Talk:Dieter F. Uchtdorf

Slovakia got dedicated?
The following is cited, so it should be fairly straightforward to elaborate: "On May 12, 2006 Uchtdorf dedicated Slovakia for the preaching of the gospel." As it stands, however, I have no idea what it means, and I suspect that it would be similarly opaque to most non-LDS. Translation, please? Alai (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it's something the LDS Church does for each country just prior to it sending missionaries in to preach. A person, usually a church apostle, goes to the country and gives a prayer/blessing on the country in preparation for the influx of Mormon missionaries. It's significant in that it generally only occurs once for every country in the world (unless there has been a large time gap since the last Mormon missionaries visited, in which case it might be done again). I agree that this needs to be worded better somehow to make it understandable. Zoporific 03:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I get the general idea now. Can we perhaps say he "conducted a ceremony/service/prayer of dedication", then, or some such form of words?  I've dropped a note at WP:LDS.  Perhaps someone can find or start a related article that would help put this in context.  Alai (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Zoporific is correct in his/her assessment. As a Latter-day Saint, I can tell you that every time the Church is officially recognized and permitted to enter into another country (after the needed signatures have been gathered for the government to authorize such a course of action) an apostle (that is, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or First Presidency) is sent to offer a prayer of dedication. This dedicatory prayer (similar to those given for temple dedications) invokes the blessings of the Lord upon the country in question and, if the apostle feels so inspired, on the surrounding countries as well, and asks the Lord to prosper the work of the gospel in that nation. It would be equally appropriate to say that "he conducted a ceremony/service/prayer of dedication", however, our job as Wiki editors is to make pages concise in most cases, rather than more verbose. It is more pertinent to say that the land was "dedicated" than to say it any other way because otherwise, you would also need to change the page describing temple dedications. After all, the principle of dedication in the Church is basically the same, whether it be dedication of a home, church building, temple, country, etc. As such, I don't believe it would be productive to change the terminology in this case UNLESS you intend to also change the terminology for the other types of dedications as well. After all, a dedication is a dedication, no matter what is being dedicated. Anyways, that's my two cents on the matter. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since this is a thing that happens so often in the church (dedicating buildings, that is, not just countries), perhaps writing a Dedication (LDS Church) would be helpful, and then when used the article could be linked to instead of a verbose explanation given each time? Snocrates 00:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the further edits; I wasn't by any means wedded to my wording, just trying to remove the editorial adoption of (as I suspected) LDS-particular form of words. Much better to report same, and describe.  As a reader I found it a jarring and tortuous usage to say someone "decidated a country", as it's for me quite clearly not at all the same thing as dedicating a building that demonstrably "belongs" to the religion performing the rite in question.  The article on dedication covers the first sense, as it's used by many a denomination, but certainly not the second, which may indeed merit a separate article for its LDS-specific usage.  (I suppose it's a "had not the competence to do it" sort of thing, at bottom.  The LDS in Slovakia can obviously dedicate its mission, but can it "set aside" a whole country "for a particular purpose" (of being preached to by LDS missionaries)?  Not in the common-or-garden, M-W sense of the word, they can't.)  Alai (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The LDS people cannot do it, but an apostle can. And though the idea of dedication is similar in principle, there is one important difference. That is: prayers of dedication, be it of a home, Church building, temple, or country are not just used to present whatever it is officially to the Lord. They are used to invite His Spirit to be there so that His will can be done regarding whatever it is. I hope that clarifies the question. But perhaps it would be useful to expand the Wiki "dedication" page to explain both definitions better. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was fairly clear that I was including apostles et al in my statement about LDS's realm of competence, which I think it's inarguable is the LDS church, and not entire countries. My point is that there's a strong disconnect between the LDS usage of this word here, in which a Sufficiently Advanced LDS can "dedicate a country", and the general meaning of the word "dedicate", in which the LDS church, in whole or in part, cannot do so.  For that reason, and especially as we don't yet have an article on the LDS usage, we should be careful about Wikipedia's "editorial voice" using the word in the former sense (as distinct from directly reporting same).  Alai (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I quite understand what you're getting at. Just because a home is dedicated doesn't necessarily mean the Church is always present there. The same applies to countries. The purpose of dedicating a country is to officially accept the recognition of the government to have Church missionaries accepted to proselyte in the country. Besides that, even if there's not an official "Wiki page" on this context of dedication, the fact remains that this context is used in numerous Church publications. Each time a land is dedicated by the Church, an account of said dedication is contained in a later edition of the Ensign. The closest I could come to finding a reference for this on the Church website was an account of the growth in Slovakia in video form on the Church's Newsroom. The reference given for verification of this dedication has expired, so it might be wise to find another one. But in each of the references I've found relating to the dedication of a land by the Church, "dedication" is ALWAYS the word used by the Church to describe it. Since this is a Church related issue, my feeling is that we should use official Church terminology, explaining it as necessary, perhaps through another Wiki page. But I do not feel that the word "dedicated" should be removed or replaced simply because it's not understood. If that was the case, then many words used by WP would have to be explained, particularly pertaining to the Church. Of course, it's a moot point anyways, because an explanation is given in the article at any rate. I have no objection to the phrase as it now stands, however, I would recommend forming a Wiki page to discuss this definition of "dedicated" to eliminate the supposed "confusion" that the unexplained usage of this LDS-endorsed term might create. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Early Life?
Why is an emeritus degree from byu (2008) in the section on early life? perhaps it would fit better elsewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.112.54 (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all relative. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Common name
This article was recently moved from Dieter F. Uchtdorf to just Dieter Uchtdorf with the edit summary that there is no need for the middle name in the title. However, he is most commonly referred to with the middle initial (see most of the references). I am reverting the move. Further discussion, if needed, can take place here. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It keeps him unique. (Watching him conduct LDS Conf, just now.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone who knows Uchtdorf knows that, at least since his call as a General Authority in 1994, he has been referred to as "Dieter F. Uchtdorf." So I would be opposed to the move as well. Dieter F. Uchtdorf he is, and Dieter F. Uchtdorf he should remain until otherwise indicated. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ — As you can see, this article remains "Dieter F. Uchtdorf". Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Immigration meeting with President Obama
I am wondering if we should include President Uchtdorf's meeting with Obama and others on immigration in this article. Here is mormon.com, not an official Church site, take on it. There have also been articles and editorials in various news organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I vote for that. It is notable. LDS Church leaders always support and pray for the occupant of the oval office. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The mormonchurch.com article should not be used, as it doesn't meet wp:RS (it's not wp:SCHOLARSHIP/wp:NEWSORG), but the following news articles could be used: These articles are better worded anyway. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW, mormon.com is an official site of the LDS Church, but mormonchurch.com is not. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * By-the-way, BTW, it is http://Mormon.org/ (not .com) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW-BTW-BTW: Mormon.com links over to Mormon.org so everything is Cool. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

