Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:57, 11 July 2007 editDaniel3 (talk \| contribs)459 edits →Will you assist in passing a Good Article review?← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 01:23, 19 November 2024 edit undoZ1720 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators29,344 edits →Good article reassessment for Martha Hughes Cannon: new sectionTag: New topic
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{talk header\|wp=yes}}
	{\|
			{{Christianity-related talkpages}}
	\| valign="top" \| __TOC__
			{{WPBS\|1=
	\| width="66%" \|
			{{WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement}}
	==Archives==
			{{WikiProject Christianity}}
	] - includes sections "Proposal to Change Name", "Missing Links", "Timeline?" "First 'real' order of business", "Non-LDS", "William Marks", "List of articles about Mormonism", "Latter Day Saint texts", "Stale?", "Images", "RSS", and "Excessive external links being seen as spam". Archived January 7, 2005.
			{{Daily pageviews}}

			}}
	] - includes sections "Consistency in referencing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (although far from being a dead issue), "Hi this project doesn't have anyone working on it.", "New article", "XENU", "Latter Day Saint", "FLDS temple in Texas", "History of the Latter Day Saint movement", "User:John Hamer and Golden Plates", "Person surnames vs. given names in articles", and "Comments within articles". Archived February 4, 2005.
			{{todo}}

			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	] - includes sections "Define Terms" "January 28, 2005 anon Temple edits", "Page move", "Front page miscs", and "Collaboration of the...". Archived on April 29, 2005.
			\| algo = old(180d)

			\| archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive %(counter)d
	] - includes sections "Church Units" "Cool Project/Good Group", "Participant responsibilities", "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?", "Naming and referencing, revisited", "proposal to merge Creator god into creationism", "Project Box", "Organization", and "Housekeeping". Archived on April 29, 2005.
			\| counter = 13

			\| maxarchivesize = 150K
	] - includes sections "Joseph Smith, Jr. Article, Anti-Mormonism", "Project Organization", "Salamander Letter", "Featured article candidates", "Timeline?", "Sister Hinckley's Article Deleted", "Use of "Mormon fundamentalist"", ""The Church" vs "The LDS Church" or "the church"", "128.252.144.88 is mischievious", "Make an Alert Page?", "Polls", "Mormons aren't Christian?", "Fortnight Article", "Proposal to rename pages", "J. Reuben Clark", "List of Members of ...", "Newel or Newell?", "J. Willard Marriott", "Dispensation", "LDS Relief Society Presidents", "Tone of discussion with Anti-Mormons", "Word of Wisdom", "Joseph Smith as featured article", "Be aware", "Book of Mormon proper names: Hebrew and Arabic versions in the introduction?", "LDS section in Missionary article is very long", "Rename title "Polygamous clans of Utah"->"Polygamous Mormon fundamentalist sects"?", "Hornets nest at Church of Jesus Christ in Zion", "Nauvoo question", "Stephen L Richards or Stephen L. Richards"
			\| archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}

	] - includes sections “Merge Book of Mormon People;” “FYI;” “Also;” “Caretakers of the plates;” “LDS WikiPortal?;” “Signature Book links;” “Non-Christian;” “Smith Family;” “Angel Moroni copyright question;” “Book of Mormon Index use for disambiguation;” “Book of Mormon disclaimer;” “Hi, everybody;” “Mormonism and Christianity;” “Article ratings;” “History of the Americas / Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact;” “Spanish Misplaced Pages;” “United Order/Isaac Morley;” “LDS Church Membership history;” “Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. to be featured on Main Page;” “Sign-up;” “Fiery Furnace;” “Faith-promoting history (LDS);” “Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints;” “Mountain Meadows Massacre;” “Welcoming new participants / handling anonymous and well-intentioned but oblivious editors;” “Welcome to Misplaced Pages;” “Copyediting / Links;” “Confusion about the project;” “LDS Temples Pictures;” “When I'm done with a task...;” “Mormonism for new readers;” “Other Misplaced Pages languages;” “Template:LDS;” “Calling all mystics!;” “Request for Assistance on Joseph Smith article;” “Restructure of article relationships;” “New talk page template;” “Re: { {LDS} } Info Box;” “Calling all editors...;” “Attention: Categories up for deletion or movement;” “External Links on Temple Pages;” “Project page cleanup;” “Joseph Smith, Jr.;” “Book of Mormon character naming convention;” “Polaris;” “RUXLDS;” “Links to http://scriptures.lds.org;” “Atonement article review;” “Bible study;” “AfD”
	\|}

	== Infobox Standard?==
	I was wondering if this wikiproject has a standard infobox for temples. I've looked at some of them and stuff like "cafeteria, floor area, location, phone number," etc., it is just irrelevant and should either be worked into the article or taken off of the infobox.-]] 04:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

	== Baby Blessing ==
	I have created the article requested on ]. Please read, edit, feast, enjoy, rip apart, check for NPOV, change, or otherwise change or dismember the article to make it better. I make no claim to its perfection and welcome any input. Thanks. --] 22:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	:The main problem I see is that ]. The may contain some sources we can use though. --] 21:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

	== New lds theology article ==

	There has been some discussion of where to put ]. I was thinking that a theology article would be a good place to start as their are quite a few articles to draw from ] and a good summarization of this material would be good, and articles like Animals could then be broken off into minor theology articles, or individually as needed. Thoughts?? --<font color="#06C">]</font> 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	is on the main page, and I didn't see anybody I know in the history, so I thought I'd post it here just to make you all aware of it. :) ]]] (] / ]) 02:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Key articles for Misplaced Pages 1.0 ==

	Hello! We at the ] for ] would like you to identify the "]" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their ], regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be ] and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the ] any articles of ]. If you are interested in developing a ] such as ] for your WikiProject, or having a ] like ] automatically for you, please ]. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! ] 04:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Woo-hoo! The Mormons get in version 1.0! That table is currently empty. I nominate ], '']'', the ], ] and ] (initially) as articles for it—just for starters. Anyone else? — ] \| ] 14:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

	:] should be there also since it is a featured article. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
	{{LDS}}

	::I say that ] (and all of its subarticles about Joseph Smith), ], all of the denominations listed on that page, ], ], ], and everything in the LDS template. Are we limited based on number of articles or space occupied? ] 01:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Who added the table to the right? How about ''all'' the articles in the table for ]? — ] \| ] 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

	::Thanks a lot! I shall put these into the table when I get a chance. I suggest listing the articles specifically mentioned in the above postings as "Top-importance" and others found in the template on the right go in as "High importance." Does all that sound OK? Is the early life featured article one of the top importance ones, or just high importance (i.e. ignoring the article quality aspect altogether)? Thanks, ] 20:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

	==Endowment==

	I added some proposed content to ]. I would appreciate knowing if any of it might be acceptable. Thanks. ] 00:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

	p.s. I have personally invited ] and ] to offer their support if they happen to see anything worthwhile in my proposal. I invited them personally because I understand they are not affiliated with the LDS Church, and I have a feeling I may need a little support. I sincerely hope in the spirit of my user name that there is something useful in my proposal, and that my motivation is in reality and perception 100% loving. And I beg standing Wikipedians please to not reject my proposal out of hand if at all possible. ] 00:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

	==Wives==
	Hi, is there any reason that there are 2 sentence stubs for all of Brigham Young's wives, see Category:Wives of Brigham Young. Misplaced Pages is not a genealogical database, these articles would be more easy to access and far more useful as a list (and they are all in his article anyway).--] 10:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

	== U.S. state article POV: Mormonism and Christianity ==

	How do we address POV problems in state articles which place a Mormon category outside of Christianity? For instance, ] has a section with percentage of Christians, and places Mormons in a separate section, "Other religions", even outside of the "Other Christianity" section already there. (They also had a link to ] labeled as Mormon.)

	The ] article avoids the issue by never using the word "Christian". We need to have some sort of standard about how to avoid POV problems in demographics sections, possibly by avoiding clumping things into a Christianity section, and instead simply state church names and percentages.

	Any thoughts? --] 17:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

	:I don't have any problem with the PA article. I revised the AZ page to include Mormon under Christian. Somebody can check later and see what happens to that edit. ;^) ] 17:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

	::Actually, I double checked the AZ article, and the percentage of Mormons ''was'' included in the Christianity totals, but the Mormon entry was under "Other religions". Perhaps someone recently vandalized this page, which would explain the link to freemasonry. --] 17:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

	:::You are correct. An anon moved Mormonism from Christianity to Other and changed it to freemasonry. The same person (or IP address, at least) vandalized Newspeak as well, which I fixed. ] 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

	== HELP: Major merger proposal ==

	Without commenting on the merits of the proposed merge - I just wanted to notify project members that a proposal to merge a number of articles has been made.

	This shows a complete misunderstanding of a movement versus a denomination - I would summarily delete them all as being impossible to pass under ], but last time I did that I got bit.

	The articles in question:
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]

	I am sure there will soon be others since the user stated: "there are nine (9) pages on Momonism as of today (maybe more are hiding)"

	What is the best way to put a stop to this nonsense? --<font color="#06C">]</font> 16:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

	:Not realizing it was a mass effort, I simply deleted the merge proposal from ] since there was nothing on the talk page discussing the merge. The merge request isn't there since I removed it, so maybe it will blow away.

	:Not sure what would be the official way to diffuse the effort, but it seems pretty silly to me. A single article would be entirely too big and not much use. I guess I should check to see if they are also trying to merge all the ] articles into one. ;^) ] 16:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


	::Checking the ] for the new user, I would assume that it is a misunderstanding, and we can simply remove the merge requests. If they get re-inserted, then we should look into how to resolve the issue. ] 18:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
	::: thanks ] --<font color="#06C">]</font> 19:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

	== Categories to rename ==

	] and ] need to be renamed to have a capital "The", and pages using those categories also need to be fixed, if anyone is willing to do this. --] 18:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I put these up at ]. --] 21:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

	== New format for list of temples ==

	] recently underwent a review for Featured List status. The former "Status" column was seen as redundant since the chronological organization structure makes clear what the status of each temple is. The addition of the Notes column to hold information about currently closed temples or temples under construction is blank for most of the temples. Thus, there are ] for organizing the list to eliminate this mostly blank column.

