Talk:Mormons/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Zion

One theme that could potentially tie together the 3 subsections in the History section is "Zion." Through history, one thing Mormons have always sought is unity, and the "one heart one mind" ideal of Zion has been a constant theme. In the beginning, Smith had tried to literally build a city called Zion. During the pioneer era, Zion was a "landscape of villages." In Modern times, the wards and stakes throughout the world represent Zion.

Additionally, the Mormons "gathering to Zion" was probably one of the main causes of the persecution they experienced in Missouri and other places.

To implement this, I would probably explain the Zion theme in the paragraph under History, that introduces the three periods. I would tweak the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of Beginnings which currently reads "Smith intended to establish a New Jerusalem in North America, called Zion." I might add a note later explaining how the Mormon tendency to congregate en masse ticked off the other settlers. (There is currently no explanation for why the Missouri settlers expelled the Saints from Jackson County.) I probably won't change anything in the Pioneer era, but in Modern Times, I might make a brief mention of how Mormons gathered to the Stakes and Wards instead of a central "Zion" location - perhaps in a footnote.

Thoughts? -- Adjwilley (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am making the changes in my sandbox so as to not clutter this talk page too much. Anyone interested is welcome to watch. I'm also making some small edits not relating to Zion, but that I feel will improve the article. I'll list a summary of those changes here before implementing them into the article. -- Adjwilley (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Zion is a good theme. It's certainly one of the most central themes of early Mormonism, and still has a lot of relevance today, considering that the idea of the "stake" is part of a tent metaphor, the tent being Zion. Mormons believe they are gathering together under a large "tent" that now extends throughout the world, and provides them safety and shelter from the outside "elements". (There's got to be a source that says that explicitly, because I don't think I'm making this up.) It helps to explain the origin of Mormons' world-wide sense of community. COGDEN 22:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're making it up. Here's a partial source: "The name "stake" comes from a passage in Isaiah that compares Zion to a tent that will enlarge as new stakes are planted."

I ended up making a bunch of changes which can be seen here. In summary, the major changes were:

1. Rewriting the first paragraph of the History section to focus on the Zion theme. To make it flow, I deleted the one link to Mormonism and polygamy. (I actually thought it was just another link to the general article on Polygamy until I was deleting it. It was linked as polygamy.) I didn't have a good place to put the link, so I added a See also: Mormonism and polygamy. to the 2nd paragraph in the "Pioneer era" section.
2. Minor changes to the "Beginnings" section to reflect the Zion and Gathering changes, as described above.
3. Added a footnote about "stakes of Zion" in the Nauvoo paragraph (when stakes were organized)
4. Added a parenthetic (Mormons) after the first time the word "Saints" appeared, so as to render it less confusing to the average reader. (Saint=Mormon) I have half a mind to go through and just replace all the "Saints" with "Mormons."
5. Deleted "while being held on charges of treason" in the paragraph on Joseph Smith's death. The information is still in the footnote. I've thought a lot about this, and I don't think that detail is really necessary for the article. It is true that he was charged with treason, though I don't know of any reliable sources that say he was actually guilty of it. But this kind of tangent is far too much detail, especially for the purposes of a general article on Mormons. So, I took it out, leaving the treason and "inciting a riot" charges in the footnote where there's more space for tangents.
6. I did some work on footnotes, trying to condense some of the long ones, and moving some to the end of sentences.
7. Some minor grammatical, wording, and link work that isn't worth mentioning.

For those who don't follow the link above, here is the new paragraph in the History section:

Mormon's history has shaped them into a people with a strong sense of unity and communality. From the start, Mormons have tried to establish what they call Zion, a utopian society of the righteous. Mormon history can be divided into three broad time periods: (1) the early history during the lifetime of Joseph Smith, (2) a "pioneer era" under the leadership of Brigham Young and his successors, and (3) a modern era beginning around the turn of the 20th century. In the first period, Smith had tried to literally build a city called Zion, to which converts gathered. During the pioneer era, Zion became a "landscape of villages" in Utah. In modern times, Zion is still an ideal, though Mormons gather together in their individual congregations rather than a central geographic location.

-- Adjwilley (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead

I think it's time to do some work on the Lead. I am trying to make it reflect the current article, summarizing each section in a paragraph, and each paragraph in a sentence. I will be doing the editing here if anyone is interested. When I'm done, I'll post the revised lead here for a couple of days before making any changes to the article.

Changes I've made so far: The last paragraph (Mormon culture centered in Utah and distribution) has been merged with the first. The "polygamy" paragraph has stayed, though I moved the Fundamentalist link to that paragraph. There is a revised paragraph for the "Culture and Practices" section, and a new paragraph for the "Beliefs" section. The first paragraph kind of covers the "History" and "Groups within Mormonism" sections, meaning both are a little under-represented. I think that's ok though. Thoughts anyone? -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the revised lead I am proposing.

The Mormons are a religious and cultural group related to Mormonism, a religion started by Joseph Smith during the American Second Great Awakening. Most Mormons are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), while a minority are members of other independent churches. Many Mormons are also either independent or non-practicing. The center of Mormon cultural influence is in Utah, and North America has more Mormons than any other continent, though the majority of Mormons live outside the United States.

Mormons have developed a unique culture and a strong sense of communality that stems from their doctrine and history. They dedicate large amounts of time and resources to serving in their church, and many young Mormons choose to serve a full time proselyting mission. Mormons have a health code that eschews alcoholic beverages, tobacco, coffee, tea, and other addictive substances. They tend to be very family-oriented, and have strong connections across generations and with extended family. Mormons have a strict law of chastity, requiring abstention from sexual relations outside of marriage and strict fidelity within marriage.

Mormons are often associated with polygamy. The practice of polygamy (or plural marriage) was a distinguishing characteristic of many early Mormons, however it was disavowed by the LDS Church in 1890, and discontinued over the next 15 years. Today, polygamy is practiced only by Mormon fundamentalists who have broken with the LDS Church.

Most Mormons self-identify as Christian, though some of their beliefs differ substantially from mainstream Christianity. Mormons believe in the Bible, as well as other books of scripture, such as the Book of Mormon. They have a unique view of cosmology, and believe that all people are spirit-children of God. Mormons believe that returning to God requires following the example of Jesus Christ, as well as accepting his atonement through specific ordinances such as baptism. They believe the authority to perform these ordinances was restored through Joseph Smith, and that their church is guided by living prophets and apostles. Central to Mormon faith is the belief that God speaks to his children and answers their prayers.

Thoughts, comments, suggested changes? -- Adjwilley (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Kant66 (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I will move this over to the article. I made one last-minute change -- an "(or plural marriage)" parentheses in the paragraph on Polygamy. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(Regarding the changes made by Ericmortenson on 10 Oct 2011 that were later reverted by Adjwilley): Adjwilley, With all due respect, don't you think the Associated Press Style book carries some weight and is a fairly objective source? The Lead as it reads now is not consistent with the style guides of either the AP or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which makes up 99+% of current Mormons. -- Ericmortenson (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and your edits. I do think the AP stylebook and the LDS style guides carry weight; however, I think that in Wikipedia articles, preference is given to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and more specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints, which has specific guidelines on how to name the specific LDS denominations. That said, would you mind pointing out specifically which parts of the Lead don't comply with the AP guidelines? Though unlikely, it may be possible to make it fit both sets of guidelines, or at least bring it closer. -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the AP style book states, "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after Joseph Smith’s death."

Mormonism (Mormons vs. Latter-day Saints)

I am a member of the latter day saints and have noticed they have some sort of group about editing this page. But why then has the words Mormonism been still referred to as the title of the religion I can not remember ever being taught about being I'n a faith called Mormonism if anything I find the word Mormons used by people outside the Lds as words for a faith because of the book of Mormon but don't here other faiths being called bibles or be know to a faith called bibleism? I think if someone googles Mormons the should find the words latter day saints a form of Christian beliefs also known by others as Mormons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.124.116 (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you are asking why "Latter-day Saints" are called "Mormons" in this article. There are a number of reasons for this, though I can certainly imagine an article entitled "Latter-day Saints" with "Mormons" redirecting to it. I think the main reason is that "Mormons" is the more widely recognized term, and a good percentage of Latter-day Saints self-identify as Mormon.

Also, as to a specific group editing this page, anybody can edit this page - however, you must first create a Wikipedia account and get some experience editing other articles first. (I think you have to make 10 edits to other articles before you can edit this page.) The reason this page is protected is because it tends to attract vandalism. You are always welcome to write on the discussion page, and you can also request edits if you don't want to create an account. -- Adjwilley (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the internet user should be less critical about Mormons and write this page in a more unbiased way. The page is written in a way that easily gives people to judge these members critically based on their little understanding about the church. It is unfair to the members of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Mormonism is definitely not a religion itself but it gives people the impression that it is a religion that is different from Christian. The members of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are Christian but they have a complementary book to the bible which strengthens the truth of the bible and it gives reader a clearer understanding of the bible.

The society out there should not be too quick to judge the christian in this church and associated them differently from other Christians. As for the Christian, the members of LDS is a part of Jesus Christ family but the word Mormons seemed to differentiate them from Christians. Furthermore, I strongly believe that, Mormons should not be the title of members of LDS church, rather, they should be called Christians who believe in the Book of Mormons but fundamentally, Bible is the crucial daily bread in the walk of Christians of Latter-day Saints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natashakwek (talk • contribs) 00:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're interested in why Wikipedia articles are named the way they are, you could read the policy on this at Wikipedia:Article titles. You may also be interested to know there is an article about the LDS Church at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts Natashakwek. Do you have any specific recommendations on how to eliminate bias in the article? As for the Christian vs. non-Christian, that's kind of a tricky topic that I have purposefully tried to side-step in the article. Mormons (or Latter-day Saints) claim emphatically that they are Christian, and I believe their claims have merit. On the other hand, many mainstream Christians claim that Mormons are not Christian, partly because of their view of the "Godhead." Even experts on Christianity disagree on the matter, and the most informed expert I've read always answers the question "Are Mormons Christian?" by asking the person's definition of "Christian". It really is a complicated question, with no clear consensus on the answer. So the purposes of Wikipedia, I don't try to make claims either way. As for the "Mormon" vs. "LDS" distinction, it appears that Good Ol’factory has commented on that already, and it is discussed a little bit above as well. Feel free to leave any further comments though. -- Adjwilley (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Haeschliman, 28 August 2011

Under the section entitled 'culture and practices' in the second paragraph it says, "Engaged Mormons also contribute 10 percent of their income to the church as tithing, and are often involved in humanitarian efforts." I think the author meant to write endowed mormons, but even if engaged was the term intended, it would be more clear if it was stated that "all mormons" contribute 10%... I am a mormon and have four children and have encouraged them to pay a full tithe and offering to the poor since they started earning money, it is standard practice in our culture:) Thank you for this well researched and worded article.