First Presidency Information
I noticed while reading this article that some of the information about Uchtdorf being in the First Presidency was in the section that talked about him being an apostle, so I rearranged it. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Rather than update/revert the recent good faith edits, I thought I'd add a comment here and seek feedback, particularly from Jgstokes as the initial editor and Good Ol’factory, given some minor adjustments to the edit. This relates to the note specifying participation in last weekend's temple dedication.  I am not sure there needs to be an addition to any specific dedication he's participated in when he's not the one with the assignment to dedicate it - but at a minimum if it did go that way, do all of those he's participated in then get listed?  And, if so, does that make much sense to include?  It is somewhat the same for his time as a member of the Twelve (along with all members of that group), would the list include each one that they participate in?  For me at least, that seems an undue level of detail.  Depending on other thoughts, I would also say that the recent addition ought to at least be edited to read in more timeless fashion, rather than "recent" - but again, what makes participation in this one any more noteworthy than others.  Just exploring some thoughts (and not doing it in very succinct fashion!) Thanks! ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If he didn't do the actual dedication of the specific temple, I think it might be too much to include note of temple dedications he has attended or participated in. I too didn't want to delete it outright without some input from others, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think we're on the same page about not wanting to just delete the addition & perhaps also on the overall view of inclusion versus not doing so. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. I included Uchtdorf's participation because it was significant this time in the sense that he represented the First Presidency in addressing the cultural celebration the night before. I understand fully the concerns about having too much information in the article. I applaud the edits that have been made to this addition of mine. I disagree on one point, though. I think that the temple dedications he participates in, particularly since becoming a member of the First Presidency, are worthy of note. Do I think we ought to list EVERY temple dedication he's been involved in? Certainly not. I realize how extensive such lists would become if we attempted to do that for every general authority. But where he was performing a specific function by representing the First Presidency and speaking at the cultural celebration, this current dedication participation stands out and should be mentioned. At least, that was my reasoning. But I recognize that others may disagree with me on this point. Thanks for waiting to take action on deleting this until I had my say. That was very considerate of you. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughts, Jgstokes. I understand the interest in wanting to acknowledge the comments to the youth the night before, but at the same time, that wasn't actually even referenced in the additions that were made.  Nor do I think that him speaking there has any great noteworthy significance. The temple dedications themselves are where the "story" lies and as it seems you're in agreement that it's not at all practical to try and identify all that different general authorities participate in, it doesn't seem consistent to start adding some things and not others.  Except when he's performed the dedication itself, those he's participated in as a member of the First Presidency are no more significant than as a member of the Seventy or the Twelve.  He received an assignment to speak at some, as did other of the men and women who serve at general church levels - as just part of the "regular" activities of his current office, such as speaking in conferences and other things. Those are my initial thoughts, so I would recommend removing the sentence about the Phoenix temple. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am posting here because of a deletion that was made to the Henry B. Eyring article when I tried to add information about his participation in the Ogden Utah Temple Rededication. I believe we are in agreement that not every dedication every apostle participates in is worthy of reference, but the Ogden participation is unique because he actually presided at a majority of the sessions, and thus it could be argued that the attribution for the rededication of this temple should go jointly to President Monson and President Eyring, if not mostly to President Eyring, as President Monson was only involved in one session. Where President Eyring's involvement is so significant there, it ought to be included. At least, that's the way I see it. But IMHO, this issue should be argued on Eyring's talk page rather than gumming up Uchtdorf's talk page. Unless we'd like to select a neutral location where all apostolic participation in temple dedications can be mentioned, we should confine our discussions of relevant issues to the relevant pages which are under discussion. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Who is said to have actually re-dedicated the Ogden temple? Was it Monson or Eyring? If Eyring was just presiding at some of the sessions and reading Monson's dedicatory prayer, I'm not sure that it would be enough to include in the Eyring article. After Eyring's death, it's not the sort of thing that would be mentioned in obituaries or summary articles about his life. Certainly it should be mentioned in Ogden Utah Temple though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Most reports credit President Monson with rededicating the temple, but in the list of participants, it spells out the extent of Monson and Eyring's involvement. Monson presided, spoke, and offered the dedicatory prayer during the first session while Eyring conducted it. Eyring also conducted the remaining two sessions, presiding and offering the dedicatory prayer at both, and speaking at the second session. So Monson is credited with rededicating the temple, but Eyring had a more prominent role in the actual dedicatory services. I know that after Monson's death, that sort of thing won't be mentioned in obituaries, but we are talking about a BLP here, which should include all events of prominence in which an individual is involved. For Eyring, in my mind, that includes the Ogden Temple Rededication. At any rate, as I stated above, Eyring's role in temple dedications is not a relevant issue for the Dieter F. Uchtdorf talk page, so this conversation should either get back to discussing Uchtdorf and issues relevant to him or else be moved to a more appropriate place. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's relevant here insofar that this discussion was originally addressing a very similar issue. I don't think BLPs cover "all events of prominence" for an individual, and we wouldn't suddenly change the scope of a bio article after someone's death. Attending and presiding at temple dedications, reading dedicatory prayers, and things like this just aren't terribly notable in the grand scheme of things, I'm afraid. Both of these cases seem to me to be classic examples of WP:RECENTISM. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm coming to this late, but after reading both sides, I'm going to have to agree with Good Ol’factory. Not everything that a person did (deceased) or dose (living) needs to be included.  The fact that Monson, Eyring or Uchtdorf took part in a Temple Rededication is a case of WP:RECENTISM.  In the long run no one is going to remember or care.  This is just part of their normal duties.  You wouldn't include a daily breakdown of all the paperwork they do would you?  It seems to me that adding it just isn't something that is needed.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I reverted the good faith addition to the Henry B. Eyring article and suggested this related, existing discussion be picked up again, in a place that makes sense to do it, I'll add a comment. I agree with the issues & views raised by Good Ol’factory and ARTEST4ECHO. Also, there isn't an issue about who rededicated the Ogden Utah Temple, that was Thomas S. Monson.