	Please ]. Thx in adv --<font color="#06C">]</font> 14:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

	== Temple Square ==

	I have submitted ] for the ], but even if it doesn't pass, I wonder if anyone is knowledgeable/bored enough to help me expand this article? I would also like to expand the articles about the buildings in and around Temple Square, such as the ], ], ], ], etc. but I am unfamiliar with much of the history of these. The Salt Lake Temple is the most famous temple and has become a symbol of the LDS Church, so it should be a high priority article.

	Currently all of these articles are unreferenced, so we'll need to find references we can use. --] 01:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

	== LDS Temples WikiProject ==

	If there is interest in such a thing, I would like to start a WikiProject specifically for temples, which aims to improve and maintain these articles: ]. Is this worth creating? --] 01:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
	:I would think so. ] 01:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
	I've been thinking about this since the query was posted, my first thought was - we can hardly get people (myself included) to participate regularly in the ], we don't really need a another project and its overhead.

	However, reviewing the subprojects of other projects, I could see this as being useful. And provide a place for documenting how the articles relate to each other, and how the templates work, etc. Thus I would support such a project. I would like, however, to get the ] up to featured status first. Then I'd be happy to help provide documentation, etc. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 01:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

	:I'll hold off on creating it until you (and others) have more time to help out. I haven't started a project page or anything yet, so I'll start thinking of how it should look. It would also be a good idea to wait until that list is featured, so we start off with an article we can point to as an example. --] 02:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

	I struggle with how it will be percieved politically on wikipedia - especially with the lapse of effort in the current project. I'd rather see this project focus on that subject for a time to bring it up to good or featured status - then focus the next topic, whatever it be, but create a portal-like categorical structure for temples would be more beneficial, imho. We tried and were partially successful with the "series on Joseph Smith" infobox and related articles, but I think that a similar grouping for temples would be great rather than a wikiproject. hope this makes sense. Just my thoughts... -] 16:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

	Similar grouping or portal-type series could include the follownig:
	*Series on Mormon Temples
	*Series on Joseph Smith
	*Series on The Book of Mormon
	*Series on Mormonism controversies (exmormon, anti-mormon, mormonism and christianity, etc.)
	*Series on Mormon doctrines
	*Series on Latter Day Saint history
	*Series on Mormonims and Pop culture (including exmormons, etc in pop culture)
	*Series on Latter Day Saint leaders
	*Series on Latter Day Saint denominations

	Thoughts about these groupings as series? -] 16:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

	== Mormon pioneers featured for Pioneer Day 2007 ==

	I brought this up at ], but I'll alert this project as a whole: We (mostly ]) managed to get ] ] in time for the 150th anniversary this October. Let's see if we can pull that off again with the ] article, aiming to have it on Misplaced Pages's front page for ] (July 24) 2007, which will be the 160th anniversary of the pioneers' entry into the Salt Lake Valley. Since it takes awhile for an article to be ], I'm guessing we should aim to have this featured a few months before July.

	I have nominated this for the ], if you are able to help out with this, add your comments or votes there. Hopefully it isn't inappropriate to mention the vote here, if it is I will remove this. --] 00:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

	==Mormonism and Judaism==
	Hello all. Take a look at ] and my proposed split, see also ]. ] 18:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

	== ] revisions and future directions ==

	] has been making several changes to the general template about the LDS movment. While I think these are being done in good faith, I think it is wise to begin a discussion about what real limits ought to be place into this general template and perhaps some new directions as well.

	Certainly the catagory system of Misplaced Pages works out well to do some searches, but it is also reasonable to use a template as a sort of quick navigation link for related topics as well, as it only takes one click to move to related articls as opposed to two clicks going through category pages. As has been ], the template was getting overloaded simply due to the very large number of LDS-related articles in Misplaced Pages now and it needed to be cleaned up. My main objection was that the cleanup happened without discussion, so I'm starting the thread here.

	I would also like to propose themed templates that would cover a much more narrow focus that could be included or substituted for the general LDS navigation template. This could be something like ], ], ], etc. Perhaps these more narrow focused topics could also be integrated into the more general LDS template but with some sub-section that would change based on the general category, with the more specific topical areas changing based on general categorization of the article.

	Certainly this is something that needs some wider participation than a discussion on an obscure template talk page. --] 18:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

	==Book of Mormon Pictures==
	I´m not a official member of this project but I need your help.I created the ] and I need some pictures of Book of Mormon storys. For example some paintings of ]. ] 20:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

	:Friberg's paintings have to be used under ] copyright rules, and I'm not sure you could easily do that in the portal. It's possible, but you have to know what you are doing, and be familiar with U.S. copyright law. Roughly, you'd want to use it for commentary on the painting itself, rather than as an illustration of the painting's content. <span style="font-size: 50%">(No legal advice intended.)</span> ] 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

	Can someone ask ] if he wants to licence his '''Book of Mormon''' pictures for wikipedia?] 21:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

	:I would put the liklyhood of this to practically nothing. The Friberg pictures have been (and are still) commercially reproduced and an attempt to provide a GFDL-compatable version would be contrary to the business interests that are involved.
	:On the other hand, there is a book about the Book of Mormon with a 1925 (approximately) copyright date that has some interesting pictures of Book of Mormon events that my wife's grandmother has. I've been trying to steal (or beg, borrow, grovel) to get access to that book where the images are very likely in the public domain due to copyright expiration. Either that or try and get some Wikipedian to help out and donate some original artwork about this subject.
	:The Friberg pictures, for good or ill, are what most current LDS think about Book of Mormon events, however. They would be difficult to replace, particularly as the LDS Church seems to have adopted those pictures as the "official portraits" of several people mentioned in the Book of Mormon, giving these images iconic qualities. --] 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

	::Any idea what the title of that book is? ] 20:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

	The most important picture is a '''Christ visits the Americas''' picture.We need a picture which shows Jesus in the Americas. This are the most powerfull images of the '''Book of Mormon'''.] 15:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

	== External links in temple articles ==

	Is it a good idea to have the exact same links (lds.org, Mormon.org, and a few about temples in general) on every temple article? That just seems like spam to me, and these links would be more appropriate at ] or ]. Of course links that contain information about the specific temple in the article are completely appropriate, but this is ridiculous.

	Perhaps we should collect a list of these links and request a bot to remove them. Comments? --] 05:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	:I checked out a few articles and I see what you mean. I agree with your assessment, but I don't think that we need a bot to remove the extraneous links. But I think that we should have at least one more person agree before we go and do it. ] 16:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	] has been ]. Anyone care to weigh in on this? One of the reasons given for the AfD is that the article is "mormoncruft". -- ] 03:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

	== religioustolerance dot org ==

	I came across to this organization, ]. The site has a ton of ads but on the other hand, it has content (and a Misplaced Pages article).

	Normally, such an ad-intensive site with so many links gets attention at ] for further investigation. Even if it's not spam, many links may often get deleted as not meeting the ] guideline. I've left a ] at ] asking others to look at some of these and see what they think.

	Even some non-profit organizations will add dozens of links to Misplaced Pages since links in Misplaced Pages are heavily weighted in Google's page ranking systems. (If interested, see the article on ] for more on this).

	You can see all the links by going to this page. I encourage you to look at Misplaced Pages's ] guideline then look at the links in the articles you normally watch. Also, if you don't mind, please also weigh in at ] with your opinions. If you see links to pages that you don't think add additional value beyond the content already in an article, feel free to delete them, but please don't go mindlessly deleting dozens of links. (Per ], links that don't add additional value should be deleted but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "spam").

	Thanks for your help and for providing some second opinions. --] 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

	== Category:Anti-Mormonism & subcategories ==

	I recently created the ], and in an effort to clean up and more clearly define the category, less that 24 hours ago I created the following subcategories:
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	At that time I also modified a number of the articles that had previously been under Category:Anti-Mormonism so that they were under one of those sub-categories. While I think that there is most definitely lots of room to debate if a particular entry really falls under this category or one of the subcategories, I think the categories themselves have a solid basis for their existence. However, at this time, there is a ]. If this category has been already nominated this quickly, I though that it made sense to ask the participants of this WikiProject for their thoughts on all of these Categories. Do you think that the categories themselves should exist as is, should be modified, &/or deleted? Are the entries in each category appropriate? Are there any articles missing in the categories? -- ] 15:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

	:After looking at this further it appears that the CfD nominator ({{User\|Dev920}}) may disagreed with my inclusion of ] (of which the user is a frequent editor) into the "Category:Material related to anti-Mormonism", and instead of removing the category from the article, they are question the value of the category itself. After considering this, I removed the category from that article; just because the film deals with the controversial topic of homosexuality and Mormonism doesn't necessarily mean it is anti-Mormon. Am I off base on this? The film is still included in ] where it is a solid fit, and "Category:Material related to anti-Mormonism" has a see also to that category. -- ] 16:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

	::Please also see the discussion on at ] -- ] 17:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

	Fish, I am confused about the subcat. Material related to Anti-Mormonism. That seems like a catch all type of category. What are examples of articles to which this category would apply? Places related to Anti-Mormonism; would this category apply to the early history of the church or does it apply across time? For example, Hannegraff's group is in Petaluma, CA (I think); would the whole city be labeled with this? This may also be a category that may not be appropriate. If it is really for historical sites, then dropping the term Anti-Mormonism would seem a better approach. The Law and People categories would be very helpful. ] ] 18:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

	If I had felt that the category was OK, just that its addition to ] was wrong, I would have simply removed it. However, I nominated because I felt it was subjective, too broad, and POV. And as it turns out, the guys at CfD agree with me, so I would not leap to the conclusion that I'm being vindictive over a pet article, Fish. ] (]) 21:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

	:If I made any unfounded assumptions, I'm sorry. You are also making assumptions that I thought that somehow changing the article would make the CfD go away, and that was not my intent. The CfD made me rethink what was in the categories, and I realized I made a mistake with that article (and probably others too), and so I fixed the mistake I could identify and consulted with a wider audience of more experienced editors with an interest in the subject. You certainly are entitled to your opinion that the category doesn't belong, & I'd be happy to discuss this further. However using language like "Mr Utah now appears to be trying to cover his back" and describing the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement as a "WikiProject full of biased editors" doesn't help with having a discussion. I though I had been above board, honest, and open about what I was doing; any mistakes that I made are my own, and not a responsibility of anyone else. -- ] 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
	::A WikiProject on religion is always full of biased editors - it's a sad, but true, fact. I don't really want to have a discussion about the CfD: I nominated it, and now I don't really care what happens to it. Don't give up on Mormon articles because of this experience, just be a bit more careful next time about your actions. Read up on ] and I'm sure you'll get along fine. ] 23:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

	Fish, I saw you removed your name from the LDS community group; that is unfortunate. It is true that article topics founded in relgion are quarrelsome; LDS/Mormon related articles are particularly so. However, to be successful you can not take things personally. I know that we have a gadflys (read obnoxious anti-Mormons with no objective in producing excellent articles, but only in grinding down their pathetic little axes), if I had my way editors of that ilk would be allowed to work with a coach for a period of time and then their case reviewed. If they continued in their POV editorializing, they would then be banned forever. They serve no purpose and produce nothing positive. It is one of the significant downfalls of producing a public encyclopedia; one must just accept it comes with the territory. Take a breather, reconsider your decision and then come back. I hope you will find the wisdom in doing so. Peace. ] ] 04:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

	I've proposed renaming ] as ]. The laws shown in the category are all ones that deal with Mormonism, rather than Anti-Mormonism, and I think it would be more neutral to avoid the "Anti-" label. You can comment on the proposal here: ]. -- ] 07:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

	== Standards for Temple Data ==

	I setup a page to outline the standards for the data going into the temple here:
	]

	* This will allow the data to be in one location and make it easier to keep it up-to-date.
	* A new template will need to be created, templates will need to be moved
	Please comment on the standardization ], and please edit the proposed standars where appropriate. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 00:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

	;Notice
	The standards that are at ] have been implemented for the first 10 temples and the new templates are used on the other list pages ] and ].

