Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 6

Merge Book of Mormon People

There's a lot of articles about people in the Book of Mormon that little is known about and are mentioned in only one or two verses. I don't think these deserve their own article. Couldn't we just merge these (and create a space for other people in the Book of Mormon) into Various Book of Mormon people or an article with a similar name? Antley 00:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

FYI

I hope no one is upset, but I have created some "shortcuts" to these pages (I really get tired of typing such a long name): wikipedia:lds - project page wikipedia talk:lds - talk wikipedia:lds/polls - polls wikipedia:lds/requested stubs - stubs wikipedia:lds/articles needed - articles needed

- Moogle 08:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FYI, WP:LDS already exists. Tom Haws 18:55, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Oh well. I have created the corresponding wp: title articles for those above now as well, and have created some others as part of organizing the Articles in Progress section of the project page. – moogle 03:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also

As noted above, I have created pages related to the Articles in Progress section, I was thinking it could be much like the Wikipedia:Community_Portal#Things you can do, but I have come here to seek your approval first. They are /Articles to Expand wp:lds/expand, /Articles for Peer Review wp:lds/review, and /Articles to Cleanup wp:lds/cleanup. – moogle 04:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Caretakers of the plates

While starting a discussion on the Talk:Nephi (disambiguation) page, it occured to me that we should have a page that traces the caretakers of the plates in the Book of Mormon. By this, I mean those from Nephi to Moroni who took care of the Brass Plates and other associated records. I'm willing to research enough to do this page, but I want to make sure that such a page (or such information) isn't already present. I figured that this would be the best place to ask. Val42 18:25, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm unaware of an article directly related to that topic. This link - List of articles about Mormonism is a good place to start looking. But (confession time) I for one am not very good at updating this list when I create a new article, so there may be more Mormon related articles out there. Sounds worthwhile, but you could also do a section on being "caretaker of the plates" in each of the prophets' articles -- and maybe make a BofM sub-category specifically for them. I would have no preference. WBardwin 21:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

LDS WikiPortal?

I would like to propose that someone start a WikiPortal about the LDS movement. Portals are a great way to get readers involved in a subject. Please contact me if you are interested. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 21:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Recent work on Portal:Utah has made a nice intro to the state. WBardwin 20:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Signature Book links

Over the past few months an anonymous user has been systematically adding in links to signature books site. At first glance this is a good thing, as it provides sources for the article. However, the user is not adding in any content from those sources, leading me to believe that it is link-spamming to encourage readers to go to signature books to ultimately purchase books on similar topics. I'm not sure this is wise to have so many links to "signature books" as we have, as it looks like an over-reliance on one publishing house. I see a large difference between Amazon links (a standard) and a private label's online bookshop. I am beginning to have a problem with this. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 00:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I would be comfortable taking out almost all of the links -- but leaving the book/reference information - if the book is truly relevant. "He" just added two references to Heber C. Kimball -- but one of them (from the title and the link) could probably be moved to the talk page until someone has time to take a look at it. I'm all for giving an interested user resources for more information, even if we are not quoting or directly referencing the material. Signature Books has greatly increased their publication numbers during the last few years -- I would expect to see their percentage of Mormon related books increase here as well. WBardwin 04:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Need more editors to chime in before we make a decision....-Visorstuff 21:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree too. Cookiecaper 22:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been adding links directly to Signature Books (normally to excerpts pages or to essays on the Signature Books Library site as I feel that they offer a better description of the material. I’ve also added links to University of Illinois Press, University of Utah Press and others as I’ve edited bibliography sections and linked to their websites as well. If there is some concern about style I would appreciate feedback. But on the wikipedia Heber C. Kimball page for example, one of the links I've added is to an information page only and the book On the Potter's Wheel is out-of-print and is a valuable resource (if not the only resource) on the diaries of Heber C. Kimball. The other link was to the diaries of William Clayton who's personal diaries were sometimes also the diaries of Heber C. Kimball and provides some of the best information about Heber Kimball's involvment in Masonry, the western trail, and the Mormon Temple. I felt both were relevant primary sources on the subject. The Signature Books page provides the best information on these resources. Signature Books is dedicated to providing high quality information on Mormon Studies. Financial gain is not the motivation for my adding these links. User:book1830 October 24, 2005

Thanks for the response. I've just read on your user page that you are the marketing director for Signature Books. Unfortunately this falls into a gray area on Wikipedia policies. One policy is that there is to be no self-references or commercial promotion on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine), however, there is some educational merit as well. To be honest, this seems like it could be considered organizational self-promotion, as you work for signature books. On the other hand, it is also obviously your area of expertise. I'm not sure this has ever come up before on our corner of the Wikipedia. We need more discussion on this topic from other editors.

By the way, you've added some good material - I don't mean to discourage you, but want to make sure that things don't smell fishy or that seem suspect. We have to take into account the long-term ramifications and perceptions that will come into play as a result of these links. Will it be a good resource? Will it seem like articles are overly-controlled by Signature Books? I personally think it is better to add in the information from the books into the article and then add in the reference. This seems much more balanced to me. Also, for book link that are available from other sources (and don't include additional editorial information - yes there are a number of those as well), we probably shouldn't have the Signature Books link, but include Amazon, or Deseret Book, or others - just to have a balance of them. Please don't feel like i'm singling out Signature Books - I own some myself - and I've also questioned User:John Hamer's inclsuion of articles about the John Whitmer Association - another one that is a gray area to me. We just need to make sure it appears clean outside of the Latter Day Saint Project. This project participants cannot give the rest of the wikipedia community any excuse to question its practices, standards and norms. I'm open to more comments, but I've reviewed your past posts and I believe this is a gray area.

I'm also very jealous of your job as marketing director of SB. Must be a fun job to look forward to every day.

