Talk:List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 7

Choice of the week at The Signpost

Dear colleagues, just to let you know that our guest judge chose this article as number-one FL promotion of last week. Congratulations. Tony (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Very cool--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 20:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! A well-deserved honor. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Very cool, indeed. Thanks for posting the link.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nephite Church of Christ

Is there any independent documentation about the Nephite Church of Christ other than Patrick Saucer's self-published books and the church's website? I think that to merit inclusion here, the sect ought to be discussed by at least one independent source. For all we know, this sect could just consist of Saucer himself. There are several other known Mormon sects that are not included here because there just isn't enough reliable, verified information about them, and maybe Saucer's new sect falls in that category. COGDEN 02:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the sect to answer your question, but I do recall that was a topic of discussion on the talk page before. A couple of the archive pages seem to have some relevant material here and here. Also agree that some independent sourcing would be a good addition. --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Since having changed our name to the Nephite Church of Christ, articles bearing that name are slowing appearing in the Internet. http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/03/07/diverse-latter-day-scripture at http://www.aml-online.org/Reviews/Review.aspx?id=4509 Sister Elizabeth Barton, one of our founders, is becoming popular among anglicans http://www.anglicancatholic.org.uk/church-of-st-augustine-of-canterbury/. And Since the NCC started in England, some people confuse it with the Anglicans. The anglican church made it known that it is not in communion with us. [1] The NCC is also known as the Tarish Rite Apsotolic Church. The NCC is headquartered in Dothan Alabama. There is a seperated branch in Texas. [2] Of course, there are small groups in England. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Does the church have an Adherents.com entry? That might be a helpful addition, but I am not finding an entry under either church name. --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We have no entry with Adherents.com. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't realize that the citation for this Church was a self published book. I'm glad COGDEN caught that. However, I was thinking, Couldn't the [3] be considered independent? Since this comes from By Common Consent and involved "Steve Shields" a name we all know. I would consider these Verifiable sources, but that just my opinion. However, went ahead and change it, but if you guys don't conceder these page as "independent", I will agree we need to find one.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

These three additional sources, which may or may not meet WP standards, shows that there is some interest in us. Mormonmatters.org [4] Confetti Antiques [5] & [6]Prsaucer1958 (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is the level of interest in the religion. For Wikipedia purposes, the main concern is to make sure we are following the reliable source guideline. I don't want to precipitously delete the entry if it's at all possible to establish a "reliable" source. However, it's important that we find at least some independent source of information about the religion, which is not ultimately and exclusively derived from self-published sources, so as to maintain a semblance of journalistic integrity for Wikipedia.

Given the credentials of Hamer and Shields, the "By Common Consent" post John Hamer might be a good source if John had done some kind of journalistic investigation of the religion, but his information is just a description of "The Nephite Gospel" found in Steve Shields' library, which is one of the self-published books. Thus, this might be a reliable source about the book, but not the religion. It's possible that Steve Shields has made some kind of investigation of the church, but I haven't seen anything written by Shields himself. In Kris Wray's book review, this is likewise a good reliable source about the book, but not about the religion, because Wray does not say anything about the religion other than what is represented in the book. I don't think the "Mormon Matters" link is reliable because it is an anonymous post to a blog entry, and in any event only seems to be quoting the church's website. The Anglicans Online site seems to just be a reference to the church's old website, with a note that the church is "not in communion", but no actual information about the religion. The PBWorks wiki entry, written by "Alan Unsworth", also doesn't appear to be the kind of source that would be relied upon by researchers in the field.

We have to stand in the shoes of an academic researcher preparing a manuscript for publication in a peer reviewed journal, or for a newspaper article. Would that researcher be able to rely solely upon the above sources, or would she need to do some more independent investigation to corroborate these sources? I think the above sources are not enough, and she would need to corroborate.