Haeschliman (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think keeping "engaged Mormons" is more appropriate since simply saying "all Mormons" might imply that being a full tithe payer is requisite for retaining church membership. Kant66 (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The definition of Mormons in this article includes all Mormons, active, inactive, endowed, etc. I'm fairly certain that not all Mormons pay tithing - especially if we are including the inactive/estranged in our definition of Mormon. Perhaps the safest wording would be to say "all Mormons who hold temple recommends contribute 10 percent..." but that would exclude people who pay tithing but don't hold temple recommends. So far, "engaged" is the best word I can think of, although a synonym could potenially work as well. -- Adjwilley (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now:

Links

There are some links that need to be put in. Like LDS.org and the new one, Mormon.org. There are way more links, but you get the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmwright1 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There actually is already a link to lds.org in the External links section, as well as some in the footnotes (usually to scriptures or the Lds newsroom or something like that). I would be fine with a Mormon.org link, but I'm not sure if there would be support among the community for it. (We have to make sure the article is not biased toward the LDS Church.)

One idea I've been kicking around is to add a small section at the end of the article on "Mormons in the media" or Public perceptions of Mormons or something. The section would talk about how Mormons are viewed historically and presently, and would probably have a reference to the "I'm a Mormon" campaign, with the link to Mormon.org in the footnotes. It would probably also mention some prominent Mormons, like the ones pictured at the top of the article. -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Images

I added two pictures to the article. The first is a swap, (handcart pioneers for Brigham Young) which I believe to be fairly non-controversial. The second could be viewed as some as controversial, so I figured I'd open it up here for discussion. The picture I am adding is the statue of the Christus on Temple Square, and the caption is: "Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God who died for the sins of all mankind, and was resurrected on the third day." I added it to the Beliefs section at the bottom of the article.

The statement itself is fairly non-controversial, however, the extra prominence could be objectionable, possibly to some evangelical Christians. So, let me quickly try to defend the picture and statement. I think they are appropriate because I think that Mormons really do believe that Christ is central to their religion. Granted, they put a good amount of emphasis on Joseph Smith, the restoration, obedience to commandments, etc. and those are reflected adequately in the article; however, they pray in the name of Christ, they generally end sermons, meetings, testimonies, etc. in the name of Christ; their church is named after Christ; they try very hard to lead a Christ-centered life, and it just seemed like there was a hole in the article when it came to emphasis on Christ. I think the caption is adequately supported by the source I listed (a talk from a BYU dean to the Harvard Divinity School), but if somebody has problems with it, it could probably be replaced with a note about the statue being a replica of such and such blah blah blah.

The other change I made was something requested by COgden a while ago, which was directing readers to Mormonism for more information on beliefs. I think this article currently does a better job at explaining the basic beliefs of Mormons, but that's something I hope to change in the future. -- Adjwilley (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the "beliefs" sections is pretty good. The image is fine too, but I don't think the caption is quite appropriate for this article. It's not the caption is untrue, because it's absolutely correct from the perspective of Mormons. But the statement (1) it says nothing distinctive about Mormons that doesn't apply to any other Christians, and (2) doesn't cover the most notable elements of LDS theology, such as the idea that the Mormon God is a counsel of three separate material beings. COGDEN 07:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Right on both counts. I've put a good deal of thought into what to put on that caption, because there are so many things that could be the focus. I wouldn't want the only focus to be differences between Mormons and other Christians; at the same time, an innocuous statement that ignores the differences isn't ideal either. On the other hand, the article is on Mormons, not Mormonism, and for Mormons, believing that Jesus died for them and was resurrected is more important than believing that the Father and the Son have separate bodies.

Perhaps I could add another sentence to the caption so it says both something important, and something distinctive. For example, we could say, "Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God who died for the sins of all mankind, and was resurrected on the third day. They believe that all people are spirit children of God, and that through Christ they may return to his presence and live like him." This way, we still get the "most important" belief; the "literal" touches on the separateness of the father and son; the "spirit children" is fairly unique to Mormonism; and we hint at Exaltation. -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Utah Mormons more conservative on average than those elsewhere in the U.S.?

At the entry for Utah Mormon, the article says that such Mormons are on average more conservative than Mormons elsewhere in the U.S. However, a 2010 Gallup survey states, "However, whether a Mormon lives in Utah does not appear to make a significant difference in his or her ideology. The percentage of Mormons living in Utah who are conservative is little different from the conservative percentage among Mormons living elsewhere in the United States." If such a result is not an outlier. I will try to fix the statement in the article.

OK, the 2009 Pew Survey finds 69% of Utah Mormons are politically conservative, compared to 53% of Mormons residing elsewhere. Hmmm!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. And thank you for formatting that section. I had been uncomfortable with the formatting for a while, but I didn't know how to make it better, as I'm unfamiliar with a lot of the fancier code and templates. Could you possibly fix (again) the See also under Liberal Mormons so that it's indented like the other Further informations above? Thanks. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

^YOK--I put in a sentence mentioning non-LDS Church adherents, then linked to the List of Mormon sects with a "further info" template. Thanks, Adjwilley.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Another note: On the Liberal Mormons breakaway groups, all the sects you have listed in the link are defunct or dissolved (the Reformation Church of Jesus Christ was dissolved in 2010). I did an exhaustive search today, and not only is their website down (as it has been for quite a while) but there is hardly any trace of them on the internet news. It looks like some of the members may have formed two smaller groups, but there is little or no information on those groups either. Anyway, I think it would be slightly more accurate to say "Also, members of miniscule "Progressive Mormon" breakaway groups have adopted the label Liberal Mormon." instead of the present tense adopt. I think we could also wikilink the "breakaway groups" to point to the link in the Further information. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent catch! thanks ;~) --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Precise data concerning LDS activity rate

The article--undoubtedly reasonably--estimates LDS activity rate at about 40% in the U.S. My questions is, How often does one have to attend weekly worship services to be so classed? Once a month? Three times a month? Anybody know? (Btw I've added a citation to Peggy Stack's "Keeping members a challenge for LDS church" (2005) to the article. (Snip: "Tim Heaton noted in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism that attendance at weekly sacrament meetings in the early 1990s was between 40 percent and 50 percent in Canada, the South Pacific, and the United States. In Europe and Africa, the average was 35 percent. Attendance in Asia and Latin America hovered around 25 percent."))--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - LDS apologetics/Mormon studies scholar David G. Stewart, Jr., M.D., seems to have addressed this question in his book LDS Church Growth, Member Activity, and Convert Retention: Review and Analysis, chapter I section 03: "What is Activity?," posted at his website Cumorah.com.

  Snippet number 1:

________

[...L]aymen and social science researchers tend to consider an active member of a religion to be someone who attends church services regularly, usually weekly. [...] In both lay parlance and in sociologic research, a member activity rate is generally considered to be roughly synonymous with the percentage of members attending church services on an average week. [...] However[...d]ue to concerns of offending non-participating members by labeling them as inactive, the term "inactive" has disappeared from official [LDS] dialogue. Those who attend church at least once a quarter are "active," and those who do not attend at all are termed "less active." In official terminology, no member is inactive. [...] The official LDS definition of an "active member" is one who has attended at least one sacrament meeting in the past three months. A Salt Lake Tribune article quoting Elder Merrill Bateman states:

...He agreed the LDS Church's worldwide membership, reported at 12 million, includes many who no longer consider themselves Mormon, but he disagreed with researchers who estimated active Mormons equal only 4 million. Bateman said that number doesn't count those in undeveloped countries who find it difficult to attend sacrament meetings. 'So you might have in the neighborhood of ... 4 [million] and 5 million members attending church at any given time, but those who are active would be more than that.' ¶ As Elder Bateman observed, "those in undeveloped countries who find it difficult to attend sacrament meetings" are still considered by the Church to be "active" members. [...]" [Canham, Matt. "Church Disputes Trib Count: Newspaper stories didn't allow for members in transit, LDS cleric says." Salt Lake Tribune, 1 September 2005.]

======

Dr. Stewart's analysis seems pretty good. (..He sez that the church's desire NOT to write off those less-active in the church--through avoidance of characterizing such members as no longer affiliated or no longer participating--complicates comparing various denominations statistically, since such analysis requires data points pertaining to disparate denominations to be defined in like fashion.) ¶ Anyway--phew!--tho Stewart's online book is obviously fantastic, I'm too lazy at the moment to surf throughout it in search of his estimate as to what percent of LDS are "active." (Which btw Stewart defines as those who attend um I quote, regularly, end o' the quote):

In this article, "activity" will be used as a general term to refer to indicators of member participation, especially regular church attendance, as distinct from indicators such as self-identified religious affiliation may indicate belief but does not imply participation. I will refer to an "active member" as one who attends church regularly, a "semi-active" member as one who attends irregularly or occasionally, an inactive member as one who does not attend church, an "adherent" as one who identifies the LDS faith as his belief of preference, regardless of participation, a "disaffiliated member" as an individual claimed on church membership rolls who does not identify himself as a church member, and the "average weekly church attendance rate" as the number of individuals who attend church weekly divided by the number of official members.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A couple of comments. Thank you for doing the research on Less active Mormons. I had done some before, but I definitely didn't find all the stuff you did. I don't think it's necessary to include all that detail in this article, as the purpose of the "Groups" section was to give a brief overview of some of the variety within Mormonism. More detailed information on activity rates would probably be appropriate on the Less active Mormon page, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I have a couple of other thoughts on changes you've made. First, I don't think the lowercase-d and hyphen explanation is necessary in this context. It's a great thing to have on the "List of sects" page, but here, I think it will only end up confusing people. I could see perhaps having it in a footnote here, but I don't think it needs to be in the article body.

Secondly, "Tens of Thousands" is correct. There are about 20-60 thousand FLDS adherents, and they're by far the largest body of non-LDS Mormons. I assume that when you said 300,000, you were referring to the Community of Christ's 250,000 members. However, the CoC has rejected the name "Mormon". (I'm not sure why, but I think it was to distinguish themselves from the Brighamites, and particularly the practice of Polygamy...I think they went from RLDS to CoC for similar reasons). Anyway, since this is an article on people who do self-identify on Mormons, we are leaving them out. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair nuff. ;~) --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Culture and Practices (but mostly practices)

I've been thinking of splitting the "Culture and Practices" section into two sections: "Culture" and "Practices." The current section focuses mostly on practices, only mentioning the culture in passing, and does a poor job of differentiating between the two (e.g. are tithing, garments, and word of wisdom cultural, or are they specific practice?

