Talk:Endowment (Mormonism)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Respectful Dialogue (re: alienburrito)

I have noticed a highly disrespectful tone towards LDS contributors here coming from contributors. I have made some polite comments to this above but alienburrito has not replied or corrected any of his inflammatory statements. Reliable contributors maintain neutral POV, please remember this.

A little civility, please.

99.199.147.225 (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

I have made no inflammatory, disrespectful or uncivil comments on this page.—Kww(talk) 21:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Kww, I have yet to receive a response to my query of your discussion under the heading 'to 12.159.66.24.' which seemed to reveal a non-religious bias. Will gladly accept clarification.207.216.63.118 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

Since Kww's last comments in that section are over two years old now, I suggest we move on. I'm sure Kww has seen your objection, but there's no need to try to wrench an apology out of someone when the incident is long in the past. Bringing it up now neither helps this article nor the encyclopedia or working atmosphere in general. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Kww has responded here, and I am not trying to "wrench" apologies, I am merely proposing we improve the tone and correct biases. Clearly alienburrito's postings are inappropriate, as are any which reflect bias or a non-neutral POV. 207.216.63.118 (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

Yeah, well, it was two years ago. Time to move on, I think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed all previous discussion items have been deleted. Is the contributor responsible in agreement with the anti-Mormon tone and as a result acting taking efforts to remove inflammatory history by starting fresh? Or is this merely an archiving function of WP? The only item I would like to see reposted is that addressing breach of copyright. I propose that until copyright legality is verified by a senior WP editor we remove details of the "possible" text of the endowment session. Again, though the LDS Church has not filed copyright suits does not communicate legal right to publish. As is the common understanding, 'If in doubt, leave it out.' 207.216.63.118 (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

Hello, no the older edits/sections/conversations were only archived and can be found by clicking on Archive 1 in the box at the top right of the page. I am LDS and do not support blatant misinformation or unsupported POV. However, as a rather long-time editor I also do not reject edits that are supported by reputable sources. I use to spend countless hours on Wikipedia, but after so many years I now do not have the time to devote to the process. I do believe the majority of the LDS related articles can be improved, but I have long since given up being the one to tackle it. I do what I can and leave the rest alone.

As far as the copyright issue goes, I am ambivalent. If you choose, you may copy back section or those edits you think are important. Should you do so, I would do a WP:RfC to bring in a wider range of editors to comment on your position. Be thoughtful in your presentation and understand that this article has be relatively stable for some time. I do not support violating copyright law on Wikipedia. --^StormRider 03:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the post StormRider. I understand what you mean when you talk about giving up, I have found the group dynamics of WP quite overwhelming and tantamount to a brick wall protecting the initial material regardless of accuracy, sensitivity, or relevance. My concern about the posting on WP of the claimed temple ceremony is that it breaks WP guidelines for copyright. The claim may be made that the reference is from reputable sources. That does not make the posting of that information legal or ethical. As one website (knowledgerush.com)states accurately, "Although these ceremonies may be found on the Internet, they are not considered to be in the public domain, and are protected by copyright laws." Wikipedia has not likely been granted approval by the LDS Church to post this text, and the text is likely held as the intellectual property of the LDS Church. So until anyone can present evidence that WP is authorized or legally entitled to display the text of the ceremony, this article is breaking WP guidelines. As WP states, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Here is my question, who is to delete that? Is it our collective duty, or are there senior editors we appeal to?207.216.63.118 (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

I am not familiar with knowledgerush.com, but if it is a reliable site, I would recommend that you begin a new section, summarize your propose using as many references as possible and then post it as an RfC. Writing it as recommendation to change the article will allow the community to vote on it. Wikipedia does not easily ignore copyright law when brought before the community. If you are interested, then go for it. If you don't, I promise this article will not change itself. --^StormRider 22:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The copyright issue has been discussed a number of times, if I remember correctly. My knowledge of copyright law confirms what others have said before: even if the ceremony is protected by copyright law (debatable, but it probably is), what is currently in the WP article is almost surely OK because of the "fair use" exceptions in copyright law. We are not reproducing large portions verbatim, so there is no infringement issue. Linking to a website that contains the complete text might be a different issue, but as for the actual text of the WP article, it is quite unlikely that there is any copyright issues as it stands right now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think that the copyright angle is a fruitful one to pursue in objecting to this article. Under the fair use exception, you can discuss copyrighted works and even quote relevant passages in a Wikipedia article. If you couldn't, then you wouldn't be able to have articles like Catch-22 and Twilight (novel). Moreover, the ceremony's copyright status is a complicated issue. The current ceremony is a minor variation of the pre-1990 ceremony, which is old enough (older than 1/1/1978) that it has probably lost its copyright protection because the LDS Church didn't publish it prior to 2003. So likely, the only parts that still have copyright protection are the 1990 changes. As to whether it's a problem linking to sites that reproduce the entire post-1990 ceremony, that's still a complicated issue. Depending on the circumstances, there might still be a fair use argument protecting those publications of the post-1990 ceremony. I'm not saying these publishers would necessarily win in court, but they might. It's an open legal question that the LDS Church will probably never test. Obviously, the church would never risk having general authorities called to the stand in open court to be asked detailed questions about the ceremony including the 1990 changes. COGDEN 18:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So am I to assume the Wikipedia Guidelines are merely nice ideas that we abide by if we feel like it? I still completely disagree with the assumption that the ceremony is fair use just because the Church is unlikely to pursue action. Just because the Church does not pursue charges against the occasional vandal of one of their buildings (based on cost of pursuing legal recourse) does not mean vandalism against LDS churches is legal. In your argument I notice you are frequently using words like, "Likely," and "depending," and "might," and "probably." My point is that Wikipedia seems to expect the legal use of material is clear, not assumed. I think the phrase is, "If in doubt, leave it out." Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

