Talk:Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints/Archive 1

Various corrections
The FLDS as a Church organization under that name is a rather recent occurance, they were previously called the United Order Effort. They were part of the religious group headed by Lorin C. Woolley, J. Leslie Broadbent, John Y. Barlow and Joseph W Musser (until they began to split from his authority in 1952-54). I altered a few words to more accurately present this fact.

This is well documented by Prof. D. Michael Quinn, Prof. B. Carmon Hardy and others.

The Apostolic United Brethren had a temple in Mexico doing vicarious ordinances before the Eldorado one. The Manti-based "True and Living Church" and Peterson's Patriarchal church also have one. The text has been altered to reflect this.

It is important to note that the Centennial Park group (sometimes called the Third Ward) split away from them, as did a group in Bountiful under the direction of Winston Blackmore. (unsigned by tobeyjaggle)


 * Do you have a reference for an operating temple for the TLC? Not doubting, just haven't seen info on it. I thought they believe they get the Manti tempel and perform ordinacnes in homes, etc. The other is an endowment house, not a temple. The AUB does have an operating temple, but it is outside of the US. The FLDS temple would be the first in the US, wouldn't it? -Visorstuff 22:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a reference to the 'TLC' Endowment House at their old website & here. As well as a reference to an 'AUB" Endowment House in the wikipedia [Temple (Mormonism)] entry.  Whether an Endowment House can be classed as a temple I suppose is an arguable point.  However the 'Peterson' group does call theirs a temple and it has been around for a while now.

Structure of the church
There is a hierarchal structure to the FLDS church- which is not discussed. For example, it discusses Warren Jeffs as a prophet, but it does not dicuss the apostleship or other councils, bishops, etc. Any takers on the research and writing of it? We need to get it more inline with other denomination articles. -Visorstuff 21:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Do Mormon Fudamentalists have fun?
I'd just want to know what life is like for the youth commutiy. Like i to knew the answers to these Questions:Do the mormon Fuds had ever watch/read Star Wars or lord of the Rings or some kind of other populer franchinse(epecially the Chronicles of Narnia) and would their leaders wuold let them do so(and they had made commets about these kind of stuff?)And do youths (especially the ladies) would their folks aloud them to have successful careers like of a singing or acting career? Also I like to knew if they've their own millitia? I'd just want to knew all these things please(and you people can also add some exta links to other web articles that may have the answer to my question)Thanks.Also would the folks (especially the leader of the church himself) would let the peopke watch TV shows (especially Lost,the Stargate TV shows, and munch others; also did the they made similer commets about this)And do most members of this subreligeon group do munch about world/or american history and are taught it(and do they even knew current events and especially some stuff about the paranormal like Bigfoot,Yeti,The Loch Ness monster,UFO,Chupacabra,and other kinds of stuff (especially about Hollywood).Also do they let them play viodeo/computer or Board games(especially like Knights of the old Republic and others; and did the the leader of te mormon Fundeamentalists made any commets on this.) And were they aloud to read postmodiem,Modiesm,or other reading genres, like fight club.And do they've any book stores or librabries of their own.And do they eat internatioal food and would thier leader do so let'em? Ah well I think I'm askin' you people too many Questions, but you can make your answers short if you what.And I think I'm now done asking you anyway.-Jana


 * Mormon Fundamentalists in other communities (such as the [Apostolic United Brethren] - AUB) hold activities for their youth - sports, dances, firesides, & trips. Although very worldly entertainment is shunned, different parents and youth have differing standards and expectations.


 * Many Independent & AUB Fundamentalist youth have read Lord of the Rings, watch popular movies (although most take exception to frequent swearing, nudity, and extreme violence), and have game consoles. Other such youth are more conservative.


 * There is Fundamentalist fiction, plays, pageants, musicals etc. although they are rarely heard of outside of their communities.


