Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Consistency in referencing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I have noticed that many the references on Wikipedia use "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". However, as noted in the Style section of the project page, the Capital T is preferred a) for consistency, b) in accordance with the style guide, c) for ease in translating the name into other languages, and d) because the "the" is part of the official name. I have added a requested project to make this consistent through the Latter Day Saint movement articles when referring to the branch of the movement headquartered in Salt Lake City.

However, since I am newer (been using since March, editing since Nov) to wikipedia, I am wondering if any discussion has taken place around this issue. The main discussion around names seems to be LDS vs Mormon vs CJC. Since I am willing to take on this project, but before I do I want to see if there are any objections to:

  1. making all references The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
  2. Making the word "The" capitalized and consistent
  3. Putting forward an RfC (long time wikipedians help me here if I get the terminology wrong) to vote on whether the page name should change to include the "The"

Obviously, I think that all three should be made even if naming with "The" may be contrary to Wikipedia style, i.e. to include (a, an or the) as the first word in the name of an article. However, the name should match what the church calls itself.

--Trodel 21:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with all of this. I'll help out with what you need. :)Cookiecaper 23:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There was discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Mormonism)#Capitalizing The in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I say yes, but it's not a priority for me. The Salt Lake Tribune writes extensively on the LDS Church, and they use a capital "The." I prefer putting the capital under the link like "[[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]". This is cumbersome, but I think putting it under the link makes it obvious to others that it's not a mistake. I also notice some others link to the redirect, which I think is fine. Cool Hand Luke 06:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There seems to be concensus at the link you refer to so unless there is an objection I will move the page and start updating the links. As an aside - Wikipedia has gotten EXTREMELY slow lately - it will make doing the link updates extremely - are there any plans for additional hardware to resolve this issue (or a plan to turn off searching again to make things go faster?) Thanks for the offer of help Cookiecaper - I will let you know. --Trodel 18:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • That could get messy. We have a lot of pages that would need to be moved like History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Weirdly, Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints already uses the capital. I think we should get some more comment before moving these pages, but definetly use the "The" as needed in articles. Cool Hand Luke 21:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree to wait for more comment, but I am hesitant to start including The on all of the links and replacing the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] with [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] because that would be a lot of work if the move happens and then all the same links need to be updated again. However, unless there are objections I will start updating non-links that use the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. --Trodel 22:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It should be done as appropriate - peice by piece. If we know what our end goal is, let's move toward it, but my suggestion is to create re-directs for the time being, and slowly (perhaps 1-2 articles a week) making the naming changes. See my comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Mormonism) Thoughts? -Visorstuff 00:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with V. By the way, I assume you are using Firefox. When the 'pedia gets slow, tabbed browsing comes to the rescue as you open several links in several tabs and work on them as they come ready. Tom H. 14:27, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I support the change to "The" Church etc. Sometimes it is best just to jump with both feet, however I understand taking a step by step process. At some point it just needs to be complete and final. Storm Rider 12:14, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page Move Vote. The page move vote failed to reach concensus although there were 63% in favor of the move (17-10). For the discussion see the talk page for The CJC. However based on the above comments I have started to link to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the wiki. If you want to help the pages that remain are on User:Trödel/Tasksmy user pages.