	The are also used for the Infoboxes on the individual article pages for the first 10 temples (see ] for example). Please register any bugs/concerns on ]. Thank you --<font color="#06C">]</font> 06:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at ], and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. ] 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

	== Nauvoo temple as symbol for Latter Day Saint movement ==
	Why was the Nauvoo temple picture chosen? I would think that an image of the First Vision (like the Joseph Smith first vision stained glass.jpg on the mormonism page) would be more appropriate.

	I realize that Joseph Smith was martyred during the Nauvoo era, leading to the major schisms in the Latter Day Saint movement, but some groups split off long before then, and other groups that didn't organize until later believe that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet by the time of the Nauvoo era, accepting earlier revelations but rejecting his later teachings such as plural marriage, nature of God, etc. that came during the Nauvoo era.
	] 01:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

	== Misplaced Pages Day Awards ==

	Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of ] proposal for an appreciation week to end on Misplaced Pages Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at ] where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. ] 18:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	== Can I upload this pictures? ==
	I found great pictures at http://www.lds.org/hf/art/0,16812,4218-1-3,00.html
	Can I upload this pictures to wikipedia without copyright problems? I do not know. So please help me.] 16:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	: See my detailed response ]. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 22:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. ] 22:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

	== ] nominated for ] ==

	I recently found that our article on ] is the first page that appears when anyone does a Google search of the subject. It is currently, regrettably, only at GA status. On that basis, I would request any individuals who might be interested in helping to bring this article up to FA status to indicate their support for the article being chosen as the AID article at ]. Thank you for your attention. ] 18:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	] is lacking source information. If it does not have the appropriate information within 7 days, it will be deleted. I assume that the licensing information is correct (PD), but without a source, we can't be sure. If anyone can research this image to prevent it from being deleted... go right ahead :). ~]]] 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

	==]==
	This is the current collaboration of the month. I would like to add the non-commercial ], ] to the '''external Links''' section.I think to upload this movie on http://video.google.com/ would not be a problem because LDS movies like are also on http://video.google.com/ .But I can not upload this movie because I do not have it and I´m from Europe and I´m not a mormon. So please, is there someone out there who can upload this movie on http://video.google.com/ and share it with us?] 17:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

	==]==
	I asked for help on ], but I didn't know about the RfC and the signs that he's busy in real life. Could anyone take a look at this (details on Trödel's talk page)? Help would be appreciated. -- ] 03:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

	:Did some reorganizing and minor editing, and established headings, on this article. But, even though I am aware of this Mormon pioneer, the article needs lots of work. It may be a family project, as the primary author is using a Gardner name. I suspect some copyright issues as well. I would encourage other editors, familiar with the pioneer period, to take a look. Perhaps we should contact the primary editor about the LDS project and guidelines? Best to all. ] 07:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	Since Milogardner and myself can't seem to communicate effectively regarding ] I posted a directing people to ] for further comments. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 17:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

	== Wikiproject userbox ==

	I say we create a userbox which says something like ''This user is member of wiki-project Latter Day Saint Movement''. Anybody agree? --] <small>('']'')</small><small>('']'')</small> 18:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
	:I do! --] 15:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

	Well, here is the userbox:

	{{Userbox
	\|border-c = #000
	\|border-s = 1
	\|id-c =
	\|id-s = 20
	\|id-fc = Black
	\|info-c = white
	\|info-s = 8
	\|info-fc = black
	\|id = ]
	\|info = This user is a member of the ].
	}}		}}

			== Christians prior to Christ ==
	<font color="purple">♠</font>] <small>('']'')</small><small>('']'')</small><small>('']'')</small> 03:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


	</br>
	I altered this userbox slightly (changed the picture to match the one of Joseph Smith used for the project template) and created a template for it. To add yourself as a member of this WikiProject and include this userbox in your profile, please use {{tl\|User WPLDSmov}}. I hope you like it. ] 21:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Thanks for the transclusion! Yes, looks good. <font color="purple">♠</font>]]]] 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

	== Praise ==

	The LDS portion of "]" need some serious attention. It looks like it's just someones personal opinions, mixed with scripture passages and very un-LDS like vocabulary; the bibilical passages in the "LDS" paragraph aren't even KJV. -- ] 03:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

	:I removed the entire section. I have no idea where the original editor got some of those ideas, and I agree they probably weren't LDS. IMHO, the LDS treatment of Praise isn't much different than any other Christian religion. Of course, anyone can go back and add something more meaningful if they don't agree with me. ;^) ] 04:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

	== Garden of Eden ==

	] needs some help. It seems to have more faith promoting speculativism & personal interpretation than actual documented teachings from published sources. -- ] 04:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

	== LDS 'Saints' ==

	I have read elsewhere that the city ] is named in honor of ]. Assuming that this is true, then there is presumably some sort of at least irregular canonization process in the LDS churches. Are there any other instances in which Mormons have been similarly officially given the title "Saint"? ] 19:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

	There are two theories as to how St. George got it's name, one being from a man named Philip St. George Cooke and the other being George Albert Smith, who became known as "The Potato Saint." ] does not have anything similar to the canonization process used in Catholic and Protestant churches where a person is canonized and given the title of "Saint." The term "Saint" in the LDS Church (and other Latter Day Saint movements as well) is more of a generic term for a follower of Christ, not a canonized or exalted person. --] 21:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

	:::The city ] is named in honor of George A. Smith (Was confused with George Albert Smith, which is not the same person). submitted in material above by anon 76.23.6.23 09:22, 6 June 2007

	::OK, so the statement I read is not universally accepted, which is good to know. Just for clarification, however, does the church employ any other terminology for the same purpose? I realize the answer is probably "no," but want to make sure. I may soon try to rename some of the non-Christian "saints" categories so that they use the term actually used by the specific religion (avatar, tzaddik, wali, etc.), and would probably want to make sure that any such Mormon grouping would use the correct name as well. Thanks again for the information. ] 15:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

	:::You are correct in assuming there is no terminiology nor process in ] comparable to the use of "Saint" in Catholic or Protestant traditions. If any title is used in reference to past church leaders (like ] or ]), the title they held while alive is sometimes used, like ''President'' Brigham Young or Joseph Smith ''the prophet'' for example. While great members of the Church are revered, remembered, and respected, there is no canonization or elevation to sainthood process in the Mormon tradition like you would find in a Catholic or Protestant church, nor a posthumous title given. Hope this helps and best of luck! --] 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

	:Boy this misses the mark widely. The term "saint" in the LDS tradition refers to a baptized member of the religion, after which you are called a "saint". Even now, when talking about the body of the church as a whole, it is very common to talk about the "saints". It is part of the very name of the church, and the "S" in LDS. I've seen this terminology also used by more than one group in the LDS movement as well... although talking about their own unique brand of Mormonism as being the "true" body of "saints".

	:If there is an equivalent in LDS theology of what is known as "sainthood" with Catholicism, it would be considered a ]. This is a very obscure ordinance, but is also not part of the reference to St. George. Many practicing members of the LDS Church have not even heard about this ceremony.

	:As far as "urban ledgends" within Utah are concerned about the naming of St. George, Utah, it was done as a sort of parody on the concept that other cities in the USA had names that started with "Saint" like St. Louis, St. Paul, St. Augustine, and others. ], the grandfather of ] and the LDS apostle who served in authority over southern Utah during the initial settlements of the region was honored by having the city named after him. It seemed silly to have a city simply named "George" or "Smith" so they decided to give the city a more dignified name of "St. George", since he certainly was a "saint" by LDS standards. The term "saint" here had no other significant distinction, and was not an honorific. I can try to find some better references if this is an issue to settle an edit war. --] 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

	::Just to clarify, which statement are you saying "missed the mark badly"? The Second Anointing or Calling and Election is a process Latter-day Saints believe is chosen by God through revelation, not by a vote of cardinals or lay members, like in elevating a person to sainthood in the Catholic Church. While it would be considered an equal level, Latter-day Saints do not refer to people who have supposedly gone through this ceremony by a different name or title, nor is it something that is done posthumously, both of which are true about sainthood in the Catholic church. Also, those that have had this "second endowment" are VERY few and far in between, hence the lack of information and knowledge of it at all. As you said, most members aren't even aware of it. As far as St. George is concerned your reasoning sounds right, although the info I supplied on the origin of its name is from the city of St. George's own website. I've always considered it a parody on "saint" more than anything. On a side note, ] was named after ], who was the leader of the Strangite movement (he named it after himself). I would imagine his use of "saint" was not meant to be a parody.=) --] 03:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

