Talk:Thomas S. Monson/Archive 1

POV
As wonderful as this man sounds, many parts of this article seem very non-neutral. For more information on the neutral point of view policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw only a couple slightly bias words used (i.e. Despite). If your neutrality concerns are from the actual content as opposed to word choice, you should know that this is one unique man. 71.213.78.188 07:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 3 of the sections that most struck me as non-NPOV are as follows:
 * "...He accomplished all this before the age of 32."
 * "Early on, Monson was recognized for his leadership and organizational skills and his concern for the downtrodden and humble. He visited those 86 widows regularly and even after leaving the position, he continued to visit them each Christmas for the rest of their lives bringing them gifts (often poultry he raised himself) and chatting with them. He spoke at nearly every one of their funerals. There were also many poor people living within the boundaries of this ward, and Monson took special care to help them as he could. Even today, he continues to visit former members of this ward and regularly visits nursing homes in Salt Lake City to attend to the elderly, especially those who have no one else to visit them."
 * "...is known for his photographic memory and his ability to quote scriptures extensively without assistance" (but see "Stephen Hadley, returned Canadian Missionary" (scroll down) RWIR (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to the 3 passages above, the entire article just seems overly biased. Articles here shouldn't be biased, no matter how great the subject in question truly is. I thus believe there are 3 things that could be done to improve this article:
 * Re-word the most blatent non-NPOV areas
 * Add citations for the praises (see WP:CITE)
 * Introduce criticism. No man is perfect - someone must disagree with some of policies in the church or his handling of matters x y and z. A good article may present the many positives of a subject, but also must inevitably balance it with opposing viewpoints. All material should present the facts dispassionately, allowing the intelligent reader to determine the worth of the subject for him/herself.
 * --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am removing the POV warning on President Monson because his article is no more biased than that of any other General Authority's. Especially since the areas you claim are POV violations are true. If you have any concerns, please contact me on my talk page.

User:Pahoran513


 * A non-NPOV article can't be justified by pointing to other non-NPOV articles. According to policy, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". If other articles do contain non-NPOV material, it will eventually be noticed and challenged.
 * If everything in the article is truth, then by all means leave it - but it does need to be cited. Quoting from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed" [emphasis added]. I won't start a "tag war" by putting the tag back on, but the material must be changed or cited, or the tag will be reapplied. --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to say this, VERY simply. You are wrong. As far as citation, I couldn't agree more. Everything should be cited everywhere. But as far as saying the quote "...He accomplished all this before the age of 32." is bias or has a hint of bias, that simply isn't true. The only possible word would be "all" as if the person was trying to glorify him. That isn't for sure though. It can also mean "He accomplished all of the named things by this certain age." Not neccicarily bias now is it? It is pretty simple. Also Nothing bad about this person needs to be said. We are not talking about a contravercial topic, or person. This article is about a person who has not lead a life as such. His religion is concidered by many as contravercial(Sorry for my spelling mistakes) but that is the religion not this man. No man is perfect right? Can you prove it? There is a good point. The basic reason you are wrong -and quite honestly you seem to be the person with the bias, (if I sound the same way it is only lack of time to type, I could make this formal but wont-) simply is 1 being that there is no need to show his imperfections unless they are relavent and signifigant enough to be placed here and there is no bias in stating that he accomplished a lot. And actually if you look at his collegues they are all VERY accomplished men. No bias pun intended. They all have quite a record of education and skill in their professions and in their personal life. If you feel so strongly about it write him a letter. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; not a debating battlefield. I hope I haven't offended you but this was the easiest wording for the time I have. Thank you. TheMusicalGenius 07:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with TheMusicalGenius. Those excerpts from the article aren't non-NPOV and the article maintains overall NPOV.  Of course, no man is perfect, but since he is a General Authority of the LDS Church, no one really disagrees.  His word isn't law, but all policies in the church are prayed about and believed to be received from God.  For this reason, no one disagrees.  Everything in the article is true.  I am removing the non-NPOV notice.  --Mathboy965 16:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This article fails on two accounts. It does not maintain NPOV and it is not written in a style appropriate to an encyclopedic work like wikipedia. Wikipedia is a place where you present facts, cite sources, and avoid editorializing. This article needs several major improvements.
 * 1. Cite your sources, especially if it is something that we are gonna question.
 * 2. Remove the editorial comments, this will clear up most of the blatantly non-NPOV parts of the article.
 * 3. Write the article in a style that is appropriate to wikipedia or any other encyclopedic work.
 * I have no criticisms of the man Thomas S. Monson, indeed I am a devout mormon. My criticism is of this article regards the blatant failure to maintain NPOV.Kmbell81 18:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In 1991, responding to the protests across the U.S. against the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, President Monson said Mormons didn't "believe in marching and carrying placards." At the time, this was somewhat controversial. This was said in an interview with the Associated Press. I will check the source, but in case I don't find it, others can try. I think this would be a good anecdote to add in order to make this entry more balanced. Without that balance, this article looks suspiciously like Mormon propaganda.
 * While he might indeed be a great man, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and let his actions speak for themselves. Great men (and women) don't need excessive praise, their greatness speaks for all who will listen to their words and actions.


