Template talk:LDS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 LDS - or specific denomination 2 Using this template 3 Inclusion of critical POV's in template 4 Adding back in some items 5 I think the article criticism of Mormonism is missing in the template 6 Criticism link 7 Significant Early Leaders 8 Anonymous Edits 9 Book of the Law of the Lord

[edit] LDS - or specific denomination

I started doing some editing here, and like many of the LDS movement articles it is difficult to make sure it isn't a CJCLDS only view. Like Standard Works - I changed to scripture - since I am not sure that members of denominations other than CJC call the scriptures the standard works. Trödel•talk 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is a problem using the Salt Lake Temple in this template. It appears that the intent is to not limit to "CJCLDS" topics, however, this image is squarely associated with that group. I recommend using an image associated with the early period of the Church, such as the original Nauvoo Temple or something else. --NThurston 17:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Good change, and a wise reason behind it. Tijuana Brass^E@ 21:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using this template

I have just reviewed all the articles that are linked to from this page and the following do not have this template on them:

• Bible - Is about Bible in general - no section about LDS views of the bible
• King James Version of the Bible - History of KJV - no information of the why LDS use KJV, etc
• Faith - Is about repentence in general and section on the LDS church view of faith box was too long for that section
• Repentance - Is about repentence in general and doesn't have a section about the LDS church.

Since these are key parts of the LDS movement we probably need either an section, an article, or an expanded section on each of these topics so the link from the LDS template makes more sense. --Trödel 03:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of critical POV's in template

There must be outspoken critics of the LDS whose articles would make sense to include within the template. Is this the case? joshbuddy, talk 08:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms are in the articles and, generally, not broken out in seperate articles per - see WP:POVFORK --Trödel 23:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding back in some items

There are a couple of items that were culled out by User:COGDEN that I disagree with.

• The Pearl of Great Price - This is a significant part of the scriptual cannon of the LDS Church and as such its omission is significant enough that it really makes the section it is listed with incomplete with its absence. While it does contain the Book of Abraham and some other documents also listed in this template, the history of the Pearl of Great Price is an incredible piece of Mormon history that needs to be told independently and clearly belongs on this template. It certainly ranks right with the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants as key foundation cannonical documents (it is part of the official cannon of the LDS Church). --Robert Horning 07:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is canon of the LDS Church, but only the LDS Church. This is supposed to be a generic template for all Latter Day Saint denominations. And it needs to be as minimal as possible. No matter what they say, size does matter in this context. COGDEN 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Of this I completely and totally disagree. This is canon and as such is very significant, and while it may not be canon of the Community of Christ, there are other LDS denominations that indeed include the Pearl of Great Price, including the FLDS church. This may be something more unique, however, to the "Brighamite" branch if you can call it that. More following this comment.

• Bear River Massacre - While this may seem a little out of place (and can be debated separately) it is a very signficant event for Mormon history because of the sheer number of members of the LDS Church that were directly affected by this event. Taken strictly by numbers even at the time, it involved nearly 5,000 members of the LDS Church, and affected a region that now is home to nearly half a million Mormons (Northern Utah, especially Cache Valley and S.E. Idaho). That many of these people aren't aware of this history and the fact that they are living where they are because of this event is more something of a tragedy of the teaching of this history than because of its notability. Of course this is a POV, but I would dare say that for the LDS farmers in Cache Valley, it is as signficant of an event as the Utah War or even the pioneer exodus from Nauvoo. Yes, it involved a clear anti-Mormon (from his own proclaimation) military general and a group of Shoshoni Indians directly, but the involvement of Mormon leaders certainly is infused throughout the whole detail of the event, including actions directly by Brigham Young himself. --Robert Horning 07:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is just one of tens of historical articles that could be included here. If we start including every single historical article, the template would be way too large. It's already too large as it is. This template should only include the most fundamental links. If someone wants to learn about the Bear River Massacre, they can go to History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. COGDEN 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I will say that perhaps with the Bear River Massacre, it may be better suited to be a part of a larger section on colonization of the western USA by Brigham Young, stretching from Alberta to the Mormon colonies in Mexico and even to Hawaii. And that colonization is a very signficant part of the history of the LDS movement in general, and a poorly told history at that. --Robert Horning 07:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

On the whole, I hate it when my post is broken up, as it makes reading very difficult and breaks up the context of what I was writing. While you have been culling things out, it would be useful to simply try and define exactly what your criteria is, and please seek comments ahead of time before doing a massive overhaul. In the case of some of these items that you have culled out, perhaps it would be more fitting for a themeatic "sub-template" that covers more specific items like "Military Conflicts of the LDS Movement", where Bear River Massacre and Mountain Meadows Massacre can be listed together (I consider them to be of roughly equal significance, BTW, for the LDS movement). I'll elaborate more on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. --Robert Horning 17:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A perfect example of Historical revisionism. "Many historians who write revisionist exposés are motivated by a genuine desire to educate and to correct history." Tinosa 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I think the article criticism of Mormonism is missing in the template