In the culture section, I would likely reference Shipps, discussing how the culture evolved over time, how the trials in Missouri and Nauvoo, and the isolation in Utah shaped the Mormons (this is partially covered in the history section) and how even today they still tend to stick together. I may mention education, preparedness, public speaking, scouting, and stuff like that.

The idea is still foggy in my head, but I thought I'd throw it out here and ask for any thoughts, suggestions, or recommendations. -- Adjwilley (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The term "Mormon"

Based on recent edits by User:Ericmortenson, I would like to create a small section after the Lead and TOC but before the History section that explains the term Mormon. I recommend the following:

The term "Mormon" is borrowed from the title of the Book of Mormon. It was first applied pejoratively to followers of Joseph Smith, but was soon adopted as a nickname and has since lost its pejorative status. "Mormon" is most often used to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The term has also been embraced by other adherents of Mormonism, such as Mormon Fundamentalists, but rejected by other Latter Day Saint denominations, such as the Community of Christ.

The use of "Mormon" is not generally considered offensive and is commonly used by the LDS Church members in reference to themselves. Church leaders, however, have encouraged members to use the church's full name to emphasize the church's focus on Jesus Christ.

I think Ericmortenson's edits provide important clarification, but are inappropriate for the first paragraph of the Lead. I intend to revert the majority of his changes, and then add this new small section. Thoughts? -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen this discussed yet on this page, but according to the AP Style Guide, "Mormon" only correctly refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Other restorationist denominations (such as the Fundamentalist Church) are not considered Mormon. Should the quote, "A vast majority of Mormons are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) while a minority are members of other independent churches." be changed? I am unfamiliar with the rules of making such a change. Cougurrd (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think such a discussion would be helpful. Do you happen to have a link to the Style Guide? I see you obviously have some experience with such things. This article is currently following guidelines outlined in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (LDS) and MOS:MORM, so the discussion should probably take place on one of those talk pages. -- Adjwilley (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The AP Style Guide does not say that "Mormon" only correctly refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What is says is this: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death." I interpret this as talking about the Strangites, Bickertonites, and the Community of Christ, essentially—those sects that emerged in the 19th century from the succession crisis. It's true that none of those churches are appropriately called "Mormon", and all of those churches reject that label. However, the fundamentalist split came long after—in the 20th century—and involved only a branch off from the LDS (Mormon) Church. Thus, "Mormon fundamentalists" is an appropriate term for them, because they broke away from the church that the AP Style Guide says is appropriately called "Mormon". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

@Good Ol'factory, Thank you for pointing that out. I hadn't thought of it that way, but your argument makes sense. It is kind of a messy issue, and could possibly be compared to Mormons calling themselves Christian, while the leaders of many Christian churches say otherwise. I think in our case both sides have a good argument. Fundamentalists definitely self-identify as Mormon, while LDS Mormons are tired of being associated with polygamy and the "cultish" practices of some of these groups who generate press far out of proportion to their numbers. I'm not sure what the ideal solution would be, so for now I think the status quo (trying to keep both sides happy by making it clear that Fundamentalists and polygamy are not the LDS Church) should be ok. – Adjwilley (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Jane Elizabeth Manning James.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Jane Elizabeth Manning James.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

External links

Per WP:EL policy, this section is not a place for promotional links such as those that sell books or promote any particular belief system. furthermore, ONE link to the Church of Latter Day Saints should be sufficient given how many times its mentioned in the article and the prominence of its article link above the header. If anyone disagrees, please state your case for the inclusion of the links here. Otherwise, I will continue to remove these links per External Link policy. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you apparently don't realize most of the ones you have removed are not links to the LDS Church. While it is the largest, and perhaps most well known of churches that have come out of Mormonism, they are not the only one. There has been an error in thinking all that was removed was for the same church and/or purpose. It's likely that WP:ELOFFICIAL may apply and the links are fine as they were. (In full disclosure, I would also note that this last sentence was added as I edited my comment, so the "agreed" from below by Winkelvi may not apply to this part) ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Scalhotrod. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, so lets go through them, one by one...

• The Mormons—PBS American Experience/Frontline: Watch the Full Program Online—Part One: History, Part Two: Church & State

This is the media link I identified as such and left alone.

• Patheos + Mormonism – Patheos.com – Mormonism Origins, Mormonism History, Mormonism Beliefs

The .com was the tip off, this is an advertising driven blog site.

• lds.org, official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Mormon.org, introductory website containing answers to frequently asked questions

I'm fine with either, but please pick one or the other. Both have LDS logos at the top.

• mormonfundamentalism.com, information on Mormon fundamentalism compiled by Brian C. Hales

This is a self published website by an author, Brian C Hales, to sell his various books.

• MormonWiki.com free encyclopedia about Mormons from the perspective of members

AFAIK, we don't promote other Wiki's and self-generated sites. Am I wrong? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No, you are correct. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing them. Without having gone into detail on them, but knowing they were representing different parts of Mormonism and had longevity on the article, I was concerned the IPs edit war was getting in the way of what was appropriate. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been one of the main contributors to this article, so perhaps I can help with a rationale for why each site is linked.

• The Mormons—PBS American Experience/Frontline: Watch the Full Program Online—Part One: History, Part Two: Church & State A pretty good documentary on Mormons and an acceptable external link.
• Patheos + Mormonism Patheos hosts a lot of good information on a lot of different religions, and they are generally regarded as a pretty good source. I think this is a great external link, and their material is neither polemic or apologetic.
• lds.org is the official website of the LDS Church and definitely belongs here.
• Mormon.org is a different but also official website of the LDS Church, and the information there is geared towards answering questions of non-members. (lds.org contains materials geared more toward members.) I can see arguments using WP:ELOFFICIAL both for having both links or only one. (ELOFFICIAL does allow more than one link in some circumstances.) I think this has been added and removed several times over the years. I see no problem with keeping it.
• mormonfundamentalism.com was added years ago in an effort to balance the EL section because there were no external links specifically about Mormon Fundamentalism (a branch of Mormonism outside of the LDS Church). There is no "official" website for Mormon Fundamentalism and this was the best we could find. Something better might exist now.
• MormonWiki.com A semi-closed wiki open to editing by LDS members. As far as I can tell it is allowed, (WP:ELNO #12 doesn't apply because it is a stable well-developed wiki). I don't care much whether it stays or goes.

Anyway, I hope this helps. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Going forward after the protection expires

(edit conflict) I'd say that first off we need to look through the article and see if these links are needed. If their subjects are covered either by sources or links to other articles, that makes it easy to remove them. That said, if there is a desire to list links to the variety of Mormon "versions" (I guess meaning other than the LDS), I'm willing to help find them. But we have to keep in mind that the EL section shouldn't be turned into a WP:LINKFARM. I'd first up, the author's site on Mormon Fundamentalism needs to be removed since it clearly violates WP:EL.

It might be worthwhile to add a link to a page of the Community of Christ as well, maybe, perhaps cofchrist.org. Otherwise, I can't see any objections to any of the links discussed above. John Carter (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

My objection is solely on the basis of WP:EL: too many links and links that are inappropriate (promotional). If that's the case, they shouldn't be in the list/article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter, I don't think a link to cofchrist.org would be appropriate because members of the CoC specifically do not identify as Mormons. (In general, only groups originating from the followers of Brigham Young after Joseph Smith's death identify as "Mormon".)

@Winkelvi, the link to mormonfundamentalism.com was added by User:Good Olfactory to avoid making the article too LDS-centric. He had initially linked to flds.org [1] but replaced it with mormonfundamentalism.com [2] because that seemed to be a better and less-commercial site. Because there is no "Official" website for Mormon Fundamentalism, (MF is made up of perhaps hundreds of unrelated and sometimes competing churches, sects, and groups) some sort of independent website was needed. I guess this is my "weak support" for having this or some other website about FLDS if a better one can be found, for the EL section.

For moving forward, after the protection expires, let's just pretend like it's still protected until we come to a consensus here. If the IP editor decides to start reverting again I'll report them myself. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The point of self-identification is a good one. I do note however that the Handbook of Denominations in the United States, 13th edition, 2010, specifically includes 4 groups in its section "Latter-day Saints (Mormons)": The LDS Church, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Community of Christ, and the Church of Christ (Temple Lot). The page Latter-day Saints currently redirects to the LDS Church, not here. If it redirected here, there might not be a problem. The fact that it redirects there raises some problems as to how and where to include them in the broad LDS/Mormon grouping in wikipedia. I offer no solutions here, by the way, just pointing out what might be seen as a bit of a problem as it stands in our content here. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. The CoC are definitely part of the larger Latter Day Saint movement. I believe Latter-day Saint (small d with hyphen) redirects to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while Latter Day Saint redirects to the larger movement which includes the CoC. That has been the convention at least (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints)#Guidelines). ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that works. Sorry about not catching that myself. John Carter (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Scalhotrod in regard to WP:LINKFARM. And I will say that it seems his comments along with mine are being ignored at this point. Am I wrong? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

So to take a pro-active approach, lets just start compiling the list here so we can transfer it. Can everyone agree that the list should be alphabetical by organizations name? So for a start...

==External links==

===Various denominations within Mormonism===

• cofchrist.org, Community of Christ website
• churchofchrist-tl.org, Church of Christ - Temple Lot
• lds.org, Latter-day Saints website

===Other===

• exmormon.org, an organization for former Mormon fundamentalists

===Media===

• The Mormons—PBS American Experience/Frontline: Watch the Full Program Online—Part One: History, Part Two: Church & State

Seem OK so far? If the Brian C Hales website wasn't promotional, I could understand its inclusion. But its an outright sales site for his books and goes against WP:EL. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, Scalhotrod. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't meant to ignore anybody here. I don't really have a strong preference either way which is why I wasn't participating much earlier. A couple problems with the list:

1. Community of Christ and Church of Christ TL websites should be excluded. These denominations do not fall "within Mormonism" for the reasons I mentioned to John Carter above.

2. Exmormon.org is not an organization for former Mormon fundamentalists. It's a forum for former Mormons. There is no organization for the group "Mormon fundamentalists" current or former (which is why I wanted the Hales website). Besides exmormon.org is used as a source in the text of the article. Basically it fails the criteria in WP:ELYES and meets a couple of the criteria of WP:ELNO.