 * He is listed as having many great qualities and for doing many generous things but they aren't cited. While they all might be totally true, an encyclopedia isn't supposed to list anything that isn't fully cited. "Early on, Monson was recognized for his leadership and organizational skills and his concern for the downtrodden and humble."  Ok, if he was recognized, then that means someone should have written something about this.


 * I don't know how the LDS run their church, but I've never heard of a large organization that doesn't produce massive amounts of paperwork, newsletters, press releases, etc. If Monson is so prominent, then there should be lots of printed material to back up these words of praise.  The newspapers of Salt Lake City should have printed hundreds of articles about such a man, Mormons are a huge block of readership.


 * Instead of saying, "his concern for the downtrodden and humble.", it is better to quote someone instead like, “Tom is a man of the common people, the champion of the underdog,” says long-time friend Wendell J. Ashton. “When he brings friends to the basketball games, it isn’t the rich and famous or the leaders from the chamber of commerce. It is a handful of the ordinary folks gathered from his days ‘down by the tracks.’"


 * Instead of "Monson was recognized for his leadership and organizational skills", it is better to quote, "Tom moves with equal ability and ease as a leader among members and nonmembers alike,” muses Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Quorum of the Twelve associate. “His administrative strength and executive ability are not to be wholly accounted for in his academic training or professional opportunities, distinguished as they are.".