Also, welcome aboard. you can sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically insert your name and the time of the edit. -Visorstuff 17:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. I'll link future bibliographic sources to Amazon.com. 166.70.192.163 18:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I am opposed to linking to any site unless the page itself is a bibliographic source or contains particularly useful information not availiable in the wikipedia article. The customary ISBN links already take care of the issue being discussed. To quote the official Wikipedia editing help, "Link to books using their ISBN. This is preferred to linking to a specific online bookstore, because it gives the reader a choice of vendors." I notice that some bibliographic listing include both a ISBN link and a direct link to Amazon.com. This is redundant, and shows bias (Amazon.com vs. another vender). --Dbolton 05:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Non-Christian

I have just recently had some excellent discussion on the Christianity page regarding the LDS church/people being non-Christian. Many groups accuse various groups/church of being non-Christian for denying what they suppose are gospel "essentials". These "essentials" descend from the Creeds and councils of the historical/traditional Christian churches. Given that the LDS movement is part of the restorationist movement, the "essentials" have no meaning. In reality, we view them as the doctrines created by man; Christ was a bit more blunt than this in the First Vision.

I would like to propose that on all articles related to the LDS Movement, in particular, and Restorationists generally, that we clarify that when restorationists groups are accused of being non-Christian they are being accused of not being part of the historical or traditional Christian churches.

None of the historic Christian chruches has been set up as an aribtor of defining "Christian", but they most certainly can say that Restorationists are not part of their branch of Christianty. Is this something the group can support or am I violating some tenant of WIKI? Storm Rider 06:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Your reasoning is generally good here, and I think a carefully worded couple of sentences would be helpful. But, I'm afraid the average Protestant editor/reader is not well informed enough to understand the historical distinction. Sadly, religious history is not very well taught and/or understood, in America at least. Be glad to help. WBardwin 19:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Will support. May want to get User:Wesley's thoughts as well. -Visorstuff 21:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Smith Family

User:Dr U has created this article on the family connections of Joseph Smith and other early Mormons as part of a series dealing with prominent political families in the United States. He does not believe it will be very "religious" in its approach or perspective. I would suggest each of us look it over. See also Udall family, Cannon Family. He appears willing to listen and discuss ideas. WBardwin 04:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Smith family and Richards family were also created. I think one of the failures is that this only goes back into LDS history, and not American History. If it did, most of these families would tie into each other. Young, Cannon, Pratt and Smith were all relatives and could be connected farther back into American history, thus showing a much larger group. For example, many of the new visitors centers show a chart where Joseph Smith and George W. Bush are related via the Hogan line. Showing the larger family would show Smith and Young, Pratt and Udalls as all part of a great political machine who all desended from the mayflower group. To me this is much more impressive. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 17:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Angel Moroni copyright question

Are the Angel Moroni statues currently resting on some temples public domain? This mainly applies to older temples. For instance, the Salt Lake temple was completed in 1890 or 1890-something if I remember right. Wouldn't Mahonri Young's statue of the Angel Moroni which is presently affixed to the Salt Lake temple and subsequent Moroni statues which are based off of this design be in the public domain? The SLC one is over 100 years old. Cookiecaper 04:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure of copyright rulings on statues. However, if the copyright was done by the LDS church rather than M. Young, the copyright lasts much longer due to corporate copyright laws. In any case, why do you ask? -Visorstuff 17:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

In what sense do you mean "public domain"? Do you mean pictures of the statues? If that is the question, to my knowledge, there is no violation of copyright in distribution of a picture of a public building. Deadsalmon 04:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Book of Mormon Index use for disambiguation

In a couple of places (Helaman, Ammon) I've referenced the LDS Book of Mormon index in disamibiguating BoM characters. I hope no one objects if I continue to do so. Otherwise we need either circumlocutions ("Nephi the Disciple", "Helaman, the son of Helaman") or somewhat arbitrary numbering (I've never heard or seen the name "Helaman II" used anywhere but here). I don't think the superscripted names, e.g., "Helaman²" are appropriate for article titles -- no one would ever search under those names -- but they are useful in a disambiguation article and it seems to me that the LDS index is a useful standard for their numbering. Unless someone objects (or beats me to it) I'll rework the Nephi and Mosiah disambiguation pages as well.--andersonpd 20:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I would not object to the link, but I think most readers would look for a identifier in the article and only a few would read the link to understand the distinction. Ideas for consideration/discussion:

• 1) At one point we talked about making a list article of BofM people. Basic information could be placed in a table with people listed in date sequence with basic information. That could be a common reference for all BofM articles.
• 2) How about referring to all Book of Mormon characters with their patronymic (when known) and a description, i.e. Alma son of Alma, religious leader? Precedent in BofM culture of origin.
• 3) The commonly used BofM dates would also be a way of setting one Nephi off from another.

WBardwin 02:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, many Book of Mormon commentaries and religion teachers at BYU/CES refer to Helaman as Helaman and Helaman II, as well as other figures. It is common - in the LDS educational system. That said, I'm excited to see what you come up with. -Visorstuff 17:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of a list article (anyone up for the job?) but I'm not too enthusiastic about "standardizing" references in the articles (if that's what WBardwin is proposing). In most articles the reference is unambiguous from the context -- with some exceptions (Alma the elder and younger, and Helaman/Helaman, the son of Helaman). My concern is specifically with disambiguation pages, where I think the BofM index is a useful reference. I still have a problem with Helaman II, but maybe it's just me. (I've spent some time in the LDS educational system without coming across them, but again that's just me.) Would anyone object if I moved the "Helaman II" article to "Helaman, the son of Helaman"? The latter seems (to me) a less ambiguous designation.--andersonpd 18:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Not standardizing the references in the articles, just tying all the articles to the list for reference and context. WBardwin 19:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I've started an article entitled List of Book of Mormon people and created a red link for another entitled List of Book of Mormon places. I added some guidelines for what I think the list should contain. I have a concern, however, that the list essentially duplicates the LDS-edition BofM index (without the chapter and verse references). Is this possibly a copyright issue?--andersonpd 20:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Re-reading WBardwin's earlier comments I see he was suggesting a list in chronological order, whereas the one I created is (currently) in alphabetical order. I think there's probably good reason to have both. My question is whether to create a new article ("Book of Mormon chronology"?) or just a section in the current article. I think a separate article would be useful.--andersonpd 20:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Book of Mormon disclaimer

