what defines a "Christian" - belief in the Nicene Creed & the Trinity, or belief that Christ is the Messiah. I think the proper NPOV thing here is to consider them Christians - the issue of the Nicene Creed is an internal debate to Christian-derived institutions; to any non-Christians the belief in Christ as the Messiah would be enough to label them "Christian." I don't see a huge problem here...BankyEdwards 06:02, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

For taxonomic purposes, yes, I think that's exactly what we should do. For article-text purposes, I think we should simply report both points of view, and not assert either. (Weighted appropriately, whatever appropriately would be...) I don't think there's a problem either, I was just commenting on Frecklefoot's apparent characterisation of the "nature of Christ" reasoning as a complete non sequitur. Alai 06:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Fortnight Article

I know I haven't been much help because work and real life have kept me on a wikivacation for the past few months, but I think that we should either (1) Put somebody in charge of the Fortnight Article, or (2) Eliminate having a Fortnight Article. Isn't it embarrassing that it's still Emma Smith after all these months? --John Hamer 00:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Totally agreed - I have been off and on lately but it is embarrassing. Do we want to nominate someone to manage the "Semi-Annual article" :) Trödel|talk 01:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think everyone's done with Emma Hale Smith. I'm unilaterly deciding to close that article and declaring that the new article will be Joseph F. Smith. Tentatively, I'm switching this to a monthly project. If there's interest and people help whipping Joseph F. Smith into shape, we can decide where to go next. --John Hamer 04:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to rename pages

I'd like to propose that all Mormon-related pages (articles, categories, templates) identified by "(LDS)" in their titles be renamed (i.e., moved) to titles including either "(Latter Day Saints)" or "(Mormonism)", or better yet (perhaps) renamed to avoid parenthetical disambiguation altogether — e.g., "Mormonism in the 1990s" instead of "1990s (LDS)". I'm not a member of this project, but I'd appreciate it if this could be discussed here. Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 18:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I kinda prefer LDS because it eliminates the confusion of Latter-Day Saints or Latter-day Saints and Latter Day Saints or Latter day Saints. But I do understand that the acronym may not be familiar with those who are not LDS (or well-versed in LDS culture). Most people are probably just familiar with the term "Mormon." I guess LDS might also clash with some other acronym somewhere... Hmm, I don't know... :-S — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:08, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think this is pretty well answered by our guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism)#Guidelines. And these essentially say that 1990s (LDS) should be 1990s (Mormonism) if the article is intended to embrace all of the Latter Day Saint movement. At the moment the article is strictly focused on the LDS Church, but I can't imagein that is the premanent intent. Therefore, I recommend that the article be renamed to 1990s (Mormonism) per the guidelines. Tom Haws 20:35, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with staying with the naming convention, "(Mormonism)". Val42 04:34, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

My intention was to separate the two timelines. Mormonism and LDS really don't share much after 1840s. I think it would be more confusing to the reader to have to point out events that are relevant to LDS and events that are relative to other sects in the timeline. Rather, let's stick to one subject. I vote with keeping 1820s (Mormonism)–1840s (Mormonism) and 1850s (LDS)–2000s (LDS). We can put a paragraph in the top of each of the pages clarifying the subject matter, if that will help the reader. Jgardner 18:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that that change would also imply the renaming of 2000s (LDS) to 2000s (Mormonism). Due diligence would require the mover to change all the wikilinks to 2000s (LDS) to 2000s (Mormonism) (as well as 1990s (LDS) to 1990s (Mormonism). It's not a problem, I just thought I should point out the implications. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:01, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

If this is done quickly, there really aren't that many links that would have to be changed. It's mostly just the LDS-decade pages themselves that link to each other at this point. The longer it stays as it is, though.... - dcljr (talk) 06:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am confused. Can you please restate the proposal in light of all that has been said? Tom Haws 21:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I see these orthogonal proposals by dcljr.

1. Everything with "(LDS)" be moved to "(Latter-day Saints)" or "(Mormonism)". In other words, stop using "(LDS)".
2. Decade/century pages be moved such that "1990s (LDS)" to "LDS in the 1990s". In other words, rename decade/century pages.
3. Articles like "1990s (LDS)" be moved to "1990s (Mormonism)" rather than "1990s (Latter-day Saints)". In other words, don't distinguish between LDS and Mormonism in decade pages.

