Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Latest comment: 2 years ago by in topic Belief list needs improvement



I am going to improve my article when I have time to.--Sir James Paul 22:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply



I may be mistaken, but can't 19-year old girls now serve missions? (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so --Samoojas (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I know women can, but I'm not sure of the cut-off...I think they have to be a little older Purplebackpack89 15:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The listed ages and mission lengths are accurate.Randomraccoon (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
19 yes. (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Belief list needs improvement


The current belief list, ("We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son...") is not in any way concise, and is also extremely vague and lacking in meaning. A quick Google search also reveals that this text was written by members of the Mormon church, which makes it plagiaristic and non-objective, and therefore unsuitable for an encyclopedia. (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

the list is the 13 Articles of Faith by Joseph Smith, Jr. It is authorative. But much more should be included in the article. Samoojas (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
You are welcome to extend the article. If the list is "authoritative", it would probably not be hard to find a source for it. If you do, could you add it? ;) --Eptalon (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
the 13 articles of faith very simply state what we believe in my church. by stating those things in this article, it is just informing people of that. I don't see why that is a problem. (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

May need improvement above, however...


this is a direct quotation of the official LDS first"Article of Faith" that is the closet think the Church or LDS church has to a creed. Add "Son, Jesus Christ" and it suddenly becomes EXTREMELY concise.



Funny that half the article is about things some people don't like about mormonism.

While trying not to make it into a change war with User:Purplebackpack89, I think that the last entry is now much better than it was. Still I would appreciate the last half-sentence about Adam being removed. Even if you think that it was valid doctrine at some point (I would argue strongly that it wasn't) it most certaintly cannot be a cause of criticism on what the Church currently believes, teaches or stands for. --Samoojas (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC) (I don't know yet if the Talk pages should be 'simply' written, too - I am new here) Reply

Ouch! The title was past things that where criticized... Well, I think the past section should be removed, or at least moved to Criticism of Mormonism if such article is created. I don't see the relevance of listing old grievances here. Anyhoo, the first part of the last past item belongs in the current grievances - I will move it there. --Samoojas (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but it clearly was once held by Mormons that God was (once) Adam. Brigham Young himself believed it (see here), and you can't get more Mormon than him. And not mentioning the criticisms of the Latter-Day Saint movement, especially the widely-held ones, would bring up NPOV issues. And can you give me a good reason why homogeneity isn't a problem? Purplebackpack89 19:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
One or two quotes don't make it church doctrine - as I see it. Clearly we cannot come to an agreement on this, so I will drop it. However, men becoming gods is a highly criticized (current) aspect of the church. The church being in most countries of the world and attracting immigrants in the US, I think the homogeneity of the church is questionable; back, say 20 or more years, I would possibly agree. Best, Samoojas (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
BY saying/teaching it pretty much does make it church doctrine, actually Purplebackpack89 21:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I changed "believe women should stay at home" to "believe mothers should not work outside the home", as it is more accurate. I am not someone who frequently edits, so I apologize for not discussing it here first. If anyone more experienced has a specific problem with my edit, as always, change it back. However, as a member of the church, I can assert that women are strongly encouraged to get as much education as possible (and use it), but that mothers are encouraged to stay home with their children. See point ten in this article, written by a president of the church. Randomraccoon (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

More improvement


I will not touch the article, currently, as others are editing it, but I wanted to point out:

  • Mormons see themselves as Christian
  • The other large Christian movements (Roman-Catholic, Evangelical/Lutheran protestants, United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church) deny this however. Mormons do not agree with the Nicene Creed (version of 325, revised in 381), on which these modern movements are based. (With a big exception of the fiilioque, added later not liked by the Eastern Orthodox; and the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox/Copts who left before 325) --Eptalon (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mormonism merge


Let's discuss this merge Purplebackpack89 21:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I removed the merge proposal, it has been up a long time, and did not materialise. See the Mormonism talk page--Eptalon (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Neutrality of this article


Anyone else feel the criticisms sections isn't very neutral? Where is the praise section? I have added the POV-Check Template to the article, please don't remove it until we have some discussion.

One example I wish to share from this article is where is says the church is "hiding facts that could say that Joseph Smith was a bad person", isn't what makes one bad a opinion? Also can it be proven the church is hiding facts, if they are hidden how do you know they exist? The church might not be the most forth coming about it's history, but many who study it know everything including the warts in it's history. The archives in Salt Lake City are open to the public, and there are literally hundreds of books about Mormon History, so it would strongly disagree that things are hidden.

