Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement

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

Next Hymnal[edit]

There has been quite a bit of coverage of plans of the LDS church to release a new hymnal. Feelings for whether there is enough information to make a "Next LDS Hymnal" article? Wikipedia does have articles for Next general elections in various countries, where there is information that applies regardless of when the next election is called (and must be called by 2026, for example). I'm not sure there are any for "Next editions of books". If it isn't enough, then I guess a dedicated section in the 1985 hymnal article?Naraht (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the core collection will be available next year, and because there are sufficient independent sources about it, I'd say it's not too early for an article about this. I'd suggest that the article title match the name of the collection, which will be "Hymns—For Home and Church". Jgstokes (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title Dashes and spaces[edit]

While the references to show notability should be external to the church, (I'm just *fine* hanging notability on the Salt Lake Tribune, anyone who considers the Trib to be a primary source on Church information couldn't spell the name of the state if you gave them the U, T & A).

However, it determining the title, I'd prefer church sources. The problem is that they don't appear to be consistent.


I guess we go with the first, the newsroom announcement. The newsroom announcement is with an em-dash with no spaces around the dash. Does that fit article title requirements?Naraht (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Newsroom would probably be the most likely reflection of the actual name of the new volume. The other two sources may have had unintentional typos. The Salt Lake Tribune uses the same no-space hyphenation as the Newsroom release, so there's an independent source confirming that. Jgstokes (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Created[edit]

Draft:Hymns—for Home and Church has been created. I'll let it simmer for a bit, please comment on improvements or issues.Naraht (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriateness of File:Book_of_Mormon_Lands_and_Sites2.jpg[edit]

I'm sort of uncomfortable with File:Book_of_Mormon_Lands_and_Sites2.jpg being on pages. From the notes of the user who uploaded it in 2007, they personally created the map, but later edits removed a watermark. If the user created it, it is *one* interpretation of the Limited Geography model, but with no attribution at all. It may belong on Limited geography model, but even there, the image goes far beyond what is discussed in the text.Naraht (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. It appears to be mostly one editor's opinion, not a representation of scholarly consensus. The description page does not state where they got the data for the map. Plus the creator is blocked for sockpuppetry NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 20:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not a representation of scholarly consensus. There's a number of groups that speculate actual locations for Book of Mormon events. There's a group of people in the LDS Church that believe that the Book of Mormon took place in Central America. I know of another group that puts their reasoning that it took place much further north in the central US (Mississippi River Valley). In any case, this is all speculation from what I can tell. I don't know of any official position of location of event by the LDS Church other than where the plates claimed to be buried (near Palmyra, New York). Anything else I believe is anyone's guess. Thanks - Dmm1169 (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why it *may* belong in the Limited geography model#Mesoamerican_setting section. I *think* the burial place of Zelph I believe qualifies in addition to Hill Cumorah, but that gets tricky.Naraht (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latter Day Saints or Latter-day Saints?[edit]

Hello!

A user (DisneyMetalhead) boldly moved a large number of pages from the Latter Day Saints spelling to Latter-day Saints. However, my understanding is that the first spelling is for topic related to the Latter Day Saint movement as a whole, and the second spelling to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All the moved pages were about the larger movement.