I've created this template: {{Book of Mormon disclaimer}} as a possible note to include in Book of Mormon articles. Current articles use a variety of ways to make this point, some better than others. (And some not at all!) My view is that making this clear at the beginning of an article makes the article easier to write, avoiding clumsy constructions. (I get tired of reading about "putative" authors and "purported" events, etc.) Questions for discussion:

1. Is this necessary?
2. Is this a good idea?
3. Is this template adequate?
4. Is it sufficiently NPOV?

--andersonpd 21:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a good idea. You have, of course, prepared a similar disclaimer for all of the articles about the Bible, Qur'an, Tao Te Ching, etc. Val42 02:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Anders, I think I understand your objective. However, in the vast majority of articles centered on topics of faith the article is written from the perspective of the "group". Readers understand that WIKI is not promoting or validating the articles. This can be difficult for the insecure of other faiths and denominations that insist on using terms such as purported. This topic has been discussed on numerous occaisions.

However, if one feels it still necessary to use I would have to agree with Val; if it goes on LDS/Mormon articles then it will be necessary to be put on all other religious articles. Just delete all the "purported" and releated terms, which creates work, but does produce a far more readable article. Storm Rider 14:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unaware of the presumption of perspective. I heartily agree and withdraw my suggestion. I'm more than willing to delete extraneous qualifiers from articles as I come across them.--andersonpd 17:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, everybody

Missed you all. Tom Haws 20:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back Tom; you were missed. We look forward to your edits and edits. Storm Rider 22:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Mormonism and Christianity

Just did a quick rearranging of external links at Mormonism and Christianity, but I'd like a second opinion on whether all of the "anti-Mormon" links listed should be left. I did a quick check and all addressed the issue of Mormonism and Christianity in one way or another, but that's not exactly the issue, as there are hundreds of pages criticizing the LDS church. My concern is whether they offer something sufficiently unique or noteworthy enough that it adds to the article by their inclusion. I'm a little bit sleepy, so someone want to double check it for me? Thanks. Deadsalmon 02:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Article ratings

I've been back so short from holiday, and this is kind of off-topic, but I know this subject interests many of us here, so I'm inviting you all to take a look at my cute working model for article ratings using the {{rating|100|100}} template. Visit my user page or Reformed Egyptian. Maybe one of you could even make it look better.  :-P Tom Haws 06:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

History of the Americas / Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact

Information about The Book of Mormon has been removed from both of these articles. It was taken from History of the Americas first and placed in Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact a while ago, but now people are removing it from there too. A non-WP:LDS editor has added something to the talk page of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact about this, and I believe that we need to start monitoring these articles and putting Book of Mormon things in there. What do you all think? Cookiecaper 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've watched the pages periodically, but didn't notice the deletion. Do you have the fancy script to find all mentions of the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormism references that we can update the List of articles about Mormonism with (or was that Cool Hand Luke)? We can then then divide up what articles need to be monitored and by whom to ensure thoughts are included. Each of us could take specialty areas of interest and experise to our backgrounds. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 22:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I don't have that script, I think it was Cool Hand Luke. I'd be willing to take a few articles though, so yeah, it'd be a good idea to run that again. Cookiecaper 00:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced the excised Book of Mormon paragraph (citing the talk page discussion) in History of the Americas. I'll watch this one. WBardwin 07:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia

The Spanish LDS area is in its infancy. Needs a community. I am working on the following at es. Feel free to join me if you speak any Spanish.

• Fleshing out LDS articles.
• Starting WP:SUD project.
• Welcoming new LDS editors.

--Tom Haws 23:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

United Order/Isaac Morley

I recently added a little to the Isaac Morley stub. In regard to the related information in United Order, do we need to beef up that section or do we need a seperate article on the Morley Family/Rigdon commune? Many of Rigdon's people (about 3000?) joined the church and quite a few were involved in these Ohio utopian experiments. WBardwin 03:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's time to address it on its own, but for now, as part of an existing article. Jsut my 2 cents. -Visorstuff 20:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

LDS Church Membership history

I have been too lazy/busy/cheap to get an LDS Church Almanac, but I'd like to prepare a historical graph of membership trends for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Does anybody have a table of membership numbers from 1830 to now in at least 10 year increments (and preferably annual) they could give me? Tom Haws 19:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. to be featured on Main Page

Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. will be featured on the Main Page December 23rd, the 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith's birth.

I put the notice on top because, normally, pages featured on the front page receive edits from both new users of wikipedia and seasoned editors who may not have reviewed the article - these edits can greatly enhance already good articles. Unfortunately, these articles are also the target of vandalism and some POV edits. Please help in watching this article on December 23rd.

As a non-contributor to the article I want to thank all those that worked on it, especially COGDEN who did much of the heavy lifting. Trödel•talk 22:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that other articles linked to from the main page lead section may be subject to "increased interest", and should ideally be monitored too. (For example, the main JSJr article had some "heavy POV" added shortly after the new main page went live. Unfortunately I won't be able to help much myself, due to being away from my usual 'net connection (though I'll pop by on dialup and maybe get online from the local library)). Alai 00:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sign-up

Please sign up to gauge coverage.