	== Latter Day Saint movement ==

	In recent edits to ], {{User\|Jukilum}} appears to be intentionally injecting a Latter-day Saint centric POV into the article, so that the article now reads that ] is unequivocally the successor/continuation of the Church of Christ. I tried reverting this, but this user consequently undid the revert and additionally converted the lists of denominations into tables that also display POV issues. -- ] 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	The article, ], is truly a non-encyclopedic article. If someone would like to salvage something out of it for another article in this project, please let me know. If not I will Afd it in a few days. As it appears to be ] and has no references I was tempted to Speedy it but I have no familiarity with the topic and there may be something useful in it. I don't think merge or redirect would work here. Thnx --] 03:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

	:About the only thing useful there that I can see is some of the material about the ], which could be moved to that article. -- ] 03:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	==Auxiliary Organizations==
	Unless I'm mistaken, we do not yet have articles on LDS Sunday School and LDS Young Men/Young Women organizations and functions. Both have a long history! Should we create these articles independently or develop a generic LDS Auxiliary article with summaries of all auxiliaries? ] 22:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Someone might want to look at this "interesting" article. -- ] 19:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

	:Title and Value of the article: Rotten title for this article (see ]) as it is constitued -- and the information is questionable at best. Opinions on the article's value and changes needed? ] 03:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

	:If no one objects, I plan to nominate it for deletion. Seems to be original research under a mocking title that doesn't actually refer to any heretofore known scholarship. Article therefore fails WP:OR and WP:N. ] '']'' 05:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

	::It is worse than ], it is highly POV. I support a speedy delete if possible. --] ] 20:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::Ok, the prod should be fine. What I'm getting at is that POV is not normally a criteria for deletion (stock reply is to fix the page). The content is POV, but even if it weren't, it would need to be deleted because it's OR and an invented concept. ] '']'' 22:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::Cool, would you take a shot at correcting the reasons or should I? --] ] 23:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::Too late, I went in and deleted the NPOV violation. Thank you for pointing that out. Anything else I should do? --] ] 23:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::::Nope, we just wait. Assuming no one finds reliable sources to back up the existence and notability of this subject, we delete it in less than a week. I don't think such sources exist, so it's just a formality, but it's one we have to go through when an article doesn't neatly qualify for a speedy. ] '']'' 23:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

	Prod was removed by an anon, so I just ]. ] '']'' 01:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

	== Category:Bigamists ==

	In the recent past there have been several ]'s for "polygamists" categories (], ], ], ]) which removed them all, and also a ] on ]. The consensus for leaving ''Category:Bigamists'' revolved around categorizing "convicted criminals" instead of pointing out polygamists.

	I'd like to point out that a recent effort is being made to add into ''Category:Bigamists'' to a group of biographical articles (predominantly LDS related), which appears to have been done irrespective of criminal prosecution for bigamy of the subject of the article. This has the effect of recreating the deleted "polygamists" categories, and does not seem meet the criteria for inclusion in ''Category:Bigamists''.

	I made some suggestions to User:Dr. Submillimeter (the person who submitted the CfD on ''Category:Bigamists'') on ] but ] he seemed to indicate he did not feel that these suggestions would work long term. I'd like to solicit some suggestions from members of WP:LDS on what they feel might be done. Should the inclusion criteria mentioned on the top of the ''Category:Bigamists'' be modified to better explain what the category is meant for, and if so how? How should ''Category:Bigamists'' be cleaned up to only include the relevant articles? How likely is it that this cleanup process would be sustainable over time? -- ] 21:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

	:I have removed most of the names of those individuals that were not convicted of Bigamy. I would like to see the category deleted, but I suspect that because there are those who are convicted of bigamy exist it stays. First, we should explain the purpose of the category and second, it will take monitoring to ensure the category does not bleed into other areas. --] ] 03:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

	==Category:Mormonism-related controversies==
	Well, how about this emerging category?? LDS articles are being, in my opinion, quite casually placed here. It seems to me that such a category would generate a list of articles for potential edit disagreement. Quite polarizing. Is that its intent? What other purpose would such a category have? Opinions? ] 05:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

	:I could see the potential for such a category, but at present there is no definition / criteria and seems to be assigned to a wide range of articles, some of which are clearly controversial, but others where the controversy seems to be that others don't believe it. The category has been nominated for deletion, BTW. There is a discussion going on there. ] ] 12:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

	== ] & ] ==

	Anyone interested in weighing in (for or against) ] and ] CfD? It would seem that the issues on both may be intertwined. -- ] 23:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

	== Template and portal usage ==

	I noticed some additions yesterday which got me to wondering and so I made comment on the Template:LDS ]. I got an 'against' opinion that sounded reasonable. Then what I had wondered at happened today. Someone has added the portal to the Template:LDS. I know nothing pertaining to this, but Wikignomes know religious 'stuff' can be controversial, and so I'd like to get the discussion going before feelings.

	Is it a 'good' or 'bad' thing to have mention of the ] in the template? Please discuss over at the template talk page (link above)
	] 20:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

	== Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Sandbox ==

	What is ] for? Can this/should this be deleted at this time? -- ] 20:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

	== The Church of Jesus Christ ==

	In pointing out ] to another editor earlier today I noticed one thing that currently seems to be an issue. In that section the current wording is (bolding mine to highlight issue):
	:*Never use terms like "The Church" or <b>"The Church of Jesus Christ"</b> to refer to any specific church, in spite of the LDS Church's style guide recommending it. "The church" is acceptable when the word "church" is an uncapitalized common noun, but capitalized "Church" should only be used when it is part of a longer reference to a specific church.
	Currently the naming used on the article ] (as well as collateral references to that subject in other locations on Misplaced Pages such as on ]), seem to contradict this statement. Likewise the church list in ] remains silent on this denomination. Would a rewording/reworking of these guidelines be in order? -- ] 21:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
	:I'm raising this on those talk pages. The guidelines should be revised, as it is the ''official'' name of the Bickertonite church. ] 21:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

	==Usefull pictures for wikipedia==
	Look at http://www.hopeofzion.com/stuff/map.jpg
	and at http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/images/Basic_BOM_Plates_2.jpg
	] 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

	== Mormon Denomination Tree ==

	There has been some discussion on usage of the ] scattered throughout several pages. I decided to start the thread here to centeralize the discussion and any decisions resulting from it. (See ] for one such discussion). Based on other discussions, I am proposing that the usage of this tree be limited to the ] page and any other page that references the movement on a similarly high-level. (Perhaps like ], etc.) Putting it on ''every page'', particularly every different denomination's page, in my opinion just amounts to a bunch of clutter. It seems to be overused, and frankly I think the whole project would look better without this glaring at the reader at the bottom of every page, although it does have value on high-level pages discussing the entire movement. Thoughts? ] 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	:It is a great visual for the Latter Day Saint movement, but I agree that it is not needed on the denomination pages. We already have a Latter Day Saint movement Template. It has links to major things within the movement. This template should be on general sites within the movement, but specific denominations seems a very cluttered.] 23:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

	::I would also recommend that the colors be muted somewhat. I find the current version quit jarring. A more subtle color scheme might make the results look more professional. (I have always been color challenged, which is probably why I noticed it. ;^) ] ] 15:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::I'm with you on the colors as well. It should be cleaned up a little, included on relavent high-level LDS movement pages, and cleaned up from the other random ones that it pops up on. This will make the whole project appear much more professional and easy to follow. ] 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::I agree with both of you. It has good info but jumps at you pretty hard.] 21:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

	== An aside - New LDS.org links ==

	Does anyone else besides me think the Church's webmasters are complete idiots for using unfriendly and unnecessarily long URL's in the "new and improved" website design. I mean seriously - what were they thinking --<font color="#06C">]</font> 01:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

	:Lol. I have always thought that those employed to implement the LDS Church's forays into technology did funny things. I used to think it was a result of the difficulty of implementing technology changes in thousands of church units around the world, but now that I've seen how the lds websites have progressed (a prime example being the issue you cited), I'm starting to think there is a deeper problem there. Maybe the wages aren't great. -] 01:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

	::I had actually given them feedback on getting shorter links when the new site first appeared. Maybe if more people mention it they will change it?] 02:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::It's probably because the websites are run by 80-year-old volunteers who want to serve an easy mission. ] 08:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::I fell off my chair reading these comments; spot on critique. Surprisingly, the Church has recently begun to pay for top notch talent. Recently they have done some head hunting of senior managers at Microsoft and the individuals have felt comfortable that their pay was not going to be harmed by working for the Church; that would have been unheard of just a few years ago. Maybe things will improve in that area with the new talent.
	::::As a long-term investment manager I would never have thought of working for the Church simply because they did not pay even close to industry standards. Their old way of thinking is that working for the Church was supposed to be such a blessing that wages were should be a secondary issue. It may be a blessing, but pay for talent is still the best way to obtain the best talent for non ecclesiastical positions. --] ] 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::Is it perhaps that they are trying to make it difficult to deep-link? ] comes to mind... -- ] 05:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: Actually the church is encourages deep-linking - the ULM case was about linking to a copyright violation (regardless of whether it is a deep link or a front page). Which, btw, is also not within Misplaced Pages policy. I.e. wikipedia external links and references should '''not''' link to material that violates another's copyright. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 20:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::Hm—I suppose it could have been done on purpose—but why would they object to anyone deep-linking to anything found on lds.org? I think the church (IRI) owns the copyright to anything found there and if they don't want something linked to, wouldn't they just choose to not put it up in the first place? -] 05:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

	:If you want to ask someone at the top of the food-chain (IT wise), try asking Joel Dehlin (the CIO for the Church) on his personal (non-Church approved) blog at ldscio.org - his current blog article just happens to be about the . -- ] 19:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

	BTW, I wrote the church about this issue back in January.
	<blockquote>
	... I know that it is frowned upon by webdesigners for others to do what is called "Deep linking" into their website, but the church's website is the perfect example of why deep linking is useful and good web designers should plan for it:
	:It allows those who know how to use the site and are more computer literate to pass on direct information to those who aren't

	...Any design such as the current URL structure creates difficulties where emailed links don't work because they are too long. The current structure even suggest that links to a specific chapter could change from session to session.<br/>
	This, in my opinion, hurts ... real world usability because I can't tell someone who is having trouble to type
	http://www.lds.org/library and it will get them where they need to go. Or pass them a direct link to the chapter they are doing their lesson ...<br/>
	Additionally the failure to use the words of the topic in the URL like:<br/>
	http://beta.lds.org/protal/site/LDSOrg/library.Spencer_W_Kimball/Lesson_1/To_Live_with_Him_Someday.htm
	mean that search engines will not rank the page well when they type "Spencer Kimball lesson 1" ...(I know this can be overcome with metadata - but still easy URLs are better).<br/>