 * The FLDS are not typical of most other Fundamentalists in these areas.
 * --Tobey 06:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Article way out of date
I have taken the liberty of adding many aspects and current events of the FLDS church that have transpired in the last few years, most notably the transition to the Texas compound, and the Attorney General's Office lawsuit against (well technically for the protection of) the United Effort Plan. I think this article is in need of clarification and additional referencing from recent articles of information published recently. I think the NPOV has wandered and a new section needs to be added for criticisms, lawsuits, controversies, etc. Since this church is very closed lipped, all we hear are the bad things and that's crept into the wordings in sections that they shouldn't be in. I am not a sympathetic person to this religion but they should be at least objectively portrayed, even though much negative information is out there, there should be a way to properly present this. Any help would be of course, helpful. :) Twunchy 22:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please also see Lost Boys of Polygamy - new article. Greenw47 20:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

statement without citation
... Joseph Smith, believed to be a prophet of God by members, had encouraged in the belief that they were restoring original Christianity.

I removed this portion last week because it states that he believed that they were restoring original Christianity is unfounded to my knowledge. I believe it should be removed unless a reference from Joseph Smith's writings is placed. I think a citation is necessary because the statement makes sound LDS members sound hypocritical without mentioning their belief in continuing revelation (like when in acts the need for circumcision and the rule that the gospel was only for the Jews were both changed).--72.130.179.41 15:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Lost Boys
I have been doing some research into this cult, and am wondering if there should be expanded information on the Lost Boys, the organizations set up to help them, problems they face, and other media sources?

Dr. Phil ran a run-up episode on the FLDS, and A Current Affair ran a story on Carl Ream -- a boy, who at 14, ran away from the community (Broadcast date of 05/09/05). There are several documentaries as well.

Also, should there be some sort of expanded information on Warren Jeffs and the obscene amount of children he has?


 * To tell the truth, I have been a bit concerned that this article (I wrote much of it) violates NPOV by not being positive and sympathetic as possible. Unfortunately (since that is our interest who are writing, and we have been to lazy to "write for the enemy") the article is quite slanted against the FLDS Church, which is of course against our policies at Wikipedia.  I will go see if I can get somebody more sympathetic to help us improve the article.  Tom Haws 23:04, May 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that it could also be argued that an article that's as "postive and sympathetic" as possible in itself violates the principles of NPOV. I think the best thing to do is to just say the truth, and not try to pretty it up any.  The truth will attend to itself, whether it works for or against the FDLS.
 * JesseG 21:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Good thoughts. It is important to follow the NPOV policy as it is explained at WP:NPOV.  That requires us to write with a sympathetic and positive tone.  And it requires us to avoid discerning "truth" and instead to present "knowledge".  My underlying concern is that it is not Wikipedia's business to run an expose on anybody or to debunk anything.  I am certain there are plenty of people who could provide warm and fuzzy "knowledge" about the FLDS church.  According to our NPOV policy, we need to find those people and get their perspective.  This article fails in that it presents nothing but bad news.  See Caltonh comments in the next section, where perhaps we coudl continue this dialogue.  I invited several FLDSers to contribute to this article, but they have apparently not showed up.  Tom Haws 21:26, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see new article: Lost Boys of Polygamy Greenw47 12:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A good way of NPOV-ing this article would be to include more of a history segment of this religion. It's really off-balanced, writing too much about warren jeffs, rather than an article on the FLDS church. For example, it's almost impossible to trace the succession of church leadership based on this article alone.. Fredsmith2 09:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A timeline of FLDS church leadership would definately be a good addition to the page, please feel free to add this information to the article. I will again state my disagreement with the Warren Jeffs information being off-balanced since he was a major factor in moulding the church into the form we see now. Twunchy 15:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The use of the name Mormon Fundamentalist
The Associated Press Stylebook states, "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death." It has been stated for for the press that "The term "Mormon" is a nickname commonly applied to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is no such thing as a "Mormon fundamentalist," nor are there “Mormon sects." A correct term to describe these polygamist groups is "polygamist sects." The inclusion of the word "Mormon" is misleading and inaccurate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natelewis (talk • contribs)
 * May be. “Polygamist sects” could describe several religious - mormon other christian or non-christian groups. But the FLDS is evidently a denomination with mormon origin, history, scripture-base and teachings. How could this problem be solved without using the “mormon”-terme? -- Dietrich Benninghaus 18:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia of Mormonism calls them Mormon Fundamentalists. I believe that the term originated with a journalist for Time magazine in the 1930s, and is widely used by scholars of history and theology. What else do you call a group that calls themselves Mormon, and has the Book in the Mormon as one of its sacred texts.  It should be noted that many members are not polygamous, and therefore just calling them polygamists ignores the uniquely Mormon aspects of their beliefs that even their monogamist adherants hold to.  Perhaps Latter-day Saint Fundamentalists would be more acurate, but I think the LDS church would like that even less. --Tobey 23:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This page and all LDS pages should be merged under the title Mormonism. All LDS pages are talking about Joseph Smith's teachings, the page is about his teachings anyway, so that goes to reason they read the book of Mormon therfore Mormons.You may want to seperate your modern church from its past however its past can't be changed. The current "big" branch is still preaching about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and they were part of the Latter Day Saint movement, Church and Mormonism.
 * This is not the main reason I suggest the change however. They should be merged because all the other religions I've read about on Wikipedia include the movements or beginings, middles and currents on their main (only) page. As in Buddist getting only a Buddism page, Hindus getting only a Hindism page and so on. If they are not merged then I feel that all of the other religions should have similar adjustment to the Mormons. As Mormonism has three (3) different listings as of today, Sept. 26 2006, Latter day Saint Movement,Latter day saints and Mormons. They should all be listed under Mormanism. Anarcism, Capitalism, Communism have many forms but only one (1) page each.