Also many of these things are not considered church doctrine, only opinions given by some members and leaders. I would like to see proof from the church's standard works of these beliefs (since that is where Mormons get their doctrines). Many criticisms are of Mormonism in general and some don't apply to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), and they should not be here since this article in only about the LDS Church not Mormonism in general.

I would also like to know why people feel that criticisms section is neutral.-- (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

At the moment, it is just a number of "bullet-points", which is probably worse than it being "flow text". As this wp can be editied by anyone, you are free to change the article, to make the section more neutral. However, please provide references for the things you change. And please do create an account, if you plan to edit more often here. --Eptalon (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree the criticism sections needs some work, yet many of the things said are true, or have a basis in truth. I just think that this section really to need to be written a little differently to help everyone feel that what is being said is more "neutral"; there are better ways to criticize then a list of complaints or different beliefs. What I don't understand is why is this list here at all? This is supposed to be a "simple english" Wikipedia, why do we need a list of criticisms that are as long as the rest of the article. In my opinion the list should be shorted into a paragraph or two discussing the more major criticisms of the church and leave out those that have very little basis.--Mangoman88 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree; bullet points are not a good way to write a criticism section. I've removed some bullet points that were misinterpretations of church doctrine. B Fizz (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
That was a mistake, Fizz. Those sections were very well sourced and the work of multiple editors. I don't edit LDS-related pages here right now, but if I did, I would undo those for NPOV reasons, and for removing references without reason. You need a much better reason than "misinterpretation of doctrine" to remove references like that...and keep in mind that both of those things you removed were sanctioned by BY himself, so that's going to be hard. Same with the removal of the anti-LDS websites. Mistake, borderline POV push. Not to be mean or anything, but I note that you have been chided on EN in the past for actions related to your editing of Mormon articles. Please don't continue that here. Purplebackpack89 18:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

<-I have undone the edits made by B Fizz as they are reliably sourced. I have also rephrased or removed some criticisms that (IMO) could be more neutral. Please discuss any edits made to the "Criticisms" section here before changing them. Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

There does need to be something about the academic/historical distortion, IMO. Also, there may some problems with simplicity throughout the article. Purplebackpack89 03:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely agree. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Below is a discussion from EN started by the same IP that started this discussion.

Transcluded from EN


This my not be the place, but after viewing the Simple English Wikipedia article for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I think many who work on this full Wikipedia article may be interested in working on the simple english page. The criticisms section come to mind, it reads like the first chapter of anti-Mormonism 101. It could use some general work and expansion also-- (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing wrong with it. All the criticism there is mentioned in Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or related articles, sourced. Numerous editors have gone over the list of criticisms and found nothing wrong with them. The POV violation in this case would be not having a criticisms section of the LDS Purplebackpack89 04:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
PBP89 - please that is just not true, not "all" and the point of view is not neutral there and it is not all sourced! (I haven't got back there yet but will) Cheers, --Samoojas (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Last time I checked, Sam, they were sourced. And that was five years ago. What is non-neutral is whitewashing over legitimate criticisms of the LDS church. You're new to this game...maybe when you get a little more experience, Sam and IP, you'll understand what's neutral and what's not Purplebackpack89 15:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Not everything is sourced, but most is. I think the neutrality problem the IP user had is not that things were not true, but the tone in which they were written. Here is the example they used of a criticism listed: "Lying about Mormon history, including hiding facts that could say that Joseph Smith was a bad person, and touting too many good things that Mormons might have done", although it is sourced I don't think that is really a fact, more a opinion, that should be written as such. Anyways this conversation should be continued on the simple english article's talk page.--Mangoman88 (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Why not here? It's been started here, why can't it continue here? Anyway, I disapprove of the idea that the criticisms section should be cut just because it's a certain length of the article. If you want it to be a lower %age of the article, add more sections on other things, don't cut existing things. Also, it's phrased as such because the words used in the EN-wiki criticisms section ("dishonest", "distort") aren't simple. You can change how it is phrased, but don't eliminate that statement altogether, as it is a criticism many have reliably leveled against the Church Purplebackpack89 18:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
As the banner at the top of this page says, Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. (emphasis mine). This talk page for this article, that talk page for that article, please. Copy-paste this discussion over to there if it's an issue of discussion history. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Changes made by IP are controversial


Hello all, it looks like the changes made by IP-editor are controversial, and that the same editor (or rather IP) is trying to play a very similar role at EnWP. I would therefore suggest that such changes be discussed here before they are implemented. Certain statements may simply need to be backed by a reliable source. I myself may be of little help, because I know too little about the movement. While we edit this article, would that also be a chance to "push" beliefs shared by all Mormon/LDS movements into the (probably ill-named) Mormonism article. --Eptalon (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