Can someone of the project explain where the difference in spelling comes from, before this degenerates in a page-move war? Place Clichy (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the edits I had made were intended to be in regards to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Any of the additional sects and churches that branched off, do use the spelling "Latter Day Saints". I wasn't trying to cause a problem, but to be helpful.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, Place Clichy, if the article is about the broader Latter Day Saint movement, the spelling should be Latter Day Saint.....moving them to Latter-day Saint would be incorrect. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ChristensenMJ! I know there is a Wikipedia naming convention, but would you care to explain to someone completely foreign to the subject how this came to be? This sounds as strange as the Hyphen War. Place Clichy (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Place Clichy, I don't know if this will come out right, but we'll try....As DisneyMetalhead alludes to, use of Latter Day Saint represents both the original, and then any of the denominations, which have origin in the movement founded by Joseph Smith or trace its roots to that origin. When Smith was killed, there was a succession crisis, which was really the beginning of having different denominations or branches, which trace their roots to Smith's original church, begin to develop or evolve, as leaders or views what Smith intended, etc. cropped up. Since it is by far the largest denomination in the movement, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which began using the hyphen in about 1851, gets most of the awareness and many aren't aware of the distinction. Those in the movement began using the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1838, under Smith's direction, prior to his death 6 years later. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, the hyphen indicates the main/primary Latter-day Saint church. The usage of the non-hyphen is a term used by various sects that broke off of what was originally established. I believe however that some of the articles pertain exclusively to the Latter-day Saints, and so in that instance -- shouldn't the correct spelling be used? Just thoughts.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles specific to the big Latter-day Saints Church seem to use (LDS Church) as a disambiguator instead of (Latter Day Saints). That's what naming convention WP:NCLDS says, and is also prominently mentioned on some of the pages you moved: Temple (Latter Day Saints) vs. Temple (LDS Church), Priesthood (Latter Day Saints) vs. Priesthood (LDS Church), Seventy (Latter Day Saints) vs. Seventy (LDS Church) etc.
Re: your comment that "the spelling for the movement should also be "Latter-day Saint" movement", as this is a break from current conventions I think you should first discuss at Talk:Latter Day Saint movement about changing the title of the main page, using the process described at WP:Requested moves § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. If the consensus of editors agrees with you, then the main page should be moved, and you will probably have to largely rewrite WP:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints). I can't say if that will be successful, but you won't reach anything without first establishing that consensus. Place Clichy (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saying the non-hyphen use is done only by those that broke off from what was originally established isn't accurate...what was originally established didn't actually include the hyphen....the hyphen was not used by those who followed Brigham Young west to the Salt Lake Valley until the 1850s. It also has an implication at the heart of the succession crisis - with each of the other denominations having their own view of who really broke off....it appropriately honors the belief of others and doesn't have the feeling of being presumptuous to see only the LDS Church as clearly what was originally established and all the rest of them are just wrong.... ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree that the spelling for the movement should not be Latter-day Saint movement....it's not just a break from current conventions, it's not founded in fact and history from what Joseph Smith founded and then evolved over time. ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristensenMJ: I wasn't implying "right vs wrong" as you indicated. I simply was saying that if an article is purely centered around The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, wouldn't it make sense to have the spelling as such. Didn't realize that many of the various spin-off sects were also included on the stated articles, as I indicated in my original response to User:Place Clichy. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help with sources for M. Wells Jakeman[edit]

Hello all! I am looking at expanding M. Wells Jakeman but am having a hard time finding good secondary and tertiary sources other than obits. Any ideas? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are four sources listed but not cited to in the Sources section of that page. Those look like a good place to start. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Project related AFD[edit]

Book of Mormon monetary system is the subject of an AFD. Naraht (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for parallelism[edit]

The article on Laban has this at the end of the section on the the Brass Plates.

"[[James Strang]]'s alleged translation of the [[Book of the Law of the Lord]] asserts that it largely consists of the Brass Plates of Laban."

I see no reason that James Strang and the Brass Plates should be treated any differently than Joseph Smith and the Golden ones. Suggestions for how to give parallelism there (specifically avoiding alleged)?Naraht (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oooh that's my bad. I can rewrite that. Thanks for catching that, I was trying so hard to avoid making it take a side that I accidentally made it antagonistic to Strang. BenBeckstromBYU (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wouldn't mind taking a look, I think I made it better. Got rid of "alleged," and added "claimed" for both Strang and Smith as well as about what the Book of the Law of the Lord says that it is. I'm open to further suggestions on improvement. BenBeckstromBYU (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christians prior to Christ[edit]

I was editing Ammonihah and the image is captioned with

The Martyrdoms at Ammonihah (John Held Sr., 1888), depicting Alma 14:8, in which members of the city's Christian minority are "cast into the fire".

. Given that Alma is prior to 3 Nephi and Alma 14:8 doesn't contain the work Christian, suggestion for a better caption?

