Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Edits by Leavittja

I just did a detailed review on the pending changes added by Leavittja and ultimately reverted them (aside from one sentence that I partially restored), but I would like to note a few things that deserve further discussion.

Leavittja removed that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both made statements in support of Black enslavement and replaced it by saying they both supported abolition of slavery. I was able to verify that they both made statements in support of slavery, and that Smith later supported the abolition of slavery in his 1844 presidential campaign. I could not find where a source says Young supported the abolition of slavery. Takeaway: we should probably add somewhere that Smith supported the abolition of slavery in his presidential campaign.

Leavittja additionally added a sentence directly after their statement that they both supported abolition, saying "This often led to massive outrage among pro-slavery advocates in the 1800s." I was unable to verify this with the book source used (The Mormon Church and Blacks: A Documentary History) as I do not have access to it, but it doesn't look like the book says that from what I can gather using Google Book's preview.

Leavittja also changed that slavery was legalized in Utah when Brigham Young was governor to say that it was legalized by him amidst national political tension. I could not verify this with the sources used, but it sounds plausible.

If anyone can provide sources to verify these claims, that would be much appreciated. Even better if you can provide a quote from a source that directly verifies it. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Great points, I should have been more careful with my sources, . Here is an article from Utah Division of State History that says "Slavery was legal in Utah as a result of the Compromise of 1850," (https://historytogo.utah.gov/slavery/#:~:text=Slavery%20was%20legal%20in%20Utah,slaves%20with%20them%20when%20they). This compromise was made to keep the Senate balanced and Utah was not given a choice like some states on the matter of slavery. Here is an article that explains the a bit more of the complicated history of the Latter-day Saint movement and slavery including details regarding political and religious persecution as a result of mostly abolitionist sentiment among early Saints (page 298) and Slavery being legalized in Utah as part of the Compromise of 1850 (page 299) (https://www.jstor.org/stable/272985). Brigham Young never considered himself pro-slavery or an abolitionist. Brigham Young's stance is therefore painted as both abolitionist and pro-slavery, depending on historian. He supported Joseph Smith's candidacy for presidency which included the "breaking down of slavery" (https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/chapter-1-race-slavery-and-freedom-utah-slaves-and-saints.htm#:~:text=In%20his%201844%20campaign%20for,opposition%20to%20slavery%20did%20not). Joseph Smith wrote definitively into Latter-day Saint doctrine "it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another," (1833, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/101?lang=eng#:~:text=78%20That%20every%20man%20may,abondage%20one%20to%20another.). And Brigham Young, being a Latter-day Saint would have necessarily believed that. His silence on the matter might be attributed to rocky relations between Utah and the Federal government and his personal attempt to "obe[y], hono[r], and sustai[n] the law" (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng&id=12#p12). With this evidence, however, it is not definitive enough to say Brigham Young was abolitionist. Saying Brigham Young was pro-slavery is also tricky. While you can find quotes where he seems to support slavery (and I did add a source to a quote where he does that was deleted), he almost always dances around the issue and never gives a direct answer which is not his characteristic style. I'm going to take in your feedback, do more research, and make another attempt at editing. Thank you for your help. Leavittja (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional info. I think the current text that Young has made statements in support of slavery strikes good balance, unless there is a more definitive source about his opinion on it. I'd support adding that Smith later supported abolition when he ran for office. As for the LDS doctrine he wrote, I'd like a secondary source before we add that.

I recommend proposing your future edits here on the talk page before making them to the article so that other editors may weigh in and we can hopefully avoid reverts. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Leavittja: Can you point to any quote or historian that states Brigham Young did not consider himself "pro-slavery"? He literally said, "We must believe in slavery." I'm not sure how this is dancing around the issue at all. D&C 101:79 is not referring to chattel slavery as is abundantly clear from the surrounding verses, nor do historians interpret it this way. It is referring to oppressive government in Missouri who were keeping the saints in Missouri in bondage. Epachamo (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Epachamo. I found a reliable source that shows Young said "I am a firm believer in slavery." I think that pretty much settles that. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You probably didn't find any statements by Young in favor of the abolition of slavery because he himself was a slave holder and taught on many occasions that slavery was mandated as a divine punishment by God: incidentally, a position even slightly more extreme than the nascent white-supremacist movement started by John C. Calhoun at the same time that Young was making his own statements.

While it's rather trivial to find statements by Young in support of slavery along these lines of reasoning, the majority of sources claim Young never owned slaves or claimed to support slavery. The Journal of Discourses and the 1851 Utah census both disprove these revisionist narratives. The 1851 census lists Flake Green as Young's slave.

source 1

source 2

I will note, to their credit, that both my sources are hosted on LDS church servers, despite many more sources by them claiming the opposite.