• Tom Haws 18:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Trödel, will be available from 01:00-04:00 UTC, and then 11:00-12:00 UTC, and then off and on from 14:00-23:00 UTC (from work).
• The Scurvy Eye 20:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC) I'll help a bit, but I have other things going so I won't be around most the time.
• Val42 23:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC): I'm taking time off of work, so I'll be home most of the day. I do take breaks from the computer to do other things, But I'll be checking frequently when I'm online. I'll be checking tonight when it goes live too.
• WBardwin 02:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC) I will be at home most of the day and will try and check on the article every couple of hours at least.
• Have a few more hours left that I can watch. -Visorstuff 16:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Fiery Furnace

I'd like to try to clean up and improve the pages about the story of the fiery furnace. The story of the fiery furnance has a lot of importance in the Jewish and Christian traditions, and had has a lot of cultural impact; Wikipedia ought to have better information about it. I've started by poking at the pages and suggesting some merges; I'm not sure what if any importance the story has in the LDS movement, but I'd appreciate any help from project members on whatever relating to this subject, specifically to help avoid sectarian bias in the articles and include a lot of solid information about many perspectives. Please leave any comments on the talk page of fiery furnace. Thanks! -- Tetraminoe 14:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Faith-promoting history (LDS)

A new editor, Wandering Scribe, just created this article. It has been (somewhat hurriedly, I think) tagged AFD. Please express your preference and opinion. WBardwin 02:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I saw several Temple articles, and decided to make a thorough List article which is linked to from the Temple (Mormonism) article. Someone has it up for deletion now. Do you think that this list should exist? Bhludzin 03:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what value it has outside of being a list that exists on the LDS.org page as well. For it to stay it will need to add some value. If you make some proposals for it to change and be more valuable, different and in some way unique from the listing on LDS.org, then it should stay. Look forward to a response. -Visorstuff 06:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I copied material here from the comments section for expanded discussion. I have no opinion, really, on the list article. But for Wiki purposes, a link to existing LDS.org page on each temple related article seems adequate. However, a history of LDS temples/temple building (the historian in me emerges yet again), with temples listed and discussed by date and architectural style, etc., could be a useful tool and would tie to existing one temple articles. The relevant section on Temple (Mormonism) could be broken out and expanded into an independent article. Comments? WBardwin 08:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows Massacre

We have had a very stubborn editor on this article in the last week, persisting in placing the same POV information into the article. I've left a number of messages and he's now coming to the talk page. Unfortunately, the reverting is moving toward an edit war and I should back off. If some others have time to watch and chime in, perhaps we can get the editor to do a little reading and express his POV a little more effectively. Thank you. WBardwin 04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming new participants / handling anonymous and well-intentioned but oblivious editors

Maybe we need something like a welcoming committee. Visorstuff mentioned that we need to work our newbie-welcoming skills in some extra-Wiki communication and I agree; in fact, I was thinking about it earlier that day. So I think maybe we should form an official welcoming committee or message or something to help new members to the project and/or something to help both anonymous and registered editors that obliviously change articles relevant to WP:LDS. I recently joined Esperanza (click the green e in my name) and received a rather friendly form message on my talk page containing salutations and tips for getting involved with and remaining active in the project. This might be a good thing for us.

Similarly, maybe we need some guidelines about how we handle anonymous editors. For instance, as long as an edit isn't blatant vandalism, I try to preserve some part of it, even if I have to rewrite the whole thing. This shows anonymous editors that their help is welcome and necessary. I've noticed that many good faith edits are completely reverted sometimes with unfriendly edit summaries. We should do something about that too.

What do you all say? cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 07:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you know, I am not around a lot anymore. But I consider this (welcoming anonymous editors personally and cheerfully) one of my main guiding principles here. I am very please with what you are suggesting. There is nothing as warm as an extemporaneously typed personal greeting of thanks and welcome. Tom Haws 16:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we look at refreshing Template:LDSWelcome. I'm not crazy about its content and it is not as LDS specific as it should be. Don't get me wrong, USer:Trodel did a fabulous job, but all things can be improved.

The template works by typing LDS Welcome, article name and Username in the template tags like this: {{LDSWelcome|Bishop (Mormonism)|Visorstuff}}. The wiki magically makes this turn into a bunch of text with the name of the revert, links to my talk page, etc. (See below for an example - note that it doesn't work as well here because the template is designed to only work on User talk pages.) Thoughts? -Visorstuff 18:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your recent edit to Bishop (Mormonism), one of the articles that is part of the Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject. We welcome your contributions and hope that you will stay and contribute more. Here are some links that I found helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Introduction to Wikipedia and Tutorial on editing
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Policies and Guidelines
• Manual of Style
• Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints)
• Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)

If you run into a dispute, please use article talk pages and the Latter Day Saint movement project talk page to discuss subjects (especially controversial ones) to help reach consensus. When you do, remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

Be bold, but not reckless, and don't be surprised if someone reverts some of your edits – just talk it out.

And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome!

Cookiecaper, you may want to create multiple LDS welcome templates, like LDSWelcome, LDSWelcomeVandal, LDSWelcomeNPOV, etc. (first welcomes, second welcomes vandals, third welcomes NPOV edits, etc.). I think this is a great idea. I'm joining the Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee/members -Visorstuff 18:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it. I would have joined sooner than November if people had sent me one of those (I'm 2-3 months new). The Scurvy Eye 20:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I like it too. I may create an LDSWelcomeShort just shortening it a bit unless all think we could shorten LDSWelcome itself? Tom Haws 22:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Either way - i'd just shorten it - we have the history if we need elements later. My only few requests are that we thank people for contributing, ask people to join wikipedia and the LDS project, try NPOV, include new articles in list of articles about mormonism and to sign their posts. That's my 2 cents. -Visorstuff 23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm yes that's a good template. I'll work on the derivatives over the next few days. We also need a welcome message for new project participants. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 01:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved what used to be Template:LDSWelcome to Template:LDSWelcomeNPOV. Template:LDSWelcome now makes no mention of vandalism and simply thanks the user for their contributions and invites them to investigate the WikiProject. I think I've changed the applicable inclusions. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 08:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been dormant a long time. My work with JWHA has taken precedence, but I was saddened by the extensive and (in my opinion) poor edits to the Danite article. It's apparently a vigorous newbie, but the person seems to be more of an LDS apologist than a neutral historian. --John Hamer 03:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting / Links