I think that just about covers the proposals mentioned in this thread. Jgardner 22:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much it, except in #2 I would use "Mormonism in the 1990s" instead of "LDS in the 1990s". IOW, I wouldn't use LDS as an abbreviation for Latter-day Saints in any page title. (LDS-specific pages can be identified by the spelled-out version, Latter-day Saints; I pick this version because that appears to be the official way of capitalizing it. [2]) But then, like I said, I'm not a member of this project so I accept that my views might not square with most people here... - dcljr (talk) 07:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So... I guess that's a "no"? (I don't see that any pages have been renamed in the last two months.) - dcljr (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't get discouraged -- things sometimes move erraticly here, sometimes very slowly and then we all hurry up and do things. Several of our more active contributors are on extended breaks from Wiki, including the originator of the decade pages -- and we are all looking forward to their return. The project conventions on LDS related names had been decided before I've arrived, but there have been some variants discussed and used while I've been here. I suspect that the editor/group will probably make some changes, particularly in the decade pages.

And, by the way, why aren't you a member of the project? There is always plenty of work to do, and we welcome all types of Latter Day Saints and people from other backgrounds. Please think about it. I would look forward to working with you. WBardwin 01:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

J. Reuben Clark

Trödel has found that the existing article is a copyright vio. So can we pitch in and do a quick rewrite? My only current source is a bio by Michael Quinn -- I have expressed my concerns about using it on the Clark talk page. Does anyone have a copy of Frank W. Fox's "J. Reuben Clark: The Public Years"? Will look for more references. WBardwin 16:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of Members of ...

I have a few pages I've been working on in my spare time. It started just to get dates straight and such, but it's kind of grown since then.

• List of Members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS) - Duplicates what's currently in Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but adds additional, relevant information. So large it needs to be its own article. Should we remove the list from Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and put a link to this?
• Chronology of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS) - I found this to be most useful and relevant as I've studied who came into the quorum and why. I think I have most of the events mapped out.
• List of Members of the First Presidency (LDS) - Like the list article above, this lists who was in the FP when. I need to put in specific dates.
• Chronology of the First Presidency (LDS) - Like the chronology above, I think this is particularly useful.

Some other articles I've been mulling about:

• List of Members of & Chronology of Quorums of the Seventy (LDS)
• List of Members of & Chronology of Presiding Bishopric (LDS)
• List of Members of & Chronology of Presiding Patriarch (LDS)

Thoughts? Jgardner 22:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Newel or Newell?

What is the preferred and/or proper spelling of Newel(l?) K. Whitney? Should we have both pointing to the same article? Jgardner 17:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LDS/Brighamite materials seem to consistantly use Newel. I would use a redirect on Newell. WBardwin 18:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fixing it now. I see on the internet it seems about half and half, so we'll keep the misspelled one. Jgardner 22:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

J. Willard Marriott

This is kind of off-topic, but I'm shocked and disgusted that the 'pedia doesn't have an article on J. Willard Marriott! I'd write it myself, but I don't really think I could do him justice. Does someone else what to take a crack at it? Though not a Mormon leader, he was noted for being LDS, and was a close personal friend of Ezra Taft Benson. Trivia: When the Church was having difficulty financing completion of the Washington D.C. Temple, Marriott asked Benson to let him pay for the whole thing himself (Benson refused, of course, saying the money had to come from all members of the Church). — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Please, add it yourself. Do some research on him, and add it. You might want to make appropriate links, namely to Marriott Hotels, Ezra T. Benson, etc... If you don't do it, who will? If not now, when? (to paraphrase a certain GA) ;-)Jgardner 22:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I found some time and knuckled down and wrote it. I'm not coy about writing new articles (see new articles I've written), I just thought someone here might know more about him than I do. The information on him on the Internet is quite sparse. I couldn't even find out the names of one of his sons! Please edit at your leisure (no, please do! It's pretty miserable right now). — Frecklefoot | Talk June 29, 2005 02:00 (UTC)