Maybe Mr. Saucer can get the religion listed on adherents.com, which I consider to be a reliable source about small religions. I think it's possible to contact the website and request inclusion, and I know the website sometimes does field research to verify membership numbers, etc. That process might take some time. It might also be possible to get the religion featured in a news article. Maybe a publicity stunt is in order (just kidding). COGDEN 21:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cogden mentioned that Sheild's reference and Wray's reference are reliable sources for the book - The Nephite Order. Would these two references be sufficient for a stub article about the book; such as, Book x is the official teaching document of the Nephite Church of Christ-a church within the Latter Day Saint movemnet. Even so, COI prevents me from creating such an article. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

When we start talking about creating entire articles on a particular subject, we have to consider the notability guideline. Most books do not meet that guideline. The single book review by Kris Wray would not be sufficient. It would take multiple reviews, and at least one discussion in a context directed to a general audience, before we could create an entire article about the book. Note, however, that the notability guideline does not prevent discussion of the book or any other non-notable subject within an article (such as this one) which is otherwise notable. COGDEN 20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

<-Move down

I do agree that the issue isn't the level of interest in the religion, and I understand COGDEN concerns. Sects that people “Make up” are commonly placed on this list, which is why, some time ago, went threw and cited each sect, so that the Fake ones could be remove quickly. I also agree that a better independent source is very desirable, but I don’t know if one will be available anytime soon

However, I think we are merging two issues into one here. There are real two distinct issues, which are:

• 1. Can we reliable show this sect exists.
• 2. Can the information in the notes section be verifiable shown to be accurate.

Addressing issue 1: The standard we are looking for is not actual information about the religion, but the simple fact that it exists at all. This is a list, not an article on individual sects. If the sect exists at all, it belongs on this list. So the real issue is can the “By Common Consent” link reliably show the existence of this sect? Given that Steve Shields, John Hamer, and “By Common Consent” (all reliable sources on LDS sects) are saying that this is a true sect, I feel that the supplied reference meet the WP:V requirements needed to answer “Yes, this sect exists”.

Addressing issue 2: WP:SELFPUB says: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as (listing 5 requirement). Since the notes are strictly information “about themselves” and I think that the reference meet all 5 requirement, I think they can be used within the Note section only. So Again I feel that the supplied reference meet the WP:V requirements needed to answer “Yes, this information on this sect meeting WP:V guideline.

However, I am the first to admit that I am not an expert on Wikipedia or the LDS movement, so if I delusional, by all means tell me and I’ll put my straight jacket back on. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We need a reliable source verifying the existence of the religion as a bona fide organization with members, a distinct doctrine, and some kind of institutional cohesion. The problem is that while we have a reliable source about the doctrine presented in the self-published books, we don't have a reliable source that this self-published book represents, or accurately represents, an existing religious body. To use a hypothetical analogy, suppose it were April 7, 1830, and we were considering including Joseph Smith's Church of Christ in a Wikipedia list, but our only source was a self-published copy of the Book of Mormon and a couple of book reviews based solely on the book with no investigation into the church itself. We'd need more than that--we'd need a reliable source, such as a newspaper article, verifying that the religion had been founded and that it had followers. Otherwise, for all we know, the Book of Mormon merely represents some hypothetical or fictional church with no real followers and no actual church organization.

It is not the case that Steve Shields and John Hamer have verified the existence of the religion--they have only verified the existence of the book. I don't question that Mr. Saucer does have followers and has established some kind of bona fide church, but we have no reliable source yet to verify that. COGDEN 20:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing "Independents" section and "Nephite Church of Christ"