Sorry, but this seems to me to be deliberate link-breaking. "Soft-breaking", yes, but breaking all the same. The earlier suggestion to link to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints avoids the ostenatious 'banging into a direct' syndrome, and surely must be preferable. That's if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is for some reason violently unacceptable and peremptorily-revertable, as appears to be the case, never mind that it conforms with the above Style requirements. Alai 04:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't guess that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is violently unacceptable and preremptorily-revertable. And I don't guess that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that uses a redirect is problematic. My reason for undoing your revert was that the edit in question was simply following project style guidelines. I was pretty sure you were unaware that the edits were guideline-compliant, and that is why I suggested you might drop in here. If I understand correctly, some of the editors thought it would be nice to put the The in the link, and the rest of us came to a consensus that the simplest way to accomplish that was to link to the redirect. I won't stand in the way of either direction, I simply was restoring the good-faith, compliant edits made harmonious with project style. I really appreciate your vigilance and dedication. Tom H. 04:50, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Note that my edit wasn't precisely a revert, since it deliberately and explicitly retained the capitalisation change. If there's a project style guideline to the effect that links should be to the redirect, I'm still unaware of it: there's discussion of it (and several other possibilities) above, yes, but I don't see any consensus achieved (or even declared to have been achieved). The failure of the move vote is surely a factor to be taken into consideration; if you'd like to see a Capitalised The, and lack of a pointed-looking "redirect" message when you follow the link (as I would), then either of the other two forms ought to be seriously considered. Thanks for your kind and encouraging comments. Alai 05:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately this discussion on naming for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has gone on in many places Wikipedia_Talk:Naming conventions (Mormonism), here, and Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and one other place I can't remember. The concensus for the move was pretty clear - only 1 no vote to moving (though some tepid support). Unfortunately becaue there was a history at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including an AUTOMATED move (without any concensus) of the original article (which was at the correct spot) to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This necessitated that the change be brought up on Wikipedia:Requested moves where concensus failed by a 17-10 vote in favor of the change. Since there is only 1 page load even with a redirect and the use of [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] is so awkward, it was proposed (without objection) to name with just allow the redirect to happen. Do you object to using [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] for any reason other than because it is a redirect. Example (talk · contribs) 13:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In a word, no. Nor was I opposed to the move. But I am indeed objecting on those grounds. I'm sympathetic to the concerns here, but deliberately changing perfectly well-targetted links to redirect-pointing ones is either pre-empting the vote result (if done in good faith prior to the result), or subverting it. And the alternatives seem perfectly good to me. (I know what you mean about the location(s) of the discussion; had to go a-hunting quite a bit myself) Alai 19:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that it is only a matter of time that the move is approved. a 17/10 vote can be quickly moved to a 30/10 vote within a few months. (Not that we are thinking of campaigning, but that Wikipedia in general is moving in that direction slowly based on some new article titles with a capitalized 'The'). The issue is that we need to conform with project and naming conventions of captializing the The in reference to the name of the Church. That has already been decided. The name change is simply moving it to another location. Since consitency is needed we've found it much easier to type [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] when changing articles than typing [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] each time -- especially when most of us feel we will have to go through the naming vote within a few months, and it will likely get approval then. It is wasted work for a simple (and already set up) re-direct. -Visorstuff 21:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think the attitude expressed here is more than pre-emptive, it's positively unilateralist. You repeat the point about capitalisation: which I again must point out is not the issue -- my reverted text included a capitalised The. If the typing is too much for you, I suggest you investigate such cutting-edge technologies as cut and paste. What's more, there have been edits of links already in the form of [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] back to point-to-the-redirect format -- whoever's trying to save themselves typing is doing a better job of making an ostentatious point, it seems to me. What's more, the the (re-)capitalisation hasn't even been completed for pages which are not problematic in any sense; look at any number of pages linked to from this very article: President_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints doesn't even exist, in its 'correct' form, only with the dreaded lower-case 't'. Why not make a priority of fixing those, since they can be done without breaking anything else? Alai 03:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I haven't had time to research the unilateralist charge here, but I can say that I have made a list of the pages returned by google as having "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" on them and as I have time have tried to update the links