---

Dispensation

Does anyone else think it'd be helpful to have an article describing dispensation? It's a concept central to LDS theology and is used in a few articles. Or is it just a dictionary definition, not worthy of an article? What the Church says. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:33, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The article that you linked to has more information that I would have been able to add to the Wikipedia. But if you have more information, you could and should certainly create an article. Val42 03:38, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think there's already a page like that. Maybe under dispensationalism or something. Should we set it up as a redirect or no? Cookiecaper 15:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LDS Relief Society Presidents

I've decided the RS presidents each deserve articles with succession boxes. Started on Zina D. H. Young. Quite a plural marriage puzzle/see talk page. Comments and assistance welcome. WBardwin 07:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tone of discussion with Anti-Mormons

Folks, I'm no expert on this but I think I have a few observations to make. I'd like the veterans to correct me or to add their own insight. We have to deal constantly with people that are viciously Anti-Mormon, just as we have to deal with people that are viciously Mormon (myself in the latter camp). I think we would do well to try and be on our absolute best behavior. When we approach an article that is controversial, we must engage them on the level of "What claims are you making? What sources do you have? How would you word it?" and then challenge their sources or wording. We cannot and must not debate with these people on a personal level. You know as well as I do that intense debates never accomplish anything useful.

We must NEVER stoop down to their level and engage in name-calling or any behavior outside of facts and sources, no matter how appropriate. If you take on the role of the concerned, fair researcher and someone calls you a name or accuses you of being a member of a Mormon conspiracy, let it go. Get back to facts and sources. These people look like fools and everyone outside of the debate can see that plain as day. It doesn't help us to have people on our side willing to stoop to the same level. If you do get tempted to get out of line, take your hands of the keyboard and just post a note on the project page that there is some controversy and you'd appreciate assistance. I am sure someone with less emotional attachment to the particular debate will be willing to put in some time. And don't be afraid of a bit of kind chastisement letting someone on your own side know when they're approaching the line. Please add your own thoughts and observations. I don't claim to be any less guilty of poor behavior than the next guy, but I am trying to be better.

I appreciate all the hard work that people have put in so far on the articles, and I have learned a lot more than I ever expected. I hope we can keep the same spirit we've had up to now and expand it so that we'll have a treasure of interesting facts and figures to get people's mouths whetted with our fantastic history and culture. Jgardner 2 July 2005 08:00 (UTC)

Well, there are probably several points to make. [1] Calling people "Anti-Mormons" because you disagree with them is itself going to cause offense. If you don't intend to cause offense, you won't refer to contributors to Wikipedia as such, and you will even less refer to them as "viciously Anti-Mormon". [2] You will not pretend that you are "descending" to someone else's level of viciousness when you yourself have initiated that viciousness. [3] You will not revert people's edits; rather you will edit cooperatively instead of as arbiters of what ends up in or is censored from the article. [4] You'll remember that all pages of Wikipedia are publicly readable, and you won't write snarky things like "Let's flush "them" out and make them say what they really mean. We will allow "them" to ruin their own reputations" in places where you don't think it will be read, while pretending to engage in civil discourse with "them" on other pages. [5] You'll be more subtle when you conspire with your fellows. You won't make comments like "Keep an eye on Mørmøn and Gabrielsimon while I'm away". You will need to be more subtle in calling out the cavalry if you intend to pretend you're not a cabal. [6] You probably won't want to be calling people "fools" when you talk about them either, even when you think you're speaking only to others in your club. It's rather a bad way of fostering the impression that you care to create a pleasant editing environment for all, and tolerating other opinions than your own. [7] You may also wish to acknowledge those rare occasions when you have "descended" below "your" level to the nether reaches of those you disagree with, and engaged in namecalling, rather than pretending it didn't happen. I'm sure you all can come up with further suggestions if you try. - Mørmøn 2 July 2005 09:38 (UTC)