I do say I am surprised to see Young portrayed as an abolitionist, since he was rather adamant that he was pro-slavery.

>> You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham. ~ Prophet Brigham Young, New York Herald, May 4, 1855, as cited in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1973, p. 56

Several more quotes here

I would not be surprised if Young also said he was in favor of abolition. He was well known for saying contradictory things, depending on his audience.

Smith did go both ways, though he primarily seemed to view race paternalistically like most of his contemporaries. That is to say, he seemed to view slavery as a necessary evil for a morally impoverished being, but not as a moral good or divine mandate as Young would later posit.

Hope that helps. I'm happy to dig up more sources if needed. Frogontrombone (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Abortion

My edit was reverted. I added The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:Anti-abortion movement in the United States which seems acceptable. The challenge is: “ Church policy permits abortion in certain cases” which if properly researched, accounts for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being 1% against abortion. Here is the citation: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/ First sentence: “ Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.” Thus, The Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder-day Saints are 99% against abortion, meaning, it should most certainly be represented. Twillisjr (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

A reversion does feel extreme. Couldn't this be kept and edited slightly to reflect the exceptions that LDS believes are reasonable? Jim Killock (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've misunderstood as it's about adding a category, not general information. I think this depends on how the anti-abortion movement frames itself, and that is beyond my expertise to know. Jim Killock (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

In 2016, the Pew Research Center released this chart: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/06/21/where-major-religious-groups-stand-on-abortion/ft_16-06-22_churchabortion/ and the same edit was done to the Catholic Church page without resistance. Twillisjr (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

That seems clear. I see there is a Wikipedia page that makes the same point. Jim Killock (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a distinction between having anti-abortion teachings and being part of the anti-abortion movement in the US. With the Catholic Church (to which the category was added only a few days ago by the OP, so not a good indication of WP pattern) there were official groups within the church, such as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, involved directly in movement events and efforts. I don't know if there is anything similar for the LDS Church. I am not seeing any other religious groups or denominations with similar teachings on abortion being included in the category. Also, the phrasing of the movement's WP page which says the movement "finds support in" various religious groups seems to imply that there is overlap but not outright partnership or membership by the actual churches. Certainly there are LDS that are part of the anti-abortion movement, but there are also LDS that are part of the pro-choice movement. Further, categories should be apparent from the body of the article - what text in the article supports this categorization? --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Views on birth control in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has some information, in the abortion subsection, which can be improved with some of the information and citations I’ve provided. Then, excerpts may be shared with the main page. Category follows. Twillisjr (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

2 Months Later: “Abortion” isn’t in the article. Twillisjr (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Disputed edit Jan 24

@Jgstokes @Glman I noticed that you two have been deleting and restoring the same passage of text over the past few days. Let's talk it out here rather than continue to edit war. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. My biggest issue is the removal of sourced and relevant content. If it were unsourced and irrelevant, the removal would have been appropriate. But it is sourced, relevant, and accurate. That was the reason for my actions in this case. The text in question has been in the article for a while, which is why restoring it to the status quo was necessary. Thanks again. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 02:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jgstokes The content I removed has just been added. I did not remove old sourced content. Rather, I reverted a change that added new and removed old content. I in no way was engaged in an edit war. I never reverted a change multiple times. glman (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223 What are you referring to? I reverted one edit from the tagged user who reverted without context an earlier reversion that added and removed content. I do not believe this in any way constitues an edit war. glman (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You removed content after Jgstokes had restored it. When your edit was reverted you should have taken it here rather than remove it again. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223 My initial edit was a reversion of two consecutive edits by another user. Jg. reverted my reversion without an edit summary. I think it's just a misunderstanding of my initial edit. I'm good - just confused. Looks like my initial edit did not include "rv" in the summary. That's my bad. glman (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes it appears that way. My deepest appologies to you,@Glman for any mental stress that this may have put on you. I did not see that the text had been recently added. Really, that text probably should have been discussed here before addition to the artlicle. We can continue discussing the disputed text here. Again, my appoligies. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223 - You're good. I think we all just misunderstood. As I mentioned to @Jgstokes on their talk page, I'm open to editing with the current content. However, it was added and reverted in my initial edit, and I still don't feel it needs to be included in the lead. It also removed sourced content, which was my concern. glman (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

My concern was that you removed information that was sourced and relevant to the subject of the article in question. It doesn't matter whether or not it was a recent or longstanding inclusion. And such a removal should, per Wikipedia policy, have been discussed before any removal was undertaken. This article is being improved all the time, and unless I am mistaken, the disputed content in question was added by a longtime contributor to this article, and the information is correct in relation to the article subject.

