Wikipedia

Talk:Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints/Archive 3

< Talk:Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Latest comment: 9 months ago by Jioseph-So in topic Vandalism problem
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Education in the FLDS

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So tell me what grade are the children are educated up to? And what kind of cirrulum are they taught? Since due to the fact I for my own personal reasons like to know about this, as of course its hard to find a source that'd tell me these answers. So please if any one of you knows the answer, so tell me then, and as you can even write it down in the mainstream article if you so want.-Jana Thanks!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.94.242 (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the gender of the child...they are almost all home schooled, girls usually have less than a fourth grade education (they are instead taught how to be good mothers and housewives), boys are rarely beyond a sixth grade education, being taught more often in a trade like construction after that. I don't have a great source for this other than my own experiences and expertise with ex-FLDS members, and they can sometimes hype up their claims, but ultimately their education doesn't usually exceed primary school education levels. This is not to say that all are currently at this education level though, this is a recent phenomenon, with previous generations enjoying a full education and even some going to college. This poor education is restricted to the last 10-20 years, prior generations were better off I guess. Twunchy (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Creo que el articulo esta escrito con odio.

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Creo que el articulo esta escrito con odio, y creo que con odio no hay objetividad ni informacion, por favor alguien que exprese la fe y creencia de esta religion, y no se centre en errores o falencias que los hombres que la integran provocan. Respuetuosamente. Marcelo Nuñez

I believe that the article this writing with hatred, and I believe that with hatred there is not objectivity nor information, please somebody that expresses the faith and belief of this religion, and do not concentrate in errors or fails that participants people cause. Sincerelly. Marcelo Nuñez —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelognunez (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

polygyny

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I know that technically what the FLDS practices is polygyny, but it's called polygamy or plural marriage within the FLDS church. This article seems misleading, in that it seems to indicate that the FLDS church calls its practice polygyny. Fredsmith2 09:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck! Just because the FLDS church uses different terminology doesn't change the facts. The fact that the FLDS consider it polygamy or plural marriage IS stated in the article but polygyny is the precise term. Twunchy 15:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, this article is misleading. The common term is polygamy, and polygamy includes polygyny. Thus saying that the FLDS church practices polygamy is technically correct. They just don't practice polyandry as part of their polygamist practice. They only practice polygyny as part of their polygamist practice. Perhaps the references to polygyny should be moved to the polygamy page of wikipedia, even though that page does expain polygyny pretty well. Fredsmith2 19:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps it should be specified in the article that they practice "polygyny", but call it "polygamy". If it is technically correct to call polygyny "polygamy", since this includes it, it must be as correct to call polygyny "marriage", as that term also includes polygamy, and then one could, in turn, argue for calling it "something", as "something" includes marriage. Let's be as specific as reasonably possible, please? Saganaki 17:57, 5 april 2008 (UTC)

Saying they practice polygamy and saying they practice polygyny are both correct as polygyny is a type of polygamy. So perhaps, that's what the article should say at an appropriate place: the type of polygamy practiced in the FLDS is polygyny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.84.121 (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Membership numbers growing? Fertility rates?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looking at the age structure of the population of Colorado City, it appears that FLDS has a sky high fertility rate, and that its membership can be expected to exponentially increase. Is this the reality, or is it more complex than that? I wonder what the political situation will be when there are millions of them in the USA decades from now... Crusty wallace (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

William E. Jessop filed a legal motion to identify himself as head of FLDS corporate entity. See link.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actual name of the church