Sorry, I've been busy lately and haven't seen any of this discussion until now. Since I was the one who originally put the "Independents" section into the list in the first place, with the "Nephite Church of Christ" entry, and given all the valid arguments raised against its inclusion here, I've gone ahead and removed that section from the article unless and/or until we can find a viable, independent source to confirm its existence (a newspaper article in a regular, independent daily with a feature about the church; a listing on Adherents.com, a mention in an official government source, etc.). If any of you disagree with this action, please feel free to revert and restore that section; I'm definitely not trying to be a dictator or "own" this article in any way. I just felt responsible, given that I put it there in the first place. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• I will make inquiries with adherents.com. Is a Letter of Determination from the IRS which states that a group is a public charity considered an official government source? Our healing ministry has received IRS recognition as a public charity. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure. Opinions, anyone? Also, I would emphasize that I am totally in favor of restoring the previously-deleted section and entry, if a reliable, independent source can be found. I figure that goes without saying, but maybe it ought to be said here nonetheless. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I explained my option above. I think what reference we had were valid enough to prove this group does exist.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A Letter of Determination from the IRS is not sufficient in itself because it is not published, and therefore the information it contains is not verifiable. Is there some public government document or database that lists the Nephite Church of Christ as a public charity? It needs to be something citable and accessible to the public. I did a search for eligible charitable organizations on the irs.gov website and didn't get a hit.

It might be a good idea to put this issue up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what the comments are, and see if anyone has any suggestions. COGDEN 00:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Nephite Church of Christ has not filed a form 1023 for recognition because Churches are not required to do so. However, some parts of our church have applied for recognition. The Crimson Path Society, Inc[7]. which is our healing ministry, was granted public charity status by the IRS. In Alabama, counselors at Public Charities can provide limited couseling services without a state license (Code of Alabama Section 34-8A-3(a)(6)). Guidestar Report (which is a major database for public charities, churches, and foundations) [8] & IRS: [9] list the Crimson Path Society. Letters of Determination are the holy grail for organizations because they indicate to contributors and to the public that the organization exists and that they conduct charitable activities.[10] Letters of Determination are public govenerment documets.Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Letters of Determination are basically form letters. The information they contain are published in IRS Publication 78, Cumulative List of Organizations described in Section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Thus the infomration is verifiable. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Verification of the existence of the Crimson Path Society, Inc. does not show that the Nephite Church of Christ exists as an institution with religious followers, and that's what we need here. We're close, from many different angles, but I just don't think we have a verifiable independent source showing that the church is an actual, existing and functioning church. COGDEN 20:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

use of "ites"

I think that the addting of "Sometimes called "Brighamites"" to the "Rocky Mountain Saints" is a bit redundent After all the Categorizing the churches says "Rocky Mountain Saints – Sometimes called "Brighamites" or "Mormons",..." However, I do trust you and the issue isn't a hugh point for me so I'm going to leave it. I think the IP editor is trying to push his own POV onto this list. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. I'm going to revert the change; as I told him, maybe the thing to do would be to come up with other names to replace the "Josephite," etc. monikers in the "Prairie Saints" section, but personally, I think the list was just fine the way it was, as you said here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this IP editor is confusing where "Josephite" comes from. I think he thinks its JS jr., which some people think supports that groups claim of succession. At first I thought that way to, until I read the description at top. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 01:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be true, but my idea is that he simply opposes the use of "Josephite", "Hedrickite", etc. without the corresponding use of "Brighamite" to describe the LDS. This mindset (if indeed this is his mindset, and I have no way of knowing that for sure; you may be right, after all) arises from the times when such monikers were used in a disparaging manner--but this is not the case on this list, as we've taken great pains to point out. Hence, I don't accept the argument for "Brighamite" inclusion that comes from that mindset. So why use "Josephite," "Hedrickite," etc. without using "Brighamite?" There are many different factions of Prairie Saints (I speak here of the Josephites, Hedrickites, etc. each as a self-contained whole, not the individual sects within each faction--or "Factional Group", as I prefer to call them), whereas all Rocky Mountain Saints are Brighamites, tracing themselves as they each ultimately do to the Utah LDS church. I think that given this fact, the list is arranged the very best way that it can be, and there is no need for "Brighamite" in the title. I had thought so at first, but I now disagree. It's not a perfect setup, but I still think (as you seem to, as well) that it's the best one we've got. But like I said, I could be wrong about all of this! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's funny that we actually agree with each other, but we discussing between us how to make an IP editor happy, who isn't part of the discussion. I just find it odd.