Been looking over some of the articles covered by this project and thought that it may be a good idea if somebody goes over them to do a little non-content related cleanup; namely, fixing grammar/spelling, spacing, other format issues, and toning down (or possibly adding) any excessive wikilinks. Additionally, the external links could use a little bit of maintenance, just to sort out the most relevant. I'd be glad to start on the first one, as long as there's no objections. The second could be a little controversial at times, so it may be good to first make a list of the articles to be reviewed so that others can be involved in deciding what's to stay. I've already made a post to this effect at Latter Day Saint before realizing that its something that may be of interest to the community, by the way. At any rate, advice and ideas are welcome, as always. Deadsalmon 05:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The first idea looks fine, but there's plenty to do as it is, so you might be the only one to do that for a while. Adding more wikilinks would be fine, but getting rid of them... well... why would we want to??? What's the point or getting rid of references? --Trevdna 22:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Because if something is Wikilinked more than once it's annoying, or something. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Cookie's right, it's quite irritating to read an article that has a link every two or three words.The Scurvy Eye 00:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. See WP:MOS for more on that one. Keep in mind that they are there to assist in the perusal of the encyclopedia. I'd aim to follow two general guidelines — first, generally keeping each unique link to one mention per article (for example, only linking the word "temples" once, rather than every time it shows up), and second, keeping it relevant. It's really not useful to link every word in an article, of course; just the relevant ones to the topic at hand. Keeps it uncluttered and prevents the useful links from being lost in a sea of random content. Deadsalmon 06:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm going to postpone doing this until some of the articles listed for cleanup on the project page are taken care of. I'll revisit the issue sooner or later, unless somebody wants to get started now. Deadsalmon 05:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Confusion about the project

Is this project really about the Latter-Day Saint movement or is it really about the LDS church? I thought it was about the movement, but the "default"/"normally"/"usually" "Smith followers believe X" type of statements on WP are always really talking about the Utah/Brighamite church's view. I didn't join this project to help polish up articles on LDS-specific doctrine(s) and that seems to be the main focus here, which now has me confused ... --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  21:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If only by statistics, it is more likely that the majority of people interested in LDS movement topics on Wiki will be Brighamite, whether actively involved in the church or not. We also are lucky enough to have project members who belong to the smaller denominations (like you) or who are interested in religious history. We have some very active and productive members who focus on the very early history of the movement, particular historic events, biographies of early leaders, or early doctrines - all prior to the schism after Joseph Smith's death. There is so much work to do in all areas, but Wiki is particularly weak on events, people and history of the various denominations after the major schism. So, what did you join to do? What are you interested in? Narrow it down and work on that. Best wishes. WBardwin 00:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Nerd42. Yes, we definitely desire for it to be an LDS movement project. One of the greatest values you could provide would be to bring to our collective attention any areas that are problematic as you describe. We would consider such problems violations of the NPOV policy, with the reservation of course that the preponderance of Brighamite size is sometimes a consideration. Tom Haws 15:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please correct anything you see wrong. We actually had a taxonomy at one point that when it came to doctrinal issues, that we needed to share all views as they were known, starting at the largest denomination and going down the line: Brighamite, CoC, Monghelea, FLDS, Hedrikite, etc. As you can imagine, the project gets a lot of hits from one-timers that are LDS and add in LDS POV into the mix - which is not easily patrolled by the few of us who are regular, who most of the time are busy finding and reverting vandalism. We hope you become one of the few regulars who can help us police the POV and make much more neutral articles for all of the Latter Day Saint movement, whether Mormon, LDS, COC, Strangite, United Apostolic Brethren or otherwise. Welcome aboard! -Visorstuff 16:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons I joined was to learn a bit more about other smaller Mormon demoninations. As WBardwin said, work on what interests you. I'm excited to work with this group of dedicated editors. -The Scurvy Eye 22:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I joined to help cover the Restoration Branches. ... There is an issue that I see as being somewhat of a problem, and that is that RLDS currently redirects to Community of Christ. Many members of the Restoration Branches (a movement of independent RLDS branches that left the CoC in the 1980s) also claim to be RLDS, and are absolutely not part of the CoC. The CoC has the legal US government copyright on the RLDS name, however. Whether the CoC is the legitimate RLDS church and who is RLDS and who is not is somewhat contraversial. I think WP's RLDS page ought to be turned into a disambig for all the different groups claiming to be RLDS. Or in other words, WP should cover the contraversy. --Nerd42 15:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And another thing. somebody take a look at my comments at Talk:Zion_(Mormonism) for an example of what I was talking about when I started this thread. --Nerd42 00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that currently there a a mix of articles that do a fair job of say this tradtion believs x, this does this.... then there are others that start out sayining in essensence "All Latter Day Saits believe..." when it's only "Latter-day Saints" or "Latter-day Saints and their split offs" or it just "Community of Christ" or just "Stranganites" or.. (okay haven't seen non Latter-day Saint beliefs expressed and believes of the entire groupinh yet but who knows...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.9.56 (talk • contribs)

LDS Temples Pictures

I was just on the LDS.org web site to see what their usage rights are on their news media section of the web site. Has anyone tried contacting them to see if they would release some of the images for Wiki to use? Sue Anne 23:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... good question. I think that this WikiProject is fairly inactive (at least for now!!!), so you might not get much of a response anytime soon.

I am pretty sure that all the "official" pictures of the temples are copyrighted by the Intellectual Reserve, and I haven't a clue on how to get a hold of them. However, if you take pictures yourself, you can license them into the public domain or under the GDFL (see this subpage of mine on what the difference between the two is). There might even be a way to license it under fair use - look at the tags, and you might be able to find something.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help - good luck. --Trevdna 15:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

When I'm done with a task...