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Almost everybody in the press calls this church the "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." However, in this legal document filed by the church, there is a reference to the "Corporation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" (note the capitalized "The"). Also, the corporate listing on the Utah government website database includes the hyphen. So it seems that maybe the church's official name is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints," including the initial "The", the hyphen, and the capitalized "D". Any thoughts? COGDEN 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what you are sugesting, so please forgive me if I'm off base here.
I noticed it's been a while and no one replied, so I will. Personally I think that we can't go by the website database, since that is not the name of the "Church", but the name of the tax-exempt corporations holding the assets of the church. Similar to "Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" vs. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Therefore reference to the "Corporation" should not effect how this article is names.
As to the legal document, I agree with the "-" and "D" parts, but not the "The" part. If you go to the official FLDS website (even in it's currently lacking of information state) the word "The" is missing. It's listed as "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". I would think that they would know how the name of there sect should be named.
It seems that this is how the artical was re-names shortly after your post, so I think it should remain as is, without the "The".--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing sentence?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The second sentence in the second paragraph reads: "This statement does not address his position as prophet of the church. . ." What statement? There is no statement there. It looks like there used to be a statement by Warren Jeffs or somebody else that has been removed. -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that may be a reference to the 27 March 2007 Deseret News article stating Jeffs had renounced his role as prophet of the FLDS Church.-- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Bias?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an enormous amount of weight given to critical viewpoints throughout this article. It's almost as bad as some of the Scientology stuff on Wikipedia. 92.78.147.59 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Law of placing Merge discussion

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think that the Law of placing page should be merged into the Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints#Plural_marriage_and_placement_marriage section. The information on the Law of placing page is almost all included here already. Also, The FLDS church has alot of "Distinctive doctrines", some of which are mentioned here, that don't have there own pages. I think that page is doomed to be a stub forever.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A better merge would be to Placement marriage, as it is really just a (poor) fork of that article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Statutory Rape...Consensual Sexual Activity.. or just rape?

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I an not a supporter of this group or its practices, I am just asking for clarification.

The article states that numerous men in the group have been arrested/convicted/sentenced
on rape charges related to their polygamy.
Are these charges all statutory rape charges due to the ages of the men and women (girls) involved?
Are some of them standard rape charges, (where the woman was forced against her will, often violently)?
And if so, shouldn't this be noted as it is a different type of issue than the polygamy?
I was curious because of the 75yr sentence the one man received.65.116.205.162 (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A 12-year-old girl having sex is, by definition, statutory rape and not onsensual sex. A 12-year-old girl is incapable of giving informed consent in the eyes of the law. An additional factor is the fact that these girls were pressured into being "married" at 12 or 13 with the prospect of various punishments (often by their own parents) if they refused. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Official sites

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The vast majority of the sources for this article are from groups opposed to the FLDS. The only official site ( http://www.flds.com/ ) is a dead link. A lot of this cannot be helped -- it isn't our fault that the FLDS doesn't talk to the press much and let their website registration lapse -- but we should try to base as much of the article as possible on newspaper reports and court filings and as little as possible on anti-FLDS groups. Can anyone find any website that is pro-FLDS? I couldn't. --Guy Macon (talk)

The dead link was only down temporarily. Oops. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent development

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

No way still 10K adherents, a substantial (although what percentage is anybody's guess) have likely drifted from the religion (or else comprise independent family groups practicing a separate form of it or else have joining various schisms/splinter factions)--what, with the prophet, Uncle Warren S. Jeff's, current teaching that all FLDS are single and cannot engage in sexual relations. (This article said 1K were excommunicated--and that, I think, was prior the new celibacy revelation.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm come to think - those loyal to the core FLDS no longer practice polygamy so if this continues to be the case, something to this effect will need to be put in the article's lede to keep it up to date.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have never like having the number of FLDS members on the page at all. The numbers change so much. I think I should be completely removed.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

FLDS as a church

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is inaccurate when it says: "The FLDS Church emerged in the early twentieth century..." The FLDS church was organized as a corporation on 02/06/1991. ( https://secure.utah.gov/bes/ enter: "CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS INC." ) The FLDS believe in the claims of Lorin Woolley. Woolley is reported to have taught many times that no one was to "start a church". Other groups today that accept Woolley continue to teach this, and claim they are not churches, but Priesthood organizations.