 * lol: I was wrong there are nine (9) pages on Momonism as of today (maybe more are hiding) Latter day Saint Movement,Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ,History of the Latter Day Saint movement,Jesus in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Missions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon, Mormonism, and there are lists with (small) pages of even more sects. I'd be willing to wager that all of the different branches not only follow the book of Mormon, but also all but one originated in Utah.


 * Joeseph Smith's MORMONISM and the book of Mormon is what all the above pages are all refering to.
 * And a quote from Latter Day Saint movement page shows the connection."The Latter Day Saint movement spawned many religious denominations, some of which include a set of doctrines, practices, and cultures collectively known as Mormonism, although some do not accept the designation Mormon."

I believe "Latter Day Saint Denomination" is acceptable (note it doesn't contain the hyphenated Latter-day that the Utah Church holds). Calling them a polygamist sect is ridiculous, because it barely describes their religion and they are in fact a religion, primarily. Imagine calling the Utah LDS a "door knocking sect" or a "food storage sect" It is insulting to say that. It is equally insulting to call the FLDS a "Polygamist Sect" and deny them their religious title.

There is a link to this article from the Exmormonism article, backed up in the discussion section of Exmormonism. It seems only logical that there should be a link back. greenw47

Is there a reference for the AP stylebook? I know this is a quote from lds.org, but I haven't seen the actual reference to the AP stylebook. Fredsmith2 09:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The AP (Associated Press) stylebook that says that word "Mormon" is not correctly attributed to any other organization besides The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Information is from this article: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645197523,00.html Twunchy 15:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I know the Mormons don't like it that polygamist sects also call themselves Mormons. What I'm wondering is where AP says that Mormon should only be applied to the Mormon Church. lds.org, and the church-owned deseretnews.com, that mildly reference a styleguide aren't reliable sources for the Associated Press. Fredsmith2 18:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Move Warren Jeffs information to Warren Jeffs page
Most of this article is about Warren Jeffs, not about the FLDS church. Most of this article should be moved to the Warren Jeffs page, and a small section should detail Jeffs' leadership of the church. Fredsmith2 18:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if you know much about this church you will understand that it was definately all about Mr. Warren Jeffs, while he was actively running the church. The majority of this article is about the church, but Mr. Jeffs and the FLDS church are inextricably combined. Twunchy 05:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The FLDS church "started" in 1890, and this article is sadly lacking in historical information other than about Warren Jeffs. I understand that having a convicted rapist as the head of a religious organization is sensational and thus it's easier to find Jeffs references than earlier church references, but I think that this article violates the NPOV by focusing so much on Jeffs, rather than on the organization, even if in the last few years, "Jeffs was the organization." Fredsmith2 18:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously are you reading past the intro? The vast majority of this article has nothing to do with Warren Jeffs. And there is a problem with what you propose by adding more information about this religion: from what would we quote? Unfortunately most of the "history" that is accessable is not published in a manner friendly to the FLDS church, and there are no reliable primary sources that I know of that give a doctrinal or historical viewpoint about the FLDS movement. The religion is "closed" to the outside world, so therefore there's scant information to go off of. There is a wikipedia policy of verifiablilty, most of the statements and facts here are from widely circulated press and insider accounts, which typically skew in the unfavorable direction for the FLDS church, but they are verifiable. There would need to be a reliable primary source of a more neutral slant which would be needed to quote from to do what you propose. If there is such a publication, please enlighten us about it and we can continue from there, but until then you have this conundrum to solve, From what do we quote? Twunchy 19:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fredsmith2 on this one. Most of the information in the intro, although not necessarily needing to be moved to another page, should at least be moved to a sub-section, since it is information about one aspect of the organization, not the organization as a whole. Rajakiit 22:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Warren Jeffs