It is hard to know the mindset of an IP editor. I agree that there is "no need for "Brighamite" in the title. However, I'm all for removing "Josephite," "Hedrickite", etc. for a completely different reason. This was an issue during the FA process. The whole ‘this is not mean to offend’ stuff was at issue then, and left only because we couldn’t come up with something better. However, if we could come up with a better way, we could remove that stuff removing that issue. However, I'm stumped as to how to do it. The only possible way I was thinking of is to change the subtitles to the name of the very first "Church". Such as changing "Josephite" to "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day..." (NOT CofC), "Hedrickite" to "Church of Christ (Temple Lot)', etc. However, I'm not so sure about that.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Try this one out (see article changes); I think it's the best solution I can come up with, and I really do think it makes the article better, to boot.... Tell me what you think! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to digest this for a while. To be honset, I'm not so sure about it, but I don't have any better ideas, so lets see how long it lasts.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the old way was better? I'm definitely open to any ideas you (or anyone) might have on this issue.... = Ecjmartin (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No it don't think it was better the old way. I don't think it's worst ether. I'm just not sure at all. The only thing I have noticed is there is still a difference with the Rocky Mountain saints area and between the RMS and the Prairie Saints section. One part of the RMS Saint is by Church name and the rest is listed by topic "Mormon Fund.", "Liberal.." etc. Then the PS section is based on leader followed. Beings that this is a Featured list, I just feel it would be better to have a consistent way of choosing the lists. However, I still can't seem to come up with anything better, which is why I haven't made any changes. Sorry I guess I’m not help at all. Perhaps I need a good Gibb's Slap. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I know this was discussed here, but I wanted to revisit the issue of whether this apparent sect belongs on the list. I agree the sect does not merit a Wikipedia article because it is not notable. However, I'd go further than that: I don't think we have any reliable source to verify that the sect even existed. The most reliable source we have is a now-defunct web page from the mid-1990s describing a few emails sent by the sect's founder Michael Bethel to David Bowie. Bowie, at the time, was just a Ph.D. student writing material on his personal home page. And since he has long left his university for greener pastures, his page was deleted long ago. We only know that it once existed because it has been stored by archive.org.

I don't think that a few emails represented in the archive of some Ph.D. student's long-defunct personal home page counts as a reliable source. The sect does have an entry at Adherents.com, but this entry merely cites Bowie's now-defunct web page, so it does not appear to be based on any independent research. Moreover, the emailed material presented on Bowie's site is self-published by the group's leader and is self-serving. In addition, the Louisiana mailing address cited for the organization is (at least now) a drive-through Kentucky Fried Chicken, and there is no continuing evidence of the group's existence. My issue is not the size of the organization, but the fact that we don't have a reliable source documenting their existence as a distinct sect. For any sect to be listed here, I think there ought to be at least one reliable source attesting that they existed, and that they were a distinct sect and not just a study group, club, or online chat group. COGDEN 22:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove - I would tend to agree. If others agree, I'd say delete it, myself. I definitely agree with the "one reliable source" criteria, for sure! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Weak remove - I was one of those that thought that the group belonged. However, you have managed to convince me to switch my opinion, even if it is weak. To be honest I hadn't looked into the Adherents.com listing that deeply (since it's blocked by my work). However, now that I have seen it, (on my home computer) I agree that the Adherents.com listing doses seem to fail to meet the reliable threshold. Given that the Nephite Church of Christ failed to meet the same inclusion criteria, because we could only find self published sources, I don't see why the Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints shouldn't fail for the same reason.

Mind you I do think this group existed, but I think we have yet to prove it was a sect and not just a study group, and should therefore not be include. After all every person who says "I'm the "One Mighty and Strong"" and has one follower would then qualify as a sect.

