Jump to content

Talk:Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Authorship of documents

[edit]

This article reads more like doctrine article by an LDS church than an encyclopaedia entry. Maybe a more knowledgeable reader than myself could attempt to clean up the use of terms with obvious religious meaning like "revelation" or the historically suspect like "dictated" or "translated". There seems to be a not so subtle intent of never citing Smith as the author of any LDS document. What could be theologically correct from a Mormon point of view ends up sounding ridiculous in a historical account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.80.149 (talk • contribs)

It's the same reason we say Muhammad wrote the Koran as dictated by the angel Gabriel instead of just saying he "wrote it" or "made it up". WP reports religious claims as presented by those making the claims, and doesn't inject POV by changing the supposed source. –SESmith 01:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but there's a difference in saying, "According to Bible, Paul wrote many of the Epistles," and saying he wrote it as encyclopedic fact. I tagged the history section as original research partially due to that. I also believe an article of how this specific Church implemented the Book of Mormon would be more appropriate than just references to the religious texts. Anton.hung (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't say, or shouldn't say "Muhammad wrote the Qur'an." First it's a factual error: no knowledgeable muslim claim that "Muhammad wrote", since by islam tradition he was illiterate and dictated it to either scribes or to reciters who learnt the surahs by heart. Secondly it is in disaccord (or "discord") with the rules of wikipedia, which shall be neutral in point of view:
Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves
(go read that link!) ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 14:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed by substituting "translation" for "compilation"; one doesn't "translate" by religious visions, one translates by dictionaries and grammars, while JS2 used egyptian papyri as a base, he had no dictionary nor a grammar. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 15:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

[edit]

I have proposed merging Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints into this artcle. This was simply a spelling variant of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which redirects to this article. Since Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Church of the Latter Day Saints do not have their own articles, its difficult to justify having one for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. –SESmith 01:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel they should not be merged, as this church is what sprouted many branches, including the current Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This page shows the distinct history of this original name, and what it became and is not only referring to the aforementioned current church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterdriggs (talk • contribs) 08:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, this article should be merged into Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. All other branches are broken off sects that the church does not support. Please note that the church has not not changed any doctrine other than adding revelations found in the Doctrine & Covenants.
It could be merged with Latter Day Saint movement. By risk of confusion and major edit battles between various editors belonging to separate churches of the Latter Day Saint kind, it would be a very stupid idea to merge it with anything else. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 15:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have deleted lds.org as an external link. Another editor restored it and wrote in the edit summary "are you dense? have you read this article? There is a difference between Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

I'm not sure I follow. This page is about the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". So why should lds.org, which is an official website of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", be in the external links? Your argument would seem to suggest that me that you would agree with deleting it, not with keeping it. I just don't see why the LDS Church's website should appear here but not the 100s of other churches that also claim to be the true successor of the Church of Christ, which is what this article is about. Ubi Terrarum 04:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link appeared to satisfy a request for a citation. The fact that lds.org hosts the source document is irrelevant.Jkolak (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the above comment referred to lds.org as an external link at the bottom of the page in the"External links" section. It's nothing to do with a citation link. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the Church---later variations section query

[edit]