	Finally, I am worried that pre-existing deep links to specific chapters or pages of books will no longer work once the beta site is active.
	</blockquote>
	The response I received from the Director of the Internet and Project Coordination Division said:
	<blockquote>
	Thanks for submitted these great suggestions. We are making plans to do all the things you mention below. In a few months, our URLs will become shorter and more meaningful. We will also have shortcut subdomains like ensign.lds.org that you can use to send to friends. We are also addressing the search engine optimization suggestions you provided below to increase our visibility with search engines.<br/>
	Thanks for taking the time to submit the suggestions. You should see them all in place over the next few months.
	</blockquote>
	So there is some hope. Unfortunately, the beta site was implemented and the old URLs are beginning not to work, especially in the newsroom area which contained press releases etc that were often used as source material. However, after writing the note above I wrote a quick note asking when how long before the changes he mentioned would be implemented. Still no response :( +

	If you would like to add your email to mine, ] and I'll forward you his email address. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

	:I have a list of about 130 wikipedia pages were the links are bad going toward the LDS.org site. Before i post the list, is tehre a willingness to help clean up the wikipedia links from the group? or should we wait for "deep links?" Incidentally Trodel, I've asked a contact of mine at Church public affairs about deep linking. I'm sure i'll hear something soon, and perhaps faster than if you go through the typical channels. -] 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

	::I would be willing to help with link cleanup. If you post the list soon let me know. ] 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

	==Templates on LDS pages==
	] has been moving the LDS navigation template from the beginning of articles to the end. I prefered it at the top. Also, there is another navigation template at the bottom of each article, so they overlap. Rather than just change things back, I'd like to get a consensus: Do others have this same problem with the templates overlapping? Do others prefer the navigation box at the top? ] 18:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

	::They overlap on my browser and are hard to read. And, frankly, are just plain ugly. ] 20:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::a) Can you give some specific examples of the overlapping? That can be fixed easily. b) The template {{tl\|LDS}} was redirect to the Latter Day Saint movement template. A discussion of the changes has been occurring on the {{tl\|Latter Day Saint movement}} template's talk page. As a result of conflict and resolution, there are now two separate navigational templates - one for the movement, and one for articles about the LDS Church. {{tl\|LDS}} incorporates both templates at the same time and is used for articles that related to both this denomination and the movement. Navigational templates are more appropriately included at the bottom of the article, in or near the "See also" section, or at the very end. Infoboxes are not generally good substitutes for navigational templates, but rather as summaries of key facts about the article in question. Since almost all of the discussion is already there, I suggest continuing any dialog on ]. I am glad to see interest in this and hopefully more discussion will result in improvements.--] 16:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::Here is an example of where they overlap from the ] article:
	::::]
	::::The portal navigation pane has been changed since I first reported the problem, but you can still see the overlap. I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.10, which admittedly isn't the latest, but it isn't very old either. ] 02:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	:The overlap has been fixed and verified in Firefox. If anybody sees any other overlaps please fix or report them so I can fix them. --] 13:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

	I'm curious about what other people think of this template. I also think it is ugly, and I preferred the sidebar over the bottom navigation link. So much so that I would like to "fork" the older version of this template to another name and restore the sidebar in some of the articles that I'm actively working on. I understand that this is needless duplication of effort, but it is a change to the status quo and the current user who is actively making changes to this template is also engaging in a minor edit war to force this current format. --] 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
	:I also prefer the previous template. Where is this discussion taking place about the templates? ] 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
	::], previously ], is the page you are looking for. The current attitude is that since ] think this change is reasonable, there is a modest edit war (a couple of full reversions) over the future of this template. Other editors interested in this certainly should join in the discussion. --] 21:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	==]==
	Anyone have any info that could help the stub on C. Terry Warner, BYU professor? It is carrying a notability tag. ] 20:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

	:Sounds pretty random, why is his site notable at all?] 05:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

	== Archive remaining 2006 discussions? ==

	Is it time to archive the remaining discussions from 2006? I have not noticed any comments on those items for some time now. -- ] 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

			I was editing ] and the image is captioned with <blockquote>The Martyrdoms at Ammonihah (John Held Sr., 1888), depicting Alma 14:8, in which members of the city's Christian minority are "cast into the fire".</blockquote>.
	== New project proposal ==

			Given that Alma is prior to 3 Nephi and Alma 14:8 doesn't contain the work Christian, suggestion for a better caption? <blockquote>And they brought their wives and children together, and whosoever believed or had been taught to believe in the word of God they caused that they should be cast into the fire; and they also brought forth their records which contained the holy scriptures, and cast them into the fire also, that they might be burned and destroyed by fire</blockquote> ] (]) 15:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
	There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at ] that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. ] 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

			:I'm by far not the expert with this, but maybe instead of Christian, use "believers of the word of god" to keep it in context to what it says. Thanks! ] (]) 01:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
	== AfD Debate - ] ==
			::Hi; as a major contributor to the Ammonihah page, I'm happy to explain. Referring to figures in the Book of Mormon as "Christians" is following how reliable sources in religious studies interpret the story and setting of the Book of Mormon. For examples, see the following (bolding added):
			::* {{tq\|"pre-Christian '''Christians''', who "talk of Christ, ... reojice in Christ, ... prophesy of Christ" centuries before his coming (2 Nephi 25:26).}}
			::** Terryl Givens, ''By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion'' (Oxford University Press, 2002), 47.
			::** John Turner, ''The Mormon Jesus: A Biography'' (Harvard University Press, 2016), 29 cites Givens and also describes Book of Mormon figures as "pre-Christian Christians".
			::* {{tq\|In the New World, the migrants build a temple and follow the law of Moses much like the society they left in Palestine, but their religion is explicitly '''Christian'''.}}
			::**Richard Lyman Bushman, ''Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling'' (Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 85.
			::* {{tq\|the Book of Mormon asserts that long before the birth of Jesus there were '''Christians''', who were taught by prophets to believe in a redeemer who would one day come into the world}}
			::**Grant Hardy, ''Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide'' (Oxford University Press, 2010), 7.
			::* {{tq\|Within The Book of Mormon, '''Christianity''' takes root in the Americas not only before the arrival of Europeans but also, more radically, before the birth of Jesus. In moments of prolepsis similar to those appearances of Pauline language that predate Paul, the Nephites embrace the teachings of Jesus and assume the title of "Christians" in advance of the gospels.}} {{tq\|'''in the Book of Alma''', supposedly produced around 73 BCE, Moroni prays "that the cause of the '''Christians''', and the freedom of the land might be favored" (351). '''This is Christianity before Christ'''; the prophecies of The Book of Mormon, unlike those of the Hebrew Bible, are explicit in their designations of the Messiah to come.}}
			::**Elizabeth Fenton, , ''J19: The Journal of Nineteenth-century Americanists'' 1, no. 2 (Fall 2013) 339–361, here 354.
			::*{{tq\|Alma coming to preach his "new" belief in a '''Christian faith'''}}
			::**Kylie Nielson Turley, , ''Journal of Book of Mormon Studies'' 28 (2019): 1–45, here 26.
			::*{{tq\|the chief judge of Ammonihah makes it clear that the punishment given to the '''Christian converts''' was based on Alma's and Amulek's words}}
			::**Michael Austin, ''The Testimony of Two Nations: How the Book of Mormon Reads, and Rereads, the Bible'' (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 133.
			::To the extent that having a setting with a Christian religion and worshipers of Jesus before his advent is time-bending, that is, if anything, part of the Book of Mormon's structure, plot, and point. As literary critics Elizabeth Fenton and Jared Hickman summarize, the Book of Mormon narrative's {{tq\|temporality is never anything but extravagantly nonlinear}} (their introduction to ''Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon'' , 1–20, here 7). ] (] \| ] \| ]) 02:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
			:::Not exactly. These guys believed in Jesus, but knew him as Yehowah or Yaweh. Yes, I am LDS, no, don't get into an edit war with me about this. Misplaced Pages has seen to much of those. ] (]) 05:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
			::::In many respects, my case in point: to insist that Jesus-believing Nephites and Lamanites can't be Christians because that would be anachronistic is to advance not an academic, neutral assessment of the Book of Mormon's plot but an apologetic, historicist assessment of it. ] (] \| ] \| ]) 07:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I think you have it backwards, both the idea that the Nephites and Lamanites existed and that they were Christian are apologist positions. The neutral academic assessment is that the Nephites and Lamanites did not exist outside of the BoM. ] (]) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Characters don't have to exist in reality for scholars to identify them as being Christian in the story. To use another example, ]'s ] is, of course, entirely fictitious, and he is nevertheless a Christian character. ] (] \| ] \| ]) 06:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
			::::::: The IP is treating them as historical people, if you aren't I apologize. ] (]) 06:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
			:::::ok. I understand. ] (]) 18:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

			== Using the term "advent" for birth of Jesus in LDS articles ==
	I thought i'd bring this AfD to the attention of the project, as being raised LDS the basis and content of this article doesn't sound right to me. If you have some time to take a look at the article and make some positive contributions to ] it would no doubt be appreciated. ] ] 07:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

			I have been going through a lot of articles related to Mormonism and I am finding a peculiar turn of phrase "advent of Jesus" showing up a lot. It's a completely intelligible phrase, of course, and famously in many Christian liturgical calendars refers to a season prior to Christmas, but in the context of certain ''historical'' claims it reads pretty unusual and I believe it may be a Mormonism that has crept in to articles mentioning such things. Is this ''a thing'' in Mormon circles? Does anyone recognize what I'm talking about?
	== Mormon Teachings About Extraterrestrial Life ==

			I think we should avoid this phraseology and just refer to things like "birth of Jesus" or "life of Jesus of Nazareth" etc. as those seem to be more typical in non-Mormon literature and our own articles.
	A recently created article by {{User\|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey}} named ] might use some attention. It's basically a extensive series quotes, with very little encyclopedic explanation or context about the included statements. -- ] 02:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

