Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Defined Terms

Some examples of the articles that need more careful treatment are Bishop (Mormonism) and Priesthood (Mormonism) which do not make it clear if there are differences between different branches of Mormonism. Interested in your thoughts on standards. I am gathering a list of articles that may need this type of work on my Task list and would like some thoughts. Trödel 05:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is my, BoNoMoJo's and COGDEN's fault early on - we should have standardized better early. I now think in retrospect that we should standardize on one term - (Mormonism) - we shouldn't have both Priesthood (Latter-day Saint), Priesthood (Mormonism). It should be combined into Priesthood (Mormonism). I think we should explain first take from a "revelation"/shared Latter Day Saint belief point of view first, then discuss specifics from a Latter-day Saint perspective (since they are the largest) and then discuss from "other Latter Day Saint" sect perpectives (including CoC, Strangite, FLDS, etc) - all in the same article. It gets too confusing when you have too many parentheses in the title that are not standard - like Melchizedek Priesthood (Latter-day Saint) and Apostle (Mormonism).
In regard to your comments above - this suggestion would fix Priesthood (Mormonism) and provide guidance for Bishop (Mormonism). Largest sect first (LDS), then add in details about other Latter Day sects as we find them, and order in accordance with size (LDS, CoC, FLDS, etc.)
That said, I belive (Mormonism) is the correct term for the Wikipedia. Discussion now, or should we vote to standardize?? -Visorstuff 18:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let's go ahead and open a poll in the "Support - My opinion is not strong on this, but I believe it fits the direction we have been going" format. I don't want to see an early deadline on the poll, and I want to see for sure the vote and comment of key participants like COGDEN. Tom H. 20:15, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Support Let's put a deadline of Feb 1. -Visorstuff 22:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. Redirect "(LDS)" articles to "(Mormonism)", merging content under subheadings for church-specific issues. Most are already at "(Mormonism)" so this is much easier. Will make linking easier too. Cool Hand Luke 07:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. Standardize on Term (Momronism) general section explaining, section specific to each different Church from the Latter Day Saint movement in order of size. Trödel 15:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support - despite considerations. As has been discussed above "Latter Day Saint" is the term decided upon, by consensus, to use for all Joseph Smith-descended sects. But since "Mormonism" is shorter and more well known, I'm voting for this usage. Val42 16:44, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Mormonism was the early accepted term among the Smith's, and we have explicitly said that for the system and culture, it is our term of choice. Article form proposal is good too. But I want to see COGDEN's vote before the issue is closed. Tom H. 21:03, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Support — I support this. I think I originally saw there were (Mormonism) articles and (Latter-day Saint) articles and so I started making (Community of Christ) articles to define their usages. When you go down that route, now that I look at it, you have the potential for dozens of tiny articles ---- I think these would be much more useful pulled together under the single header. --John Hamer 14:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support -- Sorry I didn't notice this sooner. I agree with the reasoning of Visorstuff. A year ago, when we were considering this, there were lots of articles from a CoJCoLDS point of view, and relatively few from a generic Mormonism point of view that included other LDS groups. At the time, I think we were mostly concerned with making sure that articles were inclusive. Now, the situation is almost reversed. There are only a few (Latter-day Saint) articles, and they've been kind of neglected, because their parenthetical designation relegates them to a dark corner of the Wikipedia. I think we should merge them back into the (Mormonism) articles, making sure that the material is clearly designated as relating only to Latter-day Saints. COGDEN 19:21, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Support -- I didn't notice this either, but I support a common term, and Mormonism is one already recognized by most folks. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 21:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support -- For many of the same reasons stated above. Val42 05:19, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Consensus Reached. Going forward:

Articles specific to Mormonism will have a (Mormonism) suffix, rather than a denominational suffix. The article should define beliefs from the shared Latter Day Saint belief point of view first, then discuss specifics from the largest of the sects practicing/adhering to the belief/doctrine/culture; and then add in details about other Latter Day sects in order of size (LDS, CoC, FLDS, etc.). For example, Priesthood (Latter-day Saint) will no longer need to exist, and should be included in Priesthood (Mormonism). This policy may change as Wikipedia needs change and content is available.