That's a mischaracterization of what has been said. It's not fair use because the LDS Church is unlikely to pursue action. The right to fair use exists, regardless of the copyright status and regardless of whether or not anyone pursues action. That's the point—we don't need to worry about any of the other copyright issues because we're covered here by fair use. I believe COGDEN has set out some of the underlying issues for interests' sake, but at the end of the day fair use is the answer to this question. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. For purposes of how it might be appropriately used on Wikipedia, the text is clearly fair use. The only situation where it becomes at least an arguable copyright infringement is if someone were to just post some large indiscriminate swath of the post-1990 ceremony. But doing that would be impermissible for other policy reasons apart from copyright, including WP:INDISCRIMINATE. COGDEN 05:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What's your opinion on the WP article linking to websites that reproduce the text of the ceremony? I'm not clear on what WP policy is with regards to that (or the law, for that matter). Does the Utah Lighthouse Ministry case have relevance to that? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

well franly soemtimes the facts are inflamatory to certain people. I've come to accept that. Over all though, the current article is pretty good. Actually, my conflict as not been here, except for disagreemnts about the copyright status of the text. COgden is right - the ceremony prior to 1990 is definatly very old, predating the bern convention of 78, when the US dropped their requirement to file with the Copyright office for protection, so its pretty clear that pre-1990 versions are not protected. Youy can fully expect though, that there will be people who will stirr things up regarding the copyright issue regardless of the facts. Alienburrito (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me add, stormrider and I have butted heads on the entry on the LDS belief on "deification" or Eternal progression. Certain details of the teaching stormrider insists, accurately, aren't emphasized like they were 100 years ago, but ARE still taught. It appears stormrider does not want such teachings mentioned here because they are not emphasized today the same way they were 100 years ago.... Indeed, they are teachings which catch people by surprise when they learn them, and the LDS church does often avoid talking about them with even members till they feel the members are ready. And yes, there are publically avaialable official references at the lds church website to these particular teachings. The problem stormrider and i seem to have had is that, I cited several official church sources, yet dispite the fact this is a reference site, not a site for necesarily following any one persons aproach to teaching certain subjects, stormrider still felt the material was inappropriate. I mean guys this is a reference site, where facts are posted.... Alienburrito (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Church Name

Whoever decided to put the hyphen in all of the links, please don't do that, as it messes them up. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylpickleh8 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Afd?

This article was redlinked in the Afd logs on 30th October. It seems to have been nominated by an IP, so I can't fix it and ask for the deletion reasons later. I'm removing the discussion page from the logs, so if anyone does want this to be discussed for deletion you'll need to renominate it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

From Talk:Endowment (Mormonism)/Comments

The following was origionally posted to Talk:Endowment (Latter Day Saints)/Comments, then moved to Talk:Endowment (Mormonism)/Comments, but it really belongs on this talk page, so moved it here. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

From you are taking something others consider sacred and parading it without the permission of the members of the religion. That is wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.35.254.5 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 2 July 2008

Talk:Endowment (Latter Day Saints) vs Talk:Endowment (Mormonism)

Both Endowment (Latter Day Saints) and Endowment (Mormonism) exist as separate & distinct articles, so each should have their own individual talk page too. The redirect from Talk:Endowment (Latter Day Saints) to Talk:Endowment (Mormonism) was a non-standard kluge. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced "Initiatory" Removal

Good_Olfactory: 03:50, October 10, 2010 "removal might be extreme when references exist, the section merely remains unfootnoted."

I cordially remind you of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy. (When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy.) If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page. (As Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has put it: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons" (Jimmy Wales Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information, WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006, accessed June 11, 2006).)

The material I deleted and User:Good_Olfactory restored is either a) unreferenced material or b) original research, by definition. Both of these are unacceptable for Wikipedia articles. Since you restored the material, "the burden of evidence lies with [you]".