Is Warren Jeffs still leading the church, even in jail, or is there a new leader or going to be a new leader? Does anyone know? Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 22:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been reported, notably in the Deseret News, that Warren Jeffs attempted to renounce his position as prophet. It is unknown if a replacement to Warren Jeffs has been made, but it is rumored that there are new leaders within the FLDS that are tending to church affairs wile Warren awaits trial.

Just as an FYI, I will be undoing some of your deletions because the information was factual, it's just not easy to cite the facts in question due to sparse information available. Most of the items in the article have been widely reported in the media, but tracking down the original citations is difficult. I am intimately aware of many allegations reported here for these articles due to my interactions with the Utah Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, and others but most of this info comes verbally to me and others in the media, and are not necessarily published in an easily citeable way...for example if the Atty General mentions something as fact on Fox News (or other broadcast media), how do I cite that? Unless a transcription has been made, which often there is not, how do I make the citation, even though it's a fact that has been stated there is no written record of it. I run a television studio and have had discussions on all fronts of the FLDS church and I have been trying my best to keep all information as factual and up to date as possible but I don't have much time to devote to the cause of tracking down proper citations, but I do think it is a disservice to outright delete information even if factual just because of a missing citation, I'd rather see you help locate these missing citations, because they are out there, I just can't get to them all. Twunchy 05:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * While the information may be factual, it is in accordance with Wikipedia policy to remove any uncited information which is contested. These claims were contested, as someone added a citation needed tag before I removed the OR. Criticism sections should especially be properly cited. Also, since when was information regarding FLDS information too sparse? Go to your local library, use the internet or a database and you will find a lot of information. If you really don't want something not removed, then you can cite it. That's the policy; please stop violating it by reinserting OR after it was previously removed. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 07:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bountiful, British Columbia
Right now, the Bountiful article is very heavy on Church information, and this article is very thin on information regarding the BC branch, so I have posted a request for guidance on condensing the BC article and expanding the main FLDS article. Any input/help is welcome. Anchoress 10:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent duplicative edits
A recent editor has been adding historical information that is already in the article. There is no need to duplicate this information. Edit the historical information that is there, but don't create a whole new section that is repetitive. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have every right to ADD more information to this article to make it more complete and comprehensive. This article after all is about the FLDS it would be a shame for me to put any of that information in huh? Twunchy 04:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course you do—but you need to add it to what is already there. When a history section already exists, add to it. You don't need to write a new section from scratch. That's not the way WP editing works, generally, unless there are severe problems with what already exists. You build on what is already there. No need to re-invent the wheel. The vast majority of the information you added was already covered in the section entitled "history". Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable to alter the format of a page, heck I'm the one who made it as it was. Twunchy 04:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Typically articles about churches don't have two history sections covering the same information. I don't think that is "perfectly acceptable". And regardless of your edit history, you don't own the page and can't simply make it how you like it by avoiding all considerations of formatting and style. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither do you own the page either sir. Don't come in and stake claim to an article and then point the finger at me and say i'm claiming it...yes I claimed it when no one had touched it and it was very POV and out of touch, I came in and claimed it because no one else did. If you want to help, please help, don't just hit the delete button. If you want to piss someone off on wikipedia it's by deleting their hard work without regard. Twunchy 04:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ?? You're very touchy, my friend. I never claimed ownership; I am trying to get you to see why your edit may have been inappropriately performed. But whatever. Have it your way, Burger King. The article looks kind of sh***y now, what with everything having been said twice, but whatever. If you want to stake ownership, that's an issue that will be taken up with administrators. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

