Talk:Temple (LDS Church)

Temple (Latter Day Saints)
What is the difference between this page and Temple (Latter Day Saints)? I can't find an obvious one in the lead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The key difference is that this article refers to temples in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), which is a specific organization. The other article refers to temples in a broader scope pertaining to all organizations in the Latter Day Saint movement, many of which have no formal relationship with the larger LDS Church other than shared heritage. –  j ak s mata  21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Architecture
Last year and during a travel to Germany I visited Friedrichsdorf and saw the Frankfurt temple. In fact, I was astounded by its architecture and spent an afternoon nearby. Later I tried (via the internet) to track down its history, its specifics in architecture and find who the architect was. The only thing I managed to find was that there are 6 temples all over the world based on the same scheme (the six spire sloped roof style), with the Boise Idaho Temple being the “origin” (as I understood it). So, I wonder if further architectural info on these temples could be found :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaalis (talk • contribs) 21:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Temple architecture (LDS Church) might be of interest. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Not sure why there are two large articles on the topic that diverge so greatly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Temple (LDS Church) refers to temples owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), whereas Temple (Latter Day Saints) refers to temples owned by any one of the several churches that compose the Latter Day Saint movement, of which the LDS Church is a part. The first article only deals with temples as used by the LDS Church, the second article differentiates the varying usage by all the churches within the movement. I don't think it would be appropriate to merge the two.
 * I can understand how someone unfamiliar with the Latter Day Saint movement can be confused, as the terms used to describe the churches and their doctrines have only subtle variation, but that variation is essential to understanding the differences between the different church groups, hence: "LDS" refers to one specific church, "Latter Day Saints" refers to a group of unaffiliated churches with a shared history. –  j ak s mata  18:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge - merging the two together risks undue weight concerns on the Temple (Latter Day Saint) article, and creates linking problems. Additionally, linking articles that refer to temples specific to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CJC) to the Latter Day Saint movement article creates confusion since many denominations within the movement do not include temple ordinances as part of their worship. Perhaps we could add something in the intro that places the CJC temples within the context of the movement and includes a link back to the Latter Day Saint movement article. -- Trödel 06:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Use with appropriate values, that should solve the problem. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No people in temple photos - doctrinal reasons?
I noticed that there are never any people (or animals for that matter) visible in official church released photographs of LDS temples. Are there any doctrinal reasons for that? If so it should be added here. -- 77.7.132.25 (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That question was already asked & answered at Talk:Temple (Latter Day Saints) -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Color code
I'm not sure that I've ever seen a map before that didn't include some type of key or legend to explain the use of different colors. Can someone in the know address this? (I'm talking about the different color dots on the world map.) 98.82.6.181 (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The map of the world
The map is out of date. There are many temples that have been announced since it was put up, the Lisbon Portugal, the Paris France, and the Indana Indianapolis temples to name a few. Can someone help me figure out how to update the picture/update it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shbsuri (talk • contribs) 05:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

New Book
3 books were added all published by the same publisher - this looks like a publisher promoting their books so I've commented them out. If anyone knows of the prominence/relevance of these books please comment here. -- Trödel 00:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Map and Aba Nigeria Temple
The Aba Nigeria Temples is currently functioning. A perusal of this website http://lds.org/church/temples/aba-nigeria?lang=eng#tab=address will show that there is a planned closure on Dec. 24th, indicating that the temple is operating. It may not have regularly scheduled emdowment times, but it is in operation and so should be shown with the dot that reflects operating temples.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The placement of the Aba Nigeria Temple in this list was never justified since no one has removed temples that were closed for multiple years for rebuilding from the operating list. If standards were applied evenly the Ogden Temple would not be listed as currently operational.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Hi, I suggest that this article can be merged with Temple (Latter Day Saints). Both articles talk about the same topic. Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra Talk 06:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There are significant enough differences between the pre-1844 succession crisis temples, the temples built by the LDS Church, and the temples build by other Latter Day Saint Movement denominations that it is perfectly reasonable to separate out the LDS Church temples. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose While most of the non-mainstream LDS denomination's temples are, relatively-speaking, footnotes to their denomination's activities, they are distinctive and different enough from the world-wide LDS church and its temples that the two articles ought to be maintained separately. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose LDS Temples are significantly different than latter day saint church in other churches in the latter day saint movement vary in how they are use temples with some using the term to mean a large chapel for special meetings. The LDS Church uses temples in a very uniform way - although they have different design, architecture, and history to the design. This justifies a separate article. -- Trödel 11:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

temple recommend questions
As a member I can say the temple recommend questions are inaccurate (or at least incomplete). The only citation is for a dubious anti-LDS site. There is no public authoritative list of the questions, so verification is problematic. DavesPlanet (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Separate from your issue with the questions, you used the wrong template: you don't use inline templates this way. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I hate to disagree, but I've had dozens of temple recommend interviews myself, and from that I know that this list is accurate. Where it came from is a separate issue. If it came from a dubious site, then surely we can find another site to cite this information from. It might help if you tell us what you find to be supposedly "inaccurate" rather than making the sweeping generalization that it is inaccurate/incomplete. If you specify, we can deal with your objections. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jgstokes, the list seems accurate per cited sources, which includes the official LDS Church Handbook. I'm not sure what the issue is.14:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One other question regarding the same topic, for general information:

The questions address the following: [...] Regarding oneself worthy to enter the temple and take part in the ordinances within. Do Mormons expect a sincere No, or a sincere Yes, as an answer to make the petitioner eligible?--131.159.78.253 (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Any temple-worthy individual who gives the correct response to each question will be able to answer with a sincere "yes." If a sincere "no" is given, then bishopric members and stake presidencies would likely go over the questions again to ascertain why that answer was given to the question. Some members may be humble enough to answer no even if they had been found worthy by their answers to the other questions, but generally, a sincere "yes" is the preferred answer. This is based solely on my own experience rather than any chapter-and-verse Church doctrine. I imagine the handbook for stake presidencies and bishoprics spells out what to do if a negative answer is given. That's the answer I have, FWIW. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One thing I can add here according to my own experience is that these interviews are not always highly formalized and "Yeah" or even a nod can be sufficient. This is dependent on the personality of the interviewer and interviewee. The most important signature on the recommend is the one of the individual. Cubicinf (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The questions have since been revised and they can be found here: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/multimedia/file/first-presidency-temple-recommend-letter.pdf Cubicinf (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-free text
I have removed the quotes from the LDS Bible dictionary as being excessive usage of non-free text not in line with our policies which require limited quotations. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverting page move
Since I don't know how to get the undiscussed, inappropriate page move reverted, I am hoping somebody else will do it. ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure)  NW1223 &lt; Howl at me &bull; My hunts &gt; 15:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

– There are at least 265 LDS temples listed at List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They all use the same naming convention of Temple. They all fail WP:PRECISION. The titles need something to distinguish what kind of temple they are. See for example the disambiguation page Chicago temple and the various types of temples in that city. Each one has an unambiguous title, but the Chicago Illinois Temple seems to only lack disambiguation because someone chose to include the state in the title. The acceptable options I see are Chicago Illinois Mormon Temple, Chicago Mormon Temple, Chicago Illinois LDS Temple, or Chicago LDS Temple. If there is an agreement on format, this needs to be applied across hundreds of articles. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  23:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Chicago Illinois Temple → Chicago Mormon Temple
 * Logan Utah Temple → Logan Mormon Temple
 * Not done. Wikipedia is not in the habit of renaming temples. The names noted are the official ones listed by the Church, and have been confirmed in Church-related sources and sources outside of the Church. Wikipedia does not arbitrarily change an official name of any facility to suit individual preference. Doing so would be a clear violation of this policy, and it would further be in violation of what is confirmed about the names in reliable sources. Above and beyond that, the current names are consistent with the manual of style that applies in this case, and the LDS Church is trying to shy away from the usage of Mormon. Therefore, giving a temple an arbitrary new name when the current names are protected by copyright and by trademark would be disingenuous, would violate policy, and is altogether a bad idea. Not going to happen, so please don't hold your breath. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're way off here. The policy you quoted says, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". It also says that precision is one of the five primary goals of an article title: "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects."
 * The sources that inform common usage should be independent reliable sources. The "official" title of the temple used by the church should be considered, but changing the article title for precision is not "renaming" the temple. Independent sources for the most part use the phrase "mormon temple" or "LDS temple" for the same reason that Wikipedia needs a precise title. See Mormon Temple, Mormon Temple, Chorley Mormon Temple, Mormon Temple, Mormon Temple and LDS Temple, Oakland’s Mormon temple... I could go on. If you prefer LDS over Mormon, they are both acceptable, but Mormon is more common among sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  00:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is not a wikipedia given name, it's the actual name of the temple. See here and here. Mannysoloway (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As the other editors have indicated, the name of the temple already there. If there does happen to be another building or location with the same exact name, it could be disambiguated a better way, such as Chicago Illinois Temple (LDS Church), per MOS:LDS and WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Rollidan (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Rollidan has it exactly right. If there is another temple with the exact same name, the proper solution would be to add the disambiguation in parentheses at the end, such as Chicago Illinois Temple (LDS Church). If there is not another temple with the same name, and the issue is simply that when it appears in the text of an article (e.g., "the Chicago Illinois Temple is actually in Glenview") that it doesn't state what religious denomination the temple is for, then there are two possible solutions: (1) edit the text of the article (e.g., "the Chicago Illinois Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is actually in Glenview"), and (2) the curious reader can simply click the link and go to the article page for the temple. Jdaloner (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * support this needs WP:DISAMBIGUATION—blindlynx 16:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The five goals for naming articles are goals, not rules, and occasionally choices have to be made that favor some goals over others. In my opinion this is one of those cases. I don't like the idea of using "Mormon" as that doesn't seem to be inline with MOS:LDS and "Mormon" can refer to a number of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement and so does not precisely identify the religious affiliation. If we instead use a common name for the temples where the common name differs from the official name or where disambiguation is needed, we either apply the pattern to all temples to satisfy consistency but that means using non-common, wikipedia-invented names for all the other temples, or we use the common names where it can be verified and where needed but choose to not be consistent in naming with the other temple articles. I would also point out that the general common usage of "Mormon temple" or "LDS temple" to refer generally to temples is insufficient to establish it as a common name for specific temples. If consensus does arrive at the need for disambiguation, the "(LDS Church)" suffix mentioned by Rollidan is preferable, is consistent with the existing MOS, and disrupts the consistency across articles the least. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The "(LDS Church)" suffic seems perfectly fine to me. My point was not to use the phrase "Mormon", but to add specificity to the title. I'm fully aware of the issues around using "Mormon", but since that seems to be by far the most common usage by independent sources, I proposed it first. I also agree that whatever is used should be consistent across all the temples found at List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  00:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose - with reference to the two cited articles, Chicago Illinois Temple and Logan Utah Temple are the names according to their own official websites. As per other editors' comments, move shall be considered only if there are other temples having the same exact name (this doesn't seem the case). P1221 (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the move as proposed. No comment on whether Chicago Illinois Temple needs parenthetical disambiguation. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 19:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)