And they brought their wives and children together, and whosoever believed or had been taught to believe in the word of God they caused that they should be cast into the fire; and they also brought forth their records which contained the holy scriptures, and cast them into the fire also, that they might be burned and destroyed by fire

Naraht (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm by far not the expert with this, but maybe instead of Christian, use "believers of the word of god" to keep it in context to what it says. Thanks! Dmm1169 (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; as a major contributor to the Ammonihah page, I'm happy to explain. Referring to figures in the Book of Mormon as "Christians" is following how reliable sources in religious studies interpret the story and setting of the Book of Mormon. For examples, see the following (bolding added):
  • "pre-Christian Christians, who "talk of Christ, ... reojice in Christ, ... prophesy of Christ" centuries before his coming (2 Nephi 25:26).
    • Terryl Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (Oxford University Press, 2002), 47.
    • John Turner, The Mormon Jesus: A Biography (Harvard University Press, 2016), 29 cites Givens and also describes Book of Mormon figures as "pre-Christian Christians".
  • In the New World, the migrants build a temple and follow the law of Moses much like the society they left in Palestine, but their religion is explicitly Christian.
    • Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 85.
  • the Book of Mormon asserts that long before the birth of Jesus there were Christians, who were taught by prophets to believe in a redeemer who would one day come into the world
    • Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide (Oxford University Press, 2010), 7.
  • Within The Book of Mormon, Christianity takes root in the Americas not only before the arrival of Europeans but also, more radically, before the birth of Jesus. In moments of prolepsis similar to those appearances of Pauline language that predate Paul, the Nephites embrace the teachings of Jesus and assume the title of "Christians" in advance of the gospels. [...] in the Book of Alma, supposedly produced around 73 BCE, Moroni prays "that the cause of the Christians, and the freedom of the land might be favored" (351). This is Christianity before Christ; the prophecies of The Book of Mormon, unlike those of the Hebrew Bible, are explicit in their designations of the Messiah to come.
  • Alma coming to preach his "new" belief in a Christian faith
  • the chief judge of Ammonihah makes it clear that the punishment given to the Christian converts was based on Alma's and Amulek's words
    • Michael Austin, The Testimony of Two Nations: How the Book of Mormon Reads, and Rereads, the Bible (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 133.
To the extent that having a setting with a Christian religion and worshipers of Jesus before his advent is time-bending, that is, if anything, part of the Book of Mormon's structure, plot, and point. As literary critics Elizabeth Fenton and Jared Hickman summarize, the Book of Mormon narrative's temporality is never anything but extravagantly nonlinear (their introduction to Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon [Oxford Unviersity Press, 2019], 1–20, here 7). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. These guys believed in Jesus, but knew him as Yehowah or Yaweh. Yes, I am LDS, no, don't get into an edit war with me about this. Wikipedia has seen to much of those. 38.43.22.44 (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In many respects, my case in point: to insist that Jesus-believing Nephites and Lamanites can't be Christians because that would be anachronistic is to advance not an academic, neutral assessment of the Book of Mormon's plot but an apologetic, historicist assessment of it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have it backwards, both the idea that the Nephites and Lamanites existed and that they were Christian are apologist positions. The neutral academic assessment is that the Nephites and Lamanites did not exist outside of the BoM. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Characters don't have to exist in reality for scholars to identify them as being Christian in the story. To use another example, Les Misérables's Bishop Myriel is, of course, entirely fictitious, and he is nevertheless a Christian character. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is treating them as historical people, if you aren't I apologize. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok. I understand. 38.43.22.44 (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about Template:Book of Mormon[edit]

There is a discussion at Template talk:Book of Mormon#Content in this template that is redundant with other templates that may interest participants in this Wikiproject. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using the term "advent" for birth of Jesus in LDS articles[edit]

I have been going through a lot of articles related to Mormonism and I am finding a peculiar turn of phrase "advent of Jesus" showing up a lot. It's a completely intelligible phrase, of course, and famously in many Christian liturgical calendars refers to a season prior to Christmas, but in the context of certain historical claims it reads pretty unusual and I believe it may be a Mormonism that has crept in to articles mentioning such things. Is this a thing in Mormon circles? Does anyone recognize what I'm talking about?

I think we should avoid this phraseology and just refer to things like "birth of Jesus" or "life of Jesus of Nazareth" etc. as those seem to be more typical in non-Mormon literature and our own articles.

jps (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advent is more a Christian-ism than a Mormon-ism. The LDS Church doesn't institutionally observe the Advent season (it's possible some Mormons privately do so, on their own). If you see "advent of Jesus" on a Mormon studies article, I bet I added it to de-Mormon-ize the language (a more Mormon turn of phrase would be "coming of Jesus" or "birth of Jesus") and express "a temporal setting that would have been before there was a Jesus and before there historically speaking would have been the idea of a Jesus". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Birth of Jesus" is far preferable to "advent of Jesus". I don't think "advent" is really a thing in Mormonism, and we shouldn't be using Christian jargon like that anyway for a broad audience. ~Awilley (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Advent of Jesus" would be a pretty obscure usage in Christian literature as well. Maybe in liturgies, but that is certainly not a style choice we would typically adopt at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS)[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). Levivich (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Mormon as Literature[edit]