within them, since I am somewhat new I was leaving it to others more experienced to move the articles (plus that would create additional work in fixing the links (since that is the responsibility of the mover. See User:Trödel/Tasks. This conversation seems to be a lot more confrontational than it needs to be - e.g. "...cutting-edge technologies as cut and paste." What page is in question that is bothering you so much. Thanks Example (talk · contribs) 04:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't follow your latter reference here, sorry. I don't mean to seem confrontational, but I find Visorstuff's attitude extremely frustrating: "only a matter of time that the move is approved" as a reason for acting as if it had already been approved is unilateralism, pure and simple. The "The" policy's an ad hoc mess, and it strikes me as rash to extrapolate an outcome based on "current trends". And the "much easier to type" may or not have have meritted sarcasm, but can hardly stand up as a serious argument -- hence the comment. Alai 05:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I can't speak for others motivations but mine are that including the The as part of the link makes it much easier forme when I am reading to distinguish between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints especially since the names are so close and one is much larger and more notable than the other. And as I mention somehwere else I see it as common courtesy - when you meet someone it is just courteous to address them by their preferred name. Although there has been some confusion in the past, there has been a consistent effort, especially in this information age where identity is easily confused and intentionally confused by those who want to criticise a topic - beyond the wiki. In the webspace - getting one's rankings up on google in order to be higher than the topic or company you are criticising is common. I see my efforts as an attempt to show respect for the reasonable wishes of a community. Example (talk · contribs) 12:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I understand your concern with using a link to the redirect. What I have seen is that most references say, "...that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes ..." very few say "...that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches ..."
These need to be changed to be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the very least. Since "The" is part of the name of the church it should be included in the link even if it is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have been making the changes and if you check my contributions I have consistently chosen the former The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Where this is has been objected to and the topic is not directly related to the Latter Day Saint movement I have gone with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because I have not the energy to help someone understand why it should be made. However, on articles directly on the Latter Day Saint movement and especially on those that directly address The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I think that there has been a concensus that we should use the proper and full name of the church - I think it is a matter of respecting the one another. If you meet me and say hello James, and I say please call me Jim - you would call me Jim (I hope). The same is true of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They have been introduced and have asked that they be called by their full name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the first reference.
Creating a redirect is no extra work for the software. And I don't quite see how it is "either pre-empting the vote result (if done in good faith prior to the result), or subverting it." since the vote was not on what to call the name of the Church but on whether to move the page, and as I mentioned before, as far as I can tell The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been around longer first as the location of the original article and after the page was moved (again WITHOUT a vote) a redirect. We should be able to wikify to the easier name. Though as I write this I think to myself that I could have used the long form about 10-15 times (depending on the speed that the Mediawiki software is working today) in the time it took me to write this. Example (talk · contribs) 02:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I did find it curious that the original 2001 entry for the church was with "The." However, I'm not opposed to letting the issue sit for a few months. As Visorstuff suggests, the precedent of including articles for institutions that use them seems to be gaining ground (like The Gambia and The George Washington University). In several months the vote may look very different. Let's let this slide for now. In the mean time, I think we should move other articles to match the capitalization employed in Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Cool Hand Luke 04:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree - the temperature is much hotter than it needs to be for this discussion. Example (talk · contribs) 05:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please consider voting opposition to renaming The George Washington University to George Washington University. This rename was proposed, I think, as retaliation for being cited as precedent for The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS proposed move. See the requested moves page.Trödel 12:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • What I found very weird about that vote is that someone suggested the article's author was attempting to bolster our move. The principle author, so far as I can tell, has nothing to do with this debate but simply realized how possesive (as COGDEN put it) the university is of their "the." Cool Hand Luke 04:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I know - but it was definately done as an anti-authority proposal. And someone who felt strongly that "The" should never lead an article name. The transparency of it was the thing that made it weird. Example (talk · contribs) 05:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi this project doesn't have anyone working on it.