 * How is this more neutral? First, we know where the praise comes from, so we know it is real praise.  Second, we know the source of the praise.  Whenever you say something general about a person (as opposed to awards they have won or specific actions they have taken), you step into a non neutral area.  I mean which is better for an encyclopedia, "George Washington was a great general who's military abilities were responsible for the American victory" or "The US Military Command School has an entire course devoted to Washington's generalship.  The course description says, "His generalship is vital to understanding the American victory and is a model for all officers wishing to understand command and strategic planning."  Fanra 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is one thing to say "Wait a minute, there are some ongoing controversies about this guy that should be included for NPOV" and quite something else to say "Surely there must be *something* wrong with him; we must go dig around until we hit dirt." It seems to me that the discussion here is veering perilously close to crossing this line. 128.165.87.144 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what's being said at all. The comments above are talking about framing what is discussed in a NPOV manner; no one is suggesting that anyone dig to find "dirt". If there is "dirt" that is significant it won't be hard to find, either. Zoporific 23:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How many widows is that?
"As a bishop in Salt Lake City, he presided over a ward of over 1,000 people, including 86 widows. ... He visited those 87 widows ..." ??? Is it 86 or 87 widows? Does it even matter? Surely this number changed during his tenure - some of these women must have died. Irene Ringworm 06:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "nearly ninety" and removed the second reference to a specific number. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 17:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of the honorific title "Apostle"
I am setting up this talk subject to discuss the (in my opinion) improper use of the term "Apostle". A certain fellow editor has insisted that President Packer, who cannot according to Wikipedia policy be referred to as "President" even though that's his proper title, may appropriately be referred to as "Apostle Packer." I have two quibbles about that. 1. The Church used to permit members of the Quorum of the Twelve to be referred to by the title "Apostle ______." But the Church has not followed that practice for at least 50 years that I'm aware of (and yes, if you're curious, I do checking on things like that in my Church history studies). 2. This same certain editor also insists that Church policy does not dictate Wikipedia policy. I happen to recall that earlier when I was in favor of using proper titles for Church leaders, it was mentioned that Wikipedia policy is to not use honorific titles. So my question is, if you can't use "President," the proper, Church-endorsed title, why then is it permissible to use "Apostle"? Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the title "Apostle" is useful in this context because it communicates the person's position in the hierarchy (as opposed to "President", which is ambiguous), the solution is to not use it as a title. Just use "apostle Boyd K. Packer", with a small-"a". Thus, no title is being used, but the person's position is still communicated. It shouldn't really be that big of a deal, and whether or not the church uses it as a title anymore is not really the issue. Ubi Terrarum (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume I am the "certain fellow editor"? It's OK to use my user name. (Unlike "Apostle", the LDS Church still uses "Snocrates" to refer to me.) I agree with Ubi's proposal here. WP generally doesn't use honorific titles like "President" or "Elder". However, it often uses ones that are more specific on the first mention of a person — like "Pope" or "Apostle" — when it can assist in identifying the person's position/job. You wouldn't go through an article referring to "Apostle Packer", but I see nothing wrong with saying "Apostle Boyd K. Packer" or "apostle Boyd K. Packer" on a first mention, because it tells us what position the person has. Saying "President Boyd K. Packer" or "Elder Boyd K. Packer" is not specific enough, and therefore not helpful. Similarly, "LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley" would be useful, but plain old "President Gordon B. Hinckley" would not be. I too see church usage as irrelevant, especially since there are no hard and fast rules about such things. Snocrates 01:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct in identifying yourself as the "certain fellow editor" I mentioned. I put it in those terms because I have had isolated incidents since joining Wikipedia in which editors I mentioned by name took offense at a slight difference of opinion. Now that I know where you stand on the name issue, I will remember that in future. Thanks. Now, as far as the title goes, I was okay with using "apostle" just like that, but it didn't make it clear enough (in my opinion) to a non-LDS reader as to why Packer took over for Monson. So I changed "apostle Boyd K. Packer" to "Boyd K. Packer, who is third in seniority after Hinckley and Monson" or something to that effect. This to me is a lot clearer than just a generalized mentioning that Packer is an "apostle". Again, as with everything, feel free to disagree with me. A good difference of opinion never hurt anyone. And I would not in any way object to the change being reverted or to my edit being made clearer or eliminated. It's just something I thought would be worth consideration. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Head of the Church
I'm a little concerned over the use of the phrase "if tradition holds" as if to cast doubt on Pres. Monson's succession to the Presidency of the Church. Ever since the succession crisis, there has been no precedent to choose anyone other than the senior most apostle as the new President of the Church. What purpose does it serve to imply that this time will be any different?

While I respect the need for historical accuracy, I think this casts Pres. Monson in a light of doubt unnecessarily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypnometal (talk • contribs) 05:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Had an LDS institute instructor who repeatedly stated that there was no written requirement that the next senior apostle be the new president/prophet, so I agree with whoever used the words "if tradition holds". It doesn't have to be a slight. Tks RWIR (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Pres. Packer stated during Pres. Hinckley's funeral that the senior apostle always becomes the new President of the Church.   Hypnometal (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is certain until it is certain. The author of that piece merely is leaving things open since no formal announcement will be made for at least several days. It really won't matter in a few days anyways since it will be either replaced with the fact that he is the new presiding authority of the church or that he is not. Airiox (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "If tradition holds" is really just there to avoid WP:CRYSTAL problems. WP can report what has happened in the past but is not supposed to speculate on future events. So saying "if tradition holds" is permissible as it relies on what has gone before. It is not meant to cast any aspersions or doubt on Monson's likelihood of leading. It's possible, for instance, that Monson might die before becoming the president of the church, which would disrupt the "tradition" without a change in practice occurring. WP must hedge its bets and not get into the WP:CRYSTAL business by saying he will be the next president. Snocrates 08:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Presidents of the Church" lesson manual clearly states that the Lord has chosen the simple method of having the most senior Apostle become the President of the Church. There is no ambiguity. Unless there is a new revelation which changes the manner in which a new president is selected, it will be President Monson. The selection process is far more than simple tradition. As far as having a written requirement goes, we need not be commanded in all things. I'm pretty sure that the Lord can trust his Apostles to know His will and obey it without having it written in some handbook. Noremak82 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But what if he died before he was made the president? That's why WP should not crystalball on this issue and state that he will be the next president without qualification. Snocrates 08:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then WP should state the he will be the next president unless he dies before the meeting takes place in which he is officially sustained. It should not say if tradition holds. Noremak82 (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? What's the difference? The only difference is that one is more wordy than the other. We just don't need that level of detail, especially since, as pointed out above, the statement will only be temporary. Besides, Monson's dying is only one possible scenario which could interrupt tradition. There could be a massive natural disaster which could delay things; Monson could be kidnapped and held for ransom; aliens could attack and kill all the LDS Church apostles; the possibilities are endless. That's why WP is not a crystal ball.