Whenever I've completed a task (mostly peer review), I will remove it from the list, to end excess clutter. I've done it with about three peer reviews so far, and moved one article from expand to peer review. However, I noticed that some will cross out the item from the list, so it is understood that it once had that task done, but is now completed. Does anyone have any thoughts or opinion on this? I would just as soon continue to delete the items from the lists, but if anyone minds, I could cross them off as well. Please respond. --Trevdna 03:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally think we should just cross them out untill the page gets too cluttered. I like to have a record of what's been done (just my opinion).-The Scurvy Eye 04:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I ask for peer review while the article is in process, so that another pair of eyes and another POV can review the material. After all, in Wiki World, what is ever finished? So -- I would vote for crossing through rather than deleting. WBardwin 08:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of minimizing clutter, how about removing a crossout after three months? If someone decides any significant changes need to be made in that period, they can remove the crossout, and it's not like it can't be added to the list again after deletion. I'm worried that if we let the page keep building and building, we'll have an overwhelming amount of articles that need work on our hands. Like WBardwin just mentioned, given the constantly changing nature of wiki, removals are anything but permanent — this'd just be a convenience. Deadsalmon 03:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... there's a poll page we could go to with the 3 month thing (but it's inactive). At any rate, I'll cross out the tasks I'm completed with. Should I add back in the ones I'm done with (James E. FaustJohn Whitmer Historical Association (from peer review) and Emma Hale Smith (from collaborate/expand)? --Trevdna 15:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For the time being, I'd think that it's your call — if you think it would benefit from further review, leave them in for a while. I'm going to go take a crack at setting the poll up. Deadsalmon 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Mormonism for new readers

Today, I rewrote the introduction for Latter Day Saint movement with the purpose being so that new Wikipedia readers didn't think that it was an article about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Similar comments have been made by new readers about the Mormonism article, but I don't see an easy way to do it. Val42 05:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think "Mormonism" ought to use the modern definition of the term, but have one of those italicised disclaimers or something linking to a disambig page. However, the "Mormonism" should only cover LDS history after 1844, so that Latter Day Saint movement articles can cover history from 1820-1844. Good solution you think?

There are a whole lot of articles that need to be de-(Mormonism)ed, or else have duplicate articles on the same things for all the other factions, because Mormonism refers to the LDS church. Succession crisis (Mormonism), Patriarch (Mormonism), lots of articles on priesthood and many other things. --Nerd42 23:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Mormonism should probably say that, for example, Mother (Lucy Mack) Smith accepted and used the term Mormonism around 1845, though it has since come to imply things that many of the LDS movement branches would rather not claim. Therefore historically the roots of the movement are called Mormonism, but currently only the Brighamite brand is called Mormonism. Tom Haws 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tom, but only to a point. Strangites definitely call themselves Mormons, and Strangites are definitely not Brighamite. Rather I'd consider the Strangites and Brighamites both Mormon, and some independant branches. Rather, Mormonism is the culture and doctrine of the LDS Movement, even pre-1844. However, the culture has diverged into smaller groups (and can be found in CoC, restoration branches, etc.), but Mormonism branches hold many similar things in common which include (for the most part): Respect for priesthood authority or hierarchy (for the most part; and this is not typically found in restorationism movement or protestantism), belief in revelation to a prophet, belief in Joseph smith as a prophet, and so on. Then their is the culture - the rites of passage of priesthood ordinations (moving up the ranks) sometimes based on age, the belief in zion, temple worship, conservativism (for the most part) especially in dress and standards, etc., etc., etc. In addition, when John Taylor used the term to announce the death of Smith, he used the term Mormonism, so it could be argued that it consisted of everyone who did not believe that Smith was an apostate prophet at his death (which would allow for the bickertonites, etc to go either way, but keep CoC as part of mormonism). Just my two cents. BTW, I'm not all the way back yet. -Visorstuff 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Visorstuff, but I think you're just wrong on everything but your Strangite point. Perhaps the definition should include Strangites. The term "Mormon" is like the term "Negro". Historically it meant one thing, today it means another. Therefore, the Community of Christ, the Restoration Branches, the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and the RLDS in general should not be called "Mormon". --Nerd42 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly a problem. While I agree that my friends in the Community of Christ, the Restoration branch movement, and the Remnant church have utterly rejected the term "Mormon" (as far back as the late 19th century when "Mormon" became synonymous with Brigham Young and polygamy), it is still the well-known general term for the movement. People in the tradition of the Reorganization often use the unique (unknown) term "Latter Day Saintism" --- but I can point out that my friends in the Bickertonite church reject the term "Latter Day Saint." They call it the "Restoration" movement. However, "Restoration" is already used by the larger Campellite, Disciples of Christ movement. Mormons (including Reorganite Mormons) have had this problem since 1830. "Church of Christ" doesn't work as a brand name because it's too vague. And the solution of CoJCoLDS or RCoJCoLDS is too long for people to master. That's why "Mormonism" remains the general term. --John Hamer 04:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia languages

The Japanese Wikipedia is very limited in LDS articles, so I have started an unofficial project to translate into Japanese. I have started a blog to give a list of resources and needed articles. Please visit my blog if you are interested. --Gandalf 04:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am very interested in this, as I would like to accomplish the same thing in Spanish, and it seems an uphill battle. I would like to share war stories. Tom Haws 18:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

How would you describe the state of the Japanese Wikiproject LDS? I notice you haven't added an interwiki link to the project page. Could you do that? You can see how there is a espanol link to the Spanish WP:LDS. Tom Haws 20:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no project page for LDS in Japanese yet. I started an unofficial page here that has some resources and a list of articles to translate, but that's all I've done so far. I still have not been able to recruit anyone. There is a Christianity project page in Japanese found here. --Gandalf 16:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia seems to have high quality discussion and article development underway. The Spanish and Portuguese versions don't seem to have any LDS members engaged and NPOV trained. The discussion pages of LDS Church there are pretty much testimony depots. I wonder if the French version is ready for a Wikiproject? Tom Haws 20:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:LDS

I started Template:LDS, which I made to be akin to Template:Christianity or Template:Judaism. Do whatever with it -- I just thought it might be an idea. --Antley 03:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it. It does a good job of being wide in application, rather than limited itself solely to the Brighamite church. Deadsalmon 08:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling all mystics!