Another suggestion: perhaps you could change your methodology. Instead of "engaging them on the level of "What claims are you making? What sources do you have? How would you word it?" and then challenging their sources or wording, you might adopt a method of "engaging them as human beings with human feelings, with interesting and important contributuions to make to that controverial article, and inquire "what sources do you feel are unfairly represented here", "what ideas need more emphasis, which less"; "how can we obtain appropriate links supporting those viewpoints, and write the article together rather in words arrived at compromise rather than in a way that requires you, at the end, to challenge their sources or wording. This suggestion would probably work best with those you have not shown your "second face" to. And it would require an actual adoption of Wikipedia's ideals, rather than devotion to your idealogy at the expense of others, your plan to take on roles of a sincere, fair, researcher will work best if you don't merely play the part, but actually commit to live it. - Mørmøn 2 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

This section is very troubling to me. Here are my veteran insights:

• I appreciate the effort and focus everybody puts into producing great articles. The process of chafing against other points of view repeatedly is, I fear, unavoidable as long as we all seek to be better editors and make better articles.
• "We" come from all kinds of points of view. In my way of looking at the project, "we" are the editors who care about and defer to Wikipedia's mission enough to take the long view and respect Wikipedia policies, and "they" are editors who aren't interested in representing all significant points of view fairly, who care little for the quality of Wikipedia, and who try to hijack the encyclopedia for partisan purposes. "We" aren't a group of Mormonism apologists; let's not act like one. If you are a Mormon apologist in trouble, don't get help from another Mormon apologist; get help from a respectable non-Mormon editor.
• I am not sure we were wise to split the Joseph Smith article. I propose we explore a merger. Folks come to Wikipedia relying on being told all sides of all issues. We need to continually seek to be accommodating of additional content, whether that be "Mormons are the ones who wear special underwear and used to have plural wives" or "Some critics of Joseph Smith call him a false prophet because of the following of his prophecies they believe are false:"

-- Tom Haws July 3, 2005 20:38 (UTC)

I agree with Tom on splitting the article. Splitting the article suggests that there shouldn't be anything too opposed to the official teachings on this page. Nereocystis 4 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)

Sometimes readers want to just get the gist of a subject in an encyclopedia, rather than get a disertation. To combine the article results in making the article longer. For that matter, why have any other article on Mormonism than one on Joseph Smith; everything is only a subplot to him and his work. Yes, it may be large, but it would address everything in one place. Readily one comes to the position that separate articles may actually be beneficial.

Does this article justify a separate article; that depends on how long an article it is going to be. When reading the discussion page on the Joseph Smith as a Prophet one sees many recommendations by Admins (I suspect, I was unfamiliar with their moniker), that I think would be more beneficial. For example, changing the name to something more like, "The Prophecies of Joseph Smith". The current title only succeeds in the position was a prophet or not...us vs. them. I believe the answer has no place in Wiki; this is not a place for proselytizing for or against any religion. Further, Joseph had many prophecies and many of them should be mentioned. An attempt has been made in this article, but how inclusive do we want to be. Each prophecy should have have an opportunity for a factual presentation of any results of each prophecy. As can be read in the discussion page, this is debatable. I don't have a preference, but if someone feels determined to attempt to state a prophecy to be false, then I believe it appropirate to state why it may be interpreted as true. As you see, in this article in particular, it can get very sticky.

I failed in this article to control things and remove myself from conflict. That is my resposibility. In the future, I will be asking for assitance from others when I think things are getting carried away. In this regard, I request specific assistance from members of this group that happen not to be affiliated with any of the Mormon groups to review the Joseph Smith as a Prophet article and provide direction. Currently, I believe we have editors that are unwilling to accept anything other than their position to be heard. Any assistance would be appreciated. Storm Rider 5 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)