At Talk:Ammonihah, the main author has made an argument that topics related to the Book of Mormon are properly handled as literature since Mormon Studies seem to be moving in that direction. I'm pretty sure this is not an okay approach, but before I get into that on this page, I want to know whether this is more widespread. Do y'all think that reliable sources force primarily a "literature" treatment onto articles about the Book of Mormon? Do the social/religious/cultural/historical/etc. treatments all have to play second fiddle because Mormon Studies people haven't gotten to that approach/don't want to look into such approaches? jps (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:SILENCE, I guess. Here's the thing, friends, this approach also has an obvious proselytization angle as many Mormons are so enthralled by their holy book that they think it stands as great literature along side many other great works. I guess the thought is that even unbelievers will be amazed by its literary genius? Well, we know that most non-Mormon critics have consistently panned the work as something like bad Second Great Awakening fan fiction, but no matter. The Book of Mormon is important literature. It certainly can be read through a literary criticism lens, but to treat it primarily as literature in an encyclopedia setting is a profound subversion of WP:ENC. jps (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You wrote "we know that most non-Mormon critics have consistently panned the work as something like bad Second Great Awakening fan fiction". I do not believe that the perceived literary quality of a work determines if it is notable or worthy of literary criticism. I think we can agree that the Book of Mormon, including its narrative, is significant to American history, and more generally to the religious history of churches in the Latter Day Saint movement. In my work as a literary scholar, I have studied works not for their aesthetic qualities, but for their importance in history. That said, I believe that the Book of Mormon is worthy of study as a literary work in its own right. I believe that even if you (meaning any reader of Wikipedia) do not believe in a supernatural origin for the Book of Mormon, that its narrative and interpretation is still important. The interpretation of the Book of Mormon by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars is important enough to include on Wikipedia, and we can summarize reliable sources to show that. I know that my opinion is not sufficient to persuade you. We both believe that our way is consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. What would be helpful here? I can provide multiple examples of non-Mormon scholars who use the "bracketing" approach to literary criticism of the Book of Mormon. But it feels like we cannot agree that this scholarship is legitimate. I could ask a Wikipedia acquaintance of mine (who is not LDS, has edited in book spaces, but I do not know IRL) for a third opinion. We could take Richard Bushman's work to the reliable sources noticeboard. We could ask at Wikiproject Christianity what they think we should do with BoM scholarship. We could go to the fringe theories noticeboard! I'm sure there are other options. What do you think would help us come to a consensus? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Studying works for the importance in history is, crucially, not the kind of literary analysis I was describing. It's a way to provide historical context, I would even call it "historical analysis". Would love more sources like that, so if that's what you would like to focus on we are actually in agreement. What I do not appreciate as a primary approach in our articles is leaning mostly on works that don't try to contextualize the story at all and instead explore it on its own terms textually. For example, sources that try to interpret the thoughts and feelings of the characters on the terms of the text or in the context of a person's connection to dogma. jps (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am chiming in here. I think at Talk:Ammonihah there is the suggestion that something like "Book of Mormon as Literature" be created as a separate article. And it could be any title deemed appropriate. In any case, the BoM seems to have developed a track record as worthy of literary criticism, at least since 2012.
But, as .jps points out, contextualizing these BoM articles by immersing them into their relationship with 19th century culture, folk beliefs, surrounding circumstances and societal concerns matters for encyclopedic articles. I came across an article on JSTOR that discussed the oratory techniques that were widely used in the nineteenth century and maybe or probably employed by Joseph Smith. I didn't realize the value of this piece at the time. I didn't realize we Wikipediaes would be engaged in extensive discussions about the BoM and ancillary topics. I am trying to find that article again. In the meantime, here is the results of an arbitrary JSTOR search for "Historical accuracy Book of Mormon" [1]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here what might be a couple of interesting scholarly views found in that set of articles:
  • Barlow, Philip L. “Joseph Smith’s Revision of the Bible: Fraudulent, Pathologic, or Prophetic?” The Harvard Theological Review, vol. 83, no. 1, 1990, pp. 45–64.
  • Duffy, John-Charles. “Just How ‘Scandalous’ Is the Golden Plates Story? Academic Discourse on the Origin of the Book of Mormon.” The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, vol. 26, 2006, pp. 142–65.
Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm the main contributor to the Ammonihah article as it currently exists. I'm a little surprised I wasn't pinged, since I was a participant in the conversation. I've disclosed a past connection to BYU as a student and student employee.