Besides, for a church that believes in continuous revelation and an open canon of scripture, nothing is ever set in stone. If WP existed in 1889, we would have had users insisting on writing that the church would never end the practice of plural marriage. Snocrates 09:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Technically he is president of the Church right now as president of its highest body. I've corrected the article to reflect this. Pahoran513 (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, he's not. He's the highest person in the church hierarchy, but this does not mean he holds the office of "president of the church". There is a difference. Snocrates 09:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but I think the current text is an acceptable compromise.Pahoran513 (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how writing the article to state that Pres. Monson will become President of the Church makes Wikipedia a crystal ball. Every member of the church knows this will happen. Sure if he were to die before the First Presidency were to be reorganized, then he wouldn't-that's just common sense. But the chances of that happening are practically non-existent, so using a doubt-casting phrase like "if tradition holds" is just plain silly. By what other circumstance besides Pres. Monson's sudden death in the next few days before Pres. Hinckley's funeral would he not become President of the church? 74.9.9.242 (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I listed a number above. Death, kidnapping, incapacitation, alien attack, natural disaster, revelation. There are many. Snocrates 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My two cents on the matter. Due to the understood precedent, it is very likely that President Monson will be the next Church president. However, the Lord could designate someone else. But according to Church policy, if that happened, then the successor to President Hinckley would have to be named and ordained by President Monson as the senior apostle. President Monson is the de facto President of the Church. However, while he presides over the leading quorum of the Church at this time, the Presidency of the Church is the Quorum of the Twelve jointly. Remember Joseph Smith's statement: "Where I am [the President of the Church is] not, there is no First Presidency over the Twelve." Hope this helps. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

President Monson is the "acting" authority of the Church as the senior Apostle, but he has not been ordained as the President. All of the 12 Apostles and the First Presidency hold the same keys, they just do not use them unless necessary. Right now, Pres. Monson, as the senior living Apostle, will be utilizing those keys as necessary to lead the Church until somebody is officially ordained. More than likely it will be Pres. Monson. I don't think that's the big issue here. I think more members of the Church are interested in who the next member of Quorom of Twelve will be, if any. Presumably it will be to replace Boyd K. Packer, but you never really know what will happen once they get to the Temple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.57.154.196 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

President Monson is not the acting anything. He is and has been the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles since 1995, when President Hinckley became President of the Church. And why should we think that (Acting) President Packer will be in the First Presidency? He has been the Acting President of the Twelve ever since President Hunter became President of the Church. This is because he is the most senior Apostle not serving as a member of the First Presidency. The Lord choose whom he will, but it is no more likely to be President Packer than it is to be Elder Cook, or someone not serving as an Apostle at all. Noremak82 (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys are missing the biggest point, everything above seems to be arguing semantics about who is and who isn't "president". The comments about the Institute Manual are true (teachings of living prophets" but the biggest deal sealer comes from Bruce R. McConkie who says "As the lsat heartbeat of President lee ceased, the mantle of leadership passed to President Kimball, whose next heartbeat was that of the living oracle and presiding authority of God on earth. From that moment, the church continued under the direction of President Kimball" - Bruce R. McConkie. - How can that be argued with? That is definitive satement made by a general authority of the church, and there are NO comments that argue to the contrary. to say that "If Tradition Holds" is a direct contradiction to what several GA's, including Prophets, have said regarding this matter. Also, I think if you're going to argue the "if Tradition Holds" you should have to cite an official church source that says the contrary could occur.