It would be more accurate to say, "The FLDS church (founded in 1991 as a church) roots back to the early twentieth century when the founders of the movement left.... " or something like that. Erichard (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Intro too long and specific

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The introduction is too long and focuses too much on events surrounding an FLDS official. Recommend much of that material be moved to the body of the article.Ordinary Person (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. In fact Wiki policy explicitly says the Lead section should include "any prominent controversies." In fact it leaves many prominent controversies out, such as the fact that the first "prophet" was supposed to live forever, or until the Second Comming, which ever came first (the latter was supposed to be in 2000). Or in today's news:

The Salt Lake Tribune. -Headline: NBC’s Dateline to feature Rebecca Musser’s FLDS experiences Published on Sep 13, 2013 (blog)
Photo: Rebecca Musser, the 19th wife of former Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints prophet Rulon Jeffs, makes her first statement to the media after a jury sentenced Warren Jeffs to life plus 20 years in prison for one count of sexual assault of a child and one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child, Tuesday, Aug. 9, 2011, in San Angelo, Texas. (AP Photo/San Angelo

He had 65 wives!? I just saw the show. More news tomorrow? It seems she was forced into marraige at age 14, extra pubescent brides were seemingly regularlyused as payment to the "good" Elders, until the town ran out of girls, etc etc. ...and many many more unlisted "prominent controversies"...and that's being polite. In fact, being "controversial" seems to be the main reason why the cult is notable and worthy of a Wiki article. Those who live in glass houses, —hoarders of institutionalized dirty laundry —would be wise to shut TFU. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)
--68.127.80.89 (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Add a Section on all the Documentaries?

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just saw yesterday's NBC Dateline documentary featuring Rebecca Musser’s FLDS experiences (see above) including her institutionalized rape and the way the cult treats women as farm animals and how the larger a man's herd, the more status he gains in the "Church," and how the cult leader trades pubescent "wives" for support and so forth. ("Unbreakable" Dateline Fri Sep 13 2013.) Actually it seemed rather comprehensive although it did use Musser's perspective and the pursuit, arrest, and court trials as a focal point or trampoline to the larger story. It was well done.

It appears that there are many (more than I could count in a quick Google) other documentaries on the FLDS, which in itself is notable. (I think it's more interesting and notable than many wiki articles that list all mentions of a topic "in popular culture," ie, in songs and sitcoms etc.) Shouldn't there be a (glossary-type?) linked list of all the Documentaries, (perhaps divided up into Critical and Supportive)? Thoughts?
--68.127.80.89 (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Dates

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I took the liberty of augmenting the article's infobox, but ran into difficulties trying to pin an acceptable date to the Fundamentalist movement's gradual divergence from mainstream Mormonism. In accordance with the convention set in the Community of Christ and Strangite articles, I added April 6, 1830 as the group's "officially given" point of origin. I removed the previous editors' 1932 date (seemingly based on Charles Zitting's ordination as the final member of the Council of Friends) and replaced it with 1929 (Leslie Broadbent's ordination as the first member, plus the initial publication of Lorin Woolley's claims regarding the 1886 Revelation). Other editors might see fit to push the date back slightly to 1928 (with the death of John W. Woolley, as reflected in the succession boxes in the John and Lorin Woolley articles), or forward to 1935 (with the establishment of the Short Creek Community under John Y. Barlow) or 1954 (with the split with the AUB following the death of Joseph Musser, as reflected in the Sects in the Latter Day Saint movement article). -- Worthington56 (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Distinctive Doctrines

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Where does this information come from: "The church teaches plurality of wives, who are believed to be inferior to their husbands, as a general requirement for the highest eternal salvation of men, Godhood." that women in FLDS are "believed to be inferior to their husbands"? Inferior in what way? Is there more specific information? Kewp 08:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be inflamatory. I do not think that doctrinally they see women as inferior, just 'differently' equal. --Tobey 17:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The religion is totally tailored towards males, in my opinion. Polygamy is pretty misogynistic altogether. The religion treats women as a form of currency or a reward, not giving them any say in who they will marry, where they will live, and how many children they will have. They get kicked out or locked away if they refuse the males' wishes. I don't know, maybe it's just obvious to me... Mikesherk 03:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Depending on the community in scrutiny, the members feel differently about how their religion is. For example, in Centennial Park, AZ (just a few miles from Colorado City, AZ) they are more open and liberal than the members of Colorado City, they are allowed to watch movies and are slightly more "in tunned" to the rest of the world. According to some of the members the women are allowed to leave and live a different life if they so choose. This is not the case with the FLDS living in Colorado City. However, the women believe they are given to the men but what the men do is none of their business.User:wils4930