LDS.org citation
The lds.org being added should probably not be referenced due to its inherent POV nature—it claims the term "Mormon" may be used exclusively by the LDS Church. We can't cite this kind of claim unless it is a cite of the claim itself as opposed to showing the difference between LDS Church and FLDS Church. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The reference was provided as per the request of fredsmith2. The citation proivided the context requested establishing the fact that there is no connection TODAY between the two religions.  If you cannot agree with that then you shouldn' be editing this page because they are not in cahoots, related, or even working together.  The citation was only to prove the request to stand behind the statement I will now quote from that citation the relevant part "There is no reason why the Church would wish to comment about a legal action concerning a group with which it has no affiliation or connection."  That's the only reason the citation was there, I can't pick and choose their webpages content I gotta take it as it is. Twunchy 04:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But there ARE connections today, that's the point (see below). It's just that the connections aren't official or based on interaction between church authorities. The LDS Chruch has no monopoly or trademark on the word "Mormon", which was essentially what the citation was claiming. We can find a more NPOV cite that simply says the churches are not officially connected. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

NO there's NOT!! There exists historical connections, none today. If you know of some please cite them. Twunchy 04:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are some for you:


 * A large percentage of the doctrine and teachings are the same or very similar.
 * Belief in Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as a prophet of God.
 * Belief in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price and much of the Doctrine and Covenants
 * Some members in FLDS Church used to be LDS Church members, and vice versa
 * Similar church heirarchy


 * There are others. As I said, these are NOT official connections. They are unofficial. But they are connections. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

THe same can be said of Christian and Jew. There IS a difference and that is why I changed the statement. Twunchy 04:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're making a WP:WAX-style argument that is very unconvincing. I have shown there are connections. And anyhow, to say there is "no connection" between Jadaism and Christianity would also be incorect. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Page used as reference
Top of this page reads: "This page has been cited as a source by a media organization"

Let's get frank: lots of people are too lazy to do research. So, they look to wikipedia, for all of its faults, the handiest free encyclopedia. The use of wikipedia as a reference is larger than acknowledged in Talk:Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is apparent in reading between the lines of many news stories, that many of key points in some news articles rely on points presented in wikipedia articles. Dogru144 15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And your point is ... ? Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Paramilitary groups
I removed the following sentence:


 * There has been allegations that the FLDS has a paramilitary group with it's intent to kill African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, Latin Americans, and even immigrants.

It is poorly worded, unsourced, and POV. Mycota 21:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, there's no military group whatsoever in the FLDS Church. I grew up there and participated in the closest thing they have to the group "The Sons of Helaman" a group of young boys between the ages of 9-16 who march. That's all they do. I was an active participant in the "The Sons of Helaman" both as a young recruit who marched and again in my late teens as a Sargent who organized and disciplined a platoon of boys to make sure they were ready to put on an impressive marching display.