3. I think my strongest preference is to not drop the patheos link. Please read our article on Patheos before dismissing it as a "blog". It really is a great resource when it comes to religion.

4. I'm also not terribly keen on dividing the EL section into subsections. The text itself is self-explanatory.

Just to clarify my preference, if it were just me, I'd leave it the way it has been for the last 4 years before the edit war. Since there seems to be a strong desire to prune it, here are the ones I think should stay at the very least: Patheos, lds.org (as the official link), and PBS. That's dropping mormon.org, mormonfundamentalism.com, and mormonwiki.com. I don't think any new links are necessary. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I like Adjwilley's suggestion, but have one recommendation which leaves us with...

See Also

• Patheos, a website with information about religions

External links

• lds.org, Latter-day Saints website
• The Mormons—PBS American Experience/Frontline—Part One: History, Part Two: Church & State (direct link to video)

Any takers? On a separate note, anyone think that Mr. Hales is Notable enough to merit an article? I didn't check to see if he's self-published. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Linking to the Wikipedia article about the website instead of the website itself seems a bit unusual and not very helpful. It's like an article about a specific disease linking to our article on webMD instead of webMD's page on the specific disease. If the website's content is relevant why not just link to it? That's what readers expect I think. (On Brian C Hales...maybe? This book was published by Greg Kofford Books Inc...but I've never heard of them either.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

From what you've said about Patheos, I'm wondering if it doesn't belong in a page bottom template. There's one for "Mormon-nomers", but not for religions in general. Considering that the site is multi-religion informational and has its own article, maybe its not getting the credit it deserves. I did not check, but is it cited in the body of the article? If it is, we can't use it in See also anyway.

Judging by his bio on Amazon, Hales is fairly impressive[3]. Obviously there needs to be sources, but he looks like an interesting guy. Bummer, just found this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian C. Hales, so much for that. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Less is more

Just go for one link. WP has does its job with the article. Don't need a LINKFARM. Pple can use google. And BTW the PBS link is NOT ABOUT a documentary. It is a portal page for stuff about mormons. 118.93.85.100 (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

118.93.85.100, I see that you've changed your mind about its inclusion[4]. Now if we can just get you to work on your Civility and stop swearing in Edit Summaries, you won't have to be watched. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope. WRONG. I did not change my mind. I didn't care whether it was included or not. wot i didn't like was that it had a crap description. i see that the so-called editors have finally decided that I was right. Another thing, any editor can add crap so all editors need watching. 118.93.75.131 (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Choice of Images

I think the choice and order of image seems odd.

1. It seems strange that Dieter F. Uchtdorf is included, but Thomas S. Monson isn't, as Monson is President of the Church and Uchtdorf is his councilor.
2. It seems strange that Manning is between Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and on the top row. Smith and Young were the first two Presidents of the Church. While I have no issue with her being included, I don't think the location of her image is best.
3. Philo Farnsworth, Marie Osmond and Stephenie Meyer may or may not be the best choices. While they are known for being "Mormon" writers, inventors and entertainers, there are slot of others who are just as famous, for example Gladys Knight.

I think we need to come up with some better image choices. Perhaps a list of images could be created and then the best 9 chosen by consensus?--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 15:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that whoever chose the images was probably trying to get a cross-range of nationalities, ethnicities, and genders. Uchtdorf was probably chosen because he is a prominent non-American Mormon. That said, I have no objection to changing those that are selected. The one aspect by which the selection wasn't balanced was by denomination—there are no fundamentalist Mormons pictured. Why not Warren Jeffs? (OK, that last sentence was a bit of a joke.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I have created Template:Random image array which will allow us to add more images here, and each time the readers browser or Wikipedia purges, the images will be chosen at random in groups of 4.

However, when adding the image to this page, (that I'm about to do) I tried to keep the reason they were chosen the same for each group. For example, Jane Manning was chosen because she was a early African American Latter Day Saint. Joseph Freeman will now be randomly swapped with her image, as he is the first African American to to receive the Melchizedek priesthood after the announcement of the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood.

I hope you like it. I have absolutely no issues with someone changing the image. I just did my best

I figure this new template will all more image to be shown, without taking any more space.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 19:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Mormonism link to US millitary

Some mention of EMS should be given in this article about mind control techniques https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vOgHqE_P4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

polygamy ≠ polygyny

Polygamy has many forms. Since Mormon plural marriage was always polygynous (one man, plural wives) and never polyandrous (one woman, plural husbands) or polyamorous (plural members of both sexes), should "polygamy/ous" be changed to "polygyny/ous" throughout this article, as well as Mormonism and polygamy? To discuss, please go to Talk:Mormonism and polygamy § polygamy ≠ polygyny and {{ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Request Edit History

The article should state that the first of the visions had by Joseph Smith in the 1820's was of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. It is represented by the picture to the left of the article but no mention of it is made in the article itself. Nilhtriw (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree this should be added †₳☼ҤѺԝӀіӣǵ (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It actually is mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of the "Beginnings" section. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

But critically this was not the first vision which Smith reported. It was not announced until 1839, some 19 years after it is supposed to have happened, during the Nauvoo period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangerbird (talk • contribs)

You are partially correct: the account of the First vision was not widely circulated during Smith's lifetime. The first written account dates to 1832, 12 years after it is supposed to have happened, but most books and biographies present it chronologically anyway. ~Awilley (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead image(s)

{{Random image array}} So apparently per this RfC we are no longer allowed to use image arrays in the Lead sections of articles. Although I'm not entirely convinced that many of the concerns behind the RfC apply here, knowing how things go on this site I think it's time to start looking into a replacement. I would suggest File:Salt Lake Temple, Utah - Sept 2004-2.jpg as a possibility. Pinging User:ARTEST4ECHO who created the current array, and User:Good Olfactory who participated in the previous discussion about the image selection. ~Awilley (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Salt Lake Temple would probably be good since it's one of the more well-known symbols of Mormonism. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything better. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think a photo of an angel Moroni File:Reno_Nevada_Temple-Angel_Moroni.jpg or a Book of Mormon File:Mormon-book.jpg would also work. I think ARTEST4ECHO is currently inactive. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Temple photo seems the most appropriate. The other photos mentioned of the BOM and Moroni would be good in the body of the article, but not the infobox. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead

The lead states that, "Mormons self-identify as Christian, although some non-Mormons dispute this and some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity." The wording requires improvement since, as it stands, it confusingly implies that "some non-Mormons" dispute that "Mormons self-identify as Christians". In reality, virtually no one would dispute that Mormons self-identify as Christians; rather, what "some non-Mormons" would dispute is that Mormons are, in fact, Christians. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a good change to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of a good way of saying this.

1. "Mormons self-identify as Christian, although some non-Mormons dispute that they are Christian and some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity." (Simple approach: added "dispute that they are Christian" too repetitive for me)

2. "Mormons self-identify as Christian, although some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity." (Concise, but side-steps the Christianity dispute)

3. "Mormons self-identify as Christian despite some non-Mormons saying they are not and some of their beliefs diverging from mainstream Christianity." (Less concise, seems a bit run-on)

4. "Mormons self-identify as Christian, although some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity; some non-Mormons say that they are not Christian at all." (Too verbose IMO, but clear about who thinks what)

5. Mormons self-identify as Christian, while some non-Mormons contend that some of their beliefs place them outside Christianity" (More focus on the dispute, but also more concise)

~Awilley (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a new sentence would be clearer. It would be even better if we could say specifically why some denominations don't consider Mormons Christian, if not in the lead, then in the body. Then we could say something like "Since Mormons believe in scripture additional to the Bible, evangelicals argue that Mormons are not Christian." But it might be hard to find a source like that. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I not sure that specific reasons belong in the lead. In fact, I'd say it's more appropriate (and more neutral) for the lead to just say "Mormons self-identify as Christian, although some of their beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity." The fact that "some non-Mormons dispute this" is already implied by having to say "self-identify." Piguy (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Article Reorganization

In my view, the typical reader who searches for "Mormon" or "Mormons" is more interested in religious beliefs and practices than cultural divisions. I'd like people's thoughts on the following rearrangement:

1. Terminology
2. Beliefs
3. History
4. Practices and Culture

I propose completely removing the section "Groups within Mormonism" or to substantially rewrite it. The typical reader (once again, in my view) who is searching for "Mormons" is probably looking to read more about people who actually believe and practice the faith. I feel this section gives too much emphasis (comparatively) to people who are non-practicing or non-believing. Thanks in advance for your thoughts! Piguy (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick response: I'm not terribly concerned about people not being able to find what they're looking for. The hatnotes at the top of the article are explicit:

This article is about the people known as "Mormons". For the religion, see Mormonism. ...

I think some amount of weight needs to be given to non-practicing Mormons. They do, after all, account for a majority of Mormons.

Whatever the order, I think history needs to come first in this article. ~Awilley (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick input. As a counterpoint, the 2012 Pew study says that 77% of those who self-identify as "Mormon" in the U.S. attend church at least once a week, which is a far greater percentage than that of many other religious groups. If you extrapolate that figure using comparative worldwide activity rates, you may be able to assume that about 58% of those who identify as Mormon are attending weekly. So, to claim that non-practicing Mormons account for a majority, you must include those who no longer identify as Mormon. And in my view, that group is less relevant to this article. Piguy (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It's been a couple months. Does anyone else have any opinions on the proposed article reorganization? Piguy (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Longer response: If asked to rank the sections in order of decreasing importance to this article I would say: History, Practices and Culture, Terminology, then Beliefs. Terminology is currently first after the Lead because it's a very short section that gives some basic definitions. Otherwise History (which is next) would be first. It may or may not be true that people who search for "Mormon" are looking primarily for information about the beliefs (as opposed to history, practices, etc.) but it would be difficult to produce any evidence supporting that without click-tracking that I don't think Wikipedia does. In any case I think the premise that the Beliefs section is most important in this article is flawed. The main purpose of this article is to talk about the "religious and cultural group" known as "Mormons". The article about their belief system is Mormonism (wikilinked in hatnotes and throughout the article), followed by lower-level topic-specific articles like Mormon cosmology (also linked prominently). Originally this article didn't even have a section about beliefs, and I was the one who proposed adding it (see Talk:Mormons/Archive_1#New_Beliefs_Section and the previous section.) After reviewing my draft, User:COGDEN, who created this article, gave the feedback, "I wonder if this section could be cut down a bit. We already have the Mormonism article to discuss Mormon beliefs and doctrines. I think this should be a 2-3 paragraph, single-subsection section overview, with the reader directed to Mormonism for more information." ~Awilley (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

number of temples

Hello. I reverted an addition of 155 temples from the lede, I didn't find it in the link at first but then I did however I don't think the number of temples is an important figure for the lede so I have not replaced, please correct me if I am wrong. This was the link provided http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-statistics/country/united-states and this is what I read also in regards to the importance of temples. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/temples Govindaharihari (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I really enjoyed reading this article today (well...I mean I only got as far as the lede but still...). Nice work and thanks to all who have worked hard on it! Rogerdpack (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Mormon media campaign