Evidence that the FLDS consider men superior to women, who are generally treated as property and given little or no free will, can be found both in Carolyn Jessop's memoir, "Escape", and Elissa Wall's memoir, "Stolen Innocence", both describing these women's experiences in the FLDS and leaving the FLDS. MissKatie89 (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)MissKatie89

sect status

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've been reading through the wikipedia entry for Sect and I'm just not sure how FLDS fits into that status as a "sect of mormonism". According to the article on Mormonism, the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is also a sect, but I think a perspective from a Mormon would in fact be useful on this subject. Is FLDS considered by traditional LDS folks to be a sect (in fact, do they consider the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints itself to be a sect of Mormonism)? As an outside perspective, I'm not sure that "Sect" would be the most clear word to use in the context of the introduction for FLDS. Perhaps we should include that the sect is "controversial" or that these beliefs are not part of the mainstream beliefs of Mormonism, so FLDS is considered a sect. That's my 2 cents. I just think clarification would be beneficial to understanding and maintaining an NPOV and encyclopedic stance on the subject. --ABQCat 05:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think by any definition of the word sect, the FLDS church is one. There might conceivably be some issue as to whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a sect, but the word sect has two meanings: the word means not just a dissenting group that breaks away from a larger group, but it also is a synonym for religious denomination, which clearly the CoJCoLDS is. COGDEN 16:58, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
To (us English speaking) LDS, sect means simply denomination. But to some others--from Spanish speaking background, for example--sect may be a pejorative term like cult. I don't know whether that consideration ought to factor into our Wikipedia usage. The word "branch" is generally non-connotative. I won't quibble over any less-nuanced substitution for sect. Tom - Talk 19:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:BoNoMoJo changed the phrase in question to "originated from". Doesn't this imply that FLDS is no longer a part of Mormonism? We could factually say FLDS originated from LDS, but we can't factually say FLDS originated from Mormonism, at least not the way we are using the word in the Wikipedia. Could we say, "FLDS is a branch of the Latter Day Saint Movement that originated from the LDS Church."? Tom - Talk 03:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No. A sect is "a dissenting religious group, formed as the result of schism" (Merriam-Webster) See also. FLDS dissented and separated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and considers itself to be the true expresssion of the Mormon faith. Meanwhile, evangelical Christians consider the Mormon Church and its sects to be - theologically - cults of Christianity (See this theological definition). That is, while Mormons claim that Mormonism is the true expression of the Christian faith, evangelical Christians consider Mormonism to be unorthodox, and therefore outside the boundaries of the Christian faith.
Anton Hein 04:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Anton, I'm sorry for being dense. But your comment goes right over my head. What are you responding to when you say no? And what are you suggesting we should say about the FLDS Church? Are you simply re-stating what we are saying--that FLDS is a branch of Mormonism, which itself is a branch of Christianity? And do you have a strong opinion about the wording in question in the first sentence? Tom - Talk 14:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anton, I agree with Hawstom - the second half of your comments seem to be based on your POV of Mormonism, not sects, or anything relating to this article. We know why there are differnces between Mormonism and Evangellical Christianity, Modern Christianity, Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but the satements above seem like they belong on Mormonism and Christianity or a controversies page. Nothing to do with the topics at hand. Please clarify. -Visorstuff 16:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for causing confusion. Am still learning how things work at Wikipedia. I was responding to Tom. Generally, I think that calling the FLDS "a branch" suggests that the FLDS is merely a denomination of Mormonism (much like, say, the Baptist Church is a denomination of Christianity). Indeed, the article currently describes FLDS as a denomination of the Mormon Church. However, the FLDS does not consider itself to be part of the Mormon Church, but rather the only true expression of Mormonism. It has thus separated itself from the Mormon Church and can therefore no longer be viewed as a branch. I added the info regarding the mainstream Mormon Church to illustrate how the terms 'sect' and 'cult' are defined theologically - in this case from an evangelical Christian perspective. As for the wording of the first sentence, I'd say that 'denomination' is incorrect. A denomination is A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy. The FLDS does not fit that description. Jon Krakauer, in his book "Under The Banner of Heaven" uses the proper term for the group when he writes, "Straddling the Utah-Arizona border, Colorado City is home to at least three Mormon Fundamentalist sects, including the world's largest: the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." (p. 10). Incidentally, even if the FLDS would want to be considered a denomination of the Mormon Church (which is does not want), that would be impossible. In Google cached statement Mormon president Gordon B. Hinkley says there is no such thing a Mormon Fundamentalist. He also says, "If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose."
Anton Hein 00:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think I understand better where you are coming from, Anton. I think that using the terminology we have developed here at Wikipedia for the Latter Day Saint movement, the following statements are all accurate:
  1. The FLDS Church is a branch or sect of the Latter Day Saint movement
  2. The FLDS Church is a branch or sect of Mormonism
  3. The FLDS Church is a schism or offshoot of the LDS Church. It originated from the LDS Church.
  4. The FLDS Church is not a denomination.