			] (]) 11:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

			:Advent is more a Christian-ism than a Mormon-ism. The LDS Church doesn't institutionally observe the Advent season (it's possible some Mormons privately do so, on their own). If you see "advent of Jesus" on a Mormon studies article, I bet I added it to de-Mormon-ize the language (a more Mormon turn of phrase would be "coming of Jesus" or "birth of Jesus") and express "a temporal setting that would have been before there was a Jesus and before there historically speaking would have been the idea of a Jesus". ] (] \| ] \| ]) 15:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
	==Needed Articles==
			::"Birth of Jesus" is far preferable to "advent of Jesus". I don't think "advent" is really a thing in Mormonism, and we shouldn't be using Christian jargon like that anyway for a broad audience. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 02:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
	One of the needed articles, ] has been created. It was made by ]. ] 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
			::"Advent of Jesus" would be a pretty obscure usage in Christian literature as well. ''Maybe'' in liturgies, but that is certainly not a style choice we would typically adopt at Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

			== Book of Mormon as Literature ==
	== Source Quality ==

			At ], the main author has made an argument that topics related to the Book of Mormon are properly handled ''as literature'' since ] seem to be moving in that direction. I'm pretty sure this is not an okay approach, but before I get into that on this page, I want to know whether this is more widespread. Do y'all think that reliable sources force primarily a "literature" treatment onto articles about the Book of Mormon? Do the social/religious/cultural/historical/etc. treatments all have to play second fiddle because Mormon Studies people haven't gotten to that approach/don't want to look into such approaches? ] (]) 11:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
	Generally for most Misplaced Pages articles, you can simply shut up most fringe theories or psuedo science pushers, especially with major POV concerns, by simply asking them to show source for their point of view. The marginal theories about ], for instance that the universe is on the back of a giant turtle, will have poor sources compared to thinking by Einstein or Hawking. Or more to the point, it is very easy to evaluate sources and be able to suggest who is credible and what is simply an off the wall, perhaps even self-generated source.

			:Well, ], I guess. Here's the thing, friends, this approach also has an obvious proselytization angle as many Mormons are so enthralled by their holy book that they think it stands as great literature along side many other great works. I guess the thought is that even unbelievers will be amazed by its literary genius? Well, we know that most non-Mormon critics have consistently panned the work as something like bad Second Great Awakening fan fiction, but no matter. The Book of Mormon is ''important'' literature. It certainly ''can'' be read through a literary criticism lens, but to treat it ''primarily'' as literature in an encyclopedia setting is a profound subversion of ]. ] (]) 14:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
	I am strongly concerned about the quality of many of the Mormonism related articles (ok.... Latter Day Saint movement) with what I perceived is a huge problem with trying to evaluate what can be considered reliable sources and what are simply crazy kooks that have some wild theory about Joseph Smith howling at the moon goddess in his red pajamas. In other words something that is so far from a reliable source that you might as well consider it to be fiction, even though it seems to have a basis somehow in reality.

			::Hi. You wrote "we know that most non-Mormon critics have consistently panned the work as something like bad Second Great Awakening fan fiction". I do not believe that the perceived literary quality of a work determines if it is notable or worthy of literary criticism. I think we can agree that the Book of Mormon, including its narrative, is significant to American history, and more generally to the religious history of churches in the Latter Day Saint movement. In my work as a literary scholar, I have studied works not for their aesthetic qualities, but for their importance in history. That said, I believe that the Book of Mormon is worthy of study as a literary work in its own right. I believe that even if you (meaning any reader of Misplaced Pages) do not believe in a supernatural origin for the Book of Mormon, that its narrative and interpretation is still important. The interpretation of the Book of Mormon by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars is important enough to include on Misplaced Pages, and we can summarize reliable sources to show that. I know that my opinion is not sufficient to persuade you. We both believe that our way is consistent with Misplaced Pages's guidelines. What would be helpful here? I can provide multiple examples of non-Mormon scholars who use the "bracketing" approach to literary criticism of the Book of Mormon. But it feels like we cannot agree that this scholarship is legitimate. I could ask a Misplaced Pages acquaintance of mine (who is not LDS, has edited in book spaces, but I do not know IRL) for a third opinion. We could take Richard Bushman's work to the reliable sources noticeboard. We could ask at Wikiproject Christianity what they think we should do with BoM scholarship. We could go to the fringe theories noticeboard! I'm sure there are other options. What do you think would help us come to a consensus? ] (]) 15:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
	I have seen a huge number of POV fights also show up on several articles where you can pretty much document your entire POV and disprove the opposing POV through incredibly extensive bibliographies. I could name several articles here that would fall under this general umbrella, of having this problem, but it is an ongoing and persistent problem within nearly every article related to Joseph Smith, his religious teachings, and the religious movement that followed after him. Being a contemporary figure, or at least somebody with clear historical records in a country relatively free from foreign invasion, documentable and even contradictory records exist about the early events of the LDS movement. Even within "official" records, both government as well as church records.
			:::Studying works for the ''importance in history'' is, crucially, ''not'' the kind of literary analysis I was describing. It's a way to provide historical context, I would even call it "historical analysis". Would love more sources like that, so if that's what you would like to focus on we are actually in agreement. What I do not appreciate as a ''primary'' approach in our articles is leaning mostly on works that don't try to contextualize the story at all and instead explore it on its own terms textually. For example, sources that try to interpret the thoughts and feelings of the characters on the terms of the text or in the context of a person's connection to dogma. ] (]) 16:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::I am chiming in here. I think at '''' there is the suggestion that something like "Book of Mormon as Literature" be created as a separate article. And it could be any title deemed appropriate. In any case, the BoM seems to have developed a track record as worthy of literary criticism, at least since 2012.
			::::But, as .jps points out, contextualizing these BoM articles by immersing them into their relationship with 19th century culture, folk beliefs, surrounding circumstances and societal concerns matters for encyclopedic articles. I came across an article on JSTOR that discussed the oratory techniques that were widely used in the nineteenth century and maybe or probably employed by Joseph Smith. I didn't realize the value of this piece at the time. I didn't realize we Wikipediaes would be engaged in extensive discussions about the BoM and ancillary topics. I am trying to find that article again. In the meantime, here is the results of an arbitrary JSTOR search for "Historical accuracy Book of Mormon" . ---] (]) 18:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::Here what might be a couple of interesting scholarly views found in that set of articles:
			::::*Barlow, Philip L. “Joseph Smith’s Revision of the Bible: Fraudulent, Pathologic, or Prophetic?” The Harvard Theological Review, vol. 83, no. 1, 1990, pp. 45–64.
			::::*Duffy, John-Charles. “Just How ‘Scandalous’ Is the Golden Plates Story? Academic Discourse on the Origin of the Book of Mormon.” The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, vol. 26, 2006, pp. 142–65.
			::::Regards, ---] (]) 18:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
			:Hi. I'm the main contributor to the ] article as it currently exists. I'm a little surprised I wasn't pinged, since I was a participant in the conversation. I've disclosed a ].
			:Misplaced Pages summarizes a consensus that appears in secondary sources. If that's mostly literary, we mostly summarize literary analysis; if that's mostly reception history, we mostly summarize reception history; if that's mostly anthropological, we mostly summarize anthropology. It isn't for us to force an interpretation or perspective into an article if scholars haven't made that interpretation about the topic. To do so would be ].
			:For the convenience of others on this project talk page, I list a handful of sources from the last ten years that ground my sense that the literary approach to the Book of Mormon is a major one, listed chronologically:
			:* Laurie Maffly-Kipp, introduction to ''The Book of Mormon'', Penguin Classics (Penguin, 2008)
			:** Maffly-Kipp is the ], John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics' .
			:* Jared Hickman, , ''American Literature'' 86, no. 3 (Duke University, 2014): 429–461.
			:** Hickman is an .
			:* Laura T. Scales, , ''Literature Compass'' 13, no. 11 (John Wiley & Sons, November 2016): 735–743
			:** Scales is an .
			:* John Christopher Thomas, ''A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon: A Theological and Literary Introduction'' (CPT Press, 2016)
			:** Thomas is .
			:* Grant Shreve, , ''Religion & Politics'' (]'s John C. Danforth Center on Religion & Politics, May 23, 2017).
			:** Shreve received
			:* Elizabeth Fenton and Jared Hickman, eds., ''Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon'' (Oxford University Press, 2019).
			:** Hickman is described above; Fenton is a . The book is a collection of Americanist (academic term for American literary criticism) essays.
			:* Peter Coviello, ''Make Yourselves Gods: Mormons and the Unfinished Business of American Secularism'', Class 200 (University of Chicago Press, 2019)
			:** Coviello is a professor of English at the . Since this one isn't as apparent from the title, I'll point out that Coviello's book deploys his tools of literary criticism and includes interpretations of the Book of Mormon via such.
			:All this to say that dismissing out of hand literary criticism of the Book of Mormon seems short-sighted. What the right approach at a given Book of Mormon topic is a more specific question, probably better decided at each article. Different aspects of the Book of Mormon have received different kinds of treatment. There's less literary criticism of, say, Zarahemla as a setting in the Book of Mormon, and a lot more reception history about Mormons naming things after it and unsuccessfully trying to discover ruins. And there's less of that for Ammonihah, which has apparently prompted different sorts of coverage. ] (] \| ] \| ]) 19:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::: I'm replying to jps's comment about literary criticism on Misplaced Pages. I'm trying to say that historical or authorial analysis is just one way to do literary criticism. After looking at a couple of novel FAs, I see that it's common on Misplaced Pages to include analysis of the author's intent and personal philosophy in the analysis sections. That is more difficult to do with the Book of Mormon, because Joseph Smith doesn't present himself as the author (nor does he discuss its contents conveniently in interview form as do many contemporary authors). However, we run into a similar problem with the Qu'ran, which Muslims believe was dictated by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. When I look at pages for ], like ], I see lengthy summary of the verses and analysis of the text as received by believers. Are you saying that pages on chapters in the Qu'ran suffer from the same problem? ] (]) 19:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I think the difference with the Quran is that its genre is basically poetry which lends itself to a bit more of a relaxed time. It makes it a bit easier to separate out things like ] and other impossible miracles to pages where the precise issues with their impossibilities can in principle if not in practice be dealt with separate from the article on the text. It's an unfortunate accident of history that the Book of Mormon is told mostly in prose so it's harder to separate the events, places, names, and ideas from the text just from a style standpoint. ] (]) 20:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::@] I think that’s a real problem with those articles. ] ] 20:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It's definitely something to tackle, though I'm not sure exactly how. ] is another fun article to watch. ] (]) 20:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
			::I'm not sure that this is at odds with what I'm saying. I think an over-emphasis on literary criticism can be a problem given that there is an obvious context of the text as a foundational religious text and that is how most people interact with it, no? Of course, we could have sections of an article or spin-offs of the article about the literary critiques/treatments, but i am seeing something more going on here: an adoption of literary criticism/treatment as the primary means to discuss the specific topic to the detriment of things like the historical import or social impact of the ideas. ] (]) 20:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::In cases where I've found secondary sources from other disciplines like reception history, I've added material about that, like in the ] article (the searches for ruins) or the ] article (the popularity of stripling warrior and Helaman action figures). In cases where I've found literary criticism, I've added material about that, like in the Ammonihah article (the plot with Alma and the fire and brimstone imagery).
			:::By way of aside, I don't consider either the Zarahemla or stripling warrior articles as they currently exist to be good examples of articles. My contributions came recently, and mostly in the reception sections; the articles were created as pretty POV scripture-sourced messes some 20 years ago, in the early 2000s way before I had anything to do with Misplaced Pages, and way before Rachel Helps (BYU) did either, as far as I know. ] (] \| ] \| ]) 20:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::I want to commend you for adding secondary sources of that sort. More of that, please! ] (]) 21:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::This would be more meaningful if your posts didn't leave the impression of using it as a kind of cudgel to justify excluding material from other disciplines, like literary criticism. ] (] \| ] \| ]) 21:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I think you haven't appreciated the fact that right now a lot of our Book of Mormon pages read as though the only discipline that exists is literary criticism. ] (]) 22:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