I am starting this topic to ask for a consensus decision on what may be an error of oversight in the name of the Church later variations section, herein contained as section 3.3 of this article. It may interest you to know that the revelation referred to in that section is contained in the LDS D&C as section 115, and the relevant verses are verses 3-4. They read: "And also unto my faithful servants who are of the high council of my church in Zion, for thus it shall be called, and unto all the elders and people of my Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, scattered abroad in all the world; For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Now, I realize this is a secondary source that some editors may quibble over. For verification purposes, I refer you to the History of the Church reference contained in the explanatory introduction of that section. The relevant reference is HC 3:23-25. On page 24 of the aforementioned HC volume, the verses I just quoted from the D&C are listed. The only differences are as follows: "And also unto my faithful servants, who are of the [H]igh [C]ouncil of my [C]hurch in Zion [(for thus it shall be called)], and unto all the [E]lders and people of my Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, scattered abroad in all the world; For thus shall my [C]hurch be called in the last days, even [t]he Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This WP article erroneously cites the revelation as saying that it was thereafter called "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" and it is evident from the sources that this is not the case. What I believe about which LDS denomination is the true Church that Smith claims to have restored is immaterial to this issue. All my objections at this point center around the erroneous claim of the name being as it appears in the article, when that is clearly not the way it is stated either in the LDS version of the revelation (secondary source) or the official HC version (primary source) and I think it needs to be fixed. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow you, Jgstokes - is it the title of the article, or the use throughout? I agree that it is difficult establishing consistency when the name was not consistent. The sources point to the establishment name Church of Christ (1830), the popular moniker Church of the Latter Day Saints (1834), and the longer name Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (1838). The Latter-day Saint usage, with hyphen/small 'd', did not appear until the 1850s, and if the use is attributed to a time period before that, it is almost exclusively either a revisionist edit or a reference to something printed by the Saints in England (i.e. Millennial Star). Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a common issue to be raised here — not on the talk page, but with battling edits. Often the spelling would be changed, with D&C or History of the Church used as a reference, only to have it changed back without citation. Finally, to resolve the situation, I provided citations for the spelling that exists in the article now. To make a long story short, the History of the Church and D&C versions of the spelling have been altered from the original. Neither is the primary source: the "Manuscript History of the Church" in LDS Church archives is the actual original document, and it is spelled "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" in that document. The "Latter-day" spelling is a Britishism that wasn't adopted until the 1850s, as Sniper says. The "the" began to be capitalized around the same time. See: Manuscript History of the Church, LDS Church Archives, book A-1, p. 37; reproduced in Dean C. Jessee (comp.) (1989). The Papers of Joseph Smith: Autobiographical and Historical Writings (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book) 1:302–303; H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters (1994). Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books) p. 160. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was the use in the relevant section (3.3) I was querying. Good Olfactory's additional clarification makes sense. Since I now know the rationale behind what is currently in the article, and since a source for it has been provided, I am satisfied. That's all I wanted to know. Thank you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK, yes. The citations for this are found in current section 3.2; I can see how 3.3 might have been confusing had you not seen 3.2. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must have overlooked 3.2. I looked at it now and that definitely clarifies the answer to the question for me. Chalk it up as one of the many stupid moments I'm famous for as a WP editor. :) Thanks again and best wishes. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, we all have moments like that, I can assure you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of Alma the Elder's baptism

[edit]

The description here of Alma baptizing himself is inaccurate. While he did immerse himself while baptizing Helam, he was not baptizing himself. See Joseph Fielding Smith: "According to Joseph Fielding Smith, we may conclude that Alma held the priesthood before he, with others, became disturbed with King Noah ... If he had authority to baptize that is evidence that he had been baptized. Therefore, when Alma baptized himself with Helam that was not a case of Alma baptizing himself, but merely as a token to the Lord of his humility and full repentance ... If I remember correctly, there is no reference to the baptism of Alma the elder or Helaman nor of Nephi and his brother Jacob, but we know they were baptized as were all the faithful members in the Church. [Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions , Vol. 3, pp. 203-204]" Quote taken from http://www.meridianmagazine.com/bookofmormon/080620water.htmlBradHyatt12 (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a pretty fringy explanation to me. Joseph Fielding Smith's work is sometimes that way, and often does not even reflect mainstream apologetic thought, which is itself often fringy. Smith's theory is not even consistent with Israelite or Jewish practice: Jewish priests didn't need to be baptized. Actually, they derived their authority as a birthright by being a Kohen. So what about John the Baptist? He had authority to baptize, because he was the son of a priest, and Mormon theology says that he received his priesthood as an eight-day-old infant. So, unless we ignore LDS theology's condemnation of infant baptism, he received authority to baptize prior to being baptized himself. And again, where did Joseph Smith get his authority to baptize Oliver Cowdery if he himself was not yet baptized? Both of them said they received the priesthood (i.e., authority to baptize) prior to baptizing each other. So Joseph Fielding Smith's theory here relies on an assumption that is pretty fringy under both Mormon and secular academic standards. COGDEN 00:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Book of Commandments Citation

[edit]

Referring to this statement:

Nevertheless, in May 1829, a revelation by Smith described the "church" in informal terms: "Behold, this is my doctrine: whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church: whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me: therefore, he is not of my church." (Book of Commandments 9:16).

The above is incorrect. Book of Commandments 9 is now D&C 11. The quoted wording ("Behold, this is my doctrine...") does not appear in D&C 11; it is in D&C 10, which was received in the summer of 1828. I don't have a BoC available to check out and correct the citation, but the entire wording is off because the revelation (regardless of the correct citation) was received at a time different than what is indicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awyatt (talk • contribs) 15:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of early church members

[edit]