That's sad. :( Cookiecaper 06:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how to "use" this project. This page is on my watchlist. Is there more? Tom - Talk 14:54, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I am actually working on additions for the following articles - Emma Hale Smith and Hypocephalus, however, the controversies over at Reformed Egyptian have preoccupied my thoughts - let's keep the discussion going. Any word on how individual Apostles' pages are going? -Visorstuff 15:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New article

Though I'm not a formal member of this project (or even an informal member!), I do visit a lot of LDS articles. I just wrote a new stub on the Haun's Mill Massacre. It needs a lot of work and fact-checking since I wrote it just from what I remember on the incident. Just thought I'd mention it, edit at will... :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:31, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks man. I just edited it a lot. :) Cookiecaper 04:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

XENU

So the article Xenu talks about Scientology stuff that some Scientologists aren't supposed to know. I think some of us should do something about that. Isn't there some policy that that violates? I know we'd fight hard if some of things from the Temple were added here that weren't supposed to be. So let's help our Scientology friends, since there doesn't appear to be any here, or any who care. Unless I'm misunderstanding here. But what do you all think? Cookiecaper

I can't believe Xenu's a featured article—it seems quite hostile (ie, the accusation that Hubbard was on a diet of drugs when he wrote it)—and it does seem to set a kind of precedent. There would be a lot to write about temple ceremonies. The repeated "unveilings" and misinformation about alone could fill an article. I guess if such an article were written we would have to keep it (the stunning support for Xenu suggets that), but we should at least rewrite it in respectful manner without making it into a sideshow. I think that we can have these kinds of articles without going into so much detail about sacred beliefs.
As for helping scientologists: I think Xenu should be improved simply for the sake of wikipedia. Exposé-like prose is not encyclopedic IMO. Cool Hand Luke 09:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As someone who follows Scientology, I think the page needs cleaning, not deleting. There is and has been quite a bit temple information on this encyclopedia, and while I disagree with the way it is presented, it still needs to be addressed. It should be treated with more caution and in more general terms, but still needs to be discussed. I also disagree with the tone of the article. Needs cleaning. But is that a discusson for this forum? Possibly from a precedent standpoint, I'd wager. I'll take a look, and suggest we all do. -Visorstuff 00:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Latter Day Saint

The term is confusing, but important. I am frustrated (just a little, not majorly) at how often some good-intentioned editor (usually a newbie), will change Latter Day Saint to Latter-day Saint. I suggest we explain the difference on every first reference of Latter Day Saint that it is different than Latter-day Saint. Not just as a hidden note, but in text. Suggestions? -Visorstuff 00:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Visor, I am one of those that has a problem with the term. Frankly, I was unaware of the term prior to seeing it on Wikipedia. In many respects I feel it is the tail wagging the dog. Based on a review of membership numbers the LDS are between 95% and 97% of the Mormon membership in the world. For the general public the term Latter Day Saint is very misleading because the distinction is not present in the society at large.

Coming from a family with both LDS and CofC members, I think we are straining at swallowing gnats. If the distinction doesn't exist in society, why are we trying to perpetrate it?

In saying this I understand that some of that 3% of membership in other groups will feel slighted, but we may be able to accomodate those groups in other ways rather than confusing society. I believe it is inappropriate to call any other group other than the LDS membershp Mormons. The other groups of sufficiently different beleifs that they are not Mormons, they have become something different. When we allow them to be called Mormon we only succeed in confusing the rest of the non-Mormon world. Storm Rider 00:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interesting you two should be discussing this, because I was contemplating bringing it up too. I am afraid we have built up a little in-house style that doesn't really correlate with any working real-world nomenclature. Mother Smith would have called the whole wonderful mess Mormonism. That is what Jan Shipps calls it consistently, too. I guess I could e-mail the CofC folks a bit, and Stormie can poll his CofC folks. But bottom line is that I am afraid our system kind of amounts to "original" nomenclature. I think it is a can of worms we have to open again (slowly). Tom - Talk 03:46, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

