Wikipedia

Talk:Latter Day Saint movement

WikiProject Christianity / Latter Day Saints (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (marked as Top-importance).
 

Untitled [ edit ]

Note: This article is a very small part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. Before adding content to this page, please visit the project page, see List of articles about Mormonism or discuss your ideas here so you can get a feel for the structure of the Mormonism area of Wikipedia.

Disambig "Restored" churches [ edit ]

I just created a stub for a small sect based in Ontario called the Church of Jesus Christ Restored. There are so many churches with similar names that it seems wise to have a disambig page for any sect with Restored or Restoration in the title. Does that seem like a good idea? Mycota (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Remnant church prominence? [ edit ]

The Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, mentioned in the opening paragraphs of this article, is a group that emerged from the larger Restoration Branches movement in the 1990s. The Restoration Branches movement remains significantly larger than the Remnant church today unless I am greatly mistaken. How is notability determined? If the Restoration Branches movement is larger, shouldn't it be mentioned at least as prominently as the Remnant church? --BenMcLean (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

needs criticism section [ edit ]

there should be a criticism section rather than just a link to the criticism article. look at Jehovah's_Witnesses#Criticism as an example.Banane992 (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If you were to do your research, you would find that there are several criticism page for key issues and persons relating to the Latter Day Saint movement. In light of this, your suggestion is confusing. Please clarify. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticism is directed at specific churches, but not to the 'Mormon Movement' in general. Hence, no 'criticism section' is needed. Does anyone have contrary documentation? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing [ edit ]

Headline: Instead of ending, has Mormon Moment evolved into something bigger?

QUOTE: "SALT LAKE CITY — During the 2012 presidential election, the LDS Church's public affairs office fielded 50 calls a day. The interest in Mormons was "just enormous," said Michael Otterson, managing director of the church's public affairs department. Two-and-a-half years later, there is evidence that Otterson was correct when he predicted after the election that the "Mormon Moment" not only wasn't over but signaled instead the "real emergence of American Mormons."" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

I think this would be more appropriate on the LDS Church page, not on the General Latter Day Saint movement page.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 19:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified [ edit ]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latter Day Saint movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger [ edit ]

Wouldn't it make sense to merge this with Mormonism? 75.100.160.183 (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This article covers a larger scope than Mormonism, as there are other denominations within the movement which don't necessarily go by the term Mormon, such as Community of Christ. ----Rollidan (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2019 19:10 (UTC)
True, but neither does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. DavidBailey (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I've begun the merger, but some items will need to be integrated in this article and some into the Latter Day Saint movement history. DavidBailey (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with the merge. Per previous consensus, these subjects are distinct enough for separate articles. Rollidan (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@DavidBailey: this definitely needs a formal move request, would you please undo what you've done and do this formally? Doug Weller talk 19:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
In my mind, the only difference is when they split from the main body, and which parts of the doctrine they disagree with. 99+% of members of the Latter Day Saint movement don't want to be called "Mormon." Where is the appropriate place to discuss? DavidBailey (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
99+% of members of the Latter Day Saint movement don't want to be called "Mormon." Could you please provide a citation to a secondary reliable source that supports this bold assertion? ~Awilley (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per previous discussions on this subject, and according to definitions agreed upon by consensus, Mormonism "is the predominant religious tradition of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity started by Joseph Smith in Western New York in the 1820s and 30s." And "the Latter Day Saint movement is the collection of independent church groups that trace their origins to a Christian Restorationist movement founded by Joseph Smith in the late 1820s." So Mormonism refers to the commonly-shared beliefs of those who are part of the Latter Day Saint movement (which, by definition, includes any of the religious sects who trace their origins back to Joseph Smith. There is a difference. But it is incorrect to say that "members of the Latter Day Saint movement don't want to be called 'Mormon[s].' That argument only applies to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As for a secondary reliable source on that, try this article from the Salt Lake Tribune. That said, I am unalterably opposed to the merge this article about the Latter Day Saint movement with the article about Mormonism. And any efforts to do so without a consensus agreement to do so would, in my opinion, not only be extremely disingenuous, but also a blatant violation of several Wikipedia policies. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jgstokes: You say "I am unalterably opposed to merge this article about the Latter Day Saint movement with the article about Mormonism." My edit was a revert of that merge. And you just undid that by reverting me. Your edit here literally copied the entire Mormonism article, word for word, into this article. Are you sure that's what you meant to do? ~Awilley (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I've done the same thing: in the heat of the moment you don't notice that you've done the opposite of what you intended. --Taivo (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Lies And Slander Against Joseph Smith [ edit ]

I am wondering why easily disproved bigoted and slanderous lies are being allowed to remain on this article. https://religionnews.com/2016/02/09/did-joseph-smith-practice-polygamy-denver-snuffer-says-no/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith%27s_wives — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Joseph Smith had multiple wives based on reliable sources, not just websites. Some Mormon religious tradition says no, but the facts say otherwise. You can see a long list of reliable sources at the very Wikipedia page you cite: List of Joseph Smith's wives --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where the editor who started this topic is getting their information, but they are absolutely incorrect. I am a practicing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the church has publicly acknwoledged that polygamy, as practice in the Latter Day Saint movement, was initiated by Joseph Smith. Even if that were not the case, Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not truth, so anything backed up by reliable sources, regardless of whether or not it happens to be true, warrants inclusion in Wikipedia articles. By unilaterally editing this page to suggest otherwise, the editor that started this thread, who didn't even bother to sign his/her comment, clearly violated Wikipedia policy by their actions. Unless and until a consensus agrees with him/her, the revert of the removal of sourced materials is warranted and consistent with policy. At least, that's my two cents on this. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Emma Smith isn't a reliable source ? The lie that Joseph Smith was made up about 10 years after he was murdered. It was invented by worthless cowards in an attempt to discredit him. Anyone that goes around spreading lies with no proof is a worthless coward. I'm not going to revert your cowardly lies anymore, but you have no idea what you're talking about. I am NOT going to let any mormon disparage a great man. Try reading Restoration Voice. Emma Smith said that Joseph didn't have any wives other than her. And there's no PROOF that he had any more wives. Brigham Young was a worthless coward that was nothing more than a power hungry, uneducated fool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottedfeather (talkcontribs) 23:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

No, Emma Snith is not a reliable source. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

How is she not a reliable source ? So, the people that can disprove your bigotry and ignorance aren't reliable sources ? But people that made up lies about Joseph Smith 10 years AFTER he was murdered by people like you ARE reliable sources ? What makes YOU so smart, coward ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottedfeather (talkcontribs) 16:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to read WP:RELIABLESOURCE to understand that Emma Smith is not in that category. Oral tradition is not reliable. I understand that this contradicts your religious beliefs, but that doesn't matter to Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@TaivoLinguist: this editor has a long history of editwarring and personal attacks, and has been blocked for both. As they only edit sporadically with months between edits, I've blocked them indefinitely. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
What is this?