Talk:Latter Day Saint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Latter Day Saint and Latter-day Saint

I am unsure why this is a seperate page from Latter-day Saint since the proper modifying words should be hyphenated and refer to the same concept. Let's combine. Any objections?

I think that creating this page was a good idea. The idea of a "Latter Day Saint", spelled without a hyphen, existed long before it was first spelled "Latter-day Saint" by Utah Mormons. Many Mormon sects still refer to themselves as "Latter Day Saints", yet do not spell it "Latter-day Saints".COGDEN 04:12, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Good job, B and Cogden. This page:

  • Is brief and doesn't rehash much.
  • Sticks to its point.
  • May have a purpose.
  • Contains info new to me.

Hawstom 04:18, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I Disagree, this info should be merged, or should be named (disambiguation). I read almost the whole page before I realized this isn't the page on LDS Alcuin 12:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The Latter-day Saint page is vague, doesnt cite sources and contains no relevent information that isn't in the Latter Day Saint article. These pages should defintely be merged as it's very confusing to people who know little on the subject. kristmace 16 August 2006
a "Latter Day Saint" should be merged with "Strangite" as the aforementioned term refers to the Mormon sect that broke off with leader James J Strang. A "Latter-day Saint" is the original Mormon religion whose current Prophet is Gorden B. Hinckley" --Ccolling 02:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
see Talk:Latter-day Saint#Proposed Merger --Trödel 15:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latter Day Saint and Mormonism

There is a page on "Mormonism" in addition to this one that seems to cover the same territory. Should these two pages perhaps be merged? --ArcticFrog 15:11, 20 May 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog

I think this article is about the "who" and Mormonism is about the "what". It makes sense to me the way it is broken down. Tom (hawstom) 14:39, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I found this problem with the Catholicism page.

Someone there wrote. Since Catholic refers to a person who is part of Catholicism itself, it should be merged into there right this very second. I agree. In Wikipedia Buddists are listed under Buddisism, Hindus listed under Hinduism, Jewish under Judaism and so on. President shows how religions are named so latter day saints should also be merged into mormonism right this very second.````

I would say mormons are related to mormonism, as Buddists are related to Buddisism. But mormons usually does not view themselves as mormons, but as saints. As you know a Saint was common biblical word for being a Christian in the new testament. The Latter Day part stress the relation between the biblical and the present (latter) day christians. So far there is no other Saintly -ism word invented than just the simple Christianity word. So why not use it and call it Christianity (Latter Day Saint) instead of Mormonism? For the Latter Day Saints the formal belonging to Christ and his church is viewed as holy or a commandment from God. --Mattias2 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latter Day Saint and Latter-day Saint

Since Lmgold feels that the distinction between Latter Day Saint and Latter-day Saint is so important that they keep adding it to the first paragraph, rather than just leaving it in the third paragraph, I've moved the whole text of the third paragraph up there.

I hope is acceptable - it seems unnecessary to describe a term with a different meaning (i.e. the specific meaning of Latter-day Saint over the general meaning of Latter Day Saint) twice in the general article... even if the specific meaning is more common. - MykReeve 10:44, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I think the way you arranged it is the best way. COGDEN 19:55, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The articles should absolutely be merged. People who are trying to find information on LDS are not going to know the difference. It looks like poor organization to have the two links in the template. BenC7 02:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is still not correct. What is the basis for claiming that "Latter-day Saint" is a British styling? The Chicago Manual of Style sets forward the general rule for hyphenation of modifying words, and it is clear that you use hyphenation to link words that modify the subject necessary to prevent confusion. Is a "latter day saint" a latter "day saint" or a "latter day" saint? You can't tell. That's why the use of hyphenation is necessary (pursuant to the Chicago rules). The Chicago rules are hardly British style, being in existence since 1906 and written for U.S. publications. Can't we correct this grammar? --tortdog 21:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
We're talking about usage from the 1830s. Whatever the recommendation is today, the terms Latter Day Saints and Latter-day Saints have different meanings. It's not that one or the other is incorrect, it's just that Latter Day Saints was earlier and has a broader meaning. I don't know, but it could be that non-hyphenation was an American style in the 1800s. Regardless, however, changing the spelling and hyphenation in the article title would significantly change the meaning, and would make lots of members of the Latter Day Saint movement mad. COGDEN 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
So an encylopedia ignores English grammar because those who use "latter day saints" would be upset? Where has the "latter day saint" movement documented their choice of bad grammar?--tortdog 14:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not that they would be upset, it is that the two terms refer to DIFFERENT sects of the religion. English speaking, one would be marked wrong on an essay, the other right; However, as small a difference that this is, the two different movements should be kept separate, since otherwise it would NOT tell history to the fullest truth, so potentially someone researching the less common use would be totally confused. The only acceptable decision is to keep the two terms separate as they refer to a group with similar beliefs, but not ABSOLUTELY the same. --Ccolling 02:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mormons

"Members of smaller sects are sometimes, but incorrectly, referred to as 'Mormons'"". I don't think this is accurate. I don't recall the FLDS, for example, one of the largest minor groups, taking issue with being called Mormons. The LDS Church and we members often take issue with their being called Mormons, but I'm not sure that makes it "incorrect". Tom (hawstom) 20:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's not strictly true. The LDS.org website states this - There Is No Such Thing as a "Mormon Fundamentalist" or "Mormon Sect"
The term “Mormon” is a nickname commonly applied to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is no such thing as a "Mormon fundamentalist," nor are there “Mormon sects." A correct term to describe these polygamist groups is "polygamist sects." The inclusion of the word “Mormon” is misleading and inaccurate.
Regarding "Polygamist sects." these sects. do not refer to themselves as such. They believe that they are THE Mormons. They believe the other (larger) church has moved away from the original teachings. So this discussion (of the names) depends on who you ask. I believe they should be included in the Mormon page.
The Associated Press Stylebook 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." http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0,15331,3885-1-23368,00.html
Kristmace 12:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism) and its Talk page for further information on the usage of "Mormon" on Wikipedia. --Kmsiever 13:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Site Link

The link to the writer's style guide is correct, but broken. Wierd...Maybe the lds.org servers don't like WikiPedia :P Bruce 10:13, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Works for me Moogle 07:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Initialism

The article begins:

A Latter Day Saint (LDS) is ... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) ...

This seems to imply that the LDS Church is the church of LDS people. However, it is obvious that this is a case of all squares are rectangles ....

I see only two solutions:

  1. Use the LDS initialism for Latter-day Saints only — unforeseeable as it connotes a denunciation of other Latter Day Saints as being such.
  2. Use a different nickname for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — yet another dilemma.

Of the two, I suggest using Church of Jesus Christ on second reference as this is not in use and is suggested by the Latter-day Saint Style Guide and others (U of U, UVSC, and BYU). Obviously this is not definitive (and is localized), but as these are the places that deal with it most, they might know how to handle it best. Moogle 07:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attaboy

The intro to this article really is looking nice. I wonder what would be a nice image. A composite of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon? Tom Haws 20:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Take a look over the external links here, and the guidelines at WP:EL. Considering both those and the nature of this particular article (which refers to Latter Day Saints in general, not specifically Mormons), none seem to fit. Some would be appropriate in LDS-specific categories, but none are general enough to cover the group as a whole. A couple don't fit at all, which I've already removed. I think it'd be best to remove/merge the rest, anyone else want to weigh in? Deadsalmon 05:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LDS vs. ERA

I'd like to direct the attention of any interested parties to the section at the bottom of the ERA talk page. I noticed the absence of any mention of the LDS's involvement, and I'd like the gap filled, but I'm not sure I'm the right person to do this. Any takers? Alienus 01:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Church of God End Time Saints

Someone tagged on a link to a website for a group called The Church of God End Time Saints. The website is often incoherent and the author doesn't seem interested in common writing conventions such as punctuation and grammar, so I'm suspicious of its legitimacy. Has anyone else heard of this group? Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 16:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

They're a pentacostal movement that have nothing to do with Latter Day Saints so I removed the link. Kristmace 16:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration Branches

What is meant by this line in the article?

Restoration Branches (separate organizations, but part of the 250 thousand)

Does this mean that they are part of the Community of Christ? That is the 250 thousand mentioned. Whether this is correct or not, please make it clear. Val42 00:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a typo to me. I erased it and did a couple of other cleanup changes. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 10:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe this still remains unclear. Kukini 05:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles of Faith

In this section of the article, it mentions that memorizing these are a requirement for receiving the Primary graduation certificate. Does this apply to all of the Latter Day Saints or only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Val42 05:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That only applies to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and therefore, I thought it inappropriate for it to be mentioned here. It's not really a requirement, more like a suggestion. I removed this reference. Kristmace 16:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of the articles, like number 4 is incorrect... look at the curch's site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.67.23.24 (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Merge with Mormonism