I do not think "Latter Day Saint" is an original term to Wikipedia. I agree with Storm Rider that you cannot call all the groups Mormons - it doesn't work as it does refer to LDS Church members. Latter-day Saints is very offensive to the Strangites, and Mormonism only refers to the culture and shared history not the unique peoples. Latter Day Saint is the term. If we can find something better, let's use it, but Mormonism and Mormons don't work. I think the only way to distinguish is to use a seperate term. COGDEN - you introduced the work to Wikipedia - could you provide some additional context before we look ot make a decision? In the mean time, let's look over our available research to see if any other terms are used. Unfortunately, I don't feel qualified to make a reccomendation on this one yet. I do think Latter Day Saint Movement is an accurate portrayal, however. More discussion is needed. CODGEN, we await your context.... -Visorstuff 00:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course you are right, V. I have personally bought in to Latter Day Saint Movement as a well-reasoned term that I do understand (based on what I've heard here) is not original to Wikipedia even if it is essentially unfamiliar to 99% of Latter Day Saints (how many people in your ward have heard of The Latter Day Saint Movement or used it in conversation or writing?). The current scheme may be the best we can do, but that 99% unfamiliarity always nags at me. Tom H. 14:52, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a great term too - althought most members of LDS Church would not recognize it - I think its meaning is implicit and easy to grasp for most members of any of the church's which descended from Joseph Smith. Trödel 17:35, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We can use "Joseph Smith restorationism" in some places where "Latter Day Saint movement" is used, because then it isn't so repetitive. But I don't really have an issue with Latter Day Saint as long as the context clarifies that it means all the churches of Joseph Smith restorationism. I also think that "Latter Day Saint" is overused and the other churches and/or their membership are referred to in places where it's not exactly necessary, but that's not so big of a deal. Cookiecaper 01:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestions. It is always good to review usage and be sure we are using the appropriate term. Tom H. 14:52, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

The "Latter Day Saint" / "Latter-day Saint" nomenclature is definitely not original to Wikipedia --- and it is proper usage employed by many historians of the broader movement. At conventions of the Mormon History Association and the John Whitmer Historical Association that I've attended, historians often make this distinction clearly whether they themselves are LDS, Community of Christ, Strangite, or --- like Jan Shipps --- none of the above. Although many members of the large Latter-day Saint church are unaware of the broader movement, this doesn't mean the rest of the movement doesn't exist and isn't important historically. --John Hamer 20:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FLDS temple in Texas

Did you all see the aerial photograph published in the Eldorado Success of the temple dedication at the east end of a Nauvoo-temple-sized foundation at the FLDS YFZ ranch in Schleiser County, Texas? http://www.myeldorado.net/ Tom H. 14:31, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yup - posted some additional info at Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints -Visorstuff 23:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Is there an LDS news source/board for this kind of thing? I feel out of the loop. Cool Hand Luke 01:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/ is a good place to start if you want to track news about various religious movements, including FLDS. -Visorstuff 18:47, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, being in Arizona and a plyg descendant (Jesse N. Smith, George Martin Haws, Charles Shumway, George Jeremiah Hatch, to name a few), I was in very tight for a while with the activists against child brides in Colorado City. So I have contributed a lot to the FLDS articles. V lives in Arizona too, and that may have something to do with his interest/knowledge. I don't know of any LDS board for this type of thing. Unfortunately, it was mostly ex-mormons I dealt with when I was working on the Colorado City problem, and I think they were pretty sure I would either apostatize or get called in by my bishop any day. It seems a lot of LDS are pretty touchy about the whole subject. All in all, it was good for me, and I learned some important lessons about discipleship, moral and spiritual personal responsibility, and reverence as I studied the plygs, the ex-mormons, and their favorite themes while I rubbed shoulders with them. Tom H. 04:25, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Reading your entry, Tom, made me laugh. When I was an EQP and polygamy was brought up by some elder, I made it very clear we don't teach polygamy (pros, cons, if it will be re-introduced or not or otherwise) in Church unless directed by the manuals (which is never is). We just don't teach it, according to OD 1. Anyway, me, my wife and my children are descendants of polygamous relationships (Parley P. Pratt, Anson Call, Henson Walker, Jacob Foutz, and a dozen or so more for me, John D. Lee and Jacob Hamblin for my wife). I understand that I don't understand the practice and cannot, because I don't live it. (Tom - I think we'd disagree on the practices in Colorado City and how to deal with them). I even remember visiting one of the the widowed wives of one of my great grandfathers as a young child we called her "Aunt ____." I think it is important to be aware of the movements within the Church, or with those who closely align themselves with the Latter Day Saint movement, such as the FLDS, as we see some of the same reasons why the LDS Church was persecuted in its early days recur again to these people. Anyway, I'm digressing...A good book I think every American should read who has interest about polygamy or seeks to fight it should be "A Mormon Mother: An Autobiography by Annie Clark Tanner." She was a secondary wife, didn't have much of a good relationship with her husband (did love him), but was committed to the gospel and the principle as it was taught at the time. She told her children that they would never understand polygamy, becase they didn't have to live it. A big eyeopener, and I feel, faithbuilder for anyone who believes something that is not neccessarily a popular religious belief. -Visorstuff 18:47, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


History of the Latter Day Saint movement

I never realized, until I started reading Lucy Mack Smith's book, that this article has factual problems. I am going to be working on it in the months to come.