It might be useful to include a section about the ad campaign from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where they refer to themselves as "the Mormons." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustaZBguy (talk • contribs) 17:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mormons. 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/20121105130157/http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/africagrowth.html to http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/africagrowth.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021171253/http://www.affirmation.org/history/in_the_beginning.shtml to http://www.affirmation.org/history/in_the_beginning.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613223029/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C3611 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C3611

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) 16:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Cross

The article says that Mormons refer to themselves as Latter Day Saints to put more emphasis on Jesus Christ. So I wonder why Mormons will not wear a cross or put a cross anywhere on their churches or temples? The cross is the symbol of Christ and Christians and was the reason for his life and death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.14.16 (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The area involving the use of the cross is addressed in other articles such as Symbolism in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Bahooka (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

LDS consider the cross to be a murder instrument. 05:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.138.69.196 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2018

In the section Culture and practices, I would request a change in the third sentence. The word "atypical" has the same contextual meaning without the adverse or prejudicial connotations that the word "foreign" carries.

From: Mormon converts are urged to undergo lifestyle changes, repent of sins, and adopt sometimes foreign standards of conduct.

To: Mormon converts are urged to undergo lifestyle changes, repent of sins, and adopt sometimes atypical standards of conduct. SiliconUnicorn (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Mormons as an ethnoreligious group

@Dan Holsinger: Regarding this revert: this has been touched on in the past (Talk:Mormons/Archive_1#Not_an_ethnic_group) and I'll make the same argument I did in 2011. Mormon historian, Richard Bushman wrote in Mormonism, a very short introduction that "The Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethinc Groups (1980) includes a long entry on the Mormons, one of the few groups in the volume whose inclusion is based on religion rather than national origins or common ancestry. Surveying the entire range of social configurations that evolved within America, the sociologist Thomas F. O'Dea observe that the Mormons 'came closer to evolving an ethnic identity on this continent than any other group'...Mormons like to think of themselves as a peculiar people with an overarching identity. If asked who they are, many church members rank their Mormonism above race, national origin, class, or vocation." Mormons are also listed as an example at the Ethnoreligious group article with a citation to https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/seeking-the-promised-land/mormons-as-an-ethnoreligious-group/D8F7C933C353C2A7D1AFAE00E4F10549 . ~Awilley (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I also disagree with the removal of the categorization. Categorization has to be verifiable and sources are listed in the previous discussion, in the "External Reading" section of this article, and from the Ethnoreligious group article that support including Mormons in this category. Also note that common ancestry is just one possible defining characteristic of an group identity listed at the ethnic group article, but an ethnic group can also be defined by a common history, society, or culture. Per the sources cited, Mormons fit this definition. We can't just ignore or remove sources because we personally disagree with them. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: Your post already has the arguments against this categorization in it: 1. "came closer to evolving" that is maybe in the future, but not yet. 2. "Mormons like to think of themselves as a peculiar people with an overarching identity" that is Mormons like to see themselves like this, that's the point, in my opinion they even like see themselves as a "chosen" people. 3. Richard Bushman is a "practicing Mormon", that says a lot! Even if masses of Muslims claimed here that "Islam is a religion of peace" this would not be a convincing argument. 4. @FyzixFighter: The fact that most probably Mormons have already manipulated the article "ethnoreligious group" is no argument. Even if dozens of Mormons here start to claim that Mormons are an ethnoreligious group, this just reflects their biased view based on their religious conviction. The history of Mormons is relatively short compared to e.g. Jews or Druze and they are a heavily proselytizing group with many being members in the first and second generation. To become a ethnoreligious group takes time. And their members are from all nations and races. They do not become a relatively uniform group all over the world in one or two generations. If some more or less closed polygamous Fundamentalist Mormons were categorized here as an ethnoreligious group I would agree. Do you guys see polygamous Fundamentalist Mormons as the true and real Mormons who reperesent the true Mormon spirit and the whole Mormon community? Dan Holsinger (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dan Holsinger: I only point to the ethnoreligious group article to show a RS that supports the categorization. It doesn't matter to wikipedia or us as editors what claims Mormons make, but what reliable sources say. The "Seeking the Promised Land: Mormons and American Politics" source (currently ref 25 over there) is actually interesting in that it argues that Mormons closely resemble (but are not) an ethnic group, but argues Mormons can be classified as an ethnoreligious group. Mormon history maybe short compared to the Druze and Jews, but it is comparable to other more recent ethnoreligious groups like the Amish or Hutterites. Again, if we have reliable sources that describe Mormons as an ethnoreligious group, then the categorization is verifiable and valid. --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Nobody questions that Mormons are a religious group. The question is, can all Mormons in meaningful way be seen as an ethnic group since they lack all what defines an ethnic group (except religion): common ancestry, common language, common history of (almost) all of the members of the group (not the fact that the religious group has a history!), common racial background, common customs. Only common religion is not enough, all Catholics are not an ethnic group, nor all Muslims etc. Judaism is not only a religion, but Jews are a people with a common ancestry (more or less) and at least 3000 years of common history. Dan Holsinger (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

As editors, if we can cite it, it's satisfactory. Ethnicity does not change by joining a religious group (See Ivanka Trump). Also WP:Not a forum. Lexlex (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dan Holsinger, not trying to pile on, but I just a couple of points I feel need to be responded to:

1. There is a difference between an ethnic group and an ethnoreligious group. You seem to be conflating the two in your most recent comment.
2. I referenced four secondary reliable sources supporting my position above: Bushman (citing two other secondary reliable sources: the Harvard Encyclopedia of Ethnic Groups and Thomas O'Dea) and the chapter in the Campbell/Green book I linked to titled "Mormons as an Ethno-Religious Group".
3. Regarding Bushman, he is one of the leading and most widely-respected scholars of Mormonism. When it comes to actual scholarship it doesn't matter what religion he is...what matters is whether other leading scholars in the same field who cite his work (and yes, they do). That's how you sort the real scholars from the apologists/polemicists working in the same field.
4. Lastly I will grant that modern Mormons are less of an ethnoreligious group than they were during the earlier Utah years, before the diaspora in the 1920s-30s (for example with the unusually rapid assimilation of European migrants). But I think that period alone merits having the category on the article.

~Awilley (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Revising article name

The Church has recently put out a statement asking to be referred to as its full name- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints- instead of the nickname "Mormons" or "Mormonism". In relation to this article, their style guide says: "In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." When a shortened reference is needed, the terms "the Church" or the "Church of Jesus Christ" are encouraged. The "restored Church of Jesus Christ" is also accurate and encouraged."[5] Following the style guide, it would be appropriate to change the article name to "Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" or similar. Would it be okay to proceed with a name change, or would an RfC be required? Audrey (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Audrey, I don't think the name change is going to happen here for a number of reasons. Foremost, this article is not just about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Its scope includes all people who identify or have historically identified as Mormons including some offshoot groups as well as early Mormons who were Mormons before the church was actually named The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (I think it was first named "Church of Christ".) Additionally, on Wikipedia we favor secondary sources over primary sources, meaning that for this issue we give higher weight to the style guides of news/publishing organizations than to the style guide of the church itself. So at a minimum we would need to see major news organizations modifying their style guides to exclude "Mormons", which hasn't happened to my knowledge. See for instance, [6] which says, "Some church members are well aware that the directive is unlikely to be followed by outsiders like academics and journalists. (For now at least, The New York Times’s style guide continues to allow 'Mormon.')" ~Awilley (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2018

Please every Mormon/mormons with Latter Day Saints 2601:681:4400:38FC:9927:F303:6DE4:D640 (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2018 (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. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

political activity

I want to know if it is true that Mormons prohibited to teach the evolution theory and literature like Romeo and Juliet in Utah. It is said that Mormons are very influential in agriculture industry. Can anyone who knows about those topics expand the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.202.15 (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, Utah's public schools teach literature and evolution the same as any others. (Incidentally Mormon doctrine is actually more tolerant of evolution than that of, say, Evangelical Christians). I'm not quite sure what influences Mormons have had on agriculture. In my opinion these details are mundane enough that they don't really need to be mentioned in this article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wants to know such questions, (including Wikipedia readers) they can ask via Mormon.org [7] This article could point that out. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

In response to the first question, no, members of the Church of Jesus Christ have no official policy on evolution. They believe that evolution is a "matter for scientific study". See this link: https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng Also, the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has said “There is no conflict between science and religion. Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both,”. See this link: http://www.ldsliving.com/Elder-Nelson-There-Is-No-Conflict-Between-Science-and-Religion-/s/78668 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonknight44 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Terminology

I recently did some original research on the origin of the term "Mormon". In that research, I found 1) several references using the term "Mormon" and "Mormonite" about 2 years earlier than the earliest articles sourced on Wikipedia. This includes the sources cited by other books on Wikipedia. 2) I found that the earliest uses of the terms "Mormon" and "Mormonite" were unambiguously descriptive and NOT derogatory as is often claimed.

I've laid out my research and the reviews by two believing and two non-believing reviewers on my git. https://github.com/frogontrombone/MormonStudies/

In light of the primary sources and their usage of the term, I propose reverting back to the changes I had submitted earlier today (Nov 24, 2018). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogontrombone (talk • contribs) 16:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome Frogontrombone! As these are your first Wikipedia edits (on this account at least) you have picked a very lively topic for debut. Please understand that while admirable, original research is not something we do as editors. We may only state facts and support those facts through reference to verifiable sources. Acting as an author can turn messy quickly, and isn't allowed. I would suggest reading WP:NOR, then digging around to find a published source which draws your conclusion. Other editors will find a published source saying the opposite and the fun times begin. Lexlex (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Welcome Frogontrombone' Many thanks for your discussion here. On my investigatios I thought your changes controversial, I am not overly informed as to this content so any guidance ia appreciated Govindaharihari (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I see now that coming in and using the term "original research" was problematic because the term has a specific meaning here on Wikipedia, where I was trying to communicate a broader idea that my edits are based on new research published on a scholarly website. I was not attempting to use Wikipedia as a publication platform for research presented nowhere else. In my proposed edits, I only presented facts and provided verifiable sources to back up those facts.