I'm having difficulty understanding why some editors want to retain the wp:LAUNDRY list of early church members that was recently added, especially those with marginal notability. Until the first six members were spelled out in a recent series of edits starting 5 August 2014, we previously just listed JSJr, Cowdrey, and mentioned there were about 30 others present. Then starting 31 August 2014‎ the list ballooned to try to document everyone present, using an anti-Mormon source to support the list. There is significant debate in Mormon studies about even the location of the meeting, much less agreement on a complete enumeration of everyone present. There is really little value to this article in getting into this level of minutia; the first six are well documented in many sources, and are not generally in dispute, but the rest really don't need to be included in the article, and add nothing but problems to this article. —Asterisk*Splat→ 00:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just one example of the problems with Pomeroy Tucker's list, and how it's being used here: Porter Rockwell was 16 and unmarried at this time; neither he nor his father (Orin Rockwell) ever had a spouse named Caroline. —Asterisk*Splat→ 00:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great catch! Caroline was his sister not his wife. Clearly, we need to add more, better sources to this section, as Tucker's recollections are imperfect. --Darmokand (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that we probably don't need this here, with the exception of the first six "legal" members. The Tucker source is problematic due to Tucker's POV, but also for reasons mentioned above—some of the details seem suspect and can't be verified through other sources. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was invited to comment here via a note on my talk page. I tend to agree with the OP, although I wouldn't oppose a single sentence (without bullets) after the initial list of 6 saying something along the lines of "Other early members included Martin Harris, Hiram Page, blah blah other noteworthy members, and the remainder of the Smith family." However I'd want a better (non-primary) source. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the consensus decides on this issue is fine with me. I only defended this source because it had existed in this article for so long. I would be fine citing another source containing this same information. I am not tied to this source. What I was objecting to was the unilateral removing of it without a consensus decision to the effect that it shouldn't be used. At least, that's the way I see it. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the source added in this edit just a few days ago? I don't think it's been associated with this article before then. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression it had been in the article longer than that, but I may be mistaken. If I am, I apologize for misrepresenting this edit and misdefending it. I only defended it because I thought it had been included by a previous consensus decision which I may or may not have been privy to. That's an interesting point, but I really couldn't say. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does the current summary look? I've removed the listcruft elements by using several important aggregate groups (the 3 & 8 Witnesses, Smith Family, Whitmer Family); the friends and acquaintances grouping I just left one notable example (Port), but we don't need an exhaustive list here, especially of non-notables and people who's early membership is questionable. —Asterisk*Splat→ 17:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

As readers, we want to know who the earliest members of a new church were-- just as we want to know about signers of the Declaration of Independence.

One objection is to including Tucker's recollection because he was not a member of the Church-- but historians make use of outsider testimony, especially where insider sources are absent.

A second objection is that some early members are not notable. This misunderstands the purpose of Notability. "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)."

However, to preemptively avoid concerns about cruft or undue, the list has been collapsed to a single line and the 'non-notable' names hidden inside a footnote. Darmokand (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a stretch, comparing early Mormon church members to signers of the American Declaration of Independence. Listing names with no wikilinking to existing articles (which would explain why we should care about them and demonstrating their notability) is most definitely non-encyclopedic listcruft; saying "readers want this" this way is just a thinly veiled appeal to wp:ILIKEIT, which holds little weight. It doesn't matter that you've hidden some of this in footnotes, the non-notables still don't belong. —Asterisk*Splat→ 15:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should look at creating a separate article, maybe something called Chronology of early membership in the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints); this article is long enough without that kind of information. -- —Asterisk*Splat→ 15:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I altered one sentence slightly to make it more grammatically and contextually correct. I noticed that one sentence confusingly read "According to the modern The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)..." So I altered it to read "According to what is now known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)..." which I find to read better and be much less confusing. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the change you made. —Asterisk*Splat→ 19:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. I know we've had differences of opinion in the past about our work here on Wikipedia, so it's nice that we agree on this change. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aster-- I added something, you removed it. JG readded it, you re-removed. You said I violated notability, I quoted notability not applying to content, you re-re-removed it. You said Tucker wasn't trustworthy, so I added other sources, and you re-re-re-removed the content, this time citing article length and asking me to create a subarticle instead.
My reply is "Okay". The subarticle has been created and I won't try to add the content back here. That said, this is the third hoop being jumped through to assuage your concerns-- if you discover still further reasons to delete sourced content from the subarticle, it would raise suspicions of that perhaps you think you WP:OWN something. Darmokand (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the title you chose of Early participants in the Latter Day Saint movement; participants is a more useful term than members: the concept of membership was a bit more fuzzy during this time, as also are the records of membership; additionally it is much easier to document participation than membership for that period. You also avoided the ugly parenthetical disambiguation that was found in my earlier suggestion. I have done multiple reference fixes at that page, as well as some formatting; hopefully this will not be seen as a cause of offence. —Asterisk*Splat→ 18:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subpage is a good idea. To both Darmokand and Asterisk, I would like to put in a gentle reminder that one of the chiefest policies of Wikipedia is to always assume good faith. In going over the recent interaction between you two, I'm not seeing much good faith manifested. So I would just like to gently remind you to always assume the best of those you interact with on Wikipedia. It makes things so much easier. That being said, again, the subpage is a good idea, though it will have to be fleshed out and include more sources if it is to remain on Wikipedia. I think an end result can be achieved that will satisfy everyone, if we work together on this instead of being divisive and quarreling amongst ourselves. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as an example of quarreling, and a reminder to all that we need to assume good faith is a fine thing. However I generally find ad hominem discussions are far more divisive than Bold-Revert-Discuss editing cycles, and ask that we focus more on the edits and less on the parties involved. —Asterisk*Splat→ 18:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous

[edit]

"This article is about the Church of Christ, the original name of the Latter Day Saint church founded by Joseph Smith. For other Latter Day Saint and non–Latter Day Saint denominations that use "Church of Christ", see Church of Christ (disambiguation)." "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" redirects here. For the present-day LDS Church, see The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For the present-day Strangite church, see Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)."

It is ABSURD to redirect "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" here instead of to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Here is a hint: A religion with ~15 million members will be most searched for on Wikipedia. Also, it is an absurd decision to use "Church of Christ" (a completely GENERIC term, as this acknowledges, here to refer to the Origial Smith-led religion. The lede needs a rewrite and the redirection needs to be corrected. I also note that the disambiguation page is a mess. Both do a TERRIBLE job of distinguishing the pseudo-Christian (sorry, thats how I see it) LDS splinters from more 'orthodox' Christian denominations. This completely fails to acknowledge that one splinter dominates (in terms of membership). If this article is about the ORIGINAL Smith religion, then SAY SO. And distinguish the time frame (that is up to the death of Smith) where it is relevant, and where a DIFFERENT article should be referred to, REFER TO IT!216.96.76.54 (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not, the name of this article was the original name of the church established by Smith. In the beginning, that church had several names, this one being the most common. Until it was changed to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" in 1838, that's how the adherents referred to themselves. I am a member of the LDS Church, but I accept that due to the need for a neutral point of view, we cannot say that the LDS Church is the rightful successor to Smith's original church, especially when scholarly opinions have said otherwise. A careful read of this article yields the realization that all you are asking to be established in the article is already established. Here on Wikipedia, a variety of editors (ranging from those like me who are members of the LDS Church to those who think Smith was delusional or radical) have worked together to ensure that Wikipedia policies are followed. In my mind, this article achieves a careful balance between the two perspectives. I have two suggestions for you: First, instead of sweeping generalizations, please comment specifically on what you think should be changed and why. That way a discussion can take place resulting in a consensus decision, which is one of the many reasons the article reads as it does now. Secondly, your comments and edits would be taken a lot more seriously if you had a regular user account rather than editing from an IP address. With the exception of a handful of IP addresses that are known to only contribute in accordance with Wikipedia policies, most IP edits are deemed spam and either edited or reverted altogether. A user account adds credibility and veracity to a user's edits. That said, if there's anything further to discuss, I hope it can be discussed in a non-contentious way, and follow Wikipedia policies. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Christ is not the LDS Church. Get your facts straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8832:2740:b594:43b:41f0:6107 (talk • contribs)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

first few paragraphs...

[edit]

Yes, I agree w/ others here that the article needs to stay historically accurate. Even an initial read of sources or literature of the time will indicate that this movement was based on Biblical ideas or principles, otherwise it would not be considered part of a/ the "restorationist" movement. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_true_church and other articles.

for example, try also: http://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf On pg. TPJS 10, it states that 

Lord declared that many of these plain and precious sayings were to be restored, not

only through the Book of Mormon, "but through a revision of the Bible." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organist00 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Include the name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[edit]

The article states the latest name of the church to be 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' without the word 'The'. Even if the original transcript of the published revelation omitted 'The' (a debate for others) the practice very soon after was to add the capitalized 'The'. At least a reference to the modern usage and style should be included or the page is misleading. Andyn1331 (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Church of Christ(Latter Day Saints)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Church of Christ(Latter Day Saints) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 28 § Church of Christ(Latter Day Saints) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missionaries

[edit]

This article does not mention that seven missionaries were sent to Northwest England in 1837. One of the converts was Miles Romney who immigrated to the United States. Amidst all the arguing about church names and legitimacy of successors, The history of the early development appears to have been forgotten. Humpster (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Church_of_Christ_(Latter_Day_Saints)&oldid=1210547717"