  • Joseph Smith "raised" in New York? What about Vermont?
  • Joseph Smith from a "poor" family? But Lucy's brother and his business partner both gave her checks for $500 as wedding presents, which she put away "since she had enough money for her furniture" at that time. She didn't cash the check until they came upon hard times much later. They weren't po' folks. In fact, in 1810 or 1815, they were starting to look forward to building up an estate for their golden years until the whole family took sick for an extended period and they spent all their dough on nurses, etc. and were reduced to attending "to present" necessities. This is in the context of a sense that money was simply pretty abundant in the Mack family (I'm not sure it was in the Smith family). Long story short, they weren't poor at all, but were working hard recovering and rebuilding at the time of Joseph's early teens.
  • "Engineer a fundamentally unique kind of Christianity?" Can we get this kind of quote from the likes of Jan Shipps? It would sure be easier to swallow that way.
  • I'll be adding spiritual context from the Smith and Mack families. Lucy's missionary healer brother Jason and spiritual singing sisters, Joseph Senior's vision of the tree of life and others, Lucy Mack's visions, etc.
This is great. If it's not too much trouble, Lucy Mack Smith and Joseph Smith, Sr. could use some TLC along with Emma Hale. I'll get some Jan Shipps (is that quote from Lavina Fielding Anderson?). I wanted to write an article on Shipps anyway (although I'm terrible with procrastination). Cool Hand Luke 08:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Joseph wasn't really raised in Vermont. They moved to Palmyra in 1816 and that's a nice year I'd have to say. Joseph was 11 then. I think most of the real character building goes on during adolescence, and while Joseph probably had a lot of happy times in Vermont and things like that, I still think it's pretty accurate to say he was "raised" (as in elevated from a child to an adult) in New York. Of course though, that's kind of a relative thing, so maybe we should just say that they moved in 1816 when Joseph was 11. Cookiecaper 13:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a huge emphasis in this article on the Succession Crisis --- which, I admit is very important. But I propose to move this to a new article devoted to the Succession Crisis, leaving a summary on the History of the movement page. Added bonus for other articles --- I think making quick references to the Succession Crisis as I did in my article on the history of Nauvoo, Illinois, avoids a lot of redundancy. What say ye all? --John Hamer 05:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok folks, I did it. We'll see if you like it. I moved the info on the crisis to Succession Crisis (Mormon) and seriously overhauled and expanded it. I left a summary and a link on the main history page. --John Hamer 21:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just a quick question - should this be at Succession Crisis (Mormonism) Example (talk · contribs) 22:30, 26

Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think I picked "Mormon" because I think of it as the "Mormon Succession Crisis" --- but it's not widely called that. Anyway, switching to (Mormonism) would be an easy change, and I'd be fine with that.--John Hamer 14:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:John Hamer and Golden Plates