The leaders of the FLDS Church always told us to NOT have ANY guns. The philosophy was that if we had guns the Lord would put events into motion that would force us to use them and being a very docile and nonmilitant group in general we perceived that to be a bad thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xartican (talk • contribs) 05:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Red Links
I found several red links in this article. If their subjects are notable, articles about them should be created, but if not, the red links should be removed. -- Shruti14 t c s 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The red links are an invitation to those who may have additional information about these people, who are indeed notable within the context of thie faith, remember that "Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished" as per your link to the red links page, they are not to be avoided, but are there to encourage those that may know more info to contribute. Twunchy (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What causes this article to side scroll
I seem to be seeing this more and more often on certain articles, but I can never find a reason as to why they do this, as I never see anything on the right side past the normal width of my screen. I'm not sure whether or not its my computer but I don't think so, and if it is I don't understand why it is only happening on certain pages. --Jamespoky (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs
The article touches on a number of things, some of which are strongly different from the normal Mormon practice of faith. Shouldn't it also touch on the beliefs of faith that separate it from the more common Mormon faith? I don't find well document statements to add to the article, but am just asking. 75.62.238.163 (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

where do members come from?
How many members are regular LDS who drift over, as compared with native-born FLDS?128.100.110.82 (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In all reality, the only growth of this sect comes from within...outsiders are strictly that. There are no proselyting efforts to increase the worshiping population, there is just an unfortunate past of large families with close marriages, borderline incest, and the consequences therein because of the closed nature of the religion.  There's no drifting from LDS to FLDS, it's just a "homegrown" product. Twunchy (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm. I personally know of at least 3 people who are friends who used to be in the LDS Church and became members of the FLDS in Utah and Alberta. These are just people I happen to know, and it's anecdotal evidence, but it suggests that there are some outside "converts", if you will. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Birth Defects
The section on Birth Defects (fumarase deficiency) is supported only by a newspaper opinion story. There does not appear to be any actual study cited. Proxy User (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are multiple sources that can be cited that support this claim about the Fumarase deficiency & FLDS connection, including:
 * (reprint)
 * The articles on this list are not "opinion" pieces (or what the newspapers call an editorial), but instead are news reports. Dr. Theodore Tarby did also publish his findings in a medical journal, but I haven't found that reference yet. -- 63.224.135.113 (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (reprint)
 * The articles on this list are not "opinion" pieces (or what the newspapers call an editorial), but instead are news reports. Dr. Theodore Tarby did also publish his findings in a medical journal, but I haven't found that reference yet. -- 63.224.135.113 (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles on this list are not "opinion" pieces (or what the newspapers call an editorial), but instead are news reports. Dr. Theodore Tarby did also publish his findings in a medical journal, but I haven't found that reference yet. -- 63.224.135.113 (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles on this list are not "opinion" pieces (or what the newspapers call an editorial), but instead are news reports. Dr. Theodore Tarby did also publish his findings in a medical journal, but I haven't found that reference yet. -- 63.224.135.113 (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is sort of weird
I'm sure I'm not the first person to notice this about this picture which is I believe the third or fourth picture from the top in this article, but have you guys noticed that band of light that comes directly out of the upper left hand part of the picture and hits the temple? It may be a trick of the camera lens, but it is still sort of humorous. It's sort of like, "I can see the light!" (By the way, I don't mean that as an insult. Take it as a joke.) Raecoli (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article include the Christianity template ?
Shouldn't this article include the Christianity template to be consistant with other pages about Christian groups ? Furthermore the Latter Day Saint movement page can be reached via the Christianity template so the absence of the Christianity template on this page seems inconsistant.....as are other Christian group pages it has to be said  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mann Act
Critics claim that some members of the church are violating laws (because polygamy is illegal in the United States) when they participate in polygamy.[47]

Polygamy is illegal under Texas State law, but does anyone know if this is supported by the federal court in any way? All I could find was the Mann Act, which was (among other things) racist. Should the Mann Act be referenced in this article? 63.211.201.174 (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Xuthos