== New merge request. ==
This page and all LDS pages should be merged under the title Mormonism. All LDS pages are talking about Joseph Smith's teachings, the page is about his teachings anyway, so that goes to reason they read the book of Mormon therfore Mormons.You may want to seperate your modern church from its past however its past can't be changed. The current "big" branch is still preaching about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and they were part of the Latter Day Saint movement, Church and Mormonism.
This is not the main reason I suggest the change however. They should be merged because all the other religions I've read about on Wikipedia include the movements or beginings, middles and currents on their main (only) page. As in Buddist getting only a Buddism page, Hindus getting only a Hindism page and so on. If they are not merged then I feel that all of the other religions should have similar adjustment to the Mormons. As Mormonism has three (3) different listings as of today, Sept. 26 2006, Latter day Saint Movement,Latter day saints and Mormons. They should all be listed under Mormanism. Anarcism, Capitalism, Communism have many forms but only one (1) page each.
lol: I was wrong there are nine (9) pages on Momonism as of today (maybe more are hiding) Latter day Saint Movement,Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ,History of the Latter Day Saint movement,Jesus in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Missions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon, Mormonism, and there are lists with (small) pages of even more sects. I'd be willing to wager that all of the different branches not only follow the book of Mormon, but also all but one originated in Utah.
Joeseph Smith's MORMONISM and the book of Mormon is what all the above pages are all refering to.
And a quote from Latter Day Saint movement page shows the connection."The Latter Day Saint movement spawned many religious denominations, some of which include a set of doctrines, practices, and cultures collectively known as Mormonism, although some do not accept the designation Mormon."

[edit] Fixed Mistake

"However, certain denominations have different articles of faith, and others, such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have modified the Articles to reflect later doctrinal developments." <------ This isn't true so I removed the reference to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints", who have kept the original 13 articles as originally written in the letter by Joseph Smith. I'm not sure what other denominations have changed the articles, but if someone knows or wants to do the research adding a denomination who has changed the articles it would be great.Primalscreamtherapy 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There were several versions of the articles of faith during the early church. You can read a version in the second volume of "Joseph Smith Begins His Work" that contains 14 articles, instead of the 13 used today by the Utah-based church, and with five first principles and ordinances of the gospel instead of four. There were other versions as well, a couple of them published by Orson Pratt and Orson Hyde. However, I don't think this portion of the above sentence was correct: "to reflect later doctrinal developments." The different versions did not contain contrasting doctrinal statements, and none of the versions were ever intended as definitive summations of church doctrine -- just an introductory set of principles. Eric.d.dixon 11:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Eric.d.dixon is right. The ones the Church uses today are adaptations from History of the Church, where there were only thirteen. The adaptations are all fairly trivial, replacing "&c." with "and so forth," and changing article ten to say "the American continent" rather than simply "this continent," and other stylistic changes. Bruce 20:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

A neutrality tag has just been added to this article without any note on this discussion page. Unless someone tells us what the neutrality dispute is about, I will remove the tag. — Val42 16:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this as well, and apparently it was put there by this user who has had a past history of putting tags on pages where they don't belong and I definitely think they don't belong, so I'm removing them. Bella Swan 00:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

The Term Latter Day Saint ONLY applies to The LDS church members, Not the break offs(Church or Christ, etc). 76.241.87.33

Not according to the Wikipedia naming conventions. The term "Latter-day Saint" applies only to the LDS Chruch (notice the dash and the lower case "d"). Please review the naming standards so you can know which articles are about the movement and which articles are about the LDS Church. It is a subtle but significant difference. Bytebear 20:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted material on state percentages of LDS

I deleted the information on the U.S. states with the highest percentage population of Latter Day Saints. I think this information would be more appropriate for an article about Latter Day Saints in the United States or the LDS Church specifically. Unfortunately, I think its placement here is a little bit too U.S.-centric, since Latter Day Saints live in many countries in the world. It's also probably a bit LDS Church-centric, since I am assuming those statistics refer to members of the LDS Church and not necessarily other Latter Day Saints. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Those seeking clarification are left with none

This page should exist, but only as a means to differentiate between Mormon and Latter-day Saints. However, this differentiation is arguably not satisfactorily addressed in the article's text.67.150.254.177 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, an anonymous editor makes my point about these two articles. I have made my attempts at fixing the problem, but they have always been undone. Will this problem remain unfixed indefinitely? — Val42 (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Let's do something about this. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)