You may have noticed that User:John Hamer totally whipped Golden Plates into shape at one sitting yesterday. I think he is a Real ResearcherTM. He also touched several articles around that one, all for good. I thought for a bit he might have plagiarized Grampa Bill's GA pages (that are in turn plagiarized???), but nope, he actually had that much to say at his real desk. Let's welcome him and hope he stays a good long time. Tom H. 21:22, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the welcome, Tom. I'm very impressed with the tone and quality of the articles concering the Latter Day Saint movement here at Wikipedia. Although I've used it as a reference, I only realized what Wikipedia was about at the beginning of January 2005. Since then I've been expanding, editing or adding articles in this field of research — especially filling out articles related to the Missouri period and to the smaller denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement.
I've also toured many of the Latter Day Saint historic sites and taken pictures, so I've been adding photos. Now that I see this project page, I'll do better at following these guidelines. I've created more than a few red-links that I've planned to go fill out, but I'll avoid that. And I've also created some articles with the subdenominational parantheses e.g., Council of Twelve Apostles (Community of Christ) — I don't know if those should be consolidated into Community of Christ subheadings on Quorum of the Twelve (Mormonism) general categories? I'll avoid making those in the future. —John Hamer
Yes yes I like John Hamer. He did a lot with Adam-ondi-Ahman if I recall; I meant to leave a note on his user page, but I never quite got around to it. Welcome, John Hamer. And thank you Tom for helping me say thank you to John Hamer. John Hamer, sorry about not doing that before. :) Cookiecaper 02:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Cookiecaper. Yes --- Adam-ondi-Ahman, Far West, Missouri and Mormon War are where I got started. :) --John Hamer 04:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Person surnames vs. given names in articles

I noticed in reading User:John Hamer's contributions to Martin Harris that he referred to Martin Harris throughout the article as "Martin". I mentioned that I thought that the natural course of events at Wikipedia would eventually turn those references to "Harris". But that reminds me of a comment Lavina Fielding Anderson made in her Lucy's Book when dealing with Smiths and Whitmers and Andersons. She essentially said the typical scholarly convention of referring to individuals by surname simply would not work in some instances in her analyses in Lucy's Book. So I thought I would propose that we formalize the practical necessity to use first names instead of last names in the articles that deal with families. Hence, we would sometimes find ourselves using Joseph Jr., Joseph Sr., Lucy, David (Whitmer), Peter Sr., Peter Jr., etc. as short references in some articles. I feel a little silly that I can't actually think of a need for this policy :-), but I thought I would type it out while I had itr on my mind. Tom H. 23:15, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

My first experience with Wikipedia was writing an article about Cheryl Wheeler. I used "Cheryl" throughout the article since that is what all of her fans call her. I was told, however, that for an encyclopedia the last name should be used. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 00:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the reader it will make far more sense when speaking of multiple family members to refer to them by their first names in an article. If in following paragraphs we focus on a single individual then it would make more sense to refer to them initially by "David Whitmer", and then followed by Whitmer. It can be very tiring to the reader to have the whole name given througout a single paragraph. Storm Rider 00:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You guys are right. I only did that "Martin, Martin, Martin" thing because I started out talking about Martin and Lucy Harris and I was trying to refer to him instead of her --- but I agree that it doesn't sound appropriate. I'll switch it to "Harris". I did the same thing for my "John Whitmer" bio --- there are so many Whitmers! --- but I think I need to fix that one too. I used "Whitmer" for the bios of the other Whitmers: Peter Sr., Jacob, Christian, David. --John Hamer 00:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I guess it really isn't that often that we find them all in the same discussion. Maybe just in the 1820's when that was all there was to the church, the Smith's, Whitmers, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery.  :-D Interesting discussion anyway. Tom H. 02:22, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comments within articles

These are becoming increasingly frequent and long. I've added some myself, and I think in most cases, it's bad to do that. I shouldn't have added them, sorry :(. I think we should stop using so many. It lengthens the size of the page and can slow down browsing. Most comments should be posted on the talk page; do you believe there is ever a fitting time to include comments within the article? Please say. Thanks. Cookiecaper 03:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I only like permanent comments if there is a repeated problem with anon edits that fly in the face of consensus work. Sometimes in-line comments can help explain to anons and new users why an article is a certain way. Other comments should, I think, be temporary. Tom H. 05:36, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

My Little Project: Book of Mormon Witnesses

As Tom points out, I've been working on filling out the bios for the Book of Mormon witnesses, beginning with overview articles on the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses. I've expanded David Whitmer, Martin Harris, John Whitmer, Samuel Harrison Smith, Joseph Smith, Sr. and written little articles for Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jr. and Hiram Page. Still on the docket: Hyrum Smith and some additional info on Oliver Cowdery.--John Hamer 04:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)