There seems to be notable controversy and criticism. I will argue the same for the templates of Christianity and Islam. Andries 16:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, over at Template_talk:ScientologySeries this has been a long running discussion. For solutions, we've tried a lot of things (pruning links, deleting the "Controversy" section, etc.), but I think we may be on to something very cool with: User:Sfacets/scb, where a controversy section can be collapsed if that's the aspect somebody wants to get to, but the user isn't visually pounded with a bunch of critical links every time somebody views a page tagged with the template. Ronabop 05:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a possibility if others want to explore it. I created a similar "topic" template at {{Scouting}} and would be willing to do the work here. However, I suspect that the majority like the template as is. --NThurston 13:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism link

I propose adding a link to the criticism page. Back in December, the Mormonism, Buddhism, and Islam templates all had links to their specific criticism page, however Islam removed their citing this template as precedent. Ironically, someone wanted to include the Criticism of Christianity link on the Christianity template, and cited those as precedent. If this is going to be a matter of "Well the Jews don't have the link, so why should we" or "The Mormons have the link, so should the Muslims" etc, we should decided as a whole whether links to these criticism pages are appropriate for the parent religion templates. I believe that all religion templates should have a link to the parent criticism page (if one exists), and that is what I am proposing here. What do we think?-Andrew c 00:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A centralized discussion on this general topic can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Criticism link on religion navigational boxes. -Andrew c 03:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion favored including critical links across the board. I'll place the link here.-Andrew c 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Significant Early Leaders

I decide do erase the names of Joseph Smith III and James Strang from the Early Leaders menu because they were not part of the Latter-Day Saint movement per se. Joseph Smith III was president of the Reorganized Church, which is a different denomination. And Mr. Strang was not a significant early leader at all, and later he left the church.

Actually, this is why they should be included. I changed "early" to "movement" because I do agree that these aren't early, which is usually considered within Smith's lifetime. However, deciding that certain denomination leaders are not part of the movement because they "left the church" is a POV problem. Cool Hand Luke 22:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem. Without something like "early" to demarcate time, there are lots of significant leaders that could be included - John Taylor, David O. McKay, Wallace B. Smith, and so on. Here is what we need to look for - 1) Keep the list short (fine how it is), 2) focus on the founders of the movement and the subsequent sects, and 3) limit focus to significant people. "Significant movement leaders" violates #2. In the absence of a better alternative, I would prefer "Significant early leaders." If early really is defined as pre-1844, then "early" doesn't work, but does anybody have a better word? --NThurston 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about the problem, and I also agree with you on the list's focus. I'm not sure that either label is more inherently POV than the other ("significant"), but you're right that we're not really getting at "movement" or even all "early" leaders (just the founders and early sect leaders, as you point out). Perhaps we should make that discription into the heading. Cool Hand Luke 17:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about POV for either of these. Could we say "Founders and early sect leaders"? --NThurston 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Most precise heading so far. "Founders and early sect leaders" it is. I only hesitate because it's awfully unpoetic. Cool Hand Luke 04:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's keep looking for a more poetic way to say it. --NThurston 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous Edits

Recently there have been two major attempts by anonymous editor 84.146.xxx.xx to revert to previous versions. Reviewing the history, this editor appears to have frequently made contributions over time, so they are not a neophyte. At the same time, it would be really helpful for them to participate in the Talk page as well so we know that they are working with us on making this more useful. --NThurston 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book of the Law of the Lord

I added a link to the (Strangite) Book of the Law of the Lord, but it was removed. Why? It was certainly an important text in early Mormonism among some of those who did not travel west. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I didn't remove it, so I can't tell you why, however, I wouldn't want it under "Sacred Texts" because it is not considered a sacred text. It might be appropriate under History, but do you think it is at the same level of importance in the history of the movement as the other articles mentioned there? Is its relevance not covered well in the articles listed there? Perhaps others could comment on this as well. --NThurston 13:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is considered a sacred text by the Strangite branch of the LDS movement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I see. This template generally refers to things that apply to the "movement," which usually has something to do with pre-1844. Perhaps this isn't included because it is branch-specific, not applying to the movement. For example, I don't think that edicts by Warren Jeffs would be included, although they could be considered sacred texts by some in a particular branch. That's just my guess, because I wasn't the one that removed it, but I think that's what's going on. --NThurston 14:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this rationale. Although we list seperate articles for the D&C and the Book of Commandments (which is considered more correct by the Temple Lot group), we don't do this as a service to the various sects. These are books that almost the whole movements accepts, at least as part of their religion's history. Post-Smith works are on much shakier ground for being of pan-movement significance. Cool Hand Luke 18:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see the rationale now and it does make some sense. Maybe there could be a small box at the end of the scripture section for items specific to the various other groups? Every branch (LDS, FLDS, RLDS, PLDS, Strangite, AUB, et. al.) have slightly different canons, but generally differ w/ D&C versions and, sometimes, versions of the Bible. The Strangites are somewhat unique in that they have a body of text allegedly translated from gold plates - à la the Book of Mormon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I think that pre-1844 is a good and reasonable criterion. We don't want the template to grow so big that it detracts from the articles. But if we choose that as a kind of cut-off, we would need to remove Pearl of Great Price. COGDEN 17:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I don't think removing the Pearl of Great Price is a good idea as it's a central text to many of Mormonism's branches. I know the CoC and Strangites don't regard it as canonical, but most other denominations do. 66.191.19.42 15:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that it is pretty much redundant given that the JST, Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham are already there. I suppose one could add a link for AofF. Leaving it out reflects the point of this template. --NThurston 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)