			== Discussion at RSN ==
	What I'm asking for here is a frank and honest discussion about what kinds of sources ought to be considered "reliable" within Misplaced Pages articles, and what kinds of sources really are "un-encyclopedic" and don't really deserve to be considered a primary source of material. Particularly in reference to articles related to the LDS movement. I know that not everybody here will even agree on a common defintion, and even citing cannonized scripture is likely to cause huge disagreement as to if it may even be considered a reliable source. But for the sake of trying to improve the NPOV of many of the related articles, it would be worth while to at least consider that many of the source cited in these articles are really worthy of being cited in an encyclopedia setting of what should be quality NPOV articles about these topics.

			]
	Perhaps I'm opening a can of worms that is better left alone, but I perceive this as a huge problem that needs to be addressed by this Wikiproject. --] 19:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Yeah, that's probably a big can of worms, but I agree, some sort of list of sources considered "reliable", "unbiased", etc, would be good. ] 19:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

			I don't know what the solution is for this, but I think this is probably in violation of ]. Or maybe not. Anyway, there is the discussion started.
	==Pictures==
	I recently went on vacation and visited many church sites. I have quite a few pictures in case there are any pages needing a free-use picture. If you can think of any needed pictures, feel free to ask me on my talk page. ] 20:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

			] (]) 23:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
	== Will you assist in passing a Good Article review? ==

			== Requested move at ] ==
	] is being reviewed for Good Article status. The reviewer has some minor issues with the article, some of which I have tended to, other points are a bit beyond my abilities, so I am asking if someone here would care to look at the article and see if they can assist in having the article pass the GA review. __] 10:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
			] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 01:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	==I need your help(images)==
			] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 01:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	I posted many images about the ] and about ] on wikipedia. They are there now for a long time. But suddenly came a administrator] and wants to delete '''all''' images. I uploaded this images with a fair use rational.
	The images are used for ] and I think this explains everything. Everybody is allowed to use them.This is the '''Gospel Art Picture Kit'''.
	Furthermore the LDS position of fair use is:
	''Notwithstanding the foregoing, we reserve sole discretion and right to deny, revoke, or limit use of this site, including reproduction. '''It is not our responsibility, however, to determine what "Fair Use" means for persons wishing to use materials from this site. That remains wholly a responsibility of the user.''' Further, we are not required to give additional source citations, nor to guarantee that the materials are cleared for alternate uses. Such ultimately remains the responsibility of the user. However, the Church maintains the right to prevent infringement of its materials and to interpret "Fair Use" as it understands the law.''
	Furthermore I used also non-Church images to explain Mormon science, like ]
	Please help me to protect this images on wikipedia. '''This images should stay on wikipedia'''. I think there is an ] bias on wikipedia.] 19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:23, 19 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 6 months

v t e Christianity-related talkpages noticeboard discussion
Project	Christianity
All talk pages for the following workgroups redirect to the noticeboard discussion page
Workgroups	Anabaptist Baptist Christianity in China Core topics Evangelical Christianity Holiness movement Jesus Methodism Syriac Christianity Theology
Subprojects	Anglicanism Arminianism Bible Biblical criticism Catholicism Canon law Charismatic Christianity Christian films Christian music Southern Gospel Christianity in India Eastern Orthodoxy Holidays Christmas Halloween Jehovah's Witnesses Jewish Christianity Latter Day Saint movement Lutheranism Oriental Orthodoxy Reformed Christianity Religious Society of Friends-Quakers Religious texts Saints Seventh-day Adventist Church Unitarianism and Universalism

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Latter Day Saint movement

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement

Christianity

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2013-09-03

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Relief Society Building •

Christians prior to Christ

I was editing Ammonihah and the image is captioned with

The Martyrdoms at Ammonihah (John Held Sr., 1888), depicting Alma 14:8, in which members of the city's Christian minority are "cast into the fire".

. Given that Alma is prior to 3 Nephi and Alma 14:8 doesn't contain the work Christian, suggestion for a better caption?

And they brought their wives and children together, and whosoever believed or had been taught to believe in the word of God they caused that they should be cast into the fire; and they also brought forth their records which contained the holy scriptures, and cast them into the fire also, that they might be burned and destroyed by fire

Naraht (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm by far not the expert with this, but maybe instead of Christian, use "believers of the word of god" to keep it in context to what it says. Thanks! Dmm1169 (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi; as a major contributor to the Ammonihah page, I'm happy to explain. Referring to figures in the Book of Mormon as "Christians" is following how reliable sources in religious studies interpret the story and setting of the Book of Mormon. For examples, see the following (bolding added):

"pre-Christian Christians, who "talk of Christ, ... reojice in Christ, ... prophesy of Christ" centuries before his coming (2 Nephi 25:26).
- Terryl Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (Oxford University Press, 2002), 47.
- John Turner, The Mormon Jesus: A Biography (Harvard University Press, 2016), 29 cites Givens and also describes Book of Mormon figures as "pre-Christian Christians".
In the New World, the migrants build a temple and follow the law of Moses much like the society they left in Palestine, but their religion is explicitly Christian.
- Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 85.
the Book of Mormon asserts that long before the birth of Jesus there were Christians, who were taught by prophets to believe in a redeemer who would one day come into the world
- Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide (Oxford University Press, 2010), 7.
Within The Book of Mormon, Christianity takes root in the Americas not only before the arrival of Europeans but also, more radically, before the birth of Jesus. In moments of prolepsis similar to those appearances of Pauline language that predate Paul, the Nephites embrace the teachings of Jesus and assume the title of "Christians" in advance of the gospels. in the Book of Alma, supposedly produced around 73 BCE, Moroni prays "that the cause of the Christians, and the freedom of the land might be favored" (351). This is Christianity before Christ; the prophecies of The Book of Mormon, unlike those of the Hebrew Bible, are explicit in their designations of the Messiah to come.
- Elizabeth Fenton, "Open Canons: Sacred History and American History in The Book of Mormon", J19: The Journal of Nineteenth-century Americanists 1, no. 2 (Fall 2013) 339–361, here 354.
Alma coming to preach his "new" belief in a Christian faith
- Kylie Nielson Turley, "Alma's Hell: Repentance, Consequence, and the Lake of Fire and Brimstone", Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 28 (2019): 1–45, here 26.
the chief judge of Ammonihah makes it clear that the punishment given to the Christian converts was based on Alma's and Amulek's words
- Michael Austin, The Testimony of Two Nations: How the Book of Mormon Reads, and Rereads, the Bible (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 133.

To the extent that having a setting with a Christian religion and worshipers of Jesus before his advent is time-bending, that is, if anything, part of the Book of Mormon's structure, plot, and point. As literary critics Elizabeth Fenton and Jared Hickman summarize, the Book of Mormon narrative's temporality is never anything but extravagantly nonlinear (their introduction to Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon , 1–20, here 7). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Not exactly. These guys believed in Jesus, but knew him as Yehowah or Yaweh. Yes, I am LDS, no, don't get into an edit war with me about this. Misplaced Pages has seen to much of those. 38.43.22.44 (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

In many respects, my case in point: to insist that Jesus-believing Nephites and Lamanites can't be Christians because that would be anachronistic is to advance not an academic, neutral assessment of the Book of Mormon's plot but an apologetic, historicist assessment of it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards, both the idea that the Nephites and Lamanites existed and that they were Christian are apologist positions. The neutral academic assessment is that the Nephites and Lamanites did not exist outside of the BoM. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Characters don't have to exist in reality for scholars to identify them as being Christian in the story. To use another example, Les Misérables's Bishop Myriel is, of course, entirely fictitious, and he is nevertheless a Christian character. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The IP is treating them as historical people, if you aren't I apologize. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

ok. I understand. 38.43.22.44 (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Using the term "advent" for birth of Jesus in LDS articles

I have been going through a lot of articles related to Mormonism and I am finding a peculiar turn of phrase "advent of Jesus" showing up a lot. It's a completely intelligible phrase, of course, and famously in many Christian liturgical calendars refers to a season prior to Christmas, but in the context of certain historical claims it reads pretty unusual and I believe it may be a Mormonism that has crept in to articles mentioning such things. Is this a thing in Mormon circles? Does anyone recognize what I'm talking about?