If no reliable third-party source(s) are found to provide context for and proof of the verity of this information, it should stay deleted.

Remember what Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." (See above footnote link) —Preceding unsigned comment added by White whirlwind (talk • contribs) 08:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a case of "I heard it somewhere". Have you looked through any of the references on the page, or the external links? The material you deleted is available in several of the listed sources. I've added one of them for the time being. This is more an instance where someone just hasn't bothered to provide detailed footnotes yet for the section. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not they're "available in several of the listed sources" is completely immaterial - that sort of blanket, half-baked, lazy referencing is death in the academic world and doesn't cut it on Wikipedia, either. I do mostly translations on here and I see it all the time. Please add in references as soon as possible. Thanks.  White Whirlwind  咨  10:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's immaterial. You may see it that way, but it's an extreme view, so I suggest you refrain from deleting mass sections of articles unless you are sure after consulting the sources that the section has no basis in any of the listed references. Otherwise, an "unreferenced" tag or a "please add footnotes" tag is far more preferable and is standard practice in WP. The section you quoted says "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations". Since there is no risk of the information damaging anyone's reputation or any organization's reputation, removal is probably not warranted here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

4 months later - I'm glad to see that some citations have been added to the text I deleted and Good Ol'factory restored. However, their addition has been largely misleading since most of them are incomplete. For example, every single citation in the Initiatory section of the article are simply flat references to "Buerger, (1994)". Wikipedia says that page numbers should be used "where appropriate", which in scholarly and encyclopedic works means ALWAYS, except when they do not exist (as in an online article) or when one is mentioning some specific book as a topic itself and needs to include its information (like the WP citation policy says: "Page numbers are not required for a reference to the book as a whole.").

Why all the fuss then? Failing to include page numbers in citations is a form of plagiarism. Take, for example, an editor who adds this to the initiatory section:

"Early versions of the Nauvoo and St. George endowments included a more lengthy explanation of the garment's history, including the story of Adam's garment passing down to Noah and Abraham.", with a citation to "Buerger, (1994)".

That looks completely in harmony with the rest of the section, including the citation, but at the end of the day it's also completely false. Would any real editor/writer expect a reader to check the whole Buerger book? It's lazy and disingenuous scholarship and would earn any PhD/Master's candidate or student at any university/junior college an admonition to fix it or face the plagiarism music. As WP's policy states, the burden to properly cite lies with those who add or restore the information, not with reviewers and later editors. We must continue to flag material that cannot be easily referenced by the community for deletion after a legitimate period of time has passed and nothing has been done. I hope someone fixes these citations soon, otherwise we'll be deleting again.  White Whirlwind  咨  17:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's plagarism, but one way to do it would be to put a {{cn}} tag next to the questionable references. It can then be removed once some time has passed. {{verify source}} would be more accurate, actually. tedder (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

{{verify source}} says: "If [the information in question] is not doubtful, use for unsourced quotations, or to request a citation to make the article complete." Whether or not the material is actually in "Buerger, (1994)." doesn't seem doubtful - it just needs proper citations - so I don't think we need that tag. {{More footnotes}} (which specifically references "precise citations") seems most appropriate here.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Gestures/Passwords

My edit was reverted, the edit summary seemingly implied the existence of a debate about this content, though I cannot locate it. Is anyone asserting that the information is false? I can look up a more reliable source for this but I'm not sure I want to get into it with anyone if the truth of the matter isn't the issue...PStrait (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because an IP editor challenged it and it was returned with a citation from a source that is not considered reliable on Wikipedia (exmormon.org). There is no reference for this content in either the lede or in the body of the article. At this point it appears to be original research, so a reference from a reliable source should be added to meet the verifiability policy. 72Dino (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources have been added, so I won't be reverting it. Thanks for doing that. 72Dino (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Attaining godhood

Why is there no mention whatsoever in this article of attaining godhood, which I thought was a central portion of this Mormon concept of Endowment for those who attain Celestial Glory? C.f. §Attaining to Godhood in the OrthodoxWiki's Mormonism article.[1] —optikos (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No need for it to be here in this article at WP, as that material is found at the more topic-specific article Exaltation (Mormonism). Also, as part of the plan of salvation, one can receive their endowments, remain faithful, but still not qualify for highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom, where it is said people can become like god: one has to be sealed to a spouse in a celestial marriage in order to qualify, and that is a separate ordinance that happens sometime after receiving ones endowment (either in life or by proxy). In some older discussions of this theology, one also should receive yet another ordinance, called a second anointing to fully qualify for the Celestial Kingdom, but that has been downplayed for almost 100 years now, with the LDS Church stating that it is an optional, non-saving special blessing. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Attaining godhood is also not much of a focus of the endowment ceremony itself, probably for the reasons 208.81.184.4 notes—the endowment does not open the way to godhood absent the sealing ordinances. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Censorship