 * See: Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act; Poland Act; Reynolds v. United States; Edmunds Act; Edmunds–Tucker Act; Mormon Church v. United States; Clawson v. United States, and a number of other cases listed at Category talk:Law related to Mormonism which still need articles written for them. -- 63.224.135.113 (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy Diaries
I discovered the most interesting web page about the polygamy and the lives of the FDLS. The entire web page is all about the recent events in the news (the largest child abuse case, and taking DNA from the children etc....). But there is one particular article and video that I want you to read and especially watch is "Colorado City and the Underground Railroad". To access this video you must sign-up as member to this website, but it is FREE, FREE, FREE. It will only take you a few minutes of your time. It will be worth it, so that you can watch this short documentary. Also their are other articles and video's about these FDLS people that is very informative.

The webpage:

http://www.azfamily.com/sharedcontent/southwest/azfamily/features/polygamy/index3.html

Let me know what you think. Morroccolyfe (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Rozita Swinton
As of April 18, the caller who initiated the polygamy raid has now been exposed as a hoax. The call was actually made by 33 year old Rozita Swinton of Colorado Springs, CO. She has been taken into custody by Texas Rangers and I believe she is being extradited to Texas. The Texas Rangers and the FBI are still investigating what exactly her connection to the FLDS is and why she made the call. See the full article here: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4678143&page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.117.245.238 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 April 2008
 * Yes, see the full article, which will presumably tell you that
 * she was arrested by Colorado police (with TX authorities present), and released
 * her crime was in CO, not TX, so TX authorities --  or FLDS lawyers -- may be able to subpoena her to testify, but not extradite, since extradition is for people accused of breaking laws of the extradition destination
 * There's a good chance the call was fraudulent, but you, i, and the others who think so are basing that on very thin revelations by authorities, and lots of guess work.
 * --Jerzy•t 04:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What the authorities found
Here's what i'm about to refactor, for clarity: "Authorities entering the temple found safes, vaults, locked desk drawers, and beds.[39]"

I really don't get this sentence it doesn't fit in with the rest of the paragraph and I'm not sure why it's important to note.Lot49a (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC) My refactoring:
 * The article says
 * Authorities entering the temple found safes, vaults, locked desk drawers, and beds.[39]
 * I really don't get this sentence it doesn't fit in with the rest of the paragraph and I'm not sure why it's important to note.

Most of the sentence (all but subject?) is from the affidavit taken to court immediately following one stage of the search, and it prefaces some findings, like a presumably female hair in a bed in the temple. If it's useful in the article, it probably would be as a paraphrase & extension:
 * ... entered the temple, and searched safes, vaults, locked desk drawers, and beds that they found there.

--Jerzy•t 10:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed item
I've removed this apparently real, but irrelevant and groundless opinion, by one person, who is willing to make an accusation for which she could have no evidence. The context she was quoted by the accompanying article in was "The alleged 16-year-old girl has still not been located, and FLDS members [sic] claim..."
 * "It is a bogus person. It is a person they made up. That person does not exist on this land."