His second edit (most recent) seems OK, but the first one sounds very patronizing of the church. It should be removed or at least rephrased. I'll try to work on it some more later. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have removed the Praise section, since there is no such Praise section on the en article, but there is a criticism section. The Praise section is currently in my sandbox. I feel that the relative points should be incorporated into different sections of the article, as the article expands. Feel free to DISCUSS my edits, but not revert or change them in any way. I'll be on later, and then I'll respond to any questions or concerns. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
After visiting the page again, I do like what has been done with the criticism section in recent edits. For the most part the opinions have been taken out and only facts remain (as it should be). While I believe all the criticisms are true, only 2 of the 11 "current" criticisms are sourced, this is something which should be worked on. I also went back and took a look at the older revision which included the Praise section, and yes I feel two of the points did somewhat patronize the Church, but isn't that what praise is? I don't agree that just removing it was the best thing to do (especially the whole section). When B Fizz removed a couple points from the criticism section Griffinofwales undid those edits on the basis that "they are reliably sourced". The Praise section was sourced very nicely, with a few points having a couple sources each - much better than most of the criticisms. I feel that leaving them in place, until they could be incorporated into the article would have been more appropriate; which by the way I am fine with. The fact that some people (a majority members) and organizations have praised the Church is as important to understanding the Church as the fact that some have criticized it. I just feel it is not neutral or fair, to people who want to understand, to have only a list of criticisms and no list (or mention-at the moment) of praises.--Mangoman88 (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
If you want this article to be longer and better, may I suggest adding a history section? This article needs a history section more than it needs a praises section. Not to mention that the history section can be written with a whole less controversy. Most articles don't really have/need praise sections, because in general most non-criticisms of articles are written fairly favorable to the subject. P.S.: I've asked Griff for some restoration of the academic distortion concern Purplebackpack89 21:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have tried to base this article on the en version, and the en version does not have a praise section. When this article is eventually considered, the praises could be incorporated into their relevant sections. While I agree that it is unfair to have a long criticism section, and not a lot about the church itself, a praises section is not the solution. I will be restoring the academic distortion concern soon after I make this edit. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply



While it may be true that "Most Mormons in the United States are white, Republican, and live in Utah or another part of the Western U.S.", there are more members of the church outside of the U.S., and besides, the demographics of the members has not been a major point of criticism worth mentioning. I think a citation and reference showing that the United States demographics of the church has been a major point of criticism is necessary for reinstating this point. This point shows a POV influenced by the resented political influence of the church in the Prop 8 decision in the state of California, and thus is more fit to be placed in a Proposition 8 article. I have removed it. nomoreink (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sounds reasonable to me. Kansan (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I oppose the removal. For starters, why was this thread at the top of the page? (moves it to the bottom). It is perfectly acceptable to point out that most Mormons are white Republican Westerners, because most American Mormons are those things, and it can be fairly easily sourced to that. Demographics of the Mormon Church belong in this article, not the Prop 8 article. Also, saying that people are critical of the Mormon church because it bought a proposition is making a leap of faith and it itself POV pushing. Purplebackpack89 03:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
It's not in dispute that many Mormons are white Republican westerners - what is in dispute is that this is a common source for criticism, and this needs to be reliably sourced, or giving it as an example of a source of criticism would be original research. In my opinion, Nomoreink's comment about Proposition 8 was unnecessary and irrelevant here, but that does not negate the general thrust of the rest of what s/he said, which I agree with. Kansan (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

History section


Why doesn't this article have a history section? Somebody do me a favor and put User:Purplebackpack89/LDS History in this as a history section Purplebackpack89 03:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Professionalism in writing style


Putting aside the disregard for simple fact-checking, lack of content, and misleading statements made by this article, the writing is just so bad. It reads like a report for a high school American history class. Has this always been the official article for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? There isn't even a section that explains anything about the Book of Mormon or other major beliefs. I'm almost positive that a much more comprehensive and more well-written article was previously on Wikipedia. Am I mistaken? This is one of the world's major religions, it is not possible that this is what people see when they click on the link or search for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytch (talkcontribs)

Can you explain any specific concerns you have with writing style? Nothing immediately stood out to me but I am, of course, open to concerns. Keep in mind that this is the Simple English Wikipedia so grammar structure is supposed to be less complicated, sentences shorter, and vocabulary simpler. Kansan (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
You probably are mistaken. FYI, there is a separate article devoted entirely to the Book of Mormon here. If you think that more needs to be added, feel free to add it, as long as it's neutral Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Let's assume good faith and try to hear what people's concerns are/give them a chance to explain before outright dismissing them as mistaken. What do you feel is inaccurate about this article? Kansan (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Return to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" page.