Considering that the entire endowment ceremony has been filmed with a hidden camera -- I think any reasonable person would consider a film of an event to be a reliable source -- there's no reason to censor this article to avoid any actual description of it. It's easy to discover that the old-fashioned live ceremony is only still performed at the SLC and (I think) Logan temples, while the rest take in a film presentation, and what the content of the ceremony and film are. It's a tad fatuous to exclude any of it here and contrary to the usual Wikipedia ethos. 68.170.182.127 (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Lol, I don't think there is a good argument to be made that a film taken by a hidden camera and posted on youtube is a reliable source. If the film itself receives media attention and is reported on, then we can report on the media reports of the film. But the film itself is essentially a primary source. In any case, I don't think it's necessary to rely on a hidden camera film to describe the endowment ceremony—there are plenty of reliable sources that have done so already. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@68.170.182.127: I recommend thoroughly familiarizing yourself with the official policies detailed at WP:Reliable sources before expressing opinions on this subject.  White Whirlwind  咨  02:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

As a practicing member of the Church, I feel that the release of such a video should have no bearing on Wikipedia's treatment of the endowment ceremony. In that spirit, I am respectfully requesting that this article be limited to those aspects of the ceremony that the leaders of the Church have approved for publication to the general public. A good starting point to find such material would be the Church's correlated Sunday School (adults/young men and women), Young Men/Young Women (ages 12+), and Primary (ages 5-12) curricula. -moonman239, (Fri, May 10, 2019, 05:20PM MDT)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Endowment (Mormonism). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140313033855/https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5380 to https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5380

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Endowment (Mormonism). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613164218/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C16999 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C16999

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

how is it like Chrismation?

Given that the reference is inaccessible, it behooves the person who wrote "similar to Chrismation" to describe that a bit, because it is not evident to me that it is similar in any way to Chrismation except that oil is used. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Salt Lake Temple Garb In Sealing Room.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Nelson Green reference not a reliable source

Wikipedia policy is that content must reference a reliable source. Nelson Green's "Fifteen Years Among The Mormons" is anything but a reliable source. See http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/JS0912.pdf and https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Did_Brigham_Young_tell_Ettie_V._Smith_that_he_was_her_savior%3F for information on Nelson Green's reliability. Even Fanny Stenhouse, an extremely anti-mormon writer, says of Nelson Green's work that it is "so mixed up fiction with what was true, that it was difficult to determine where one ended and the other began" https://archive.org/stream/cu31924029474925#page/n631 I have not been able to find a reliable source to corroborate Nelson Green's claims, so I have removed the Nelson Green reference and the sentences sourced by it. If someone knows of a reliable source that makes the same claims, please put it back and quote the reliable source. 4ocppcj02 (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

A couple of problems with your actions: First, there has been no indication other than your word that the sources you cited to prove this one unreliable are themselves above reproach. Secondly, Wikipedia is not so much about what is reliable or true, but what is verifiable through available sources. And the final issue is that, for a change like this, since Green was added as a source through approval by consensus decision, it would take a another consensus decision to sanction the removal of this material. For verification of the previous consensus, please consult the archives of this page. In the meantime, for now, pending the outcome of discussion and consensus, I will be reverting the change. Thank you for noting that it might be an issue, but we need to make sure that this matter is handled the proper way. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, there is more to what makes a reliable source than what you have suggested above. For details on what constitutes a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, I would refer you to this page. That said, just to be clear, I am proceeding on the assumption that your actions above were done in good faith, so I appreciate that. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears you are wrong about Green being added as a source through a consensus decision. I spent quite a while searching for any discussion of this source. Green was added to the article 03:15, 13 July 2017. There were no edits at all on this talk page anywhere around that time. I searched for a previous time Green was mentioned the article or the talk page -- nothing. Apparently the Green source was quietly added about a year ago, and nothing was discussed about it, ever. I also searched the rest of Wikipedia for a mention of Nelson Green and found nothing. Conclusion: The Green source was not added through a consensus decision. Rather an independent editor added this unreliable source without any discussion. So I believe I was correct to remove it given the facts involved.