However, I would like to here what Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} has to say before I agree to more then weak remove. He may know more about this group and can provide more information that could lead to it’s inclusion.

I am however concerned that we may have swung the bar to high on which groups to include and which to not include. Before April of this year there was no citations on any of these groups, which is why so many "Fake" groups showed up (like the ULDS). I spent a great deal of time citing them all, but my intention was not to make it impossible for newly formed sect to get included on this list only that sect that were obviously fake could be removed quickly. Not that this means that the PLDS church should be included per say, it just that I am worried we are making it impossible for new sects to be included.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Normally an Adherents.com entry is a good source. However, this particular entry does imply that it is based on the now defunct, self-published site alone. While I believe this to have been a real organization, I do see the quandary with respect to sourcing.

We might want to request a comment from John Hamer as he has apparently heard of the sect and may have some sourcing. Also, a check for a filing with the appropriate state (Louisiana) might be helpful. I will do some research in that regard. Thanks.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: I added a book cite reference to the group. Also, it appears that the sect was referenced in an edition of The Journal of Latter Day Saint History [11]. If we could ascertain the context and the level of editorial oversight for the publication, it might be a valuable addition.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I to would like more input before it is removed. I think we may still have a verifiable source out there given a little time.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone here have access to or at least current contact information for The Journal of Latter Day Saint History? It appears that the PLDS was listed as a sect in one of their publications, so that might be the one source that we are after. I don't, however, have access to this journal. Thanks.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Strangite vs RLDS issue

I would like to bring people's attention to my comment on File talk:LDS main branch timeline.svg as I think there's some problem with that picture which is used in this article. --BenMcLean (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

CoFirstborn

According to this source, in 1990, the Church of the Firstborn had members in Colonia LeBaron, in the Western U.S. (esp. San Diego, California) and Central America.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• WaPo, "Ambushed by a Drug War: Mormon Clans in Mexico Find Themselves Targets of the Cartels," July 23, 2009: "The Mormon community based in Colonia LeBaron, numbering about 1,000...."
• Janet Bennion, Desert patriarchy: Mormon and Mennonite communities in the Chihuahua Valley, Univ. of Arizona Press (2004):
  p126: "The sociopolitical structure of [Colonia] LeBaron is based on the rules and structures established in the Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times...."
  p127: "The Church of the Firstborn grew quickly and established colonies in San Diego and Baja, Mexico....
  p138: "The major rift that occurred during the 1990s between a liberal faction [...of the Church of the Firstborn] and a strictly conservative group , who moved down the road and continue to practice a more communal-based religious system based on the notion of a living prophet...."

  So, apparently, there is a "liberal faction" the CoFirstborn predominating in the village of Colonia LeBaron itself. [Btw, the CoF presumably also has members scattered about in Colonia Dublan and other Chihuahua communities as well as in other places in Mexico, the US, and Nicaragua.]--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• This page, copyrighted by Instituto Nacional para el Federalismo y el Desarrollo Municipal, Gobierno del Estado de Chihuahua in 2009, lists Colonia LeBaron's population as 1,137. Galeana (which includes LeBaron)'s population was 3,763 in 1996. The predominant religion was Roman Catholic, at 80.9% of the population of people over 15, with the remainder principally "Mormon" and "Evangelical."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'll readjust the population estimate for the denomination.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Added Book of Jeraneck and Marvelous Work and a Wonder group