Based on this, I don't see how "if tradition holds" is a valid statement, and I really do think it should be removed. I hate to start this 'argument' again, but I think the above paragraph offers pretty definitive and well outlined arguments. Ryancwa (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that (1) the quote from McConkie does not say that Kimball was president, only "the living oracle and presiding authority of God in earth" [which is not the same thing] and that (2) McConkie's habit of stating things emphatically has led to his being reprimanded (in the controversy over publication of the first edition of Mormon doctrine), and to his having to correct himself with respect to blacks being able to hold the priesthood. sinnedit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.39.211.240 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

One major reason that the phrase "if tradition holds" is valid is stated on the Web site of the Church at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/succession-in-the-presidency-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints:

"4. The senior apostle presides at a meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve to consider two alternative propositions: i. Should the First Presidency be reorganized at this time? ii. Should the Church continue to function with the Quorum of the Twelve presiding?

5. After discussion, a formal motion is made and accepted by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

6. If a motion to reorganize the First Presidency is passed, the Quorum of the Twelve unanimously selects the new president of the Church. The new president chooses two counselors and the three of them become the new First Presidency. Throughout the history of the Church, the longest-serving apostle has always become the president of the Church when the First Presidency has been reorganized."

Therefore, the Quorum of the Twelve as a whole can decide to be the presiding authority without setting apart a First Presidency, but they traditionally have never done that.

I can't see how this would not put the debate to rest, but I'm sure someone will come up with something.

ETO Buff (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC) ETO Buff

Maybe he is now President of the Church, but WP:SYN
User:Jeppsna pointed out this Ensign article to me:


 * The senior Apostle, as President of the Twelve, automatically, by virtue of that seniority, becomes the “Presiding High Priest” of the Church and, as such, actively holds and exercises all the keys of the kingdom and “preside[s] over the whole church” (see D&C 107:65–66, 91). “Equal in authority” to the First Presidency, this presiding quorum of Twelve Apostles is as much a Presidency of the Church as the First Presidency is when it is fully organized and operative (see D&C 107:23–24). Likewise, the President of the Twelve at that time is as much the President of the Church in function and authority as when he becomes sustained as such in a newly organized First Presidency.

User also cites CES Institute Manual Religion 333 Chapter 7, which I don't have access to. This implies he is indeed now president, although has not yet been set apart. It seems like WP:SYN though, so I still favor holding back until a source actually calls him president. Cool Hand Luke 06:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, strike that. This source says that such senior apostles are "President of the Church" in "function and authority" but stops short of stating that's their title. In either case, the WP:SYN issue convinces me to hold off until a source actually calls him President of the LDS Church. Cool Hand Luke 06:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to add external link
May I add an external link to thomasmonson.com, a site we created today? It has quotes, teaching, and videos from President Monson, and no ads or commercial intent. Rkm28 (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of ordaining
The date says he was ordained President of the Church on Febaruary 3. Any source? Kitabparast (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind: just watched the press conference again: he was ordained President in the Salt Lake Temple on February 3 indeed. Kitabparast (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

POV, again
I removed these two pieces of text:


 * As a child Monson loved to swim and fish and once during a family outing to the Provo River, in Provo, Utah, Monson rescued a girl from drowning. Though his family was not wealthy, they were nevertheless known for their generosity. On several occasions, young Monson gave away animals that he had raised to other, more needy families.


 * He spoke at every one of their funerals. There were also many poor people living within the boundaries of this ward, and Monson took special care to help them as he could. Today, he continues to visit former members of this ward and regularly visits nursing homes in Salt Lake City.

This POV issue came up two years ago, but has never been addressed. Uncited examples of a public figure's greatness of character do not belong in an encyclopedia. If you believe this text should be in the article, please do the research to confirm them. 69.212.40.97 (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit of a puff piece to me. I'm sure he is a great man and all, but this sounds like his bio from the LDS website, and not an NPOV encyclopaedic article. Anectodes and so forth don't really belong here. Also, there really ought to be a criticism section. For example, under his leadership, LDS did not allow blacks to be deacons until 1978.Ndriley97 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There can be a criticism section as long as it follows WP:BLP. The example of blacks not holding the priesthood until 30 years ago would probably not fit as he has only been president of the church for a few weeks.  But other sourced items may be appropriate. Alanraywiki (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Alanray. I meant his leadership as one of the 12 Apostles of LDS, not the head.  Still 1 of 12 is just that and I will not add a Criticism section because I did this would be within the WP policy you noted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndriley97 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes just made
I moved a section inserted a while back about the growth of the Church between Monson's birth and when he became Church President. It seemed to make more sense to have it where it talks about the President of the Church rather than at the beginning of the article. I also revised it slightly to make it more readable and more accurate, basing my changes not only on the cited source, but also on what was said during the Press Conference announcing that he was President of the Church. Sources can be added for this change as necessary, but I think it was helpful to rearrange the page this way. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

