Talk:Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Sources

My source was a draft manuscript of a 4th edition of the book I've put in the references. Because it's not published and available to the public for purchase yet, I wasn't sure if I should include it. I was going to wait and put it in in 2008 when it was published. With the complaints about sources we can't wait now, so I've included it. It has been a fairly standard reference book in the past for the variety of Latter Day Saint groups. –SESmith 22:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a denomination?

Someone removed this from Category:Latter Day Saint denominations with an edit summary that this is "too small" to be a denomination. While that may be true if you want to adopt a strict definition of the word "denomination", it does not jive with how this category has been treated in the past. All LDS denominations and sects have been included there, regardless of the size. Many of the groups listed there currently cannot be categorized as "denominations" in the strict sense. Whoever designed the category in the first place just used the wrong technical wording. Perhaps if you have a problem with the word "denomination" being improperly used there we should propose an appropriate rename of the category. However, I don't see it as a huge problem and haven't seen others overly worried about it either. –SESmith 22:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Denomination does imply a significant body of mulitple congregations or individual churches. I would say that the category should be purged of those groups that are so small in number that they do not have more than one or two separate congregations. I think a better term would be Sect. Some might be uncomfortable with the term given its negative connotation, but having lived in France the worde "secte" is more benign in nature than the English word can be. I propose a new category be created called Category:Latter Day Saint sects for these groups.

I dont' think this is a major concern or there is any big taboo about it, I just think that we should be as correct as possible. What do you think about the proposed category? I think we could keep the current category and just slip the small groups over. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd personally be fine with that basic idea, though you or others may run into difficulty at times trying to decide if a group qualifies as a "sect" or a "denomination". To avoid this problem, I would be more in favor of creating a new category where all of them can co-exist. I don't know what we might rename such a category. "Latter Day Saint sects" probably isn't quite right, and "Latter Day Saint groups" is maybe too ambiguous. Perhaps "Latter Day Saint churches"? I just think getting into the whole denomination vs. sect distinction is more trouble than it's worth since it's hard to come up with criteria which are NPOV and easily applied in all cases. As you say, "sect" can also be seen as a perjorative or belittling term, even though in the original sense it does not mean that. However, language changes and recategorizing some LDS churches but not others as "sects" will be an easy target for POV accusations. –SESmith 23:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps those at the LDS project should be asked for input on this before any changes are made? I'm not really involved there, but if you are you could ask for input. –SESmith 23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources (again)

Where's the source for this article? The book is forthcoming in 2008? Is it out yet? The article was PRODed today, which I can understand with a "source forthcoming" only. We really need to get a real source. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)