Wikipedia summarizes a consensus that appears in secondary sources. If that's mostly literary, we mostly summarize literary analysis; if that's mostly reception history, we mostly summarize reception history; if that's mostly anthropological, we mostly summarize anthropology. It isn't for us to force an interpretation or perspective into an article if scholars haven't made that interpretation about the topic. To do so would be original research.
For the convenience of others on this project talk page, I list a handful of sources from the last ten years that ground my sense that the literary approach to the Book of Mormon is a major one, listed chronologically:
All this to say that dismissing out of hand literary criticism of the Book of Mormon seems short-sighted. What the right approach at a given Book of Mormon topic is a more specific question, probably better decided at each article. Different aspects of the Book of Mormon have received different kinds of treatment. There's less literary criticism of, say, Zarahemla as a setting in the Book of Mormon, and a lot more reception history about Mormons naming things after it and unsuccessfully trying to discover ruins. And there's less of that for Ammonihah, which has apparently prompted different sorts of coverage. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm replying to jps's comment about literary criticism on Wikipedia. I'm trying to say that historical or authorial analysis is just one way to do literary criticism. After looking at a couple of novel FAs, I see that it's common on Wikipedia to include analysis of the author's intent and personal philosophy in the analysis sections. That is more difficult to do with the Book of Mormon, because Joseph Smith doesn't present himself as the author (nor does he discuss its contents conveniently in interview form as do many contemporary authors). However, we run into a similar problem with the Qu'ran, which Muslims believe was dictated by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. When I look at pages for Surahs (chapters in the Quran), like An-Nisa, I see lengthy summary of the verses and analysis of the text as received by believers. Are you saying that pages on chapters in the Qu'ran suffer from the same problem? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference with the Quran is that its genre is basically poetry which lends itself to a bit more of a relaxed time. It makes it a bit easier to separate out things like Isra' and Mi'raj and other impossible miracles to pages where the precise issues with their impossibilities can in principle if not in practice be dealt with separate from the article on the text. It's an unfortunate accident of history that the Book of Mormon is told mostly in prose so it's harder to separate the events, places, names, and ideas from the text just from a style standpoint. jps (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rachel Helps (BYU) I think that’s a real problem with those articles. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely something to tackle, though I'm not sure exactly how. Splitting of the Moon is another fun article to watch. jps (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that this is at odds with what I'm saying. I think an over-emphasis on literary criticism can be a problem given that there is an obvious context of the text as a foundational religious text and that is how most people interact with it, no? Of course, we could have sections of an article or spin-offs of the article about the literary critiques/treatments, but i am seeing something more going on here: an adoption of literary criticism/treatment as the primary means to discuss the specific topic to the detriment of things like the historical import or social impact of the ideas. jps (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In cases where I've found secondary sources from other disciplines like reception history, I've added material about that, like in the Zarahemla article (the searches for ruins) or the stripling warriors article (the popularity of stripling warrior and Helaman action figures). In cases where I've found literary criticism, I've added material about that, like in the Ammonihah article (the plot with Alma and the fire and brimstone imagery).
By way of aside, I don't consider either the Zarahemla or stripling warrior articles as they currently exist to be good examples of articles. My contributions came recently, and mostly in the reception sections; the articles were created as pretty POV scripture-sourced messes some 20 years ago, in the early 2000s way before I had anything to do with Wikipedia, and way before Rachel Helps (BYU) did either, as far as I know. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to commend you for adding secondary sources of that sort. More of that, please! jps (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be more meaningful if your posts didn't leave the impression of using it as a kind of cudgel to justify excluding material from other disciplines, like literary criticism. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you haven't appreciated the fact that right now a lot of our Book of Mormon pages read as though the only discipline that exists is literary criticism. jps (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at RSN[edit]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#WikiProject_specific_reliable_sources

I don't know what the solution is for this, but I think this is probably in violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Or maybe not. Anyway, there is the discussion started.

jps (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Capital punishment#Requested move 1 April 2024[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Capital punishment#Requested move 1 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement&oldid=1218665736"