fair enough. AndreNatas (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Poor referencing
I have noticed that entire sections of this article go without references, as an attempt to get this up to good article status, can we have this sorted out?

Also I have added a lot of useful references to the article, however I don't think they are done in the right format, can someone convert them to the "cite template"? AndreNatas (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like the LDS church makes sure these articles are cleaned up real nice. 71.65.13.8 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Non-Moron
 * Yes, must be one of the many CABALS running the place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

GA fail
This article is getting better, but it doesn't meet the criteria quite yet. A few sections are still lacking citations. Also, I don't think it meets the breadth criteria. There is a lot more to say about his life and accomplishments, especially during his time as an Apostle and a member of the First Presidency. Feel free to renominate when these things are fixed. Wrad (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Redundancies
I noticed in just rereading this article that there are redundancies. The beginning of the article talks about the circumstances surrounding his becoming President of the Church, then under the President of the Church section, the information is restated. I would think the article would be more readable if this information only appeared once, but don't know where the best place for this information would be. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The intro should be a summary of sorts, highlighting the most important aspects of the article. Therefore, there may be some information which is repeated t some degree. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Lead section discusses how Introductions should summarize the body, so some repetition may occur, but if it is that blatant, then we should do more research for supplementary information in the body. --Eustress (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about recent edits made by 208.186.134.105
I didn't want to be the "bad guy" in this matter, but I'm not altogether convinced that the word and phrase changes made by 208.186.134.105 recently make the article any more clear or readable. I think I would be more in favor of the way the page stood before 208.186.134.105 made the recent changes, but I wanted to get some input before I did anything. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, those edits don't make much sense. I checked the reference though, and it's a bad link. In fact, the text of the talk cited is not even available online. As a result, I removed the sentence (and reference) entirely. --TrustTruth (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who originally wrote that section of the article as well as the one who made that edit. The reference is correct, but the reference is in MP3 format and is near the end of the talk. I came back and re-edited that part because in the talk he doesn't make it exactly clear what he meant. I accepted it meant he might have died in the navy. But then again, he only said. something to the effect of, "If I hadn't made that decision, I wouldn't be standing before you today." That could be interpreted in two way, a.) he would have died or b.) he wouldn't have had the leadership opportunities he has had. I didn't want to be untruthful, so I cam back and re-edited it this time taking the more conservative interpretation. But I am also fine with it being removed as it was presumptive for me to assume either way.Airiox (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I re-added the reference because it is valid. If you would like to check the facts and the exact words he used which facilitated that particular sentence, click the reference and he begins telling the story at 39:25 in the mp3 with the sentence in question starting at 43:30 Airiox (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I added back a modified version of what was said. In a church published Biography included in the ensign, this story is mentioned. At the end of the story it says Harold B Lee set him apart 6 months later as Bishop and in that blessing he mentioned the decision and told Thomas that it was unlikely he would have been called as bishop if he chose otherwise. Can't fine a reference to the biography, it might be in the PDF issue of the June 2008 Ensign. I haven't had a chance to download it yet though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airiox (talk • contribs) 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Page reorganization
I recently modified some sub-headings in the article per FA biography best practices (see Category:FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles, namely Emma Goldman and Max Weber). Some of the prose still needs to be updated, especially in the church leadership sections, to make this sound like a true biography. I envision a main Biography section, a Legacy section, and a Works section (possibly including teachings and criticism). Hope we can get this up to GA soon. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox modifications
I added a Person Infobox to help supplement the sparse information fielded by the LDS Infobox. I contemplated modifying the LDS Infobox to include more fields, but I think it would have turned out a mess (especially with all the Parser functions), would have perhaps messed up the infoboxes of other articles, and really would have yielded virtually the same end result. If there are any objections, would you please consider discussing them here first so all can see the modifications on the page first? Anyway, hope this helps. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Monson's support of California Proposition 8
