Talk:Polygamous Mormon fundamentalist

Niece vs aunt
Read the linked article to see why I changed it from "niece" to "aunt."

Rename article to Polygamist branches of Mormonism
Should this article be limited to polygamous clans of Utah? Short Creek is on the Utah-Arizona border. There are groups in Canada and Mexico. Missouri is mentioned in the article, as well as other parts of the US, at least in passing. Thus, the title of this article should be changed. Nereocystis 04:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about "Polygamous Mormon fundamentalist sects"? It's getting close to the right title. Nereocystis 16:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree it should have a name change. I prefer "Polygamous branches ..." or "Polygamous Mormon Fundamentalist groups" - I think the word sect infers that they are break-offs of the LDS Church (whereas they see it as the other way around). --Tobey 17:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point. How about group? Or "Polygamous Mormon fundamentalism", "Mormon fundamentalist polygamy", or "Mormon fundamentalist polygamists"? The last 3 may be better. They allows Tom Green and Brian David Mitchell to be included, even though they aren't really a branch or group. I prefer to avoid branch, because it has a specific LDS meaning, and I don't want to suggest that there are LDS polygamist branches which meet next to the LDS singles branches. Nereocystis 17:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think "Polygamous Mormon fundamentalism" or "Fundamentalists" might work best out of the suggestions, although I still like "Polygamous Mormon Fundamentalist groups" - that would include Tom Green, but might not include Brian Mitchell - Mormon Fundamentalists deny that he was a Fundamentalist although he was a polygamist. --Tobey 18:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Your comment makes me realize that including all 3 words suggests that there are non-fundamentalist Mormon polygamists, as well non-polygamous Mormon fundamentalists. Your options sound fine. My question, is the article about the people or the practice. Really, it's about both, but which is more important. That determines whether it is "fundamentalists" or "fundamentalism". Nereocystis 18:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Tricky question. I guess that the topic Polygamous Mormon Fundamentalism would be covered under the Plural Marriage topic (although it would not be unwise to comment on the practice in this topic too - as it relates to the groups), whereas "Polygamous Mormon Fundamentalists" or "Polygamous Mormon Fundamentalist groups" would cover what this page is already doing. There is still a great deal of work to cover other groups - I have a list of about 25, but some of my details are sketchy. --Tobey 04:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

OK. My vote is now for Polygamous Mormon Fundamentalists, I have just skimmed the D. Michael Quinn article I added as a reference. The independents are worth additional mention. Plural marriage could be combined with this article, but for now, I would prefer to leave the articles separate. Maybe there is an article about Mormon fundamentalism out there somewhere, but not yet. Nereocystis 03:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Go for it,you've got my vote. BTW, there is a Mormon fundamentalism topic, but not very developed. --Tobey 05:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Other groups to cover
A few other groups -


 * The Church of Jesus Christ in Solemn Assembly
 * The Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times
 * Patriarchal Church of Christ (Peterson)

Independents fall into several groups too (these are rough titles) -


 * Woolley-Musser Apostasy believers
 * Indian Prophet believers
 * Modern LDS Independents

Merge? And poly-?
Shouldn't this article really be merged with Mormon fundamentalism, at least until such time as there's enough material as to suggest a pressing need for separate articles? The naming conventions seem to indicate that -ism titles are more standard than -ist ones, and it seems that the polywhatsit groups are the large part of the fundamentalist groups, so it's going to be very difficult to write the 'parent' article separately from this one. On another matter, can someone clarify the role of polyandry within either the movement historically, or within the modern groups? Alai 02:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Mormon Fundamentalism
I think they should be merged, or the Mormonm fundamentalism one just deleted. Whatever happens, the part about Fundamentalists believeing in blood atonement really should be taken out.