User:Trödel /User:John Hamer, do you both have time to lead this effort? -Visorstuff 21:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes --- I can work on this. As you saw, I already started in on it, integrating Quorum of the Twelve with Council of Twelve Apostles (Community of Christ) and First Presidency with First Presidency (Community of Christ) --- other examples where I was working on this include Lineal Succession (Mormonism) (which maybe should be Lineal succession (Mormonism)? and Presiding Patriarch (Mormonism) (which isn't done). Want to work on this Trödel? --John Hamer 02:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can work (and am willing to work with John to lead it) on this but I am not sure for two reasons: 1) the time I have to spend on stuff comes and goes (for example last weekend my time was limited despite my intentions to make some headway) and 2) structure may not be need so much as a few willing particpants to list themselves as project "leaders" (for lack of a better word) - so that newcomers and others who might have time can know who to talk to about any current things that need work - rather than spending up to several hours getting up to speed on everything. See other comments below. When I had time over Christmas I mostly just browsed all the articles and did not take to heart the Be Bold admonition, but mostly just read and was fairly impressed with 1) the NPOV of the articles and 2) the fair representation. I think a gentle nudging, or having someone to "talk" to would have helped me be less reticent to make changes. Trödel|talk 02:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

January 28, 2005 anon Temple edits

User:203.184.3.64 made several anon temple edits. They were reverted wholesale. I would like to talk a little about this matter. Tom H.

We can do better than wholesale reverts of edits that we don't like. We must do better. Am I to believe that out of anon's editing spree there was not a single thing worth salvaging? This kind of behavior is just what will get us all a bad name. It is biting newbies and it is protecting POV. And it will cost us in the end. Would you be willing to go back and at least try to be a little accommodating of the anon's POV? Remember our absolute and non-negotiable Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Tell me what you think we can do about this in the long term. Tom H. 19:34, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Some of these reverts were done without any comment whatsoever. In extreme cases, without the whole word "revert", even. :) That's definitely rather strong: if someone adds substantiative new text, there ought to be, at minimum, a comment about why it's better reverted, and ideally, some "talk" prior to, or simultaneously with, the revert. On the up side, reversion isn't information-lossy, so if any of these can be re-incorporated later if there's a way to do so NPOVishly, the text is still available. (As Tom's recently done on a revert I made, all credit to him.) Alai 20:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to say thank you for taking the effort to hunt through the anon's editing spree and revert all the articles. Good job. At the least, I would simply suggest that in addition to reverting (even vandalism), we always go to anon's talk page and leave a note to this effect, "Welcome to the Wikipedia! I hope you stay and become a regular contributor. Sorry to be rude and short, but I reverted all your edits because XXXXX (I was overwhelmed trying to make sense of them all, they didn't meet XXX guideline or policy, etc.). Please don't feel disillusioned or discouraged; we value your contributions. I invite you to visit XXXXXX where we can discuss how best to incorporate your improvements in a lasting way." Tom H. 20:21, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

You make (another) excellent point, I'll try to make this my own personal practice. Alai 21:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That said, 95 percent of them were incorrect and mis-representative. I don't think reverting anon. edits make anyone look bad - particularly when they are wholesale reverts. As for the Rv. comment - when you are an admin and do a revert, it doesn't let you put in a comment - or at least I haven't been able to. The one edit that did have creedence was deleted from the article earlier after much discussion, so I was fine with it not being included.

Alai, on a seperate note, I appreciate your contributions to the project - I hope you join the project to give a nice non-LDS view to the project members' contributions. You've raised some good questions that have been refreshing. I'll leave a similar note on your talk page-Visorstuff 20:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Visorstuff. Odd about the admin-revert thing. Maybe you need to employ a suitably-well-trained sockpuppet from time to time! You're doing an "ordinary revert" in these cases, not any of the fancy edit-hiding stuff? (If I knew what the heck I was talking about here, this question would have been rather more eloquently phrased.) Ordinary reverts are just edits, so one can comment them as much or as little as one likes, if I understand/am doing 'em right. But in any event, it wasn't a revert by you I had in mind in this instance. On the matter of the reverts themselves, I agree with Tom's principle that we ought not to neglect the 5%. Even if the 95% is shamelessly POV or factually inaccurate, if it's a "common perception" or "frequent allegation", it may have a place, suitably re-POV'd. (OTOH, whether that place is the main TCJCLDS article's another matter: it's already over-long, if the MediaWiki hints are anything to go by.) Alai 21:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, on when I look at the difference page there is actually a "rollback" button that automatically reverts to the last version. I think we admins get too lazy and revert, rather than edit. When the button is pushed it reverts to the previous version - and only gives "rv" as the message automatically. This is what I mean by "revert." -Visorstuff 22:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The one thing I thought about keeping around was "the garment contains four sacred symbols", but I had to go to school so I didn't bother expounding that and just took it all out. Everything he posted was either inaccurate and stuff that isn't common allegations, &c., or baker's hats. I think the reverts were nice. Cookiecaper 23:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Proper Care and Feeding of Anons

The best ways I know of to Feed the Newbies:

  • Retain at least a tiny portion of their contributions. Retaining even 5% of an anon's edits provides significant feeding. Anons want to know that they can really edit the Wikpedia and make a difference.
  • Go to their anon talk page and leave a message of gratitude and encouragement. Since it is an anon talk page, always put it in a heading under one of the article names they edited, (preferably wikified). Even for an anon, this will pop up as a new message. Not a sure-fire way to contact them, but the worth of a soul is worth the price of a few misses.
  • Resist reverting if possible. Imagine if we had reverted John Hamer's massive edits of Golden Plates, not recognizing them as high-quality edits.