Perhaps you are suggesting we should say something like "The FLDS Church, a twentieth-century schism of the LDS Church, is a branch of the Latter Day Saint movement." - Tom - Talk 07:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints rejects all affiliation with the offshoots, like the FLDS and Community of Christ. Would these groups still be considered a sect if all involved deny affiliation? - 10:32, 12 July 2006
No Church usually likes any group that they see as breaking away from them. Yet as the FLDS was made up of members originally affiliated with the LDS Church, and as they hold to many of the same beliefs, it seems appropriate to call them a sect (whether the LDS Church or its members likes it or not). Undoubtedly the FLDS regards the LDS Church as a sect too. --Tobey 00:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see that the FLDS religion is obviously related to the Latter Day Saint Movement as the box on the right says, but that box also lists Gordon B. Hinckley as a significant leader, which is no doubt true for the main sect since he is the current leader, but wouldn't it be inaccurate to list President Hinckley as a significant leader of the movement since he is not related in any way to the FLDS church? Would it be possible to at least get rid of President Hinckley's name in this article since he is important to the main sect, but not the FLDS sect?

In response to earlier questions about the FLDS's status as a sect of the LDS church. As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I thought that I may throw my own opinion in. I do not speak for the church as a whole but as a individual. In my opinion the FLDS church and it's members are as follows. They are not Latter-Day Saints. They are not Mormons. They are not a sect. They are entirely separate in all aspects. To me someone who is FLDS is as different from someone who is LDS, as a Catholic is to a Baptist. I cant even comprehend how they could call themselves Mormon. It's as if they took our principles and beliefs and changed them to serve there own designs. Other "sects" of the LDS church could conceivably be thought of as Mormon if they originated at the death of Joseph Smith and before Brigham Young was ordained. But these "sects" have gone far from the original teachings of Joseph Smith and are no longer closely related to the church in most ways. According to the 5th Article of Faith written by Joseph Smith, a man must be called of god by those who are in authority. Where did Warren Jeffs receive his authority. I don't know how well I'm explaining this but unless they've changed the doctrine from what it was when Joseph Smith was alive there is no way there leaders have authority to govern the church. It's like they think they're something they're not. I believe they are not a sect, being a sect gives the perception that they are still Mormon. Which they are not. Holt2 (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the FLDS is to the LDS/Mormonism as, say, the Westboro Baptist Church is to Baptists. They may share origins, but in practice their doctrines are drastically different and do not generally associate with each other. Therefore if 'sect' is appropriate for one, it should also be applied to the other. Also, the FLDS is referred to by former member Elissa Wall as a 'radical religious sect' in her biography, "Stolen Innocence", which lends support to the use of the word 'sect' to describe it. MissKatie89 (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)MissKatie89

And what about Healthcare as well?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd also like to know and is curious about how as it isn't mention about them having a medical or healthcare facility neither about how they handle healthcare in their very isolated community. So please also as well tell me how they'd handle healthcare in their isolated Compound(enclosure) and such. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.169.249 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 March 2009