As far as the source itself goes, my searching turned up complete agreement among scholars who have investigated the reliability of Green, both in their published works and on web sites, from both Mormons and anti-Mormons, that the Green source is unreliable. The materials I cited were only a few examples I found in a quick web search, and there were many more from both sides of the fence. In fact, several books I've read over the years hold the Green source up to ridicule as a particular example of extreme unreliability, giving page after page of examples of provably false statements made by Green. Really I think the unreliablility of the Green source is beyond question for anyone who takes a serious look. The reliable sources article discusses the situation thusly: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight." "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties" "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." What more should be done to demonstrate the unreliability of a source beyond posting links to reputable criticism of that source from all sides? I suppose I could begin posting lists of provably false statements made by Green in this talk page, but such lists are already available on easily found web sites mentioning Green, including the ones I linked. 4ocppcj02 (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, I was mistaken about the consensus decision. I accept that. But given the fact that the source was added over a year ago and has gone unchallenged for over a year now, that implies that the consensus did not see keeping it in the article as problematic. Since only two of us have commented on your actions, that hardly establishes the consensus which would be needed to remove material that has gone unchallenged for a year. Doing things by consensus is perhaps a bigger policy issue than the ones you raised. It is true that perhaps the addition of the material in question should have been agreed upon by consensus, but after a year of its' inclusion without being challenged, it may be wiser to wait for a consensus decision that would support your removal of it. It doesn't make much difference to me what that decision is, but until the discussion has a chance to occur, then the long-standing material should probably be restored to this article. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think we can compromise: I edited one sentence that cited Green to say "one source suggest[ed] that..."--this preserves the idea references while also making clear that the source is an outlier. I read a lot of Green after raising my eyebrow at the cited idea, and I definitely think the source is not reliable. Publicblast (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Position endowment photograph in a section on photography?

Hello fellow Wikipedia editors,

I saw that there's been an edit war over the main endowment image. I wonder if we could do something similar to Bahá'u'lláh - Photographs and imagery, where the photographs are in a clearly labelled section, to make it easier for members who don't wish to see images of the endowment to avoid them. I understand that Wikipedia isn't censored, and that the situation on this page is a little different. What do you think? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Given that none of the people in the disputed photos are identifiable, either because they are facing away from the camera or wearing a veil, I don't see the need for that. Jonathunder (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's more about how members of the LDS Church who haven't been through the endowment would prefer to experience it for the first time in the temple, not through a photograph on Wikipedia. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If I don't want to know how a movie ends before I see it, I don't read the article on it first. As you said, Wikipedia is not censored. It reveals spoilers, both religious and mundane. Jonathunder (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not asking for its removal. Would it be possible to use celestial room image or the illustration from Roughing It as the image in the lead? The photograph could go in the "Secrecy" sub-section. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much where images go in the article. The Mark Twain one, it seems to me, shows the same thing as one of the contested ones, except it's a black and white drawing, which is not ideal. Is the problem in showing the color of the green apron? Jonathunder (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

No, the clothes themselves are not the problem--the LDS Church actually has a video with the undergarments and ritual clothing as part of it here. I'm trying to speak for the other members who have removed the image, and I think it's simply a ritual we members consider sacred. I'm actually curious if the LDS Church has made any recent statements about photography within the temple, so I'm researching that (the statements could be part of the "secrecy" section). I think moving the image further down would help reduce vandalism and maybe the page should be semi-protected. What do you think? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The semiprotection is easily done. If you think moving images on the page improves it, go ahead. Jonathunder (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I moved the images. We're just two people, so if others have thoughts on the subject, feel free to comment here. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

In the old drawing, the woman appears to be holding a sharp object. Is that part of the ritual? Jonathunder (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I ask because if that's no longer part of the ceremony, it may not be the best lead image, and might fit better in a history section. Jonathunder (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

A dagger is not currently part of the ceremony.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So maybe the celestial room photo as the lead image, as you suggested above? Jonathunder (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea to but the lead image the celestial room. I support the comments given above. Amecham27 (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2018

I like the celestial room for the lead image too. I'll change it. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2019

change "Mormons" to "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" change "Mormonism" to "the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "Church doctrine" Joeblake321 (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. DannyS712 (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2019

This article needs to be researched by someone who is willing to take the time. I haven't read it all but for what I went through, skimmed, etc things arent quite correct. Also whomever brought their phone into the ceremony and got a few of these photos is breaking the rules. There are no electronics allowed, maybe jsut a watch or small post earrings allowed to wear. Whomever took those photos would be in trouble. This is a sacred ordinance and others who arent of our faith, or of the mature age of about 18 wont understand the things we do and end up being disrespectful. I dont know what was done for Temple ordinances years ago, but I REALLY dont believe by a comment in the article that it sounds that if people break the temple ordinances that they would be killed or harmed. If they did and were found out for their wrong doing, depending on what they did, they would have to go through repentance, and if bad enough maybe excommunicated and these ordinance removed from their records. If or When they want to repent and return to full membership again they will need to be re-baptised, renew endowments, and to be re-sealed to their spouse. This is if they did something bad enough that these things have to removed. People can always repent properly and return if they humbly are wanting to change. If we do something wrong, there is a consiquence. No slap on the hand and tell them to not do it again. That isn't going to help us to change and not do anything again. The proper punishment needs to fit the proper crime. 97.115.114.203 (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. In addition, please specify exactly what needs to be changed (change X to Y) Rollidan (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Salt Lake Temple Garb In Sealing Room.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

--Jgstokes (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)== Copyright Protection of materials related to the endowment ==

Regarding the posting of images or transcriptions of elements of the endowment; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a webpage concerning use of church owned materials which addresses use for products or projects at; https://permissions.lds.org/. DWmFrancis (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Concerns of this nature have already been repeatedly discussed, and the consensus each time has been for the inclusion of this material to remain the status quo. If you read those earlier discussions and have additional concerns, feel free to detail them here. Otherwise, that previous consensus needs to stand. There are several more elements at play here besides this rule in this case, which was detailed in those earlier discussions. Not all of us are happy about the current status quo, but based on the earlier consensus decisions, this information needs to stand until a new consensus overturns the previous ones.

