Talk:Missionary (LDS Church)

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)
??? 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.

Contents

[edit] Items from Missionary

Below are some items that were brought up when this article was part of the more general missionary article. Please use these ideas to spur discussion:

This [article has] a number of benefits:
  1. We could go on and on as long as we like about LDS missions
  2. We could better organize the topic
  3. We could go in depth into topics which aren't discussed, such as zone leaders, district leaders and assisstants to the president.— Frecklefoot | Talk 14:48, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
... I would propose a longer view than just what this article contains. Please see my rant about the history of Christian missions above. 1839 marks the beginning of the ongoing "LDS Missionary Effort" -- and there are great mission related events in LDS history, such as the three early missions to England, early apostles' visits in Europe and the Holy Land, the early Indian missions, and the missions to the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii) and Tonga that have had such lasting implications for the church's population. There is also the issue of "gathering to Zion" and the counterbalance of the modern direction to "build the Church in your region." The differences between the early missionaries (in prepardness, financial support, and organization) and what is done today in all the LDS offshoots could be discussed as well. There might be more than one article here. I am going to copy this discussion section to the LDS project page for more input. Comments? WBardwin 00:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
... Why don't we start with a modern article -- it could include a very short history introduction, and real descriptions of the actual mission experience -- MTC, companions, door approaches and all that stuff. Maybe a list of modern mission names and locations too.
I think a history based article(s) on the early missions would also be important, but then I'm a history nut. I've been doing some personal research on the three successive missions to England that brought so many English saints to Nauvoo and to the west. And the RLDS had missionaries too, although I've never actually met a modern one. "Missions of the Latter Day Saint Movement"? Quite long and cumbersome for a name. WBardwin 17:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I might start in the near future creating a simple history section starting with sources largely from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants. Maybe after that we can add other stories, martyrs, methods, etc. Also, a look at any recent church almanac would reveal a lot about the development of the current mission organization. Wrad 00:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why "Mormon missionary"

Some comments on why this article is named as it is:

What are we gonna call it? LDS missionary, Latter-day Saint missionary, Mormon missionary, Those guys in suits riding bikes? I'd like to nail this down before creating the article. I'll bring this up on the project page too. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I can't decide between Mormon missionary and Latter-day Saint missionary (I don't think LDS missionary is appropriate in a title, because it's an initialism, nor is Mormon Elder because it is gender exclusive). On the one hand, Mormon missionary is the most commonly used. But on the other hand, the church would prefer Latter-day Saint missionary, although very few people outside the church actually call them that. A google search of various names gives the following results:
  1. Mormon missionary: 20,500 hits
  2. LDS missionary: 16,400 hits
  3. Mormon Elder: 5,980 hits
  4. Latter-day Saint missionary: 875 hits
  5. LDS Elder": 466 hits
  6. Missionary of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: 130 hits
  7. Latter-day Saint Elder: 34 hits
COGDEN 17:16, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
"Missionary (Latter-day Saint)?" -- would match the current Mission (Christian) format and tie to the home article. If people are currently typing "Missionary" -- and find this article, it would be easy to refer them from the short section on LDS missionaries which would remain here. Why don't we start with a modern article -- it could include a very short history introduction, and real descriptions of the actual mission experience -- MTC, companions, door approaches and all that stuff. Maybe a list of modern mission names and locations too.

In short, it's named "Mormon missionary" because that is the most widely used term. The other names can redirect to this article. If you feel it should be changed, please discuss here first. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:48, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be called Latter-day Saint missionary, since that's the, for lack of better words, "politically correct" term. Mormon missionary should redirect to that. Antley 00:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, as it is a cultural term. I belive Missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should redirect here. Who has ever asked about Latter-day Saint missionaries? No one would recognize the term, nor find the page in a general search. However, we should have redirects at other obvious places. -Visorstuff 13:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Visorstuff. Other terms should redirect to here. Plus, all the confusing ways one could word another term would make it onerous to link to. Most people will use the term "Mormon missionary" and that's why we chose the name. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I see your point of view Frecklefoot. However, this is an Encylopedia. I propose to change it to Latter-day Saint Missionaries, and not Mormon Missionaries. Here's my reasoning. I look up Jimmy Stewart on Wikipedia, and I am automatically redirected to James Stewart, which is his full given name. Most people would not reccognize "James Stewart" as the popular actor he is. Yet the encyclopedia lists the factual name. "Mormon" missionary is not the correct term (according to the Associated Press Handbook, one would first state Latter-day Saint, and subsequently the term "mormon" could be used.) Therefore, I propose to have "Mormon Missionary" redirect to "Latter-day Saint Missionary", since this is the correct term. I feel that it would be closer to an encyclopedia in such a way. Sylverdin 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
If article names in wikipedia are to go by the popular name, the "cultural term", then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article should be renamed to Mormon_church. However, since it doesn't go by that name the article isn't named so. The same rule applies here. This article should be named either "Latter-day Saint missionary" or "Missionary (Latter-day Saint)," my thought being the prior, with all others re-directing to it so people can still find the article.
If I do not see any objections to this I'll work on renaming the article, once I figure out how. Gh5046 21:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
There are objections. Haven't you read the preceding discussion? Moving a page isn't hard, but you shouldn't do it to this article because of the objections. I don't want to reiterate all the reasons it should be "Mormon missionary" instead of one of the other variants. Unless someone can come up with an overwhelming reason why it should be moved to another name, it should stay put. I, myself, was a "Mormon missionary" and wasn't offended by the term then, nor am I now. — Frecklefoot | Talk 11:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes I have, have you? There are more yeas than nays for the moving of the article, and so far the main reasons for not doing it are either POV or because of what's more "well known", more popular. Those reasons are hardly overwhelming.
This isn't about whether or not it is offensive, just what is the correct term. Just as I said before, If article names in wikipedia are to go by the popular name, the "cultural term", then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article should be renamed to Mormon_church, but that is not how things work on Wikipedia.
Just keep in mind, "Mormon missionary" can be re-directed to whatever name this article can be moved to. The article name change does not have to affect one's ability to find this article. Gh5046 23:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not about what is offensive or not. The name of any article should be (what we can best determine) is the proper name of the article. Other article names should redirect to the proper name. I think that the proper name of this article should be "Missionary (Latter-day Saint)". Val42 16:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I will rename this article in the next couple of days. If you are opposed to it please address the points made by Val42, Sylverdin, and myself. Gh5046 23:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

When is it going to be renamed? Joseph Antley 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose renaming to Missionary (Latter-day Saint) because according to WP:LDSMOS we don't use that appendage. We use -(Latter Day Saints), but that would not be appropriate because this article deals only with missionaries of the LDS Church. It is possible to use the appendage -(LDS Church) for LDS Church specific articles, but this usage is discouraged. Personally, I think "Mormon missionary" is the best title. But if it's going to be moved, at least follow the naming conventions and use Missionary (LDS Church). –SESmith 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also support Missionary (LDS Church). WBardwin 23:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I would also agree with this name. — Val42 01:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Only the worthy need apply

Concerning this edit, I was about to revert it, but then I remembered something from a Sacrament meeting a while ago. They read a letter from the First Presidency stating that they only wanted higher-qualified young men to serve missions. I was surprised by this, but soon forgot it. The edit I linked kind of mentions this.

Does anyone else have any more information on this? I took "highly qualified" to mean that they had attended Seminary all four years and didn't have drinking problems or smoke.

I still don't like the tone of the edit—"determine if it's right for them to go on a two-year, full-time proselyting mission"—just sounds really bad to me as an RM. Anyone else? — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Agree the wording could be better. -Visorstuff 21:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request a visit link

I was just going to revert it, but I'm kind of on the fence on this one. Can we leave the "Request a visit" link or should we nix it? — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

An anon editor just eliminated the 'request a visit', and replaced it with :Missionary Manipulation/Techniques Used by Mormon missionaries, which I just moved here. Both are probably a POV magnet, and I suspect, would result in continued edits and deletions. I think that information only sites would be best. WBardwin 07:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree. -Visorstuff 14:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merge

As you may have noticed I have proposed a merge with Mormon missionaries. I'm fully capable of doing the move, but I'm not sure which page should merge into which. In any case, I would like everyone's comments and opinions before any action is taken. --Hetar 07:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree: I think that the information should be merged to this page and the other page be a redirect. What does Wikipedia policy say about singular vs. plural? Val42 17:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the singular should be the main article, and the plural a redirect. I have completed the merge, as well as put in a request to get permission for some images for this article. --Hetar 04:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I've redirected LDS Mission here. There was nothing extra there to merge, except for some POV comments at the end which were not worth bringing here. Kevin 09:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree: I think the information is all related also, and should be merged as well. They should be understood.. sub-categories of the broad topic "Mormon Missionaries". JavaDog 00:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coming of age, see also

There is a section listing coming of age movies and books regarding missionaries, all were removed except for one [1], I added it back. We should either have them all, or none, but what are people's opinions about their inclusion at all? The formatting is somewhat odd. If people want to include them I will probably just make them a list, "see also" isn't really appropriate. - cohesion 18:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

I noticed these three articles were added to the "See also" seciton:

The naming conventions for two of these articles are wrong (all article titles should be singular), are capped wrong (e.g. "Returned Missionary" should be "Returned missionary") and the articles are in bad need of wikifying. Please help out if y'all can. Thx. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism section and 132.178.227.221

I am again reverting this section which has been introduced twice now by 132.178.227.221. I have no problem with a section like this being created with appropriate NPOV, including citing who the criticizing parties and any bias they may have. However, the citations currently included are not actually related to what is being discussed--see this link which is referenced when discussing the MTC--or of questionable reliability as critics who aren't making blatantly or subtly biased cases based on their own prejudices and personal feelings about the Church. Most of the actual criticism in this section is couched in weasel words to indicate that it shared by a wider group of people than the inserter, which while it may be true is almost completely unsupported by the text or citations. In addition, this user, User:132.178.227.221, has a history of inserting these sort of POV edits regarding Mormonism into various articles including: Homosexuality, Electroconvulsive therapy, Brigham Young University-Idaho, and Brigham Young University. I am writing this to explain my revert and allow discussion if anyone, including 132.178.227.221, disagree with me and wish to support their disagreement. Phil 23:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge tags

I'm not sure how long the merge tags have been up , and I don't see any discussion here. As far as I understand, you can go ahead and merge if nobody complains after a few days, so it should be alright to merge them now. --Lethargy 00:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: this was discussed in October at Talk:Mormon Humanitarian Missionaries, but I see the articles were only recently tagged. Perhaps waiting a few more days would be a good idea. --Lethargy 01:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Lethargy. I agree with the merge of returned missionary and Mormon Missionaries. However, I think that Humanitarian missionaries would fit more under LDS Humanitarian Services. Since they do not proselyte and are called, so to speak, to fill humanitarian needs, it seems that there is much more similarities to that area of the church. In addition, the Humanitaran Services article needs a ton of fleshing out, which merging the two would accomplish. I don't know how to do merges at all, so I didn't even try to do it.  :) What do you think? Sylverdin 05:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to look through the humanitarian articles (again) to see if I still think they should be merged (I haven't looked through them thoroughly in a while). In the meantime, since you mentioned you don't know how to merge pages, here is the policy page about merges: Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages --Lethargy 20:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The Mormon Humanitarian Missionaries article doesn't really explain what they do, it just talks about LDS Philanthropies, humanitarian work, and missionaries in general. it also contains POV wording and only one citation. In its current state, it should definitely be merged with LDS Humanitarian services and be reworded for neutrality. From reading the article, as far as I can tell humanitarian missionaries don't exist, it is just another name given to normal missionaries or members who temporarily do humanitarian work. --Lethargy 21:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It needs a ton of work. If we merged it into the LDS Humanitarian Services, a lot of the info could be reworded and worked into that article, with a subheading about humanitarian missionaries. So ... then do we wait to merge it? I'm not that familiar with etiquette on mergers.  :) Sylverdin 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Per our discussion, I have removed the Mormon Humanitarian Missionaries tag merge and will be merging that page into the LDS Humanitarian Services page. It does need a ton of work, but I'll be working on it slowly. Any other help would be much appreciated. Cheers! Sylverdin 23:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Heterosexual Relationships

It is dependent on the mission president as to whether or not a missionary may email his girl/boyfriend. Some presidents only allow emailing among family members (I would say most in fact). I think the article should be changed to reflect this Epachamo 07:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Geez! Missionaries have it easy nowadays! When I served a mission, all we could do was write—by hand—once a week. What, can missionaries instant message folks back home too? When I was on my mission, we could write (yes, really write, with a real pen and paper) once a week, on P-day, to anyone we pleased. But I can see how email use might be more restricted. If you like, you can modify the information yourself. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

E-mail is for family member only. Missionaries can still write letters to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytrewq3434 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between modern and historic missionary experience

It appears that we are missing a large chunk of LDS history by not at least mentioning the differences between the modern Missionary Program (sending young unmarrieds & Sr Couples) and the days when mostly married men had to leave their families for a season to serve. -- FishUtah 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There were also "home missionaries" (similar to Stake missionaries now). -- 12.106.111.10 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see my notes in "Comments from Missionary" regarding the history of LDS missionary work. The section(s) I envisioned about the early and ongoing mission experience have alas never appeared. I still would like to expand this article/create a related article. Sooooooooo little time. WBardwin 08:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orgazmo

Why does the link to Orgazmo keep getting deleted? The article links to other pro-missionary movies, why not this parody? I didn't add the link, and I've never seen the film, but from the article, it doesn't even sound anti-Mormon. It just sounds like a comedy based on a Mormon practice. I'm LDS, and I'm not offended by the link. Why do other editors keep removing it? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Orgazmo should stay. The Mormon missionary is the central character in the film. It's satire, people—have a sense of humor and stop deleting it. -SESmith 02:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It should probably stay, although at NC-17 it is "porn" by Mormon standards. So it is likely to be removed repeatedly. WBardwin 21:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The "sense of humor" argument is not one that will sway most who would delete it. The only reason it should be here is logical, not humorous. It is about a mormon missionary. That is the reason it should be here. Objectivity is on its side. It's not here because it's funny, it's here because it's a mormon missionary movie, and wikipedia does not censor information. Wrad 22:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not arguing that it should stay because it was funny. I was appealing to people's sense of humor to influence them to avoid using what WBardin calls "Mormon standards" in editing WP. That should have been clear from reading last sentence, which supplemented my first two sentences, which essentially made the point that you made in a more abbreviated form. I don't lose much sleep over whether or not my statements are "effective" or not; that's what the undo function is for. -SESmith 22:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if that came off bad, I was just trying to cover your back and present it in a cold-hearted, logical way. Wrad 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's OK. I didn't take offence—I just thought maybe you'd misunderstood me. I think we're all on the same page about why it should stay, anyway. -SESmith 22:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Does anyone else think it looks unprofessional to to give the MPAA rating of one film and not the others? I think the name of the film and the information on what it's about should be enough warning for those that want to be warned; and those that care about the rating should look it up. --70.160.97.60 (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know... the fact that a film is NC-17 says a lot about it. PG, PG-13, R, mean a lot less than NC17. NC-17 means commercial death. It's not a common rating. I think it's notable. Wrad (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a problem with it being deleted, but I also don't have a problem with it remaining. I don't think it looks "unprofessional" — given the context of this article, stating that the film is NC-17 is at least somewhat notable, because one normally wouldn't expect a Mormon missionary to show up in an NC-17 movie. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move: Last call to support/oppose move!

I've created this new section and posted a proposed move tag to make this discussion more conspicuous, as largely being discussed in a section above. (I have not requested help with the move, as we don't need it to move to the propsed page.)

Consensus seems to be building to support a move to Missionary (LDS Church). For example, the following comments are copied from a section above:

  • I would also support Missionary (LDS Church). WBardwin 23:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would also agree with this name. — Val42 01:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to comment on this—anyone opposed, for example? Otherwise I think we should perform the move in the next few days. –SESmith 00:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of converts per missionary

I removed the statment that "some LDS" are "concerned" about the dropping number of converts per missionary. It was uncited, for one thing. For another, I have never heard a single thing in the church about this concern from anyone, much less someone official. I would submit that the reason for this (as yet uncited) drop is an increased quality of converts. Nowadays they have to go to church before being baptized. They also have to be confirmed in sacrament meeting. Convert baptisms have to be recorded by the Mission and not the ward or stake. The Church has really tightened the requirements on who to baptize and how to go about doing it. That, to me, is the reason for the drop, not poor missionaries. Until the facts I removed can be cited, they should stay out. Wrad (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Divorce an exclusionary factor?

Is this statement really correct:

"...are usually excluded from missionary service, as are men under 26 and women under 40 who have been divorced"

I served with a sister missionary who was in her early twenties and she had been married and divorced. Of course that was almost 20 years ago, so this may be a new regulation. Just want to make sure everything here is factual. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of the 2006 Handbook of Instructions. It says on p. 92: "In addition, the following members are not normally recommended to serve full-time missions: 1. Brethren ages 19 through 25 and sisters ages 21 through 39 who have been divorced. ... If priesthood leaders believe that unusual circumstances or situations may warrant an exception, and if they can recommend that an exception be made, the stake presidency may submit a request for the First Presidency to consider it."
It seems to be a rule, but not an absolute one that cannot be excepted to in any circumstances. I expect that if the divorce was the result of the husband's bad behavior where the wife could be considered an innocent victim, i.e., he ran off with another woman or something, they would probably grant an exception for a woman who desired to be a missionary? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Like I said, I served like 18 years ago, so things may have changed, but maybe she got an exception like you noted. I don't know too much about it, she didn't talk about it. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gender relations

