Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the United Kingdom

Not in the UK...
"Table shows LDS Membership statistics as of January 1, 2011 for various regions of the UK" - Well, this is pretty inaccurate... The Falkland Islands, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are not in the UK.--MacRùsgail (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They are Crown dependencies as well as British Overseas Territories of the United Kingdom.Dmm1169 (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Erm, no, they still aren't technically part of the UK. That's why they have no Westminster MPs, and most of them are tax havens. Tell Manx people that they're in the UK, and many of them will be upset with you, since they have their own political system.


 * I only used what Wikipedia used as Crown dependencies as well as British Overseas Territories of the United Kingdom, but included them as a simple reference. Because of their differences, I didn't create a total since some are independent countries.Dmm1169 (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This article is completely Anglocentric anyway.--MacRùsgail (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

2011 Census
32,944,493 people identified themselves specifically as "Christian" in the 2011 Census and not a specific denomination. Less than 350,000 identified themselves specifically as a Christian denomination such as LDS (Mormon), Catholic, Baptist, etc. Consequently, this does not give an accurate account of those affiliating themselves as LDS or Mormon.Dmm1169 (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition, more than 4 million others did not identify a religion on the 2011 censusDmm1169 (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Baseball baptisms
This is not only something written about by Quinn; the only other source I can think of off the top of my head is David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism but there are other published works about it as well. I'll have to see if I can get a bibliography going on the topic. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Broken RP link
Seems my message isn't getting through on the edits so I'll add it here. There is a broken template link in Emigration section and my attempts to revert are being overridden. Are we happy with this broken :20 showing or would someone agree that this needs to be repaired? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonJae (talk • contribs) 07:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The template:rp doesn't cause a broken link; instead you not understanding it's usage. The sentence in question is this: "Following the death of Joseph Smith and the subsequent migration west of the Latter-day Saints from Nauvoo to Salt Lake City, migration from the British Isles to the United States increased greatly." There then shows a ref, currently numbered 18, and then shows the reference page (or rp as the template is named), which tells us what page in that reference one would look for the wording that specifically supports that part of the article. That's why there is a colon, indicating that is is not a stand alone item, but has a direct relationship to the citation directly before it. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints membership statistics (United Kingdom)
Why do we need a separate article for a statistical table? Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 18:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge
In above talk section, it has been proposed to merge and making this a disambiguation page. I support a merge into the other pages. This will reduce redundancies for reporting the content on this page, making it easier to keep updated. The LDS Church releases stats for the UK and hasn't released it for the individual countries for a number of years now. But overall, I think the content is best placed withing the individual countries. Thoughts? Thanks. Dmm1169 (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, as some of the material would be awkward to split, and readers wouldn't be served by having the table contents dispersed; I think that it's more helpful to have it in one place. Also, this is not really a merge proposal, but rather a proposal to re-arrange the content within existing pages, with a change of purposes of this page. I recommend maintaining the status quo. Klbrain (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)