Introduction to Endowment Wikipedia

Given recent events and the focus on the endowment ceremony as practiced in the temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I think the article could be improved. It begins with an unsourced conclusion as to the purpose of the Endowment--either cite or remove. And I don't see any reference to the recent web pages prepared by and released by the Church of Jesus Christ, which should be part of the discussion, no? See, e.g. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/07/20/lds-church-prepares-open/

Proposed edit to opening paragraph--feel free to chime in and let me know if I'm going about this wrong. I think there needs to be more respect for the diversity of beliefs regarding what the endowment means as well as to the sacred nature of the endowment. The rest of the article contains details that the reader should be told up front constitute details that believing and faithful members would want presented to their children and those entering the temple for the first time in an appropriate way.

We can accommodate those who disagree and wish to discuss the endowment or post pictures I personally find objectionable without violating the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia? I would just try to keep the introductory paragraph general and with the "spoilers ahead" courtesy extended to those participating in a discussion of just about any popular entertainment, much less a religious ritual that is considered to be sacred by many people.

It is simple respect, right? There is nothing I am advocating to be removed--I just think it would be appropriate to provide a more respectful opening. In any event, I haven't waded into this controversy and am willing to engage with anyone about my proposal, which is to provide a respectful opening in line with other "spoiler alert" types of discussions.

Reasons for edits include:

1. There is no source for the assertion that the sole purpose of the endowment is preparation for the afterlife and I, for one, disagree with the topic sentence of this piece. 2. The second sentence is misleading--you "take part" by watching a presentation. The language is misleading. 3. The endowment ceremony does include washing and anointing blessings, but they are done before the presentation regarding the creation, etc. and this entire discussion is unsourced. 4. There is no need to include further detail in the opening sentence--it is inappropriate to many and since the article proceeds to discuss those things, why not simply have the initial paragraph reflect the sacred nature of the ritual to adherents of the faith and then explain that "spoilers follow" to borrow from the popular literature... 5. The introduction could be more neutral.

My proposal for replacing the initial paragraphs follows.

____________________________

The sacred ordinances performed in the temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints include the endowment. See, note https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-endowment?lang=eng The ceremony is considered sacred to members who must demonstrate adherence to standards of behavior before they may enter a temple and participate in temple ordinances. Permission to enter a temple is obtained by a member of the Church only after interviewing privately and separately with two local leaders of the Church who ask a series of identical and personal questions, which questions have been recently changed as discussed by Church President Russell M. Nelson before they are allowed to enter a temple and participate in the endowment ceremony. See, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2019-general-conference-temple-recommend#questions Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who have participated in the temple ceremonies are requested not to discuss them publicly and are instructed to explain to interested persons that the sacred nature of the endowment requires spiritual preparation and dedication to fully understand. Ibid.

The endowment is believed by faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be a source of spiritual power and gifts from loving Heavenly Parents to those who have dedicated themselves to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ sufficiently to warrant making additional sacred promises. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2010/10/prepare-for-the-blessings-of-the-temple?lang=eng The endowment may not be received by those who have not yet been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ for longer than one year or who have not yet finished high school or their country or culture's version of secondary education. The endowment is most often given to members who are preparing to serve as missionaries of the Church or to be sealed to a spouse in the temple. See, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-endowment?lang=eng Members continue to participate in temple ordinances, including the endowment, for the remainder of their lives but after receiving the endowment for themselves, members continue to participate in endownment ceremonies only on behalf of ancestors who have died without receiving the ordinance. See, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/34697_MembersGuideTemple/tfhw-2010-07-providing-temple-ordinances-eng.pdf

The endowment ordinance involves two parts--an initiatory set of blessings among which is bestowed the right and obligation to wear the sacred temple garment and an instructional presentation given in a group setting via recorded media with the help of temple officiators--both male and female. Temple worship among the members of the Church of Jesus Christ is a symbolic form of worship that is unlike the regular Sunday and other meetings of the church. See, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2019/03/young-adults/temple-endowment-q-and-a?lang=eng