I'm wondering if any mention should be made of the First Presidency's controversial statement urging members to support California's Prop 8 in the upcoming election. It's been widely covered in the news, and I've heard some people say that Gordon B. Hinckley would not have made such a public statement against same-sex marriage (but I don't know if that's true).MaterTerribilis (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how he's any different. Do you have a source saying any of that? Hinckley was President when 61% of Californians voted for traditional marriage in a similar proposition a few years ago. The Church at that time openly supported the proposition. Since then, the courts overturned it. It seems only fitting that President Monson would urge support of what is essentially the same proposition. Wrad (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec):The topic would not fall under a biography of Monson. And, the Church under Gordon B. Hinckley was a supporter of Prop 22 that had basically identical wording but was a change in statute instead of the state constitution.  Alanraywiki (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree with Alanraywiki - Monson's signed letter to California Mormons was one of the biggest reasons why so much money was raised. Monson personally has come under fire for it, and it has been widely reported in the news. Outside of the LDS church, this is arguably what he is best known for right now. I have added a short blurb with a cite.--Descartes1979 (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's spurious to insinuate that if Gordon B. Hinckley was alive he wouldn't have made such a public statement, considering that he spearheaded Church involvement over SSM in Hawaii and shortly after issued the The Family: A Proclamation to the World which calls on government leaders to support legislation that affirms traditional family values. Ejnogarb (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not as though ideas change when a new Prophet is confirmed in the LDS church. Monson was Hinkley's first councilor, I'm sure they were on the same page about their mutual homophobia. The part about him involving himself in the anti-gay movment needs to be bigger, Sanitycult (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Err, no it doesn't. 66.7.115.132 (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Template
Template:LDSApostleshipinfo was deleted from the page. I'm not sure if this is something related to the efforts to achieve WP:GA, but it deleted a template that is (1) contains information not found elsewhere in the article and (2) included on the bio article for every apostle in LDS Church history. (It's not redundant to Template:LDSGAinfo because being an ordained apostle is not the equivalent of being a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Monson has not been in the Quorum of the Twelve (except for very brief moments between presidents) since 1985, but he has remained an ordained Apostle for this entire period of time.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You already know my opinion on this, but I wish you could find someway to consolidate those two templates. The information is incredibly redundant and takes up a lot of space on the articles. It would be nice to have one LDS GA infobox that encompassed everything important. --Eustress (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see now that it is in fact a custom infobox, and not Template:LDSApostleshipinfo. However, it duplicates what Template:LDSApostleshipinfo (or Template:LDSInfobox when the person was a president of the church) usually presents. The reason the standard template is not used is because Template:LDSInfobox doesn't allow the preliminary information like birth date, place, etc. to be omitted. Template:LDSInfobox could be used if the first infobox were deleted. I'm not sure what the rationale for having the first infobox is, as it really only adds wife's name, number of children, and degrees, none of which are terribly important to his notability. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we just use Template:Infobox Officeholder instead of the GA templates? It would do the same job and includes all info needed. --Eustress (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Every other article about an LDS Church GA uses the GA template. Why would/should this one article be any different? The GA template is particularized to GAs, and it does contain information not in the other template, such as what president of the church called the person to that position. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation
This page has a major problem with disambiguation. In most cases, clicking on each relevant link will take you to a page about the subject in general, usually relating to the Latter Day Saint movement, rather than the relevant, specific page for the LDS movement. I have unsuccessfully attempted to fix this, but it seems beyond me. Could someone else give it a shot? It seems to be a problem article-wide. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no "LDS Church"-specific articles about bishops, apostles, etc. The articles are short enough that they have been consolidated at, for instance, Bishop (Latter Day Saints), and these articles apply to the position in all Latter Day Saint churches. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional information. However, for the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, there is a specific LDS page. At any rate, I did try to disambiguate where I could. But in other areas, that will now need to be fixed. My apologies. Thanks again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind. Just looked over the article again, and someone has fixed all my mistakes already. Isn't it wonderful having a community of editors working together? :) --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, some of the quorums (Qof12, 1st Presidency) have LDS Church-specific articles, but I don't think any of the priesthood office ones do yet, except Presiding Bishop (LDS Church). This is mostly because the lack of material from non-LDS Church denominations in the articles has made church-specific ones unnecessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. That makes sense. Thank you for your explanation. I never noticed that before. Good to know. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thomas S. Monson (Quotes from Literature)
Recently an article titled Thomas S. Monson (Quotes from Literature) was created. I can see no reason for this separate article as it is not a distinctly notable topic. At best parts of the article could be merged here into the main article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Referencing/Neutrality
I respect the Mormon Church's right to believe in this man as a prophet, but it's not really clear to me what the LDS view of a prophet is. This article needs maintenance in regards to referencing, neutrality, and clarification. The keeper of French yarn #7, Carbon Fiber division blah, blah, blah Let there be sites —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC).