I think it would be nice to be able to read his Book of Jeraneck online. So everybody can read that he is a false prophet. So I added a link to his book. Furthermore I added the Marvelous Work and a Wonder group, whose prophet translated the entire sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. I hope that the source is enough bacause I wanted to add this group because of their strange claims!79.209.44.172 (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Identifying "false prophets" or revealing "strange claims" is not the purpose of this list. This list is meant to identify those LDS sects that have achieved notability. Unless I am mistaken, Wikipedia had an article on "marvelous Work and Wonder" which was deleted sometime ago. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. An article about the Book of Jeraneck group was also deleted, I think. These links can probably be deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I concur. Wikipedia is not the place for this. Deleting assumed GF revisions by 79.290.44.172. - Ecjmartin (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It's proposed that Latter Day Saint (disambiguation) be merged with this list. Please discuss.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've also posted an inquiry here on the disambig guideline's talkpage.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Concur. Looks like there's nothing there that isn't already stated here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I haven't decided whether I think such a merger would be a good idea or not. On one hand, a new section at the top of this article could be fashioned that would list sects whose name approximates "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." On the other hand, having a separate disambig page with these names listed does serve quite well as an efficient navigation aid, as well--eg, for readers trying to locate what specific group the term "Latter Day Saint" might apply to, in some particular context.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

With the existence of an article on the Latter Day Saint movement already, not to mention this List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement, I question the need for a Latter Day Saint (disambiguation) article in the first place. Not one of the sects or groups listed in that second article are not a part of the Latter Day Saint movement, hence, having a disambiguation article simply to list some of these groups all over again seems redundant to me. My idea would be to simply redirect from Latter Day Saint (disambiguation) straight over to List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement, since there's not one thing in the former article that isn't contained in the latter, while the latter contains several additional items not present in the former. But that's only my opinion. - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

OK - Even one person is a quorum on Wikipedia and we have 100% agreement between the two of us therefore I've done the merger.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Bolding of "Latter-day Saint"

It is common Wikipedia practice to bold the title of any given article, when that title first appears in the article text. Now the title of this article makes reference to "Latter Day Saint," not "Latter-day Saint," hence the bolding of "Latter Day Saint" when it first appears in the article text itself. It has been suggested that "Latter-day Saint," which represents an alternative spelling of this term, should also be bolded at the place where it first appears in the article, as well. I disagree. While the desire to bold the first occurrence of "Latter-day Saint" (the spelling adopted by the LDS Church in Utah) is understandable, and I fully accept and acknowledge the good-faith intentions of the persons advocating doing so, I believe it should not be done in this article, for two reasons:

(1) The title of the article, as I just stated, does not reference "Latter-day Saint", but rather "Latter Day Saint." "Latter Day Saint," as I understand it, is the preferred usage when used by academics or the general public to describe this movement as a whole--which is the focus of this article, as opposed to the Utah LDS church in particular (which has its own specific article, where "Latter-day Saint" is appropriately bolded).

(2) People are naturally drawn to bolded text, and in my opinion at least, the presence of a bolded "Latter-day Saint" in the section referencing the Utah LDS church could lead some to believe that this church (which contains 97% of the world's Latter Day Saints) is somehow seen as being more "worthy" of attention than the rest. I realize that this is absolutely not the intention of those proposing to italicize "Latter-day Saint" here, and as I said earlier, I give them full credit for their good-faith intentions. That said, I believe italicizing both names is better, and tends to a more NPOV, "equal" appearance in this particular instance. - Ecjmartin (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

After discussion here and an examination of the actual guidelines in WP:MOSBOLD, I agree with that approach outlined above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Marvelous Work and a Wonder®

This group has achieved notability. Look at Sealed Fate and at True Believer 79.209.65.155 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It can't be a sect if it has no followers and the reference you give (http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-13162-sealed-fate.html) explicitly states "Nemelka says he has no followers". -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Provenances

While I am honored that the work I and others did on {{LDS sects/Mormon fundamentalist}} and {{LDS sects/Granville Hedrick}} has been added to here, personally, I don't like there use on this page. My reasons:

• 1. Not all groups have individual tables. One of the things that was clear to me in the moving of this list to "Featured list statues", was an Emphasizes on "Uniformity". For example, all citations had to be the same format, all images had to have alt=, unless all sects had image then they shouldn't me in the tables, etc. However, to create tables for each breakdown is problematic since not all are appropriate. The "Pre-schism dissenting bodies" and "Followers of Joseph Smith III" are going to be just one box on top connected down to all the others right below it. There would be no "New" information nor is it going to make anything "clearer".
• 2. This is an "overall list". I think the original {{LDS sects}} was created to give a better overall picture of the sect breakdown then the {{Mormon denomination tree}} gives, which it dose. However, the intent I had with the new tables was to allow those smaller sects, who didn't "Make it" into the {{LDS sects}} but who had a complex Provenances, to have provenances withing there own pages, since both {{LDS sects}} and {{Mormon denomination tree}} "neglect" them, so to speak. My plan had been to figure out how to incorporated them into the overall {{LDS sects}} in a fashion that allowed the user to expand or link to the additional templates, without changing the {{LDS sects}} in appearance overall, but I lack the programing skills, and gave up on such endeavors.
• 3. I think they just don't look good. This page is already long enough, especially with the table expand.

I would like to remove them, but I think I may be in the minority here, so I didn't want to do it until some discussion.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You've raised some excellent points. Not sure yet what I think on the issue of removing them; I'll need to think on that for awhile. But on the issue of them being expanded, I can definitely say that they need to be closed, rather than open as they are now; if they're going to stay, then let the reader decide whether to open them or not. I think this would perhaps be preferable to either the way it is now, or removing them altogether. But I'm going to give the matter some additional thought... - Ecjmartin (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just took care of the collapsing part. This way, the tables are still available to interested parties to expand, while remaining "out of sight" for other article readers. What do you think? - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, if they are to be included, then collapsing looks better then not. That would make #3 at list less an issue. I agree that perhaps some more "Thinking" is needed, including on my part.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have incorporated all the information needed for this page from {{LDS sects/Mormon fundamentalist}} and {{LDS sects/Granville Hedrick}} into {{LDS sects}}. I am therefore so I removed the two additional templates. That way there can be uniformity across the list.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• According to the in-house style manual, the dual-purpose relationship table and navigation aid "Template:LDS sects" should be shown in its expanded state within its section within this article proper:

  [...B]oxes that toggle text display between hide and show should not be used to hide article content [...yet, c]ollapsible sections may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes[, etc....].-- MOS:SCROLL

  Since this is the article about the relationship between all constituent LDS sects, the template works as an illustration of these relationships and so should be expanded as part of the article proper; yet, sections and/or cells within a table or a sidebar navigation aid/infobox may be collapsed (for example, see the sidebar nav box at Civil war, with its collapsed sections), as well as when the entire, self-same template, when it is used as a navigation aid below the external links section in articles about constituent denominations. (As an example of another article that uses a dual-use template of the kind we're discussing, see Family of Barack Obama#Family trees: the relationship chart for the extended B. Obama family is expanded in this omnibus but collapsed when used as a nav box below articles on whatever family members are notable enough to have separate WP biographies.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

With the removal of the other two charts, although I personally think it looks better collapsed, it's not a big deal to me anymore. The issue I saw was with the number of charts (three) not the collapsed vs. expand. It made an already huge list twice as long, and collapsing them was just an attempt at making the list more compact. However, that is a moot issue now since the other lists have now been incorporated into the one anyway.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Artist4Echo--now that there's just the one chart, and it's located further down in its own section rather than in-between the lists, I have no objections whatsoever to it remaining expanded, in its current state. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on the Fettingite/Draves sequence of events

I have some confusion on the Fettingite/Draves sequence of events, and have started a thread at Template talk:LDS sects/Granville Hedrick. Since those who work on this list probably have a good understanding of the events, your input would be appreciated.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Split off / Continuation of links

Isn't it SOP to link only the first occurrence of an item to be wikilinked? I have never liked the fact that all. the "Split off / Continuation of" items are wikilinked even when they are the same all the way down the list. Since the "Church name" for the "Split off / Continuation of" is always above the listed sect, shouldn't all the "Split off / Continuation of" be non-wiklinked? I hate to make such a significant change without some input on this first.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)