Any other ideas? Tom H. 23:26, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I think your suggestions are excellent. The only addition that springs to mind is perhaps in the case of "information-containing, but article-worsening" contributions is to revert, and to "snip" the significant added material to, I suppose, the Talk: page or a sub-page, with a view to later fixing/discussion/integration/rejection/other. Alai 02:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
None of the anonymous contributions you're referring to were really worth anything. It's not like we revert anonymous edits every time one comes up. I think everyone understands that just because an edit comes from someone we don't know doesn't automatically make it a bad edit. However, 203.184.3.64's were bad edits. All of the stuff was incorrect, repititious, or inappropriate. We've left a lot of good anon edits in almost everywhere. Just the bad ones have to leave. I think it's quite clear that 203.184.3.64 isn't very interested in making real, honest contributions. It's not the fact that the person didn't use a registered login — the edits just sucked. Cookiecaper 01:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with CC on one thing: we don't owe anons any especially greater consideration, esp. as compared to "known newbies". However, his reverts I'm still not quite happy with, nor with the dismissal of the concerns about them. First of all, please note that "Always explain your reverts" is WP policy: Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version. Secondly, the Temple garment (Mormonism) contribution doesn't seem to me to be wholesale-revertable: I don't see any outrageously bad writing, or vast factual errors (judging by COGDEN's subsequent undeletions, unless they're about to get reverted, too...), or manifest POV. Those ought not to have been reverted at all, but rewritten as necessary. Self-describing them after the fact as "nice" doesn't really work for me as a justification. Alai 01:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Aye, I didn't realize that the information that COGDEN added back had ever been removed, although I thought it was on a different page. I considered it repititious and therefore reverted instead of rewriting it after hunting down the quotes from President McKay. However, had I known, I probably still would have reverted it. So my posting this doesn't really show anything except that I don't have Temple garment (Mormonism) on my Watchlist. :) Cookiecaper 03:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page move

On another note, any thoughts on my comment at: Talk:Word of the Lord Brought to Mankind by an Angel. (Belatedly it occurs to mention it here, rather than the talk page on a perhaps little-visited article.) Alai 02:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wanna add this to the RFCs on the front page? Tom Haws 05:28, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Front page miscs

I'm cleaning up the project page - so I'll put some items here, since "discussion" should not take place on the project page. Here are a few items:

Nauvoo Temple discussion

  • Nauvoo Temple - not to be confused with the Nauvoo Illinois Temple. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 00:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm confused now. It's the same thing, just from different time periods.--Josiah 19:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The original was constructed in the 1840s, completed (mostly symbolically) after Smith was killed, and was utterly destroyed by vandals, tornado, and fire. The Nauvoo IL Temple is an LDS homage to the original, you might say. I think they ought to be seperate because the original is more notable in its own right, and is pointedly not a "Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". It's earlier in the Latter Day Saint movement. (Community of Christ recognizes it, for example.) Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 21:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I think I agree with Josiah here. They really should be one article under Nauvoo Temple. That's what I think. ^_^ Cookiecaper 05:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll agree with Josiah also. It seems that combining the two would be less confusing to the outsider looking for information. The fact that the now-existing temple belongs to the Utah church should be mentioned, but I don't think we'll be stepping on any toes by saying that it is the same one that was (nearly) complete in the 1800's. Bruce 05:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • But it's not the same. It's not even a replica. Even though the external design of the new temple is similar, the internal plans are more like that of a modern LDS temple. I don't think it's unreasonable to link to the LDS temple at the bottom of a page on the Nauvoo Temple. But to avoid semantics, we at least need content on the actual Nauvoo Temple, however you cut it. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 05:39, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Solomon's temple was redone later and is sometimes called "herod's temple", an example of the same situation where the majority of scholars do not refer to it as a completely different temple.--Josiah 04:30, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • It's the same enough for me. I would put them under the same thing. But you're right, we need to first write the thing. [1] is a cool site with information on a whole bunch of temples. ^_^
    • Weighing in again... It is the same temple - just as we wouldn't have two entries for the Apia Samoa Temple which was destroyed by fire and rebuilt. Even the much of its plans were re-done. Both are considered reconstructed temples. Incidentally, other temples including Mesa AZ, St. George and Logan have been gutted and floor planse changed. Although the shell is the same on these, they also wouldn't be considered a seperate temple, but a remodeled temple. When President Hinckley announed that the Nauvoo temple would be re-built, he mentioned that it had been a dream of many church leaders to finally fulfil the Lords command to have a temple in Nauvoo. Remember, revelations and early church leaders explained that without the completion of that temple, the Church would be rejected at the second coming. In this way, it must be the same temple or there are going to be a lot of problems for a lot of people, including anyone who believed that Smith was a prophet at the time he announced plans for the Nauvoo temple - this would include many Latter Day Saint denominations. Incidentally, it is proper to capitalize the The in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This has bothered me for some time will note at naming conventions. -Visorstuff 16:17, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't think there is enough continuity to consider the modern temple the same building as the old temple. It was destroyed far too long, so now it's a different temple in a different era, with a different name. It's like the separate articles Solomon's Temple, Second Temple, and Herod's Temple. And I don't think there is any theological justification for not creating a Nauvoo Temple article. Joseph Smith's revelation was that there would be a curse if the temple was not completed, but it was, for all practical purposes, completed. Moreover, I don't think Joseph Smith was concerned with necessarily building that temple, just a temple. I think the articles could be combined, however, but the article should be called Nauvoo Temple, with a smaller section describing the Nauvoo Illinois Temple. COGDEN 18:11, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Sounds like we need more opinions - this is a pretty split topic. I do feel that if you asked Church leadership, they'd say it is a reconstructed site, and for theological reasons. Anyway, more comments are needed. -Visorstuff 23:42, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Maybe as a start, someone could create a separate Nauvoo Temple article, and then we can leave the question of whether or not they should be merged, and what the name of the merged article should be, for a later date after we see what it looks like. COGDEN 16:29, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • There's not enough info on Nauvoo, Illinois article, why create two and leave both stubs? I suggest starting the "second article" (if it is really needed) within the first, and then decide to split, if it is needed. If not, it will be too confusing for newbies. -Visorstuff 16:37, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I tend to think that there are two temples involved. The temporal separation gives me that impression, though the geographic identity certainly gives validity to thinking of them as one temple. But I think that practically speaking, the way to start is with one article, then when there is enough material, split it out into two. (Sorry to chip in late.) Tom - Talk 16:52, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

If more opinions are still sought I would favor a single article initially. Given its single location and its single purpose motivating construction, I do not see a need for two articles. I think it was Visor who advised starting with one article and then if the need arises beginning another. Seems like foundation upon which to build. Storm Rider 17:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

    • Ok, I substantially expanded the "History" section of Nauvoo, Illinois. --John Hamer 04:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Throwing caution to the wind, I decided to create an article on the original Nauvoo Temple. This is a completely different structure than the (replica) Nauvoo Illinois Temple --- and they are known by two different names. For example, the 2005 LDS Church Almanac lists both structures separately under the two different names. --John Hamer 05:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I just want to go on record that I think this is a mistake and a disservice to readers who will easily get confused by tow articles. In addition, I am against it because it was announced as a "rebuilding" and has major doctrinal ramifications if they are truly different structures. It means that the command to finish the temple as recoded in the D&C was not fulfilled. As for precedence does this mean we should eventually have two articles on the temple in Samoa that burnt down? What about two articles on the Salt Lake temple due to the excavation, and what about changes and structural remodelling to others such as Manti, St. George and others? I'm in the minority here, but doctrinally this is a problem, easability of finding the right article is a problem, and the precendence set is problematic. -Visorstuff 21:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I think having two articles makes sense because of the significance of the two different structures, the length of time between building them, and the notable history to each one. As to the other examples you give, I don't think they are notable enough to warrant two articles, but Nauvoo is. I do think we could put a disambig like comment at the top of each article to make it easier to direct those who are confused to the right article - that should address your confusion issue. Trödel (talk · contribs) 03:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think the idea that the second temple is a different building from the first temples affects the D&C. LDS D&C 124 commands to build a house for the Lord --- well, the second temple is such a house and it's complete, so that fulfills the commandment, regardless of what happened to the first temple. I don't think the Apia Somoa parallel works because with that structure you're talking about a building that burned and was immediately restored by the same owners --- that's like the "White House". With the original Nauvoo Temple and the LDS Nauvoo Illinois Temple, we have a historic building that was destroyed --- then a lapse of 150 odd years of discontinuity --- and then a modern recreation on the original site. That would be like someone building a replica of the Colossos of Rhodes tomorrow. The new statue would not be the same statue as the original ancient wonder. ----- On the other hand, I am more convinced by your reader confusion argument. I can see where the two articles could be confusing to the casual reader. However, the 1st temple is far more significant than the 2nd from a historical standpoint and if the articles are to be re-combined, I think it should be under the article title "Nauvoo Temple" and the article should focus first on the original and then discuss the replica. --John Hamer 01:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Ahh. Now we're talking. "If the two articles are combined, it should be under the title "Nauvoo Temple". It just seems innately revisionist to call an article about the Nauvoo Temple "Nauvoo Illinois Temple". But lacking a Nauvoo Illinois Temple article may be unsuitable to some of the project members who would like to have a complete list of operating temples (?). So I think we probably better leave the articles as two. As for reader confusion, disambiguation links should suffice. Tom H. 05:00, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yesterday, I read both articles to see the current state before weighing in on this topic. Because the two buildings were so temporally separate, I was inclined to treat them as separate topics, unless there was insufficient material. But there is sufficient material in each article that they are not stubs, so I think that the current structure (of separate articles) works well. I also think that they should be expanded as relevant material can be added, but that is a given. Val42 21:28, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that the chuch lists the Nauvoo temple as "rededicated" rather than a new temple. But then you've heard my arguments on this in the past. [2] -Visorstuff 20:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the...