The following article is publicly edited and details history and content regarding the temple ordinances in a manner that would be considered inappropriate by many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who believe that they are commanded not to trifle with sacred things, including discussion of temple ordinances. See, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/6.12?lang=eng#p12#12 However, this is a publicly-edited document that is subject to editing from many sources, many of whom do not feel restricted in what they wish to discuss about the temple endowment history, ceremony, meaning and its place in the life of members of the Church. The endowment ceremony has changed distinctly over the years and much can be learned from these changes about the Church and its culture by those engaged in a study of the Church. See, generally, https://www.amazon.com/Mysteries-Godliness-History-Mormon-Worship/dp/1560851767

While members of the Church of Jesus Christ appreciate the right of others to engage in free and unrestrained discussion of materials sacred to them, much of what is contained in the following article, a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would not wish to encounter outside a temple. Furthermore, members of the Church would hope that their loved ones would encounter such materials for the first time inside a temple surrounded by family and loved ones in a supportive and sacred setting rather in a public forum. See, e.g. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1.11?lang=eng and https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2010/10/prepare-for-the-blessings-of-the-temple?lang=eng

[edit proposed to replace existing initial paragraphs and then be followed by the boxed outline]

Jbwatkins (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately I don't have time to respond in detail, but I can maybe help explain why the page is the way it is. The lead section of a Wikipedia page does not require citations for information presented in the body of the text (assuming it's cited there). "Spoiler alerts" are not used on Wikipedia. The current page cites too many scriptures (see WP:PSTS; it's better to cite a secondary source that explains the scriptures and their connection to the endowment). Most of the information you propose adding comes from the church's website. As the author of the endowment, they are not an "independent" source. I'm not saying you shouldn't cite official church sites at all, but you should do so with the knowledge that the way they present information will be different from the way a scholarly source does. It can be difficult to find neutral sources on Mormonism--would you like help with that? I would guess that the Buerger book would be good, but could be extra critical (but I haven't looked at myself to say for sure). If there is unsourced information which you can't find a source for, feel free to remove it. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2020

The images with the following captions are extremely offensive to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes called "Mormons" although this also is an improper term, see the style guide from the Church: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/style-guide). These images should be removed to maintain respect for their religious beliefs: - "Presentation of a handshake token at the veil during an LDS endowment" - "Participants in temple clothing in a prayer circle during the LDS endowment ceremony" Anonymousthree (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is NOT censored - FlightTime (open channel) 20:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• LDS Prayer Circle Endowment Ceremony.png
• Mormon Temple Veil Token.png
• Salt Lake Temple Garb In Sealing Room.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

New Section should be deleted or re-written

To be blunt, the new section added by User:‎Jacobalbee is apologetic and not relevant to the article, unless it is expressly caveated with "The LDS Church perspective" or "LDS Church scholars state...". Also, stop edit warring. If you want to make radical or controversial changes to an article, discuss it first in the talk page. Epachamo (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't edit warring and I didn't add a new section. I undid one change of yours and one change of Good Olfactory. The rule is 3 correct? Also, Judeo-Christian parallels was already a section on this article. I merely added a few paragraphs comparing early Christian and Jewish traditions with the modern endowment ceremony. In what way is that apologetic? I also compared the temple garment to the Jewish tallit katan. Everything I added is supported by various books, Brigham Young University publications, and the Journal of Interreligious Studies. I have yet to see an explanation for why my additional paragraphs should be considered apologetic. It's a compilation of ancient texts. Jacobalbee (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Please explain why it is relevant to have a compilation of ancient texts? Is there evidence that Smith was influenced by these texts? What is the reason for staying that early Christian traditions that are similar to the modern LDS Church temple ceremony? Only LDS Church scholars would make these connections in an effort to portray the ceremony as being of ancient origin, thus apologetic. Epachamo (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said, the section was already there. Now, something important to understand is that from both a naturalistic and divine view of the origins for the endowment ceremony, much of it was pulled from the Bible. Biblical references to the washing, anointing, and investiture in holy garments abound. So no matter what view you take, the ceremony does have clear ancient origins, whether Joseph Smith was simply copying a lot of it from the Biblical initiations of priests and royalty, or whether he was a prophet. The LDS views of the ascension of souls through multiple layers of heaven, divine phrases, signs, and names also fit well into Near Eastern tradition. A comparative analysis and description of parallels is not apologetic. Not a single one of my additions even states that they're related. All of them simply describe parallels to other religious traditions. Completely NPOV. Jacobalbee (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's NPOV. Latter-day Saint writers often draw these parallels to demonstrate that the endowment is of ancient origin. Hugh Nibley did this more than any other, I don't think there's any doubt that he's a Mormon apologetics writer. There's not really any point to just drawing comparisons in the article about the endowment unless one is trying to demonstrate something. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I still think there's good reason to include that information. The priestly and royal initiations of the Jews are, in both the naturalistic and divine theories for the ceremony's origins, the primary source for the endowment. Other proposed sources that likely influenced Joseph Smith's thinking have also been discussed above in the section on freemasonry. So it's important to discuss the Jewish initiations and their parallels to the modern endowment ceremony. As I've also stated, the relation between the tallit katan and the temple garment is also pretty interesting. The tallit katan and the temple garment likely developed entirely independently, just like the Zoroastrian and Sikh garments, but sacred garments in general are a common religious practice and the relation of temple garments to similar clothing from other religious traditions is worth noting. Some Jewish scholars have even proposed that Joseph Smith may have studied Kabbalistic and other esoteric thought because some of his doctrines on the afterlife and such resembled Jewish traditions, and early works critical of Smith occasionally compared the Latter-day Saint church to the Gnostics so, again, some similarities are important to mention. Jacobalbee (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