Getting to the claims themselves, I've done significant digging on this topic and have found that every other secondary source I could find (in addition to those on Wikipedia) can only trace its claims to 1834, if it traces its claims at all, whereas the ones I cited can trace their claims back to 1829. The main claims I am making in the edit is 1) the term "Mormonite" was invented in early 1831, about at least two years earlier than any other published source suggests, and 2) that the term did not have secondary derogatory meanings between 1831 and January 1834. The new research AGREES with other sources that the term became pejorative as early as 1834. However, primary sources prior to 1834 overwhelmingly show that the term was used in a descriptive sense only. Again, these claims date draw on earlier primary sources than any other published source, which begin their citations in May 1834 with the official change of the name of the church proposed by Sidney Rigdon.

I understand the need for reserve when making controversial claims, and so I thank Govindaharihari for proposing further discussion. I'm happy to discuss the sources I used in the proposed edit, the context of the claims, etc. frogontrombone

Welcome, frogontrombone. Going purely from your explanation and a (very) quick skim of some of your research, it looks like you have enough reliable sources to make the changes and cite your sources directly (rather than citing your own research, which I think is a no-no here even when it is published in a respected journal), which is a change I would support. Pastychomper (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello! As I read this article on Members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Or "Mormons," I noticed that some of you're information is innacurate. Being a "Latter Day Saint" myself, I would love to help you with fixing inaccuracy in you're article, or editing it myself. My offer stands, all you have to do is respond in favor of my offer. Kellymad000 (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, kellymad000! Being a Latter-day Saint as well, I agree that this article does have some inaccuracies in regards to the Church, however we must note that it covers all persons who fall under the religious culture of mormonism, including various fundamentalist groups. Have a good day! Rollidan (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Good Friday in Mormonism

Hey- is there anything special that Mormons do for Good Friday? If there is, add it to the Good Friday page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I have found so far (but it's from an anti-mormon? blog [8]):

Answers to Gospel Questions 5:155; “Question: “Can you please tell me why members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not observe Good Friday as other Christians do?” Answer: The reason why we do not observe Good Friday should be clear enough. Easter is taken from a pagan spring holiday, that was governed by the moon. The Roman Catholic Church connected the birth of the Savior with this pagan ceremony. As you know, Easter is governed by the moon, and this spring pagan festival was celebrated according to the moon, any time in March and the end of April. THE RESURRECTION DATE DID NOT VARY. Now as you well know that the resurrection did not vary and it is foolish to celebrate the resurrection of our Lord at the end of March or the first of April, or middle of April or near the first of May, and put Good Friday the Friday before the Easter Sunday. I think you are wise enough to see the foolishness of it. The resurrection of the Savior does not vary year by year but it is a constant thing. Why should we follow the silly custom rather than to have one day for the resurrection?”

(allegedly a direct quote from Smith, Joseph Fielding (1957–1966). Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. Deseret Book.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't think of anything special that Mormons do for Good Friday. The quote above might be part of the reason why, though that rationale certainly hasn't prevented Mormons from celebrating other "pagan" holidays like Halloween. Also possibly related...Mormons believe that the resurrection occurred on April 6 and typically hold their General Conference as close to that day as possible. ~Awilley (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've never heard that the resurrection occurred on April 6th, just that the church was formally organized on that date, and also some people think it is Christ's birthday. In the past Easter was only observed in sacrament meeting and primary (children's lessons), but the new "Come Follow Me" LDS curriculum has a special Easter lesson for all ages now. I believe the LDS Church doesn't do anything for Good Friday because it comes from a Protestant tradition, though I don't have a source for that at the moment. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2018

Change "LDS Church" to be "restored church of Jesus Christ" to match the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stylistic guidelines. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide Rgettys (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Rgettys (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Since the user has not made the edit themselves, I have tried to correct the error. --Joshua 01:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Revision of the use of "Mormon" to mean "member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints"

While browsing the talk page I saw that this topic has been previously discussed, with the conclusion that the term "Mormon" refers to many different groups of people, not all of whom would be affected by the style change proposed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In, in that very style change, the church accepts that the term "Mormon" may be correctly applied to historical events and figures. However, there are many opportunities in the article to correct the style usage in the way the church intended - particularly by changing "Mormons" to variations of "church members". I went ahead and did that in the Culture and Practices and Groups within Mormonism headings. I also changed all references of the LDS church to preferred forms. Would it be okay to further substitute references of "Mormons" in accordance with guidelines stated above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ph03n1x77 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:MORMON for the encyclopedia's consensus on terminology associated with the church, offshoots and adherents. Acroterion (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Latter-Day Saints, not Mormons.

Many refer to the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as "Mormons", calling our religion "Mormonism", a nickname that leads many to believe that we worship the prophet Mormon, for which our religious text, the Book of Mormon, is named after. However, this is incorrect. As the name of our church suggests, we worship our savior Jesus Christ. Mormon was simply a prophet and historian.

The Apostle, seer, revelator, and current Prophet and Head of the Church Russell M. Nelson said in an address at a semiannual General Conference, "Today I feel compelled to discuss with you a matter of great importance. Some weeks ago, I released a statement regarding a course correction for the name of the Church. I did this because the Lord impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He decreed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...[why was it] necessary to emphasize something so 'inconsequential[?]' Some said it could not be done, so why even try? Let me explain why we care so deeply about this issue. But first let me state what this effort is not:

• It is not a name change.
• It is not rebranding.
• It is not cosmetic.
• It is not a whim.
• And it is not inconsequential.

Instead, it is a correction. It is the command of the Lord. Joseph Smith did not name the Church restored through him; neither did Mormon. It was the Savior Himself who said, 'For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... And how be it my church save it be called in my name? for if a church be called Moses' church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church.' Thus the name of the church is not negotiable. When the Savior clearly states what the name of His Church should be and even precedes His declaration with, 'Thus shall my church be called,' He is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended." Quote unquote.

A church founded by men is an imperfect church. That is why we are not Mormons. the same goes for LDS. LDS stands for Latter-day saints, but we are not the LDS church. We are not the latter-day saint church. we are the church of Jesus Christ, restored is the light of the last dispensation, in the fullness of times. Mormon was a man, even if he was a good man. The Book of Mormon has another name, a true name, an important name: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Mormonism does not exist. The Gospel Of Jesus Christ does. the Mormon Church does not exist. The LDS church does not exist. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does. "Mormons" do not exist. Latter-day Saints do. We are Latter-day Saints in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not "Mormons", from the "Mormon" church. Latter-day Saints. Not Mormons.

Havah.J.Alcorn (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• One place this has been discussed previously.....Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints#changes based on recent style request from LDS Church?. ChristensenMJ (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Everybody that wishes for this change please go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints#changes based on recent style request from LDS Church? and vote (at the bottom) for the terminology to be updated, let's do it, thanks! Rogerdpack (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• While this argument is essentially correct and the of same reason I came to this talk page, I feel it important to add that "Mormon" is not just a nickname but a slight and a defamation intended to breed false information concerning this religious sect, that it was embraced only to alleviate the contentious and derogatory nature of that name such that it might open doors to the heart that would otherwise remain shut and barred, that the primary nature of it's use is to say that we are not Christians believing in some fellow called Mormon (perhaps an alias of Joseph Smith) instead of Jesus Christ, and that as such, even to call ourselves "Latter-Day Saints" depreciates the value of this correction: we are not "Latter-Day Saints", neither have we the right to ascend ourselves to that glorified status even if that be our goal, rather we are Christians, followers of Jesus Christ and his teachings as set forth before the beginning of this world, and we should be known as such by that same logic that causes us to insist that we are members of "The Church of Jesus Christ". Remember that getting away from "LDS" is part of that same argument because to think of ourselves as "Latter-Day Saints" or "The Latter-Day Saint Church" in it's many variations detracts from who we are and what we believe.

MaurolepisDreki (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Temple ceremonies Nauvoo

Meanwhile, Smith introduced temple ceremonies meant initially to seal additional wives to select associates,[43]

There is no conclusive evidence that supports this claim. The linked site just repeats the assumption without providing evidence. Evidence must be based on appropriate sources. Since that is not the case here, please change / delete the unsubstantiated assertion. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/yearofpolygamy/2016/09/10-things-polygamy-gave-mormonism/

In addition, the whole sentence is worded far too general. The temple ceremonies introduced in Nauvoo did not just comprise sealings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lujew12 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. That blog post is not a sufficient source for us to make a claim like that. ~Awilley (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Update in January 2021

I saw that one user, @TheOtter, recently (Dec 2020) attempted to make sweeping changes to the article. They were all reverted, but the user who made the revision, ChristensenMJ mentioned that some of them could have been worthwhile. Hence, I wanted to bring them up here, since I agree with some of the proposed edits. I'll go ahead and mention them in separate sections, and if we can get consensus, put them back in.

Removal of "Mormon" from Modern Times section except in connection with fundamentalists

Let me preface this by saying: I believe that these changes are consistent with the most recent revision of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints. Just as a reminder, here's what they are "Several denominations, including the Community of Christ, generally oppose the use of the word Mormon or its derivatives in reference to its members or theology. Therefore, the word Mormon should be used to refer to Latter Day Saint movement adherents only in the following situations:

In reference to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, the informal appellation Mormon church should not be used outside of directly quoted material – following a convention of Utah newspapers, the abbreviation LDS Church should be used. Members of the LDS Church may accurately be referred to as Latter-day Saints or as Mormons. It is usually best to follow the predominant form found in the sources used for a particular Wikipedia article."

The style guide continues to add exceptions about historical usage, which the LDS Church itself actually continues to accept. "Mormon" is correctly used in proper names such as the Book of Mormon or when used as an adjective in such historical expressions as "Mormon Trail."

All of that said, as far as I can tell, Modern Times only references members of the LDS Church. I think it would be a good idea to add information about Mormon fundamentalists, especially since they've recently experienced some tumult. While we're at it, we can change references to Mormons to members or adherents of the LDS Church. In particular, when referencing demographic and member statistics officially published by that church, based on the Style guide, they shouldn't be called Mormons. Also, unless someone has a reason why the old name should be preferred, Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square should probably be changed.