According to two first-hand accounts of life in the FLDS (Carolyn Jessop's "Escape" and Elissa Wall's "Stolen Innocence"), medical care is suboptimal in the FLDS community. Some members do not believe in seeking healthcare, but only of seeking to heal oneself through prayer. Both accounts discuss the presence of a midwife in the community who assists with childbirth and in some cases prenatal care (with permission from a woman's husband), and Carolyn Jessop's account mentions two nurse practitioners in the FLDS community who began prescribing antidepressants for FLDS women in the early 2000's, but otherwise medical care is negligible. Since medical providers are mandated reporters of child abuse and FLDS members are generally anxious to avoid detection of their polygamous practices, they are often hesitant to seek medical care. In some cases when emergencies have arisen, FLDS members have been taken to nearby mainstream hospitals, but this depends on permission from the relevant patriarch of the patient [1][2].. MissKatie89 (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)MissKatie89

Not a church

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is not a church but a cult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4942:472F:8C61:BEAD:BF10:FC8F (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Seed Bearers?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I wonder if a mention of the recently brought to light practice of "seed bearers" might be worth mentioning. CNN has some details here.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 04:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a somewhat related article here. This new "revelation" might warrant inclusion. --Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 03:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Federal raid

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It was just reported in the SLC Trib that the feds have made arrests based upon food stamp fraud. Details here.--Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 21:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Law of Sarah

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The description in the source seems totally wrong. Sources such as this describe it as meaning first wife has to approve her husband having more. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The source certainly seems to be describing a practice contrary to the teachings of Joseph Smith, but it might nevertheless be a correct description of what's being practiced in the community where Charlene Jeffers lived. I've added another source in support. Little Will (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Scriptures

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was wondering if the article should mention Warren Jeffs's book Jesus Christ Message to All Nations, but I'm unclear if the FLDS Church itself has an official position regarding it. Obviously Warren Jeffs considers it inspired scripture, so I would assume the church does too, but his imprisonment, and all the leadership disputes, make it unclear to me how much authority he actually wields. Plus, I couldn't find a source that specifically calls it FLDS canon. Even if it isn't, it would be nice to mention what books the FLDS Church does accept. I'm sure that would include the Bible and the Book of Mormon, but is that all? LifeAfter claims they accept "some of the Doctrine and Covenants" and "some of the sermons by a few of the earlier prophets", but as a non-Mormon ministry hostile to the FLDS Church, they're probably not a reliable source. Then again, it'll be hard to find a source that's not hostile! I'm stumped on where to look. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. 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.

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) 08:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. 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.

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) 22:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. 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.

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) 02:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

overhaul needed

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The intro is becoming badly bloated. Much of the content should be left for deeper in the article, particularly mentions of locations and estimated headcount.

As well, there is (presently) redundancy such as two references to Pringle SD. This often indicates a poorly curated article where content is becoming scattered after multiple small edits, and bears examination.

Throughout, references are made (to concepts, personages, and places) without linking to explanatory WP articles.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I've taken some first steps. Most of the lede has been broken up, placed in relevant locations. If someone wants to make mention of these body topics in the lede, great. As well, I've left the original parts untouched, so would likely benefit from being broken down a bit into proper paragraphs.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Computer Science Principles

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 September 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shfina (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Shfina (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Truth in Subjects

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In reading this article I have been appalled at the lack of effort to make sure only the truth is provided. This was a very one-sided article. The edits I have made are to try to return this article to nutrality. I do not have all the references yet, but I shall be working on getting them. There is still much to change. Please do not be offended if it shows things from the point of view of an FLDS. If you were a Catholic wouldn't you know more about Catholicism than a Budist would? Who knows more about what the FLDS believe than the FLDS?Dr. KTD (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dr. KTD we know there is child abuse and trafficking in this religion. GeorgeMarg (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism problem

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I found an old crank disinformation campaign that made its way into this article, so I came back to editing a few weeks ago. I made some other improvements over that time before transitioning to correcting this. Jioseph-So (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  1. ^ Jessop, Carolyn; Palmer, Laura (2007). Escape. New York: Broadway Books. ISBN 978-0-7679-2756-7. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ Wall, Elissa; Pulitzer, Lisa (2008). Stolen Innocence. New York: Harper Collins. ISBN 978-0-06-162801-6. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-Day_Saints/Archive_3&oldid=1248784464"