Template talk:Latter-day Saints

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Latter Day Saint movement Top‑importance This template is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles Top This template has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This template name has been recycled and is currently a navigational template for articles related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At present, there is no limitation on which articles can be include. The only guidelines are that they be related to the Church in some way and that they be placed in one of the existing groupings. if the "other" grouping becomes too crowded, new groupings may be created and articles moved up. --NThurston 16:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That green is horrendous. --66.167.41.145 03:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change it to something better (but not to light blue). --NThurston 17:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verified that all links on this template in the History and Beliefs sections have this template on them as of 6 Nov --Trödel 23:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just my browser or is this template a total garbled mess? It didn't used to be...--Descartes1979 (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove the little picture for each subsection? It's just too much for my taste. --Eustress (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per no response, I removed pictures (per above) and changed the template to a more discrete, simple design (similar to Template:Catholicism). I also split apart leadership and organizations, as there was nothing about the Relief Society, Primary, etc.

The template still needs to include info about humanitarian efforts, etc. --Eustress (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also changed the picture to reflect the church's name (a pic of Christ) instead of the SLC temple. --Eustress (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of templates are collapsed as default. I added the "|state = collapsed" line to the template so that it is collapsed as default. (Taivo (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I make a minor change to "| state = {{{state|<includeonly>collapsed</includeonly><noinclude>uncollapsed</noinclude>}}} " By doing it this way the default is collapsed, but you can choose to change it on the page using "state=" and on the template it shows as uncollapsed for ease of editing. In the end it won't change the default, unless someone changes it intentionally on a page. ----ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An image is not the same as an icon, at least in the context of WP:ICONDECORATION. I believe WP:NAV provides for the use of images in navboxes. —Eustress ^talk 23:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a useful image/icon. This is pure decoration Gnevin (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outlandish colors for template bars just to get attention are inappropriate. I've removed the distinctive coloration (especially the garish attention-grabber used by the last anon editor) to make this template in line with those of other religions, for example, Template:Catholicism. Indeed, I've noticed that most religions have either a bottom navbox or a sidebox. Mormonism has both, so it's already being overmarked. Distinctive colors are especially inappropriate in that situation. --Taivo (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently the badge for Portal:Book of Mormon was added to this template, along with a variety of other LDS related articles. This was discussed here. I agree with the feeling that the BOM portal doesn't relate to every LDS movement article, only those for which it is pertinent. The LDS template might be used on all LDS movement articles, but does the BOM feature prominently in all cases? Should all articles on Christianity have the portal to the Bible? If other LDS related portals exist (D&C, PGP, Joseph Smith, Utah, etc) should they all be included because they are related? (I just noticed that the BOM portal badge is now removed again, but I'll leave this here in case further discussion continues.) ——Rich jj (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does someone has a problem with this edition? If someone has we can talk about it. Someone keeps reverting it but when I try to talk with him about it he doesn't answer my arguments. Disappointing. Furawi (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This diff? [1] Yes, I have a problem with piping ex-Mormon to ex-Latter-day Saint for one. I know several people who identify as ex-Mormon. I know zero people who identify as ex-Later-day Saint. I've never heard the term before. There's not a good reason to pipe that link.

Also, it's a bit weird to call it the Holy Bible instead of the King James Version of the Bible, or simply the Bible. There isn't a unique edition of the Bible that is Holy, and it's a bit weird to put honorifics in Wikipedia's voice. ~Awilley (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matters if you know several people who identify as ex-Mormon, because this is bias: of course those who leave the Church will identify as that since they don't wanna follow what the Church says about not identifying as "Mormon", do you think there's newspapers that has anti-Church bias? There's websites that use Latter-day Saints. And Ex-Latter-day Saint:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9] (see comments)
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]
• [28]
• [29]
• [30]
• [31]

And as you can see, the name of the template and main article is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", Latter-day Saints, and not the "Mormon Church", it was never an official name, and haters of the Church use "LDS Church" more than the "Mormon Church", thus using "Less-active Latter-day Saints" and "ex-Latter-day Saints" would be fine for all I said and because this term is not long (like the reason of the use of "LDS Church"). Also I know that some people knows about Saints in the Catholic Church, but is not the same term, neither the same meaning (Catholics are not Saints, and Catholics pray to dead Saints), and not everyone knows this, there's many people that are not Catholic, even that are not Christian, so I don't see this as problem to use "ex-Latter-day Saint".

The Church publishes an edited version of the King James, and the Church publishes the "Holy Bible", it doesn't matter if it's weird for you because that's the name of the book, own name. Furawi (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I spot checked the first several links.

1. Does not contain the words "ex-Latter-day Saint". (Calls her "former latter-day Saint")
2. Of course BYU is going to follow the LDS Church's preference of never saying "Mormon"
3. Does contain one instance of "ex-Latter-day Saint". (Also contains the words "Mormon Church")
4. This link goes to r/ExLatterDaySaint, a subreddit with 42 members and 6 posts in the last 6 years. Compare that to r/ExMormon with 304,000 members and 40 posts a day. This makes a pretty good case for ex-Mormon.
5. A random YouTuber is not a reliable source.
6. Daniel C. Peterson is not an independent source. (BYU professor writing for Meridian Magazine, a magazine by Mormons for Mormons)
7. Another magazine by Mormons for Mormons.
8. Amazon reviews are not a reliable source
9. Doesn't have any reference to "ex-" anything, but in any case, this podcast does not appear to be a reliable or independent source.

I expect the rest are similar... Look, it's easy to do a Google search for "ex Latter-day Saint" in quotations and make a list of the results. That's called cherry picking. I just did that search for "news" and it gave 5 pages of results. Then I did the exact same news search for "ex-Mormon" in quotations, and that gave 30 pages of results. But even that's not all that important. What actually matters is what the best WP:Reliable sources say and what they use. So far as I can tell, the major newspapers still use the word "Mormon" (in addition to "members of the church", etc.) for clarity when referring to members and former members of the LDS Church. And it is our job on Wikipedia to follow their lead. ~Awilley (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. We are arguing about the words "Latter-day Saint" and "Mormon", so that counts.

5. You literally mentioned "I know zero people who identify as ex-Later-day Saint" but when I show you several pages you say is not reliable, this is not the topic here, the topic is about identification with "Ex-Latter-day Saint" or "former Latter-day Saint".

6. We can't talk about the people who abandon the faith?

7. See 6.

8. See 5.

9. Search well, it does: "Ex ex Latter-day Saint | Dusty's Story". Also see 5.

Ok the topic is WP:Reliable, before it was identification. Is fine then but I still think is bias since, remember religion is a "controversial topic" (like politics, etc.), so a bit obvious that most of the newspapers are gonna be anti-Church but fine. Closed topic. Furawi (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]