Changes to "Beliefs"

While editing Mormonism, I found that many references to "Mormon's believe" or "Mormons say" can be replaced with "Joseph Smith said" or "church doctrine states", which, in general, is a more exact and neutral way to phrase things. Especially when doctrine originated with Joseph Smith, I feel it's prudent to mention it in more specific detail.

In addition, this concluding sentence seems biased: "Though Mormons have some beliefs that are considered strange in a modernized world, they continue to hold onto their beliefs because they feel God has spoken to them."

Links

I'll admit, I'm not very well-versed in link formatting. And I'm a little unclear about why exactly TheOtter changed them. Is anyone able to shed light on why there's several different formats for links going on?

Remainder of changes to blacks and the priesthood, charges against Smith, and organization of the Relief Society

I think the changes to charges against Smith could be useful, as well as the inclusion of information about the Relief Society. Thoughts? Ph03n1x77 (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit to the introduction

I made some very significant edits to the introduction, and since there seems to be absolutely no talk on this page, I submitted them without discussion. Here is a brief description of my edits, my editorial choices, and motivations.

The prior introduction was highly biased toward only a single sect of Mormonism, the LDS church, and discussion of Mormonism in this section did not distinguish by sect. The result was that the prior introduction was very confusing and inaccurate for many Mormon sects, especially the Community of Christ. I edited the introduction to 1) distinguish more clearly between major post-schism sects, and 2) acknowledge major cultural traditions within those sects.

I also reorganized the order of paragraphs to have a consistent flow. The prior introduction had several topics spread among all the paragraphs. I reorganized the paragraphs to reflect the following order of ideas: 1) introduce the terminology and major sects, 2) discuss the impact of polygamy on the different sects, 3) discuss the major cultural aspects of most mormons, distinguishing between LDS members and other sects as necessary, and 4) discuss the high-level beliefs common to all sects of Mormonism. In doing so, I added significantly more references to other sects, particularly those of the Community of Christ. I removed links discussing Mormonism at broad that unnecessarily favored the LDS church, such as a link intended to describe the general concept of apostles among Mormons but referred only to the apostles of the LDS church and not the apostles of other sects.

I also took care to use the terms 'Latter-day Saints' and 'Latter-day Saints Church' to refer to the church headquartered in Salt Lake City, as requested in their most recent style guide. I avoided using the term 'Mormon' to refer to any one group and only used it to describe the movement as a whole.

~~Frogontrombone~~ —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I have reverted some of those edits, belatedly. There was entirely too much weight on the Strangites, a group that is all but extinct, with something like 50-300 members in 2007. And members of the RLDS Church, now Community of Christ, don't identify as Mormon. They rejected that, I think, because of its association with polygamy in the late 1800s early 1900s. But I left some of that discussion there. ~Awilley (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Frogontrombone, the interesting thing about your reversion is that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints don’t identify as M*rmon, either. Yes, the Church has spent considerable time and effort to inform the public that the people they’re calling “M*rmons” are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but it has never truly embraced the term and, at many times in its history (including now) has actively requested that that term not be used in conjunction with it nor its members. Do you see a difference between this and the position of the Community of Christ? TheOtter (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

~~TheOtter~~

Acroterion, I see that you reverted my changes to the first paragraph of the Mormon page. You stated that due to the significance of my changes, they should not be made without wider consensus. Could you please explain which of the changes you see as significant and which, if any, you feel to be inaccurate?

Thanks! TheOtter (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

All of them. The naming issue has long been contentious and requires consensus - there was a move dispute just yesterday , and we don't place references in the lede in most cases, especially in a GA. Edits to the lede should folow the body of the article, not precede them. Acroterion (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"Latter Day Saint" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Latter Day Saint. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 26#Latter Day Saint until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2021

Edit name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

4 For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Shuttdlrl (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussions on naming above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

LGBTQ individuals and relationships

In the article "Mormons", the last sentence of the second paragraph currently reads as follows:

"They ['Mormons'] also have a strict law of chastity, requiring abstention from sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage and fidelity within marriage, though the Community of Christ is accepting of LGBTQ individuals and relationships." (emphasis mine)

I recently edited this sentence to read:

"They also have a strict law of chastity, requiring abstention from sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage and fidelity within marriage, though the Community of Christ is accepting of same-sex relationships." (again, emphasis mine)

In either version, the clear implication is that "Mormons" outside the Community of Christ are not "accepting" of the sentence's final object, which implication prompted the change. Awilley has now reverted this change twice, requesting that the sentence be discussed here. So, let's cover the significant problems with the current version:

1. The statement is presumably the author's opinion, as it includes no citations; and its implication is easily debunked (see next point). Conversely, it is easy to cite that the largest "Mormon" denomination, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, opposes same-sex "marriage".
   
   
2. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and some other "Mormon" organizations oppose same-sex unions, there is little doubt that at least the former does not oppose "LGBTQ individuals". Consider the following passages from the Church's FAQ pages for people who experience same-sex attraction and who identify as transgender, respectively:

   [We] now speak directly to Church members who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. We want you to know we love you. You are welcome. We want you to be part of our congregations. You have great talents and abilities to offer God’s kingdom on earth, and we recognize the many valuable contributions you make.

   Church members need you and want you. If you identify yourself as transgender, we know you face complex challenges. You and your family and friends are just as deserving of Christlike love as any of God’s children and should be treated with sensitivity, kindness, and compassion.

   It's kind of difficult to argue that an organization opposes someone when it calls them "loved", "needed", and "wanted"; praises their "great talents and abilities"; and welcomes them into its ranks.

   
   
3. Finally, if we're going to speak of "Mormons'" position on "LGBTQ... relationships", we'll first need to define what constitutes an "LGBTQ relationship." Is it a relationship in which one or more individuals identify as LGBTQ? If so, then many of these relationships are between people of opposite genders, which I'm not aware of any "Mormons" opposing. Is it a relationship in which the partners are of the same gender? If so, then the "LGBTQ" acronym seems inappropriate, since the partners may not identify as LGBTQ. (I have friends for whom this is the case.) Presumably for this reason, Wikipedia refers to these relationships as "same-sex relationships", which is exactly the term I used in my edit.

In short, the sentence in its current state is at best misleading, at worst inaccurate, and in any case uncited. I strongly recommend that my revision be reinstated. TheOtter (talk) 07:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

References

I concur with TheOtter, that it is misleading. I agree with the change except that it should be LGBTQ relationships vice same-sex relationships. The two terms are not equivalent, and I think the former is more appropriate. Epachamo (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's misleading and should be changed. I think same-sex is more appropriate here - as TheOtter pointed out, it's same-sex unions that are at issue, while LGBTQ is a broad term that can include relationships that none of the churches oppose (as far as I know). Pastychomper (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts, Epachamo? I concur with Pastychomper that "LGBTQ relationships" is far too broad, and reiterate that it is concurrently too narrow.

Take, for example, a couple of my friends: these friends are both female, both straight, and both active Latter-day Saints; yet they are legally married to each other. I don't know why they've chosen this—it's not my place to ask—but I don't think anyone (much less any "Mormon") says, "Oh, they're straight? Then their relationship is okay." It's either a "same-sex marriage" or it's not, and people and organizations either support it or they don't. Unless there's some factor I'm not considering, I just don't think sexual orientation has relevance here. TheOtter (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There is at least one factor you're not considering. You're overlooking the "T" in "LGBTQ". It's at best misleading to imply that LDS Church is accepting of Transgender individuals. Here's a quote from the Church's webpage at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/transgender/understanding?lang=eng

“Church leaders counsel against elective medical or surgical intervention for the purpose of attempting to transition to the opposite gender of a person’s birth sex (“sex reassignment”). Leaders advise that taking these actions will be cause for Church membership restrictions.

Leaders also counsel against social transitioning. A social transition includes changing dress or grooming, or changing a name or pronouns, to present oneself as other than his or her birth sex. Leaders advise that those who socially transition will experience some Church membership restrictions for the duration of this transition.

Restrictions include receiving or exercising the priesthood, receiving or using a temple recommend, and receiving some Church callings. Although some privileges of Church membership are restricted, other Church participation is welcomed.

So basically transgender people who don't stick with the gender assigned at birth are "accepted" in the church in the same way black people were "accepted" before 1978. They can attend general meetings, but can't hold leadership positions, attend temples, or participate in the temple ordinances the church teaches are necessary for salvation. It's misleading to imply that the church fully accepts LGBTQ individuals. And the issue is bigger than just "same-sex marriage" or "relationships". ~Awilley (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Awilley. I must say I have a few problems with your latest post, but for now let's just focus on your ultimate criticism: that "I'm overlooking the 'T' in 'LGBTQ'." I'm actually not overlooking it at all; the fact that "T" has very little to do with "LGB" has never been lost on me, as I have several transgender friends who feel the LGB crowd just uses them to swell its ranks while completely ignoring their unique situation and needs. Of course, that's a bit of an aside, but it's actually fundamental to my original point: transgenderism is a completely separate issue that deserves separate treatment. Would you be okay with us focusing on same-sex relationships for now, and coming back to the second issue (i.e. transgenderism) once we've reached a consensus on the first? TheOtter (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, for sake of argument, let's pretend for a second that there's no "T" in "LGBTQ". You would say that people who are openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer are fully accepted in the LDS Church. I think we can agree there's a big asterisk on that. They're accepted as long as they don't act on any of their feelings. No dating, no physical affection toward those of the same gender, definitely no marriage. Up until 2019 gay couples were referred to as "apostates" and their children couldn't be baptized unless they renounced the actions of their parents. To say that the church accepts LBG people, you need to narrowly define LGB as "people who experience but don't act on same-sex attraction". Or you need a narrow definition of acceptance. Obviously that doesn't work when we're writing on Wikipedia for a general audience. We need to use words as they are usually understood, and not mislead people with niche definitions. And unless there's a wider convention for excluding the "T" from LGBTQ, we should not do so here based on the feelings of your friends.

As a side note, it's possible that the church is in a rocky period of transition on these issues. In particular it's hard not to notice the recent tension between BYU and the general church leadership. For example last year the church leadership vetoed the university's removal of a ban on "all forms of physical intimacy" between people of the same sex. And there's Holland's more recent push back against BYU faculty's tolerance of pride parades, protests, and a gay valedictorian. [9] And I think there's a lot of division between ordinary members as well. Because of this, it's very important that we on Wikipedia rely on secondary sources instead of primary sources. For instance we can't cite a LDS Church webpage saying "We accept LGBTQ people" as proof that the LDS Church accepts LGBTQ people. We need secondary, (independent) sources that explicitly back that up. ~Awilley (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, Awilley. I kind of get what you're saying, but I actually think you're the one who's citing a narrow definition. If you're claiming that the Church doesn't "fully accept" gay people because it disapproves of some of their actions, then you must also claim that it doesn't "fully accept" straight people because it disapproves of some of their actions. Indeed, with the exception of Christ Himself, it disapproves of some of everyone's actions; so the statement should actually be more along the lines of:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rejects just about everyone who has ever lived, just like the Community of Christ, the government of the United States of America, Mahatma Gandhi, and virtually every other person and organization in the history of the multiverse."