I was originally opposed to splitting the article, however, I now think it makes sense, but not how it is done. We need to look more at other articles like Ronald Regan and others that have divergent sub-articles and decide what is core to Smith and what is not. Those that are not and are thematic, should become their own article. I don't think "prophecies" (unless a list only) was wise, and plural wives, again should only be a list - wehre people can get more information, but the bulk of the article should be prominently presented in the article proper. I think the Maryrdom of Joseph smith or his death, or whatever it is now, is appropriate, as is succession crisis, and I think the Kirtland Safety Society is appropriate, but notice that these are themes from Smith's life, not hiding informaiton. We also need to ensure that split articles prominently display their sub-pages within the article - again see link to numerous sub-pages at Ronald Regan, FDR and others. incidentally, I think i'm about back from my wiki-holiday and have some deliverables coming shortly. I also think I've learned my lesson about dealing with others who are vehenemently opposed to certain points of view (religious or not) on the Wiki. Please continue allow their viewpoints as we've been complimented elsewhere for but don't engage in apologist activities if possible. Especially like Tom's work on Human and elsewhere in this regard. Thanks for your example Tom. -Visorstuff 5 July 2005 23:00 (UTC)

Word of Wisdom

I noticed that Word of wisdom hasn't had much attention. I know this is an important topic to those involved with LDS. I wasn't familiar with usage of this term outside that context, but the article suggests it's used. Maybe there should be a seperate article for the LDS "Word of wisdom"? Anyway, I'm no expert in this topic, just thought I'd mention it here. Friday 6 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)

Please note that the LDS related topic is on Word of Wisdom, while the Pentacostal usage is listed under Word of wisdom. We should probably make the distinction clearer on both pages. Appreciate your note and your interest. WBardwin 7 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)

Joseph Smith as featured article

I think we should start a drive toward making Joseph Smith, Jr. a featured article. Of course I don't know that it's ready for nomination right away, but we should get working on it. I know it's already a focal point on the project, but it being his bicentennial year and with all the associated celebrations &c. it seems fitting that he should be a featured article sometime before the year closes. Maybe his birthday, December 23, is a good date to shoot for. I'm not extremely familiar with the featured article procedure so I don't know if we can pull that off, but it'd be cool. It'd also be cool to see it sooner, so maybe we should do that. Cookiecaper 04:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

K I'm submitting this for peer review, although it's not ready for featured article yet. It'll be good to see what people farther from the project have to say I think. Cookiecaper 14:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Be aware

I thought you might like to be aware of this recent mailing list post, and the thread in general. The rest can be found @ http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

No suprise - this has come up before. However, the obviously don't watch us that closely - his statememt...

"So yes, a statement like "These claims are not accepted by historians of

the period" is generally necessary in these articles, but it would almost certainly be reverted immediately by Wikipedia's Mormon congregation."

...is not correct, becuase we'd gladly allow that it cannot be substantiated by outsiders. It's not accepted in the world at large. Is there scientific support for the book's authenticity? Yes. Should a disclaimer of no-tangible-proof be added? I don't care. Arch and the Book of Mormon clearly spells the problems of "proving" a number of times. Do you know who initated the conversation? to me the issue is do you write soemthing from a skeptical point of view, or do you write it from the view of the believer and then let the critics add in their disclaimers? to me the latter is better, as it gives the reader a better understanding of the topic as it is believed and officially taught, and then says yes their is controversy about it. That's fine by me. -Visorstuff 14:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The best way to handle the loss of context in this situation is not to repeatedly say, "most historians don't believe this", or "this is only what Mormons believe". A much better, less disruptive to the text, and more neutral way is to simply pepper each paragraph with something like, "According to Nephi 6:3-8,... x happened," or "According to the Book of Mormon, the book's author was Mormon.", etc. We probably need to make sure we are doing this, especially in the Book of Mormon articles. COGDEN 21:06, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The guy's own example is Jaredite which begins: "The Jaredites are an alleged ancient people of the Americas, whose existence is mainly accepted by Latter Day Saints." I mean, good lord, what more do you want? --John Hamer 14:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Book of Mormon proper names: Hebrew and Arabic versions in the introduction?