--Jerzy•t 14:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Connection to LDS Church
I have changed the broad statement that today there are "no connections" between the FLDS Church and the LDS Church to the more correct statement that there are "no official connections" between the churches. There are some connections—historical connections; connections in the public mind; some of the members of one may have previously been members of the other, etc. But it is true that there is no "official connection" and that they are separate denominations, and that is what the article should state. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I edited this is because the "offical connection" grammar is very weasely (see WP: Weasel words) as in "Lance Armstrong is officially retired from cycling". This statement doesn't say he quit riding his bicycle altogether, but instead implies that he no longer competes, the statement they are not "officially connected" implies an unofficial one in this sense as in "wink wink, sure they don't." The statement I made was that RIGHT NOW, TODAY, THIS TIME PERIOD, there is absolutely no connection between religions any more than the Catholics are to the Lutherans. Twunchy 04:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That kind of super-explanation can easily be included in a footnote. Saying there is no connection at all is blind to history and many of the doctrinal connections. Quite simply, there ARE connections that go beyond what is officially true, so it's not at all weasily. Also, calling the LDS Church the "Mormon Church" is a weasily way of implying that Mormon fundamentalists have no right to claim to be Mormons, which is POV. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I never made such a statement sir. Twunchy 04:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The edit you made did say there was no connection and it seemed to go out of its way to refer to the LDS Church as the "Mormon Church". It's just unnecessary and causes too many problems. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW connections in the public minds between LDS and FLDS are not facts, the are also known as MISCONCEPTIONS and after all an encyclopedia is supposed to DISSPELL misinformation, no? Twunchy 04:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That was just one of many examples. See my list in the above section. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic & Lutheran churches split thousands of years ago, yet one can enter the church of the other & not only recognize but agree with 90% of the service. Yet we're supposed to believe that the FLDS has veered from the LDS so much in only 100 years that they cannot recognize each other as related, in any possible way? In contrast, the Seventh-Day Adventists seemed to accept that the Branch Davidians in Waco were a breakaway group, however embarrassing, because historical fact made it undeniable. While I'm certain the LDS wants us to believe there are no doctrinal connections, I don't believe an unbiased observer can agree with that. BogWhomper (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Split out "April 2008 raid" section to sep article
The accompanying article is already way too long (about 38 kB, in fact), and coverage of the raid and the upcoming suits and custody determinations is bound to grow to much more. The section Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints should be reduced to about a paragraph and a lk (and perhaps renamed to something a little more open ended); the lk should go to the current YFZ Ranch, (which will need renaming), and the current content of "April 2008 raid" merged with the corresponding half of the article currently titled "YFZ Ranch", which currently duplicates much of the content of the section proposed for split-out (but, BTW, at a glance, with more PoV). --Jerzy•t 05:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I support merging the 2008 raid section with the YFZ Ranch article. it would be a lot more manageable and less redundant. Greenw47 (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine by me...just keep a pertinent portion here with link to YFZ ranch...amazing that this article is just now getting attention, all these problems being vetted in the press have existed for years...I'm glad I updated it a few years back to get it up to date. Thanks for the help. Twunchy (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both comments. It's been 6.5 days (long enuf to delete an article on AfD!), and IMO the activity level (including merge decision on Swinton) makes action timely, so i'm proceeding. --Jerzy•t 18:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Unattested photograph(s)
The photo of the temple is not public domain. On the photo page it says: Permission: (Reusing this image) PD; On http://web.sccn2.net/flds/More-Pics.htm is clear disclaimer that all images are considered public domain. This is part is true, the statement is on the website.

Author: Randy Mankin of the Eldorado Success is not true, the website is anonymous.

Public domain is based on Copyright holder releases all rights; verified 2007-10-12; full text of release is reproduced above Unfortunately, nobody can say who the copyright holder is. Randy Mankin doesn't admit to ownership.

The entire website Eldorado FLDS has no ownership listed, and a request for photos' owner has gone unanswered. From appearances, the site is an anti-FLDS effort with many links to opposition sites, none to supporting sites. The aerial photographs are expensive, and has been updated with new aerial photos about one a month for years.

It is in poor taste, if not illegal, to use photos that are anonymous attempts to spy on or harass the subjects.

How can this photo be removed until either it's true owner gives permission or another picture is obtained? 66.82.9.53 (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Photo is being used with permissions from the creator of the website (who is the one who assumably took the pictures)...there is no case for removal, photos are not violating any policy of Wikipedia, they is no POV implied from the pictures, the website may be POV, but an aerial photograph violates no laws, or policies. There is no one else claiming copyright to any of these photos they have been used throughout the press etc.  The arguement is moot.  As to the author, I don't know.  The photo I originally posted (which has been replaced) had no such tag for authorship.  Twunchy (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

LDS Church's renunciation of polygamy
Is 'renunciation' the correct word? wouldn't 'suspended' be better, or 'put a moratorium on'? since it is still on the books. Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Besides, the LDS Church's Wikipedia page uses the term "suspend", not "renunciate".  Mgy401 1912 (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)