If you have specific concerns about the edit, or a relevant reason for the removal of it, by all means, let's discuss that. And if you have improvements in mind for this article, that too can be discussed. But, per established policies, those changes should be supported by consensus before they are implemented. That's always been how Wikipedia works. And that's why I reverted the content you attempted to add twice.

If the consensus supports your removal of the information, and your proposed additions, I will stand behind that. But the removal before discussion and the establishment of consensus should not have occurred. Hope that explains my two reverts. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jgstokes I think you misunderstood my edit. All I did was revert two consecutive BOLD edits by razamachaz that removed longstanding sourced content and added content from a primary source. This is entirely allowed, and the discussion should have gone to talk page before readding the content I reverted. I returned the page to the STATUSQUO. I made no additions, I reverted a bold edit. Today, you reverted my reversion with no summary. Please review the history and you will see this is the case. The page should be restored to the status quo prior to Razamachaz' removal of content and addition of primary content. Then we can discuss if his content shuld be added. glman (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the editing history, which is why I know the information in question was added by a longtime contributor to this article, and that it is accurate information that shouldn't have been removed without discussion. I explained my reasoning, which is also consistent with Wikipedia policies. We'd be far wiser to move on. Aside from the fact that a primary source was used, that alone is not sufficent grounds for removal without discussion.

The information is both accurate and relevant to the article subject, and I believe it was also supported by secondary sources. If it wasn't, it can be. And again, it was added by a longtime contributor to this page (unless I am mistaken about that), so it shouldn't have been unilaterally removed without discussion.

Again, we can discuss any changes you may feel are appropriate, but, per Wikipedia policy, those changes shouldn't be unilaterally made without consensus support. If you want to discuss those changes now and the reasoning behind it, I'm all ears. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 04:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jgstokes It is absolutely appropriately to remove added content and discuss before readding. The opposite is not true. Not sure what policy you're referring to, but you'd got it backwards. I restored the page to STATUSQUO and you reverted my edit without an edit summary (WP:REVEXP ). I'm not concerned about the content of the edit at this point, but your reasoning does not make sense nor does it follow the policy. I restored the content to status quo, which is the accepted pracrice, with an edit summary, which is best practice. The page needs to be restored to status quo, which is before Raz's edit, and they/we can discuss the proposed change. That's how consensus works. I am not upset about the content, but I am frustrated by the assertion that I have not followed policy. glman (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

We can keep launching recriminations at each other all day, but that is not productive, nor is it addressing the key point at hand, not to mention it is a failure to assume good faith. Let's just agree that we were both in the wrong and move on. Do you have any other objections to the material in question other than it uses primary sources? Primary sources are allowed in some cases, especially when it is supported by secondary sources. And can you speak more about the changes you want to make and the reasoning behind them? User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 05:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jgstokes I have not launched any attacks at you. Please don't accuse me of acting in back faith when I followed policy, used edit summaries, and clearly explained what had occurred. The edit removed sourced content and replaced it with primary content that is not needed in the location. The removed content, at a minimum, needs to be readded. Again, we should restore the page to status quo and then dicuss adding the content, not vice versa. I agree this began as a misunderstanding, but in order to resolve it we need to return the page to the status quo and discuss. glman (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to jump in here. Completely unrelated to the process discussion above, and nothing personal, but:

I am strongly opposed to inclusion of the new material. Saying a religion invites others to “come unto Christ” is effectively meaningless at best, and implicit proselytizing at worst (POV). It doesn’t summarize what the rest of the article says, which is the point of a Wikipedia article’s lead section. The citation is a primary source, which comes with its own problems. And most of all, I could probably have picked just about any short passage of LDS scripture and say that’s what the Church teaches, and have it be just as strong of writing as this is. All of that to say, I think this new content represents a step backward in article quality. I would support a reversion. Trevdna (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention - per the recent Peer Review, we should be trimming the lead of its discussion of church beliefs, practices etc., not expanding it. Trevdna (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Trevdna These were my concerns as well. glman (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree , barring the presentation of independent secondary sourcing that can establish encyclopedic significance, the material in question is clearly WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMOTIONAL, especially in the lead section.

Church members believe to receive eternal life, they must "come unto Christ" and assist in God's work by living the gospel of Jesus Christ, caring for those in need, inviting all to receive the gospel, and uniting families for eternity.