Many of the articles for Book of Mormon names and places contain Hebrew and Arabic versions, as if the English word were a translation from Hebrew and Arabic. For example, the Lehi article begins, "The name Nephi (Hebrew נפי Nəp̄î; BoM Arabic نافي Nāfī) is used in the context of...." Why do we have Hebrew and Arabic translations in the introduction? The word Nephi is either (1) an English coinage (for those who don't believe the Book of Mormon is an ancient historical document), or (2) a name translated from Reformed Egyptian. We have no basis, other than apologetic speculation, to know what the Hebrew or Arabic equivalent was. We don't even know if Nephi is supposed to be a transliteration from Hebrew, or maybe a Reformed Egyptian equivalent of a Hebrew name, like the difference between "Joseph" (English) and "José" (Spanish). The Hebrew and Arabic "equivalents" can be discussed in a section of each article, but they shouldn't be presented in the introduction as if the English version was translated from Hebrew or Arabic. COGDEN 21:27, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The references are not based on the text but on later research and speculation by scholars of various stripes. The references should either be eliminated or placed in a section on "Possible origin of (name)." Or even an article on Names of the Book of Mormon? WBardwin 06:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of a Book of Mormon names article. Good idea! I'm not too familiar, though, with the apologetic research in this area to be able to contribute much myself, though. COGDEN 21:05, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. It definitely smacks of apologetic speculation. KevinM 09:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

LDS section in Missionary article is very long

Take a look at Missionary#LDS_missionaries. It's more than twice as long as any of the other entries! I'd like to propose that we create a new article just for LDS missionaries and trim the entry in this article. We would, of course, provide a link to the main article from the smaller entry. This would have a number of benefits:

1. We could go on and on as long as we like about LDS missions
2. We could better organize the topic
3. We could go in depth into topics which aren't discussed, such as zone leaders, district leaders and assisstants to the president.

What does everyone else say? — Frecklefoot | Talk

I agree with this. Missions are a important part of LDS Culture. Trödel|talk 16:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

This topic has been dead for a long time. Does anyone else have strong feeling against an LDS Missionary article? If not, I vote we go ahead and create this article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:00, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think an LDS article would be good, but I would propose a longer view than just what this article contains. Please see my rant about the history of Christian missions (in Talk:Missionary). 1839 marks the beginning of the ongoing "LDS Missionary Effort" -- and there are great mission related events in LDS history, such as the three early missions to England, early apostles' visits in Europe and the Holy Land, the early Indian missions, and the missions to the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii) and Tonga that have had such lasting implications for the church's population. There is also the issue of "gathering to Zion" and the counterbalance of the modern direction to "build the Church in your region." The differences between the early missionaries (in prepardness, financial support, and organization) and what is done today in all the LDS offshoots could be discussed as well. There might be more than one article here. I am going to copy this discussion section to the LDS project page for more input. Comments? WBardwin 00:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

What are we gonna call it? LDS missionary, Latter-day Saint missionary, Mormon missionary, Those guys in suits riding bikes? I'd like to nail this down before creating the article. I have a revision all ready to go as soon as we get this decided upon. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we start with the modern article -- "Missionary (Latter-day Saint)?" -- would match the current Mission (Christian) format and tie to the home article. It could include a very short history introduction, and real descriptions of the actual mission experience -- MTC, companions, door approaches and all that stuff. Maybe a list of modern mission names and locations too.

I think a history based article(s) on the early missions would also be important, but then I'm a history nut. I've been doing some personal research on the three successive missions to England that brought so many English saints to Nauvoo and to the west. And the RLDS had missionaries too, although I've never actually met a modern one. "Missions of the Latter Day Saint Movement"? Quite long and cumbersome for a name. WBardwin 18:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you may be jumping the gun here. After we have the article, we can start discussing what it should/shouldn't include. For now, all I'm doing is taking the content of the section in the Missionary article and moving it to the new article. Once it's in place, we can fight over what it should contain. Initially, it will just contain the content from the Missionary article. Then that section in the Missionary article will be trimmed way down with a link to the main article.

As for names, I don't really care for Missionary (Latter-day Saint). All Wikipedia articles are supposed to start by naming the topic of the article followed by a short statement of what it is. For example:

A banana is a type of fruit.