Obviously this is ridiculous, but so is the claim that LGB(TQ etc.) individuals hold some special place in the Church's crosshairs. Even your claim that "until 2019 gay couples were referred to as 'apostates'" is extremely misleading; yes, some people who were part of a gay couple were referred to as 'apostates', but that label applied to anyone--gay, straight, or otherwise--who was participating in any type of unlawful relationship that they tried to pass off as a "marriage". (Note: "unlawful", i.e. violating God's law; does not necessarily equal "illegal", i.e. violating the law of the land.)

Just as the pre-1978 Priesthood restrictions applied to many "white" people while many "black" people were unaffected, so the restrictions you reference applied--and in many cases, continue to apply--to many straight people while many gay people are/were unaffected. In other words, the claim is technically accurate (since yes, some gay couples were referred to as apostates), but just like the text that began this discussion, this claim is also misleading. TheOtter (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheOtter: Your logic doesn't work. You can't equate how the church treats gay couples with how it treats straight couples. Yes, the LDS Church may withhold temple ceremonies from straight couples for various reasons, but it isn't because they're straight couples. It does withhold temple ceremonies from gay couples, and it does so because they're gay couples. Maybe you don't agree with that, or maybe you do agree but prefer to equivocate, but that doesn't change the simple reality. The LDS Church has a history of sidelining, disfellowshipping, and excommunicating LBGT people because they are openly LBGT. And it's taken a strong, public position on these issues. Right or wrong, it's something distinctive about the church, and a notable difference from the Community of Christ. ~Awilley (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Awilley:, I do disagree; I find it disingenuous at best: technically, the Church doesn't offer temple ceremonies to any couples; it offers them to individuals. I'm not aware of a couple ever receiving a temple recommend; it's the individuals that do, and it's up the individuals to live such that they feel comfortable receiving one. Now, of course I recognize that, given your wording, one could argue that marriage is a "temple ceremony" offered to couples. While not technically accurate, I understand that the hoi polloi would view it as such. However, even that doesn't make sense, unless you're claiming that a person's sexuality depends on what kind of relationship he or she is in.

As I mentioned earlier, I have a pair of friends: both are female, both are straight, and they are legally married to each other. So, there are four possibilities here:

1. Since they're a gay couple, the Church disapproves of their union.

This is obviously not true: neither of them is gay, so how could they possibly be a "gay couple"?

2. Since they're a straight couple, the Church approves of their union.

This is also not true: they are both straight, but the Church is not totally fine with them being married to each other. (Just ask them.)

3. Since they're in an opposite-sex marriage, the Church disapproves of their union.

This is obviously not true: they're both female, so their union is anything but "opposite-sex".

4. Since they're in a same-sex marriage, the Church disapproves of their union.

Ding ding ding! Their sexuality is irrelevant; the configuration of their relationship is not.

On the same note, the only way the Church of Jesus Christ could have "a history of sidelining, disfellowshipping, and excommunicating LBGT people because they are openly LBGT" is if one assumes that being "openly LGBT" requires one to engage in homosexual acts. Are you honestly arguing that, for example, a bisexual person in a heterosexual relationship isn't LGBT?

No one here is denying that the Church of Jesus Christ opposes marriage redefinition, and always has. No one is denying that "it's taken a strong, public position on these issues", nor are we claiming that it not be "something distinctive about the church, and a notable difference from the Community of Christ." All we are saying is that it's incorrect to imply that the Church of Jesus Christ somehow opposes "LGBTQ individuals" when it spends so much time and effort actively reaching out to those who so identify. The Church has an entire web site dedicated to this end, and last month alone, the official Church magazines included three articles specifically for LGB and the Church leaders that serve them. TheOtter (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It is clearly a tricky issue. What if we split it up a bit from the law of chastity. How about "They also have a strict law of chastity, requiring abstention from sexual relations outside marriage and fidelity within marriage. The LDS Church considers LGBTQ behavior, to include same-sex marriage, a sin. The Community of Christ is accepting of LGBTQ behavior and relationships." Epachamo (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Epachmo, I can live with this if others can. Thanks for a great compromise. TheOtter (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Epachamo for the suggestion. I think that's too much detail for the Lead, where we're trying to cram only the most essential information into a small amount of space. Your suggestion takes 3 sentences to basically say what before was said in 1 sentence. And devoting that much space to what one sect considers a sin and another doesn't is just too much. That kind of detail belongs in the body of the article, not the Lead, in my opinion. ~Awilley (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Awilley: How about this, which has fewer characters than what is currently there. I also think it is more precise in the description of the law of chastity. "They have a strict law of chastity, allowing sexual behavior only within marriage. The LDS Church considers LGBTQ behavior, including same-sex marriage, a sin. The Community of Christ accepts LGBTQ behavior and relationships." Epachamo (talk)

@Epachamo: OK, that shaved off 2-3 characters while adding 2 extra sentences. If length is at issue, how about this: "They also have a strict law of chastity prohibiting sexual relations outside of marriage. The LDS Church opposes same-sex marriage while the Community of Christ now accepts LGBTQ individuals and relationships."

Also, could we stop using the term "LGBTQ behavior"? Out of context, it's not really clear what constitutes LGBTQ behavior (dressing well? pride parades?) and if it's just referring to sex, that's a weird way of phrasing it. We never talk about people "engaging in heterosexual behavior". ~Awilley (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Awilley: To be clear, I don't think space is that big of an issue. The whole problem is the implication that the LDS Church does not accept LGBTQ individuals. It is so much more complicated than that. This is not strictly accurate. There is an apostle, D. Todd Christofferson, who has a brother who is openly gay and an active member. Relatively famous Latter Day Saint David Archuleta recently discussed David_Archuleta#Personal_life his own experience. The LDS church doesn't excommunicate people for being LGBTQ. I used the term "behavior" because being LGBTQ is so much more than about sex. It encompasses cuddling, kissing, marriage, living together, writing affectionate letters to each other, forming any kind of relationships. It is about the "T" you referenced in an earlier comment. All of which is considered sinful to the LDS Church The average reader is going to understand this. Epachamo (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Epachamo: Implying that the LDS Church does not accept LGBTQ individuals isn't a problem, because it's largely true. Implying the opposite would be a problem. I think you're about 90% of the way to seeing my point. Yes. Being LGBTQ is much more than just having certain feelings or tendencies. As you pointed out, cuddling, kissing, co-habitation, marriage, and forming relationships are a part of it. And all these things are grounds for disfellowship, excommunication, or other kinds of church discipline (no sacrament, no temple attendance, no priesthood ordination, etc.) Saying that the church accepts LGBTQ people is only accurate if you define LGBTQ so narrowly that it only includes basically those who can maintain a celibate, closeted, or heterosexual lifestyle. Christofferson's brother and David Archuleta are the exceptions, not the rule. And it's not our place to try and redefine what it means to be LGBTQ. 'Gay' means 'gay', not just 'same-sex attraction'. 'Transgender' means 'transgender', not just 'gender dysphoria'. Do you see what I'm trying to say? ~Awilley (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Awilley: The problem is that Christofferson's brother and David Archuleta are not exceptions, they are the definition of the rule. I think I get what you are saying, and still think this passage needs to be written in a clear way, even if it takes more space. How about this: "The LDS Church requires LGBTQ members to remain celibate or heterosexual, and does not allow same-sex marriage, which it considers a sin. The Community of Christ has no such restrictions on its LGBTQ members, and performs marriages for gay and lesbian couples." Epachamo (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Epachamo:Again, this article isn't about the LDS Church and what it considers sinful. This is an article about a diverse cultural (almost ethnic) group of people called Mormons. What you wrote expands what's basically a parenthetical note about the CoC and turns it into two full sentences. That's too much detail for the Lead.

Christofferson & Archuleta are clearly exceptions to what people normally think of as LBGTQ. (That was what I meant in my previous post.) ~Awilley (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Epachamo:, not bad, very to the point. However, I'm not sure it's 100% accurate. The so-called "LDS Church" doesn't require anything of anyone; it merely teaches basic principles, instructs everyone (not just its members) as to how said principles are most commonly observed, invites all to prayerfully consider said principles and instructions, and allows for departure from the norm where appropriate. To quote two of the Church's most senior Apostles:

"As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don't try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don't ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord."

— Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Church Educational System fireside: "Dating vs. Hanging Out". May 1, 2005. Retrieved November 28, 2021.

...and...

"We who are General Authorities and general officers are called to teach His general rules. You and we then lead specific lives and must seek the Lord’s guidance regarding specific circumstances. But there would be mass confusion and loss of gospel promises if no general ideal and no doctrinal standard were established and, in our case today, repeated."

— Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting, February 2008: "Dating vs. Hanging Out" (PDF). February 9, 2008. Retrieved November 28, 2021.

I'm thinking the general idea is perfect, but to simplify it even a little more: "The LDS Church does not recognize same-sex marriage, which it considers a sin. The Community of Christ has no such restrictions and performs marriages for gay and lesbian couples."

...but then, that begs the question: what about the other 300 sects of the Restoration movement? I get that these are the two largest branches of the Restoration movement, but is there a good reason we should be singling them out? TheOtter (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Awilley, may I ask in what way you think “Christofferson & Archuleta are ... exceptions to what people normally think of as LBGTQ"? You've got a man (Christofferson) that was in a long-term relationship with another man, whose family was absolutely distraught when they broke up; and another man (Archuleta) who is not currently involved, but looking to meet someone. What's "different" about either of those situations? TheOtter (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheOtter: I was just reacting to the details Epachamo shared above. Like not everybody would be willing to leave a loving relationship or embrace a celibate lifestyle to gain or retain church membership. (For example Catholic priests do something like that, and they are also extra-ordinary.) But I don't know them or their stories, and we probably shouldn't be using living people as examples like this. They're not pieces in a game. So I'll stop talking about them. ~Awilley (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

small edit

It should say that polygamy was part of the church in the 1800s, instead of saying "defined by". 68.2.50.194 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)