Left guide (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Left guide and @Trevdna, thanks for jumping in. Based on the reasoning you provided, I can see your points. @Glman, I never said you were acting in bad faith. What I said was "We can keep launching recriminations at each other all day, but that is not productive, nor is it addressing the key point at hand, not to mention it is a failure to assume good faith." If you saw that as a personal attack, I apologize. I took a few days away from Wikipedia after I foolishly made our discussion more heated and antagonistic than it should have been, and I agree with Left guide and Trevdna that the material is not appropriate. I will return the material to the status quo before my foolish and uncalled for revert. Thanks to you all. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 04:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Outdated information

Reletively Recently, the church made a statement in support of the lgbtq movement, can someone please look into including this in the article, and find some secondary sources about this. Not a kitsune (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Article lead

As noted on the peer review, the lead in this article does not reflect the page content, which as around 40% content on criticisms of the church, where the lead has about two sentences. AIUI to meet GA criteria, the page should reflect the Manual of Style for the Lead section, which states that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."

As of present, the imbalance of the lead also violates NPOV, by de-emphasising the criticisms in relation to the sources, as reflected in the body of the page. Jim Killock (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Acknowledging I'm coming to this thread a bit later than it started, this does seem like a problem, though I can't help but think a more comprehensive solution would be to follow the advice of WP:CRITICISM and, rather than section off criticism and controversy into another section, to weave the content throughout. To use just one example, the section on Home and family would be a reasonable place to bring up polygamy and queerphobic teachings. The tithing and financial controversy sections could be combined into a financial practices section. Etc. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea; if the authors want to move the article to FA status as they have suggested, this kind of change is likely to make it easier to get there. Jim Killock (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Formerly referred to as Mormon

The name Mormon Church is inaccurate, confusing, and disrespectful to the members of the church. Why not use the actual name which the church identifies with, rather than insist on using a nickname that the church rejects? Truth971 (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Refer to the FAQ at the top of the talk page Fanfanboy (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Instagram post on women

@Trevdna, Regarding this, my gut says it's more than can be dismissed as WP:Recentism. Two days after the SLTribune article used as a source in the above edit, the NYTimes picked up the story. Link to NYTimes story (There's also a copy on Yahoo News that's less likely to be paywalled.) ~Awilley (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Can they really be called Christian?

The LDS rejects many of the key beleifs that make Christianity as we know it today. If you ask Christians from any of the major or early denominations, especially if you ask religious leaders from these denominations, they will reject that this group follows Christianity. I have seen some religious maps representing the Mormons in a separate category, apart from Christians. KeymasterOne (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

As per the FAQ, "there is a consensus that reliable academic sources generally agree that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian denomination." And as a member myself, I see other Christians treat the Church as Christian. Fanfanboy (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

LDS theology espouses beliefs regarding the nature of God, which include the concept of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as distinct beings rather than the traditional Christian understanding of the Trinity. Christianity is a monotheistic religion, I don't see how it would be possible to describe the trinity as distinct beings. The LDS church also contains additional scriptures on top of the Bible. These are not even all of the beliefs that the LDS encompass, which are separate to Christianity. KeymasterOne (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What matters is what the majority of reliable sources refer to the denomination as and that is Christian. I see people getting upset sometimes about Jehovah's Witnesses for similar reasons. Wikipedia isn't about people's personal opinions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed many times on the talk page. The consensus is to describe the church as Christian. Please check the talk page archives to see if your opinions have already been discussed. Bahooka (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not about personal opinions here. The Catholic, Orthodox and many Protestant denominations reject these new scriptures, and the claim that Joseph Smith is a prophet. How could they be Christians if most of these churches, encompassing the clear majority of the world's Christian population all reject the Mormon theology? If it is about personal opinions, as you mentioned, here's mine:

The only difference between Islam and the LDS' closeness to Christian theology is that Muslims themselves agree that their religion is separate from Christianity, while the LDS members disagree that their religion is separate from Christianity.

But since Wikipedia is not a good place for personal opinions, I didn't post that. KeymasterOne (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

How could they be Christians if most of these churches, encompassing the clear majority of the world's Christian population all reject the Mormon theology? This is where you are getting into your own personal opinions even if you don't realize it. The majority of religious scholars (again, summarizing what reliable sources say is what we do) define this as a Christian denomination. Again, listen to what other people are saying in the archives of this talk page. This information does not contradict that other denominations have their own interpretations on theology and the approach taken in this article is consistent with our policy on a neutral point of view. A Wikipedia article isn't going to tell you that any religion is the true one or that others are false. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)