Please come help out @ mysticism / Talk:Mysticism. Another editor and I have been butting heads over some minor issues, and the article could really use some outside input. Please come lend a hand! Sam Spade Sam Spade 19:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

...Or maybe it could use some inside output!...--Blainster 17:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Assistance on Joseph Smith article

The Joseph Smith article is gained some new editors, but they have a decidely negative POV. I am focusing my efforts elsewhere at the moment and additional editors are needed to ensure NPOV edits are made and edits are properly referenced. Also, the article has a mish-mash of references and footnotes. Someone with more experience could really help improve the article by looking at this area. Your assitance would be appreciated. Storm Rider 07:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Restructure of article relationships

This comment by an anonymous user has pointed out another problem with the Mormonism article. I'm going to rewrite the article, keeping only the information that I think is relevant to a pared down article with links to those denominations that are considered Mormon. If someone thinks that there should be an article about beliefs held by the church founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. before his death (and many permanent schisms), then feel free to create such an article. I'll put this comment on the Talk:Mormonism page. Val42 20:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

New talk page template

Had an idea that I wanted some input on... anybody who takes the time to read this talk page is familiar with the tendency on some LDS-related pages to generate a good amount of controversy. Conflict can be good when building a better page, but some of it tends to wander into religious debates. On top of that, a number of newer users and editors misunderstand the purpose of talk pages as a forum to ask questions. While neither are "wrong", per se, it can clutter the talk pages and make it harder to pick out other issues and concerns. So, to address that, I've been bouncing around the idea of creating a template we could stick at the top of some of the more controversial talk pages that could, for example, have a link to the Reference Desk for users asking questions, and a suggestion to take debates to user talk pages. How does the idea go over with some of y'all? Tijuana Brass 20:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds okay in principle. Let's see an example. 67.106.48.106 05:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Kind of backing away from this one... on second thought, it kind of adds clutter to the page. Individual responses are easy and more helpful in any case. Tijuana Brass 17:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: { {LDS} } Info Box

Although I realize that the Salt Lake Temple is one of the most recognizable images attached to Mormonism, I'm a little concerned about its use in our info box. Since this is for the entire movement -- how about a picture of the more universal Kirtland or Nauvoo temple instead? Other ideas? WBardwin 03:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling all editors...

Novel-Technology and Storm Rider have begun what may be a long-overdue revision of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article to tighten it up some. Given the size of the project, it'd be great to have as many interested editors as possible join in. Tijuana Brass 17:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Attention: Categories up for deletion or movement

The following categories have been targeted for deletion or movement by User:Bhoeble. Please express your opinions ASAP. Thank you. WBardwin 08:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

5.2.22 Category:Latter Day Saint history to Category:History of Mormonism 5.2.23 Category:Latter Day Saint History Books to Category:History books about Mormonism 5.2.24 Category:Latter Day Saint Historians to Category:Historians of Mormonism

Link to the votes. Tijuana Brass 09:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links on Temple Pages

I wasn't sure exactly where to put this, but I figured this would cover all of them at once. In my opinion, the External Links section on many of the individual temple pages (see: Halifax Nova Scotia Temple.

The external links section should be about items specifically related to that temple, not a list of general "Mormon temple" links. Those belong on the Temple (Mormonism). My plan is to go through and prune these list of links heavily. Sue Anne 04:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Project page cleanup

I added the following note to the Cleanup, Peer review, etc. sections: Please add new entries to the bottom; don't forget to sign and date them. Entries older than three months may be removed. Thank you. I also removed all entries which were added prior to 2006. The page is becoming filled with entries which have long been forgotten; too many articles are going to divide efforts beyond our capacity. Should anybody disagree with either of these changes, let me know — and if I've deleted an article you would still like help with, please replace it and date it so we'll know that it's fresh. I'd also suggest helping out with a new article — cleaning up, POV checking, wikifying, whatever — for every one that you add, so that we'll keep this list from growing so long again. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Would all the editors keep an eye on Joseph Smith, Jr. and User Talk:Hoboken, who is insistant that "polygamy" is preferred over "polygyny" in all cases? Concensus on these terms was established on the talk page some time ago, and has been discussed since. I believe I reverted him a time or two before he created a user name, at least once as Hoboken a couple of days ago, and now I've reverted Hoboken twice within 24 hours. Visorstuff also reverted him once, as an anon I think. Please see my notes on his talk page, and his response on mine. He just posted again, angry at my ownership of the article. Best....... WBardwin 07:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

copy of his comment on my talk page.

Polygamy and article "ownership": Unfortunately, I don't think that "the LDS users group" owns the Joseph Smith articles, and I suspect that the reason that the LDS users group in particular is so insistent on "polygyny" is because they think that fewer people will know what it is than would know what polygamy is. "Polygamy" is the usual term used to refer to Joseph Smith's practice of Plural Marriage, and so it is the term that Wikipedia must use, whether the "LDS users group" would prefer that another term be used or not. It also has the benefit fo being perfectly true, and more inclusive than "polygyny". Someone can be a polygamist and not a polygynast, but all polygynasts are also polygamists. - Hoboken 06:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There are doctrinal reasons, not public relation reasons. I'm fine with it on first reference, for compromise sake, however, doctrianlly it is incorrect. The issue is like saying taking communion to a catholic is cannibalism. It may not mean much to an outsider, but to those who have studied the history of plural marriage recognize the big differences. Its not about owning the article, its about accuracy in reporting what was taught. -Visorstuff 16:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hoboken, you are correct in saying that the term polygamy is the more common term used. However, though it is the most common it is still incorrect usage in regards to the teachings of Joseph Smith. Polygamy is a term that is very broad in scope, most of which describe practices that do not apply to the teachings of Joseph Smith.