I think we should avoid this phraseology and just refer to things like "birth of Jesus" or "life of Jesus of Nazareth" etc. as those seem to be more typical in non-Mormon literature and our own articles.

jps (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Advent is more a Christian-ism than a Mormon-ism. The LDS Church doesn't institutionally observe the Advent season (it's possible some Mormons privately do so, on their own). If you see "advent of Jesus" on a Mormon studies article, I bet I added it to de-Mormon-ize the language (a more Mormon turn of phrase would be "coming of Jesus" or "birth of Jesus") and express "a temporal setting that would have been before there was a Jesus and before there historically speaking would have been the idea of a Jesus". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"Birth of Jesus" is far preferable to "advent of Jesus". I don't think "advent" is really a thing in Mormonism, and we shouldn't be using Christian jargon like that anyway for a broad audience. ~Awilley (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

"Advent of Jesus" would be a pretty obscure usage in Christian literature as well. Maybe in liturgies, but that is certainly not a style choice we would typically adopt at Misplaced Pages. jps (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Book of Mormon as Literature

At Talk:Ammonihah, the main author has made an argument that topics related to the Book of Mormon are properly handled as literature since Mormon Studies seem to be moving in that direction. I'm pretty sure this is not an okay approach, but before I get into that on this page, I want to know whether this is more widespread. Do y'all think that reliable sources force primarily a "literature" treatment onto articles about the Book of Mormon? Do the social/religious/cultural/historical/etc. treatments all have to play second fiddle because Mormon Studies people haven't gotten to that approach/don't want to look into such approaches? jps (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, WP:SILENCE, I guess. Here's the thing, friends, this approach also has an obvious proselytization angle as many Mormons are so enthralled by their holy book that they think it stands as great literature along side many other great works. I guess the thought is that even unbelievers will be amazed by its literary genius? Well, we know that most non-Mormon critics have consistently panned the work as something like bad Second Great Awakening fan fiction, but no matter. The Book of Mormon is important literature. It certainly can be read through a literary criticism lens, but to treat it primarily as literature in an encyclopedia setting is a profound subversion of WP:ENC. jps (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi. You wrote "we know that most non-Mormon critics have consistently panned the work as something like bad Second Great Awakening fan fiction". I do not believe that the perceived literary quality of a work determines if it is notable or worthy of literary criticism. I think we can agree that the Book of Mormon, including its narrative, is significant to American history, and more generally to the religious history of churches in the Latter Day Saint movement. In my work as a literary scholar, I have studied works not for their aesthetic qualities, but for their importance in history. That said, I believe that the Book of Mormon is worthy of study as a literary work in its own right. I believe that even if you (meaning any reader of Misplaced Pages) do not believe in a supernatural origin for the Book of Mormon, that its narrative and interpretation is still important. The interpretation of the Book of Mormon by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars is important enough to include on Misplaced Pages, and we can summarize reliable sources to show that. I know that my opinion is not sufficient to persuade you. We both believe that our way is consistent with Misplaced Pages's guidelines. What would be helpful here? I can provide multiple examples of non-Mormon scholars who use the "bracketing" approach to literary criticism of the Book of Mormon. But it feels like we cannot agree that this scholarship is legitimate. I could ask a Misplaced Pages acquaintance of mine (who is not LDS, has edited in book spaces, but I do not know IRL) for a third opinion. We could take Richard Bushman's work to the reliable sources noticeboard. We could ask at Wikiproject Christianity what they think we should do with BoM scholarship. We could go to the fringe theories noticeboard! I'm sure there are other options. What do you think would help us come to a consensus? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Studying works for the importance in history is, crucially, not the kind of literary analysis I was describing. It's a way to provide historical context, I would even call it "historical analysis". Would love more sources like that, so if that's what you would like to focus on we are actually in agreement. What I do not appreciate as a primary approach in our articles is leaning mostly on works that don't try to contextualize the story at all and instead explore it on its own terms textually. For example, sources that try to interpret the thoughts and feelings of the characters on the terms of the text or in the context of a person's connection to dogma. jps (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I am chiming in here. I think at Talk:Ammonihah there is the suggestion that something like "Book of Mormon as Literature" be created as a separate article. And it could be any title deemed appropriate. In any case, the BoM seems to have developed a track record as worthy of literary criticism, at least since 2012.

But, as .jps points out, contextualizing these BoM articles by immersing them into their relationship with 19th century culture, folk beliefs, surrounding circumstances and societal concerns matters for encyclopedic articles. I came across an article on JSTOR that discussed the oratory techniques that were widely used in the nineteenth century and maybe or probably employed by Joseph Smith. I didn't realize the value of this piece at the time. I didn't realize we Wikipediaes would be engaged in extensive discussions about the BoM and ancillary topics. I am trying to find that article again. In the meantime, here is the results of an arbitrary JSTOR search for "Historical accuracy Book of Mormon" . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Here what might be a couple of interesting scholarly views found in that set of articles:

Barlow, Philip L. “Joseph Smith’s Revision of the Bible: Fraudulent, Pathologic, or Prophetic?” The Harvard Theological Review, vol. 83, no. 1, 1990, pp. 45–64.
Duffy, John-Charles. “Just How ‘Scandalous’ Is the Golden Plates Story? Academic Discourse on the Origin of the Book of Mormon.” The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, vol. 26, 2006, pp. 142–65.

Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the main contributor to the Ammonihah article as it currently exists. I'm a little surprised I wasn't pinged, since I was a participant in the conversation. I've disclosed a past connection to BYU as a student and student employee.

Misplaced Pages summarizes a consensus that appears in secondary sources. If that's mostly literary, we mostly summarize literary analysis; if that's mostly reception history, we mostly summarize reception history; if that's mostly anthropological, we mostly summarize anthropology. It isn't for us to force an interpretation or perspective into an article if scholars haven't made that interpretation about the topic. To do so would be original research.

For the convenience of others on this project talk page, I list a handful of sources from the last ten years that ground my sense that the literary approach to the Book of Mormon is a major one, listed chronologically:

Laurie Maffly-Kipp, introduction to The Book of Mormon, Penguin Classics (Penguin, 2008)
- Maffly-Kipp is the Washington University in St. Louis, John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics' Archer Alexander Distinguished Professor.
Jared Hickman, "The Book of Mormon as Amerindian Apocalypse", American Literature 86, no. 3 (Duke University, 2014): 429–461.
- Hickman is an professor of English at Johns Hopkins University.
Laura T. Scales, "A New 'Mormon Moment'? The Book of Mormon in Literary Studies", Literature Compass 13, no. 11 (John Wiley & Sons, November 2016): 735–743
- Scales is an professor of English at Stonehill College.
John Christopher Thomas, A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon: A Theological and Literary Introduction (CPT Press, 2016)
- Thomas is director of the Centre for Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies at Bangor University.
Grant Shreve, "The Book of Mormon Gets the Literary Treatment", Religion & Politics (Washington University in St. Louis's John C. Danforth Center on Religion & Politics, May 23, 2017).
- Shreve received a PhD in American literature from Johns Hopkins University
Elizabeth Fenton and Jared Hickman, eds., Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon (Oxford University Press, 2019).
- Hickman is described above; Fenton is a professor of English at the University of Vermont. The book is a collection of Americanist (academic term for American literary criticism) essays.
Peter Coviello, Make Yourselves Gods: Mormons and the Unfinished Business of American Secularism, Class 200 (University of Chicago Press, 2019)
- Coviello is a professor of English at the of Illinois, Chicago. Since this one isn't as apparent from the title, I'll point out that Coviello's book deploys his tools of literary criticism and includes interpretations of the Book of Mormon via such.

All this to say that dismissing out of hand literary criticism of the Book of Mormon seems short-sighted. What the right approach at a given Book of Mormon topic is a more specific question, probably better decided at each article. Different aspects of the Book of Mormon have received different kinds of treatment. There's less literary criticism of, say, Zarahemla as a setting in the Book of Mormon, and a lot more reception history about Mormons naming things after it and unsuccessfully trying to discover ruins. And there's less of that for Ammonihah, which has apparently prompted different sorts of coverage. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm replying to jps's comment about literary criticism on Misplaced Pages. I'm trying to say that historical or authorial analysis is just one way to do literary criticism. After looking at a couple of novel FAs, I see that it's common on Misplaced Pages to include analysis of the author's intent and personal philosophy in the analysis sections. That is more difficult to do with the Book of Mormon, because Joseph Smith doesn't present himself as the author (nor does he discuss its contents conveniently in interview form as do many contemporary authors). However, we run into a similar problem with the Qu'ran, which Muslims believe was dictated by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. When I look at pages for Surahs (chapters in the Quran), like An-Nisa, I see lengthy summary of the verses and analysis of the text as received by believers. Are you saying that pages on chapters in the Qu'ran suffer from the same problem? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the difference with the Quran is that its genre is basically poetry which lends itself to a bit more of a relaxed time. It makes it a bit easier to separate out things like Isra' and Mi'raj and other impossible miracles to pages where the precise issues with their impossibilities can in principle if not in practice be dealt with separate from the article on the text. It's an unfortunate accident of history that the Book of Mormon is told mostly in prose so it's harder to separate the events, places, names, and ideas from the text just from a style standpoint. jps (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU) I think that’s a real problem with those articles. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely something to tackle, though I'm not sure exactly how. Splitting of the Moon is another fun article to watch. jps (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is at odds with what I'm saying. I think an over-emphasis on literary criticism can be a problem given that there is an obvious context of the text as a foundational religious text and that is how most people interact with it, no? Of course, we could have sections of an article or spin-offs of the article about the literary critiques/treatments, but i am seeing something more going on here: an adoption of literary criticism/treatment as the primary means to discuss the specific topic to the detriment of things like the historical import or social impact of the ideas. jps (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In cases where I've found secondary sources from other disciplines like reception history, I've added material about that, like in the Zarahemla article (the searches for ruins) or the stripling warriors article (the popularity of stripling warrior and Helaman action figures). In cases where I've found literary criticism, I've added material about that, like in the Ammonihah article (the plot with Alma and the fire and brimstone imagery).

By way of aside, I don't consider either the Zarahemla or stripling warrior articles as they currently exist to be good examples of articles. My contributions came recently, and mostly in the reception sections; the articles were created as pretty POV scripture-sourced messes some 20 years ago, in the early 2000s way before I had anything to do with Misplaced Pages, and way before Rachel Helps (BYU) did either, as far as I know. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I want to commend you for adding secondary sources of that sort. More of that, please! jps (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This would be more meaningful if your posts didn't leave the impression of using it as a kind of cudgel to justify excluding material from other disciplines, like literary criticism. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you haven't appreciated the fact that right now a lot of our Book of Mormon pages read as though the only discipline that exists is literary criticism. jps (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#WikiProject_specific_reliable_sources

I don't know what the solution is for this, but I think this is probably in violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Or maybe not. Anyway, there is the discussion started.

jps (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Capital punishment#Requested move 1 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Capital punishment#Requested move 1 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Martha Hughes Cannon

Martha Hughes Cannon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: