Talk:Thomas S. Monson/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] POV

As wonderful as this man sounds, many parts of this article seem very non-neutral. For more information on the neutral point of view policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw only a couple slightly bias words used (i.e. Despite). If your neutrality concerns are from the actual content as opposed to word choice, you should know that this is one unique man. 71.213.78.188 07:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

3 of the sections that most struck me as non-NPOV are as follows:
"...He accomplished all this before the age of 32."
"Early on, Monson was recognized for his leadership and organizational skills and his concern for the downtrodden and humble. He visited those 86 widows regularly and even after leaving the position, he continued to visit them each Christmas for the rest of their lives bringing them gifts (often poultry he raised himself) and chatting with them. He spoke at nearly every one of their funerals. There were also many poor people living within the boundaries of this ward, and Monson took special care to help them as he could. Even today, he continues to visit former members of this ward and regularly visits nursing homes in Salt Lake City to attend to the elderly, especially those who have no one else to visit them."
"...is known for his photographic memory and his ability to quote scriptures extensively without assistance" (but see "Stephen Hadley, returned Canadian Missionary" (scroll down) [1]RWIR (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the 3 passages above, the entire article just seems overly biased. Articles here shouldn't be biased, no matter how great the subject in question truly is. I thus believe there are 3 things that could be done to improve this article:
  1. Re-word the most blatent non-NPOV areas
  2. Add citations for the praises (see WP:CITE)
  3. Introduce criticism. No man is perfect - someone must disagree with some of policies in the church or his handling of matters x y and z. A good article may present the many positives of a subject, but also must inevitably balance it with opposing viewpoints. All material should present the facts dispassionately, allowing the intelligent reader to determine the worth of the subject for him/herself.
--AbsolutDan (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. I am removing the POV warning on President Monson because his article is no more biased than that of any other General Authority's. Especially since the areas you claim are POV violations are true. If you have any concerns, please contact me on my talk page.

User:Pahoran513

A non-NPOV article can't be justified by pointing to other non-NPOV articles. According to policy, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". If other articles do contain non-NPOV material, it will eventually be noticed and challenged.
If everything in the article is truth, then by all means leave it - but it does need to be cited. Quoting from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed" [emphasis added]. I won't start a "tag war" by putting the tag back on, but the material must be changed or cited, or the tag will be reapplied. --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to say this, VERY simply. You are wrong. As far as citation, I couldn't agree more. Everything should be cited everywhere. But as far as saying the quote "...He accomplished all this before the age of 32." is bias or has a hint of bias, that simply isn't true. The only possible word would be "all" as if the person was trying to glorify him. That isn't for sure though. It can also mean "He accomplished all of the named things by this certain age." Not neccicarily bias now is it? It is pretty simple. Also Nothing bad about this person needs to be said. We are not talking about a contravercial topic, or person. This article is about a person who has not lead a life as such. His religion is concidered by many as contravercial(Sorry for my spelling mistakes) but that is the religion not this man. No man is perfect right? Can you prove it? There is a good point. The basic reason you are wrong -and quite honestly you seem to be the person with the bias, (if I sound the same way it is only lack of time to type, I could make this formal but wont-) simply is 1 being that there is no need to show his imperfections unless they are relavent and signifigant enough to be placed here and there is no bias in stating that he accomplished a lot. And actually if you look at his collegues they are all VERY accomplished men. No bias pun intended. They all have quite a record of education and skill in their professions and in their personal life. If you feel so strongly about it write him a letter. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; not a debating battlefield. I hope I haven't offended you but this was the easiest wording for the time I have. Thank you. TheMusicalGenius 07:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TheMusicalGenius. Those excerpts from the article aren't non-NPOV and the article maintains overall NPOV. Of course, no man is perfect, but since he is a General Authority of the LDS Church, no one really disagrees. His word isn't law, but all policies in the church are prayed about and believed to be received from God. For this reason, no one disagrees. Everything in the article is true. I am removing the non-NPOV notice. --Mathboy965 16:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This article fails on two accounts. It does not maintain NPOV and it is not written in a style appropriate to an encyclopedic work like wikipedia. Wikipedia is a place where you present facts, cite sources, and avoid editorializing. This article needs several major improvements.

1. Cite your sources, especially if it is something that we are gonna question.
2. Remove the editorial comments, this will clear up most of the blatantly non-NPOV parts of the article.
3. Write the article in a style that is appropriate to wikipedia or any other encyclopedic work.
I have no criticisms of the man Thomas S. Monson, indeed I am a devout mormon. My criticism is of this article regards the blatant failure to maintain NPOV.Kmbell81 18:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In 1991, responding to the protests across the U.S. against the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, President Monson said Mormons didn't "believe in marching and carrying placards." At the time, this was somewhat controversial. This was said in an interview with the Associated Press. I will check the source, but in case I don't find it, others can try. I think this would be a good anecdote to add in order to make this entry more balanced. Without that balance, this article looks suspiciously like Mormon propaganda.

  • While he might indeed be a great man, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and let his actions speak for themselves. Great men (and women) don't need excessive praise, their greatness speaks for all who will listen to their words and actions.
He is listed as having many great qualities and for doing many generous things but they aren't cited. While they all might be totally true, an encyclopedia isn't supposed to list anything that isn't fully cited. "Early on, Monson was recognized for his leadership and organizational skills and his concern for the downtrodden and humble." Ok, if he was recognized, then that means someone should have written something about this.
I don't know how the LDS run their church, but I've never heard of a large organization that doesn't produce massive amounts of paperwork, newsletters, press releases, etc. If Monson is so prominent, then there should be lots of printed material to back up these words of praise. The newspapers of Salt Lake City should have printed hundreds of articles about such a man, Mormons are a huge block of readership.
Instead of saying, "his concern for the downtrodden and humble.", it is better to quote someone instead like, “Tom is a man of the common people, the champion of the underdog,” says long-time friend Wendell J. Ashton. “When he brings friends to the basketball games, it isn’t the rich and famous or the leaders from the chamber of commerce. It is a handful of the ordinary folks gathered from his days ‘down by the tracks.’"
Instead of "Monson was recognized for his leadership and organizational skills", it is better to quote, "Tom moves with equal ability and ease as a leader among members and nonmembers alike,” muses Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Quorum of the Twelve associate. “His administrative strength and executive ability are not to be wholly accounted for in his academic training or professional opportunities, distinguished as they are.".
How is this more neutral? First, we know where the praise comes from, so we know it is real praise. Second, we know the source of the praise. Whenever you say something general about a person (as opposed to awards they have won or specific actions they have taken), you step into a non neutral area. I mean which is better for an encyclopedia , "George Washington was a great general who's military abilities were responsible for the American victory" or "The US Military Command School has an entire course devoted to Washington's generalship. The course description says, "His generalship is vital to understanding the American victory and is a model for all officers wishing to understand command and strategic planning." Fanra 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is one thing to say "Wait a minute, there are some ongoing controversies about this guy that should be included for NPOV" and quite something else to say "Surely there must be *something* wrong with him; we must go dig around until we hit dirt." It seems to me that the discussion here is veering perilously close to crossing this line. 128.165.87.144 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's what's being said at all. The comments above are talking about framing what is discussed in a NPOV manner; no one is suggesting that anyone dig to find "dirt". If there is "dirt" that is significant it won't be hard to find, either. Zoporific 23:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How many widows is that?

"As a bishop in Salt Lake City, he presided over a ward of over 1,000 people, including 86 widows. ... He visited those 87 widows ..." ??? Is it 86 or 87 widows? Does it even matter? Surely this number changed during his tenure - some of these women must have died. Irene Ringworm 06:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "nearly ninety" and removed the second reference to a specific number. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the honorific title "Apostle"

I am setting up this talk subject to discuss the (in my opinion) improper use of the term "Apostle". A certain fellow editor has insisted that President Packer, who cannot according to Wikipedia policy be referred to as "President" even though that's his proper title, may appropriately be referred to as "Apostle Packer." I have two quibbles about that. 1. The Church used to permit members of the Quorum of the Twelve to be referred to by the title "Apostle ______." But the Church has not followed that practice for at least 50 years that I'm aware of (and yes, if you're curious, I do checking on things like that in my Church history studies). 2. This same certain editor also insists that Church policy does not dictate Wikipedia policy. I happen to recall that earlier when I was in favor of using proper titles for Church leaders, it was mentioned that Wikipedia policy is to not use honorific titles. So my question is, if you can't use "President," the proper, Church-endorsed title, why then is it permissible to use "Apostle"? Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the title "Apostle" is useful in this context because it communicates the person's position in the hierarchy (as opposed to "President", which is ambiguous), the solution is to not use it as a title. Just use "apostle Boyd K. Packer", with a small-"a". Thus, no title is being used, but the person's position is still communicated. It shouldn't really be that big of a deal, and whether or not the church uses it as a title anymore is not really the issue. Ubi Terrarum (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I assume I am the "certain fellow editor"? It's OK to use my user name. (Unlike "Apostle", the LDS Church still uses "Snocrates" to refer to me.) I agree with Ubi's proposal here. WP generally doesn't use honorific titles like "President" or "Elder". However, it often uses ones that are more specific on the first mention of a person — like "Pope" or "Apostle" — when it can assist in identifying the person's position/job. You wouldn't go through an article referring to "Apostle Packer", but I see nothing wrong with saying "Apostle Boyd K. Packer" or "apostle Boyd K. Packer" on a first mention, because it tells us what position the person has. Saying "President Boyd K. Packer" or "Elder Boyd K. Packer" is not specific enough, and therefore not helpful. Similarly, "LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley" would be useful, but plain old "President Gordon B. Hinckley" would not be. I too see church usage as irrelevant, especially since there are no hard and fast rules about such things. Snocrates 01:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You are correct in identifying yourself as the "certain fellow editor" I mentioned. I put it in those terms because I have had isolated incidents since joining Wikipedia in which editors I mentioned by name took offense at a slight difference of opinion. Now that I know where you stand on the name issue, I will remember that in future. Thanks. Now, as far as the title goes, I was okay with using "apostle" just like that, but it didn't make it clear enough (in my opinion) to a non-LDS reader as to why Packer took over for Monson. So I changed "apostle Boyd K. Packer" to "Boyd K. Packer, who is third in seniority after Hinckley and Monson" or something to that effect. This to me is a lot clearer than just a generalized mentioning that Packer is an "apostle". Again, as with everything, feel free to disagree with me. A good difference of opinion never hurt anyone. And I would not in any way object to the change being reverted or to my edit being made clearer or eliminated. It's just something I thought would be worth consideration. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Head of the Church

I'm a little concerned over the use of the phrase "if tradition holds" as if to cast doubt on Pres. Monson's succession to the Presidency of the Church. Ever since the succession crisis, there has been no precedent to choose anyone other than the senior most apostle as the new President of the Church. What purpose does it serve to imply that this time will be any different?

While I respect the need for historical accuracy, I think this casts Pres. Monson in a light of doubt unnecessarily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypnometal (talk • contribs) 05:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Had an LDS institute instructor who repeatedly stated that there was no written requirement that the next senior apostle be the new president/prophet, so I agree with whoever used the words "if tradition holds". It doesn't have to be a slight. Tks RWIR (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pres. Packer stated during Pres. Hinckley's funeral that the senior apostle always becomes the new President of the Church. [2] Hypnometal (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is certain until it is certain. The author of that piece merely is leaving things open since no formal announcement will be made for at least several days. It really won't matter in a few days anyways since it will be either replaced with the fact that he is the new presiding authority of the church or that he is not. Airiox (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"If tradition holds" is really just there to avoid WP:CRYSTAL problems. WP can report what has happened in the past but is not supposed to speculate on future events. So saying "if tradition holds" is permissible as it relies on what has gone before. It is not meant to cast any aspersions or doubt on Monson's likelihood of leading. It's possible, for instance, that Monson might die before becoming the president of the church, which would disrupt the "tradition" without a change in practice occurring. WP must hedge its bets and not get into the WP:CRYSTAL business by saying he will be the next president. Snocrates 08:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Presidents of the Church" lesson manual clearly states that the Lord has chosen the simple method of having the most senior Apostle become the President of the Church. There is no ambiguity. Unless there is a new revelation which changes the manner in which a new president is selected, it will be President Monson. The selection process is far more than simple tradition. As far as having a written requirement goes, we need not be commanded in all things. I'm pretty sure that the Lord can trust his Apostles to know His will and obey it without having it written in some handbook. Noremak82 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But what if he died before he was made the president? That's why WP should not crystalball on this issue and state that he will be the next president without qualification. Snocrates 08:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Then WP should state the he will be the next president unless he dies before the meeting takes place in which he is officially sustained. It should not say if tradition holds. Noremak82 (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? What's the difference? The only difference is that one is more wordy than the other. We just don't need that level of detail, especially since, as pointed out above, the statement will only be temporary. Besides, Monson's dying is only one possible scenario which could interrupt tradition. There could be a massive natural disaster which could delay things; Monson could be kidnapped and held for ransom; aliens could attack and kill all the LDS Church apostles; the possibilities are endless. That's why WP is not a crystal ball.

Besides, for a church that believes in continuous revelation and an open canon of scripture, nothing is ever set in stone. If WP existed in 1889, we would have had users insisting on writing that the church would never end the practice of plural marriage. Snocrates 09:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Technically he is president of the Church right now as president of its highest body. I've corrected the article to reflect this. Pahoran513 (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he's not. He's the highest person in the church hierarchy, but this does not mean he holds the office of "president of the church". There is a difference. Snocrates 09:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, but I think the current text is an acceptable compromise.Pahoran513 (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how writing the article to state that Pres. Monson will become President of the Church makes Wikipedia a crystal ball. Every member of the church knows this will happen. Sure if he were to die before the First Presidency were to be reorganized, then he wouldn't-that's just common sense. But the chances of that happening are practically non-existent, so using a doubt-casting phrase like "if tradition holds" is just plain silly. By what other circumstance besides Pres. Monson's sudden death in the next few days before Pres. Hinckley's funeral would he not become President of the church? 74.9.9.242 (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I listed a number above. Death, kidnapping, incapacitation, alien attack, natural disaster, revelation. There are many. Snocrates 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
My two cents on the matter. Due to the understood precedent, it is very likely that President Monson will be the next Church president. However, the Lord could designate someone else. But according to Church policy, if that happened, then the successor to President Hinckley would have to be named and ordained by President Monson as the senior apostle. President Monson is the de facto President of the Church. However, while he presides over the leading quorum of the Church at this time, the Presidency of the Church is the Quorum of the Twelve jointly. Remember Joseph Smith's statement: "Where I am [the President of the Church is] not, there is no First Presidency over the Twelve." Hope this helps. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


President Monson is the "acting" authority of the Church as the senior Apostle, but he has not been ordained as the President. All of the 12 Apostles and the First Presidency hold the same keys, they just do not use them unless necessary. Right now, Pres. Monson, as the senior living Apostle, will be utilizing those keys as necessary to lead the Church until somebody is officially ordained. More than likely it will be Pres. Monson. I don't think that's the big issue here. I think more members of the Church are interested in who the next member of Quorom of Twelve will be, if any. Presumably it will be to replace Boyd K. Packer, but you never really know what will happen once they get to the Temple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.57.154.196 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

President Monson is not the acting anything. He is and has been the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles since 1995, when President Hinckley became President of the Church. And why should we think that (Acting) President Packer will be in the First Presidency? He has been the Acting President of the Twelve ever since President Hunter became President of the Church. This is because he is the most senior Apostle not serving as a member of the First Presidency. The Lord choose whom he will, but it is no more likely to be President Packer than it is to be Elder Cook, or someone not serving as an Apostle at all. Noremak82 (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


You guys are missing the biggest point, everything above seems to be arguing semantics about who is and who isn't "president". The comments about the Institute Manual are true (teachings of living prophets" but the biggest deal sealer comes from Bruce R. McConkie who says "As the lsat heartbeat of President lee ceased, the mantle of leadership passed to President Kimball, whose next heartbeat was that of the living oracle and presiding authority of God on earth. From that moment, the church continued under the direction of President Kimball" - Bruce R. McConkie. - How can that be argued with? That is definitive satement made by a general authority of the church, and there are NO comments that argue to the contrary. to say that "If Tradition Holds" is a direct contradiction to what several GA's, including Prophets, have said regarding this matter. Also, I think if you're going to argue the "if Tradition Holds" you should have to cite an official church source that says the contrary could occur.

Based on this, I don't see how "if tradition holds" is a valid statement, and I really do think it should be removed. I hate to start this 'argument' again, but I think the above paragraph offers pretty definitive and well outlined arguments. Ryancwa (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that (1) the quote from McConkie does not say that Kimball was president, only "the living oracle and presiding authority of God in earth" [which is not the same thing] and that (2) McConkie's habit of stating things emphatically has led to his being reprimanded (in the controversy over publication of the first edition of Mormon doctrine), and to his having to correct himself with respect to blacks being able to hold the priesthood. sinnedit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.39.211.240 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

One major reason that the phrase "if tradition holds" is valid is stated on the Web site of the Church at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/succession-in-the-presidency-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints:

"4. The senior apostle presides at a meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve to consider two alternative propositions: i. Should the First Presidency be reorganized at this time? ii. Should the Church continue to function with the Quorum of the Twelve presiding?

5. After discussion, a formal motion is made and accepted by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

6. If a motion to reorganize the First Presidency is passed, the Quorum of the Twelve unanimously selects the new president of the Church. The new president chooses two counselors and the three of them become the new First Presidency. Throughout the history of the Church, the longest-serving apostle has always become the president of the Church when the First Presidency has been reorganized."