"Missionary companionships are also asked to not visit with single members of the opposite sex apart from an initial first visit. If further visits are required, those contacts are usually handed over to a companionship of the same gender as the contact or to married couple missionaries" That is not neccessary true. In my mission we had to have some one with us of our own sex to teach in in the home where only the opposite sex is present. We did not usually hand the teaching over. If someone has the current white handbook they should quote the rule in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytrewq3434 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incident

Do we really need that "incident" in the article? It looks like it's an isolated case, and not something that has besmirched the image of Mormon Missionaries as a whole. And it sounds like a small story at that—I didn't hear about it until I saw it in the article here. If many Mormon missionaries did this type of thing, it'd be worth mentioning. But why is just one incident a big deal? I think it should be removed. Anyone else? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I think this is an appropriate inclusion. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not an LDS owned site and it is acceptable to include documented events that don't always place the group in a positive light. This inclusion is balanced as it includes a mention of the LDS response in disciplining the vandals. I would say that this "incident" should be considered notable, as it shows that LDS missionaries do not exist in a vacuum, especially since the Wikipedia article for "Christian Mission" has a significant section for controversial incidents. (EinsteinEnergy (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
I'm not opposed to its inclusion, but it shouldn't be paraded about in a completely negative tone. Don't revert valid edits just because it might introduce a different viewpoint than you want to give to the incident. Gh5046 (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that focusing on this single event violates the undue weight rule unless it is combined with several other incidents. (Shouldn't be much of a problem finding more) Also, I believe this summary of incidents should include crimes against missionaries, such as the missionary shot in the US a while ago. Combining these things should give us the breadth and balance needed to really improve the article. Wrad (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah forget it. I'll delete the whole thing myself. (EinsteinEnergy (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
No need for that. I think we've got something here and should run with it! Wrad (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Good work! Thanks for taking the time to do that. Gh5046 (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Ran into some interesting stuff. Wrad (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about a potential addition. Did the LDS church allow black missionaries before 1978, or only after?(EinsteinEnergy (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

I really have no idea. Wrad (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Not specific to missionaries, but information related to that is covered in the Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article. Gh5046 (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll add that to the article. Having a racial qualification that only discriminated against blacks certainly seems as historically significant as noting when the first LDS missionary went to Ghana. (EinsteinEnergy (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC))
You may want to determine if black female missionaries could serve before 1978. The priesthood issue does not apply in their case. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for my earlier edits, I was rude and disrespectful. I will edit more considerately in the future, thank you for your patience. (EinsteinEnergy (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] "Other" section

I didn't remove it, but I have to admit the section doesn't have much substance. I could care less what some wall calendar in LV says. Is this really notable enough to be in this article? Wrad (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think there's at least as much substance to the calendar as there is to some of the movies listed. Some people could probably "care less" about the mention of missionaries in the movie Millions, but it's listed. I think the list works better if we try to list all appearances of Mormon missionaries in popular culture, since they are relatively few and far between. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, movies are a clear and notable category. Wall calendars are not. Wrad (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
They are different, sure; but how one views them is essentially a question of POV. To favour movies over calendars, or books over comic books, or rap music over adult contemporary, is just choosing sides. Why even try to pick and choose what is worthy of mention from popular culture references and what is not? It's not like the popular culture section is overflowing with content that things have to be weeded out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The best way to determine if it's notable is by how much press the subject in question has received. If "Men on a Mission" received more press coverage than "Millions" then I'd wager it's worth keeping. Just because something exists doesn't make it notable. That's why you won't find an article on Wikipedia about me or yourself. Gh5046 (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you will find a WP article about me, but that's beside the point. The calendar has a "press reference". Some of the movies listed don't even have a WP article about them, and there is no citation for some of them right now. In fact, there are no references in this article for almost all of the movies listed. So I would say that based on the citations currently in the article, the calendar is at least if not more notable than some of the movies listed.
That being said, if you want more "press references" for the calendar, I can provide 'em. There was an AP story about it that was picked up by many newspapers worldwide; the Washington Post and the Sydney Morning Herald reported on it, and the Huffington Post picked it up too, as did USA Today and BYU NewsNet. It also received quite a bit of attention in LGBT media around the world, partly because there was an article in The Advocate about it, and Andrew Sullivan blogged about it on The Atlantic website. Oh yeah, and it was in Rolling Stone. It seems pretty "notable" to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)