To what end though? To speculate about Smith's sources? We can't do that. To suggest it may be of ancient origin, deriving from a common source with the parallel ideas in other religions? We also can't do that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It's just a comparison of religious traditions. We aren't suggesting or speculating anything. The reader can speculate all they'd like, but none of my additions attempt to describe the reasons for these similarities. In my last reply to you I was just making it clear that such similarities aren't necessarily the result of divine intervention, but that naturalistic explanations for those similarities are there too. I think it's pertinent to discuss in some depth the Biblical ceremony the endowment draws from, and similar practices from related religious traditions, which is why I added those descriptions. Jacobalbee (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think just a cold comparison of religious traditions is appropriate. There's too much WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS going on. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I am in 1000% agreement with Good Ol’factory. If it is just a comparison of religious traditions, then we have moved beyond the scope of the article. While the suggestion of a connection might not be overt, it is extremely implicit. Epachamo (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And that's okay, since there almost undoubtedly is a connection. As I stated above, the endowment ceremony was derived primarily from the Biblical royal and priestly initiation ceremonies, which are described in a bit more detail in this section. Other possible influences have been put forward by both critics and apologists, including freemasonry, which is given it's own subsection in the article. My additions include a description of the Biblical ceremony it was derived from, a comparison of the LDS temple garment to the Jewish tallit katan (a very notable similarity), and a brief mention of similarities between Joseph Smith's thought and Jewish mysticism or Gnostic teachings. I don't understand why that would be controversial. I understand your concern is that you feel these similarities somewhat imply there was a connection between Joseph Smith's beliefs and these ancient traditions or texts. As I've said, some have suggested Joseph Smith was also influenced by Jewish Kabbalah, which contains esoteric traditions sometimes very similar to LDS beliefs (though sometimes different or in opposition to them). There are clearly naturalistic explanations for their similarities as well as divine explanations. I don't try to go into that sort of subjective and contentious stuff though and kept it as a simple description of parallels, which is entirely appropriate to the subject of the article and to that section in particular. If you have any more thoughts, I'd be happy to hear them, though I likely won't be checking as often. Thanks! Jacobalbee (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's take one part to illustrate the problem with the entire section: "Fragments of the Book of the Dead are, in fact, known to have been part of Joseph Smith's collection of Egyptian papyri, but, at the time, the Egyptian language was untranslatable by any scholarly means." Why state that Egyptian was untranslatable by any scholarly means? What is the intent here? Also, this is not strictly true, as Jean-François Champollion had deciphered Egyptian a decade before. Epachamo (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2021

Change any reference to “Mormon” or “Mormonism” to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.” Here is a resource to support this edit: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church 24.11.117.184 (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We use the common name, not the terminology used by the church. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2021

The temple Covenants are publicly documented by the Church, the last line of [Covenant Portion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_(Mormonism)#Covenant_portion) claims "that a person may be denied access to the specific details of these covenants." This is false. The covenants are now enumerated in the most recent revision of the church handbook: [List of temple covenants](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/27-temple-ordinances-for-the-living?lang=eng#p40). I would recommend re-writing the paragraph to the following or something similar (semi-protected or I'd do it myself):

The temple ceremony involves entering into solemn covenants. These covenants are to live, obey, and keep the laws of obedience, sacrifice, the gospel of Jesus Christ, chastity, and consecration. The promise is that who remain faithful will be endowed "with power from on high."

Shemnon (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021

Please replace the word Mormon with "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "Christian's or "followers of Christ". Members of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" do not refer to themselves as "Mormons". It is a nickname given them by others.

Thank you for considering this update. 174.247.241.83 (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See discussions above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

Mormonism is not accurate. You could call us members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You can research the true name of our Church through the article on out own Church website:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/mormon-is-out-church-releases-statement-on-how-to-refer-to-the-organization?lang=eng 2605:A601:A930:D900:ECE1:4B13:2809:D133 (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This topic has been discussed countless times. Please review the talk archives before re-adding any requests on this subject,. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2023

Many of the statements in here are made up for and very anti- Mormon for no reason, sources are false and again, made up Hudsonturn (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)