Therefore, the Quorum of the Twelve as a whole can decide to be the presiding authority without setting apart a First Presidency, but they traditionally have never done that.

I can't see how this would not put the debate to rest, but I'm sure someone will come up with something.

ETO Buff (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC) ETO Buff


[edit] Maybe he is now President of the Church, but WP:SYN

User:Jeppsna pointed out this Ensign article to me:

The senior Apostle, as President of the Twelve, automatically, by virtue of that seniority, becomes the “Presiding High Priest” of the Church and, as such, actively holds and exercises all the keys of the kingdom and “preside[s] over the whole church” (see D&C 107:65–66, 91). “Equal in authority” to the First Presidency, this presiding quorum of Twelve Apostles is as much a Presidency of the Church as the First Presidency is when it is fully organized and operative (see D&C 107:23–24). Likewise, the President of the Twelve at that time is as much the President of the Church in function and authority as when he becomes sustained as such in a newly organized First Presidency.

User also cites CES Institute Manual Religion 333 Chapter 7, which I don't have access to. This implies he is indeed now president, although has not yet been set apart. It seems like WP:SYN though, so I still favor holding back until a source actually calls him president. Cool Hand Luke 06:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, strike that. This source says that such senior apostles are "President of the Church" in "function and authority" but stops short of stating that's their title. In either case, the WP:SYN issue convinces me to hold off until a source actually calls him President of the LDS Church. Cool Hand Luke 06:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request to add external link

May I add an external link to thomasmonson.com, a site we created today? It has quotes, teaching, and videos from President Monson, and no ads or commercial intent. Rkm28 (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date of ordaining

The date says he was ordained President of the Church on Febaruary 3. Any source? Kitabparast (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind: just watched the press conference again: he was ordained President in the Salt Lake Temple on February 3 indeed. Kitabparast (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV, again

I removed these two pieces of text:

As a child Monson loved to swim and fish and once during a family outing to the Provo River, in Provo, Utah, Monson rescued a girl from drowning. Though his family was not wealthy, they were nevertheless known for their generosity. On several occasions, young Monson gave away animals that he had raised to other, more needy families.
He spoke at every one of their funerals.[citation needed] There were also many poor people living within the boundaries of this ward, and Monson took special care to help them as he could. Today, he continues to visit former members of this ward and regularly visits nursing homes in Salt Lake City.

This POV issue came up two years ago, but has never been addressed. Uncited examples of a public figure's greatness of character do not belong in an encyclopedia. If you believe this text should be in the article, please do the research to confirm them. 69.212.40.97 (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit of a puff piece to me. I'm sure he is a great man and all, but this sounds like his bio from the LDS website, and not an NPOV encyclopaedic article. Anectodes and so forth don't really belong here. Also, there really ought to be a criticism section. For example, under his leadership, LDS did not allow blacks to be deacons until 1978.Ndriley97 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There can be a criticism section as long as it follows WP:BLP#Criticism. The example of blacks not holding the priesthood until 30 years ago would probably not fit as he has only been president of the church for a few weeks. But other sourced items may be appropriate. Alanraywiki (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Alanray. I meant his leadership as one of the 12 Apostles of LDS, not the head. Still 1 of 12 is just that and I will not add a Criticism section because I did this would be within the WP policy you noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndriley97 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes just made

I moved a section inserted a while back about the growth of the Church between Monson's birth and when he became Church President. It seemed to make more sense to have it where it talks about the President of the Church rather than at the beginning of the article. I also revised it slightly to make it more readable and more accurate, basing my changes not only on the cited source, but also on what was said during the Press Conference announcing that he was President of the Church. Sources can be added for this change as necessary, but I think it was helpful to rearrange the page this way. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

fair enough. AndreNatas (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poor referencing

I have noticed that entire sections of this article go without references, as an attempt to get this up to good article status, can we have this sorted out?

Also I have added a lot of useful references to the article, however I don't think they are done in the right format, can someone convert them to the "cite template"? AndreNatas (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the LDS church makes sure these articles are cleaned up real nice. 71.65.13.8 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Non-Moron
Yes, must be one of the many CABALS running the place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA fail

This article is getting better, but it doesn't meet the criteria quite yet. A few sections are still lacking citations. Also, I don't think it meets the breadth criteria. There is a lot more to say about his life and accomplishments, especially during his time as an Apostle and a member of the First Presidency. Feel free to renominate when these things are fixed. Wrad (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)