After lengthy discussion it was decided by nonmormons and Mormons alike to use the correct term rather than a term used incorrectly. I would also ask you to look at your last statement; it is exactly why we choose to use correct usage. Not all polygamists are polygynasts. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Book of Mormon character naming convention

I've copied over a short discussion regarding naming conventions for some articles regarding Book of Mormon characters. You can see we've found a compromise, but I'd like more input before any (further) changes are made: -- andersonpd 21:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice with some dismay that you have renamed several articles about Book of Mormon figures from "Name (Book of Mormon)" to "Name (prophet)". I realize that naming conventions in Wikipedia are ambiguous, but, in my opinion, this change is not helpful. The Book of Mormon context is important in identifying the person. The fact that they are a prophet is less important in identifying them (again, in my opinion). The clearest case is with Jacob. There is only one "Jacob" in the Book of Mormon, but there is more than one prophet named Jacob.

I realize there is some confusion for the frequent case where the prophet and the book (Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni,...) have the same name and your "prophet" designation is a useful disambiguation. As I recall, there has been an article entitled "Mormon (prophet)" for a long time, but I think Mormon is a special case, since there are several different usages within the Book of Mormon.

What if we settled on "Name (Book of Mormon prophet)"? We could both get our way. :) andersonpd 00:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Conventions on Wikipedia are to differentiate with nouns that refer to the person (i.e. prophet) rather than where they are found (i.e. Book of Mormon). For example, if there is a New York baseball player and a Los Angeles mayor each named John Smith, we may use John Smith (baseball player) and John Smith (mayor) rather than John Smith (New York) and John Smith (Los Angeles). --Kmsiever 04:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this an agreeable solution? Anyone else like to weigh in on one side or the other?

I'll try to gather up a list of instances so the discussion can be more concrete. -- andersonpd 21:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with the decision to move to "Name (Book of Mormon prophet)." Good work, guys. Please add to the naming conventions document after more editors weigh in. -Visorstuff 21:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC) On second thought, what about folks who are not book of mormon prophets but mentioned here. How about (Book of Mormon figure) or (Book of Mormon character)? -Visorstuff 21:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

For example, here's a list of characters (and article titles)with the same name as books in the Book of Mormon:

• Nephi¹ -- "Nephi". A disambiguation page exists, but just "Nephi" brings you the Nephi (meaning the son of Lehi) article.
• Nephi² -- "Nephi, son of Helaman"
• Jacob -- "Jacob (prophet)" (had been "Jacob (Book of Mormon)") A dismbiguation page exists. "Jacob" takes to an article about the biblical prophet, son of Isaac.
• Enos -- "Enos (Book of Mormon)". A disambiguation page exists.
• Jarom -- "Jarom"
• Omni -- "Omni (prophet)", moved from "Omni (Book of Mormon)". A disambiguation page exists.
• Mosiah -- "Mosiah". One article covers both Mosiahs (King Benjamin's father and King Benjamin's son).
• Alma -- Disambiguation page sends you to either "Alma the Elder" or "Alma the Younger".
• Helaman -- "Helaman", meaning Helaman, son of Alma the Younger. A disambiguation page exists.
• Mormon -- "Mormon (prophet)". A disambiguation page exists.
• Ether -- "Ether (prophet)", moved from "Ether (Book of Mormon)". A disambiguation page exists. "Ether" takes you to the chemical compound.
• Moroni -- "Moroni (prophet)", moved from "Moroni (Mormonism)" (ugh!). There is a separate article for "Captain Moroni". A disambiguation page exists.

-- andersonpd 21:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Polaris

In the article about Polaris, the pole star, there is a new section In religion. The second bullet seems correct (what Joseph Smith said, not the folk doctrine), but it needs to be cited. Could someone provide such a citation? Val42 00:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

RUXLDS

198.152.13.67 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)is adding many links to different articles tied to this website - and making many changes that are not neutral. For example:

• Adding RUXLDS to many articles
  • Anti-Mormonism 14:50, 26 June 2006
  • Anti-Mormonism 14:01, 27 June 2006
  • Apostle (Mormonism) 14:29, 27 June 2006
  • Book of Mormon 17:19, 27 June 2006
  • Exmormonism 17:29, 27 June 2006
  • Anti-Mormonism 12:23, 28 June 2006
  • Criticism of Mormonism 13:36, 28 June 2006

I am reverting these because this site looks new and is not particularly notable/doesn't have any unique information.

• Book of Mormon changes from 15:01-15:35 27 June 2006
  • added heading "The Doctrine of God in the Book of Mormon as Opposed to Other Mormon Scriptures"
  • "The Book of Mormon teaches that there is the One Almighty God in absolute terms, ..."
  • other quotes out of context

Links to http://scriptures.lds.org

Did anyone else notice that recently (it hadn't changed as of June 22) they changed this site to be more international- by adding the language to the url. So http://scriptures.lds.org/john/3/16 becomes http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/3/16. The good news is that the existing links still work. However, we should probably update overtime to include the "/en/" when editing an article.

The new searching capability seems much better too btw. --Trödel 19:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't we have a template for this? Wouldn't updating the template take care of this problem? Val42 23:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The only template I know of is {{sourcetext}} which links to wikisource not lds.org --Trödel 00:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Atonement article review

I was reading the article on atonement and was a bit embarrassed to see so much space devoted to the LDS view (it's about half of the entire article!). Can a more regular editor take a peek and see if they think it needs some editing too? --RobertC 07:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Bible study

I welcome and encourage contributors to this project to help expand Bible study (Christian). This article suffers from a lack of relevent view points, and a lack of information in general. Any help would be appreicated. Good luck, and thanks!--Andrew c 14:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Project members may want to participate in the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 08:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration: Mormon handcart pioneers to FA status for 150th anniversary

BRMo is looking for help on getting this article up to featured status in time for the 150th anniversary of the rescue this October. Everyone is welcome (perhaps begged?) to. Please see the talk page and peer review to find or add ways of improving the article. --Lethargy 07:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)