  • Wikipedia:Latter Day Saint Collaboration of the week: Do you guys think we should have one of these? It'd be similar to the Gaming Collaboration of the week. I'm for it; not a lot is getting done and this would give everyone a common thing to focus on. Comments? Cookiecaper 03:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Anyone? Cookiecaper 18:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Sure. I don't know how these work exactly, but if the article is about history/art/culture I would be happy to contribute. I've seen some projects with "collaboration of the fortnight", and that might be a more appropriate tempo for us, but I'll participate either way. Cool Hand Luke 21:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmm yeah, a week might be a little fast-paced. The way the GCOTW works, which is the only Collaboration I've participated in, people nominate articles they're interested in and other people come out in support of ones they agree with. The article with the most support is then made the next Collaboration. This happens every cycle. I think it's a good idea, and I think I'll appoint the Emma Smith article as the first one. A fortnight (bi-weekly) would be a good interval. I think I shall make it now. :) Cookiecaper 00:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay, that junk's made. It needs higher billing. I think I'll put it at the top. ;) Cookiecaper 00:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • As slowly as I work, better make it "of the month." Tom - Talk 03:49, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Articles To Do

These articles need to be worked on — please feel free to add to this list! --John Hamer 02:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Word of Wisdom + Word of Wisdom (Latter-day Saint) combine: Check bottom of Talk:Word of Wisdom page. These articles were originally one article but were split. Re-integrating them will take coordination with those who originally split the articles. I would have combined them tonight if not for this issue. Val42 01:56, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) Val--- Note that COGDEN said above: "I think we should merge them back into the (Mormonism) articles" So, he agrees so long as we make sure that the recombined articles clearly specify that the LDS-specific material is LDS-specific. --John Hamer 02:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Quorums of the Seventy move to Seventy (Mormonism) add (Mormonism) context and other denominations
  • Ward (Mormonism) add (Mormonism) context
  • Bishop (Mormonism) add other denominations
  • High Council (Mormonism) add denominational context
  • Presiding Bishop — Temporal affairs — I edited the Presiding Bishop entry and noticed the usage of "temporal affairs" twice in the article. I put in a brief explanation, but I don't think that it is sufficient. But I don't know enough about this particular topic (other than the buildings, bishop's storehouses and Church Emergency Radio System) to make anything but a stub. And I think that this topic needs better than the sub-stub that I could create. Val42 21:34, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Stake (Mormonism) added (Mormonism) and other denominations--John Hamer 22:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints combined back into Temple (Mormonism) --- this is a big one, because these are two, large articles. I think we're going to need to do some combining and then pull some of the content into sub-articles. --John Hamer 19:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Colonia Juarez, Mexico: Where many LDS fled to escape prosecution because of polygamy.

Articles To Review

These articles have been renamed, combined, and/or re-edited and can be reviewed and expanded: --John Hamer 02:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this article should be reviewed for bias, and frankly not adequately or correctly explaining LDS beliefs. Bo-Lingua

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement/Archive_3&oldid=1142156691"