I can't see working Missionary (Latter-day Saint) elegently into an opening sentence. Personally, I really like Mormon missionary best, since that is what almost the entire world calls them. I know this goes against the Project policy on naming, but I really think this name makes sense. Any more thoughts before I do this? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Well that matches COGDEN's internet search see Talk:Missionary and I really have no objection. I think some others in the project might, but on naming principle only. As for things that might go in the article(s) --- how are we supposed to think about them, and look for references, if we don't talk about them first? Making up a list of material is the first step to a good outline, which the article will surely need. Brainstorming is always a good thing, but if you don't want to hear it....... WBardwin 20:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm a big proponent of collaberation. Sorry if I sounded gruff, but the material from the missionary article is a good starting point. I just want to get it out of that main article into its own article. After we get that initial material, then we can start hacking it up. I just thought discussing the article before we even had one was premature.

I'm going to go with Mormon missionary for now. If some object, we can always move it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I created the article (Mormon missionary), it is now just waiting for some thoughtful edits. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:51, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised that almost a week later, this article has received no edits, despite the popular support for it. Has everyone lost interest? It stands fine as it is, but lacks some possibly cool information, such as information on zones, area, zone leaders, assisstants to the President and such... — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Rename title "Polygamous clans of Utah"->"Polygamous Mormon fundamentalist sects"?

More than a month ago, [Talk:Polygamous_clans_of_Utah#Rename_article_to_.27.27Polygamist_branches_of_Mormonism.27.27 I suggested] renaming the article "Polygamous clans of Utah", since the groups are not necessarily clans, and are not limited to Utah. My current suggestion is "Polygamous Mormon fundamentalist sects", which is a bit awkward, but seems to describe the article. I'll allow a few days of comments, then make a change, if there isn't too much objection. Nereocystis 16:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Resolved. The article has been renamed to Polygamous Mormon fundamentalists. Nereocystis 20:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hornets nest at Church of Jesus Christ in Zion

I think I have stirred up a hornets nest at the Church of Jesus Christ in Zion. My goal there has been try to keep the article from being repeatedly blanked by former members of that church. Unfortunately, a stupid comment I made on the talk pages has everybody who now works at Roger Billings' "Academy of Sciences" up in arms, and has resulted in me being "outed" as a relative of a particular member of the group, who has now chastized me, deservedly, for bringing him into this.

There are a great deal of strong feelings about this group by members of the Academy, which is trying to distance itself from the church, and has been losing students when those students read press articles linking the Academy with the church. Actually, there is no direct link, only an indirect link in that Roger Billings and many within the church were also working at the Academy. There is also a great deal of information in the press about the church which its former members adamantly deny.

So, since I've been compromized, I'd just like to invite people here to keep an eye on the article and make sure that everything is verifiable and NPOV on both sides of the issue. It shouldn't portray unverifiable information attacking the church as fact, when it's not, but at the same time it shouldn't shy away from the controversial issues such as the hoopla that arose during the Novell litigation (which should be described in an NPOV manner). COGDEN 19:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Nauvoo question

Does Nauvoo, Alabama have any historical ties to Nauvoo, Illinois? It seems like a rather unusual name for it not to. I see that both started out in respective Hancock Counties. I also see that Winston County, Alabama (formerly Hancock) refused to join the Confederacy, which made me wonder whether it contrasts demographically with the surrounding counties. -- Beland 03:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Well -- interesting little question. I didn't know, but this link says the town was renamed after Nauvoo, Illinois. [3] But it doesn't say why. Maybe more research is in order. WBardwin 04:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, I posted an expansion tag on the Alabama article. Perhaps someone will chance upon it some day. Thanks! -- Beland 03:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I spent quite some time on Google, but to no avail. I assumed Tom Carroll was an LDS missionary and found mentions of Carroll's in early church history serving in the south, but still could not put a finger on it. Storm Rider 03:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Stephen L Richards or Stephen L. Richards

Noticed that the title of the Stephen L. Richards article includes a period after the "L" L did not stand for anything, and should appear to be abbreviated - and the period should be removed. His name was Stephen L Richards, not Stephen L. Richards. How do we want to handle moving the page as this is an unusual case? -Visorstuff 22:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't you just move it like normal? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Category

I see that this page is part of, and the only page in the "Mormon martyrs" category. Unless someone is trying to make a dumb joke, I do not see why it belongs there. I think it ought to be removed from the category, and, unless there are other pages which rightfully belong in the category, it ought to be deleted. Isaac Crumm 04:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)