 * (As a sidenote, though it's recognized this isn't related to Uchtdorf's article, since those commenting here may have some thoughts, an interesting issue exists with the Gilbert Arizona Temple from earlier in 2014. In that case, Eyring read the dedicatory prayer at the first session, although Monson was in attendance and presiding.  Monson then read the prayer in later sessions.  The church's newsroom even altered the original headline of their release indicating Monson had dedicated the temple.  It's just a bit unique to have the church's president in attendance, but not have actually performed the dedication.  I think the template still does not identify who dedicated the temple.  ....anyway......)


 * ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

military service
The article stated Since Uchtdorf faced conscription into the newly formed Bundeswehr, he chose instead to volunteer for the West German Air Force in 1959. This sounds as if Uchtdorf avoided being conscripted into the Bundeswehr by instead volunteering for the West German Air Force. Until the reunification of Germany in 1990, the term "Bundeswehr" applied to the West German armed forces in general, which included 3 service branches (army, air force, navy), and was chiefly staffed by conscripted West German citizens. By comparison, the communist East German armed forces were called "Nationale Volksarmee" (National People's Army) and had 4 service branches (army, air force, navy, border troops). Like most West German conscripts with suitable qualifications, Uchtdorf was allowed to opt for the branch in which to complete his term of service, and he chose the air force. I have therefore replaced the somewhat ambiguous sentence with When Uchtdorf was conscripted into the newly formed Bundeswehr in 1959, he volunteered for the air force, at age 19, to become a fighter pilot. Cyan22 (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)