 * Per WP:UNDUE, this article is not the place to explicate the LDS view of a prophet. (That is left to articles like Prophet, seer, and revelator and President of the Church, which are linked in this article.) Parenthetically, please stop tag bombing this article. If you list your issues here and provide a few helpful inline tags, editors watching this page are usually quick to respond. —Eustress talk 22:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am contesting that readers of WP might not be familiar with the tenets of Mormonism and therefore unfamiliar with the day to day responsibilities of their prophet. I propose that the article include what Monson's responsibilities are as prophet, his reports to the Mormon Church, his own affirmation of himself as a prophet, and what he has done that is indicative of prophetic behavior. Tkfy7cf (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for elaborating. Monson's responsibilities are outlined in President_of_the_Church, which is linked in the article. Regarding his reports, he doesn't report to anyone, except to the general membership during General Conference (linked) and (according to adherents), Jesus Christ (also discussed in separate articles). I agree it would be nice to incorporate some information on his "prophetic activity," but that doesn't merit any page-general improvement tag. So unless any further rationale is provided, the three tags currently in place (confusing, npov, and viewpoints) should be removed. —Eustress talk 23:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The article isn't balanced because it doesn't address the controversies that Monson has been involved in such as the September Six or the Prop 8 dilemma. It seems to be written from a very Mormon point of view; there is nothing that could even be interpreted as negative in the article. The article offers no explanation of his activities or duties as prophet with the exception of dedicating temples and receiving awards. The entire "legacy" section (which should be scrapped considering he's still living) focuses on volunteer work and the aforementioned subjects with a snippet in regards to Prop 8. There are no details of his General Conference addresses or what he has done as prophet- that is, under a prophetic act. The article contains nomenclature which could be misinterpreted by non-Mormons; words and phrases such as "dedicatory prayer;" "stake;" "called;" "counselor;" and "stake president". Indeed, the Mormon church self-admittedly is a "peculiar people" and must explain a bit more to those who are seeking out encyclopedic content; yet they chronically fail at doing so due to their missionary zeal and attempting to convert even the most mild of inquisitors. Wikipedia's objective is not to be a conduit through which the Mormon church can gain converts; thus, it should not rely totally on information and interpretations from the church. That's why the three tags are present. Tkfy7cf (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a lot of knowledge in this area and I hope you will help assuage some of the perceived deficiencies yourself. —Eustress talk 00:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Confusing: I assuaged issues for the "confusing" tag by wikilinking the LDS jargon mentioned above. This is a bona fide practice, as WP:LINK says, "Links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that are likely to increase our readers' understanding of the topic at hand." —Eustress talk 00:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Viewpoints: The article already contains info about Monon's involvement with Prop 8. Do you have any sources for his involvement with the Sept Six? —Eustress talk 00:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutrality: Can you please point out explicit NPOV violations? If there is "negative" stuff out there about Monson, can you please list it with some sources we can use? —Eustress talk 00:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to exchange the tags for a simple expert request tag so as to imply my desire for the article to have a circumscribed (not Mormon) view of Monson. Tkfy7cf (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Expert tagging
I removed the Expert subject tag from the article. While I don't doubt this, and most other Wikipedia articles, could use an expert editor, I expect the tag relates to the discussion addressed above rather than any overall article deficiencies. I would suggest the "tagger" create a list of perceived deficiencies in this biography of a living person and place here for discussion. I would agree that most issues dealing with the role of prophets in LDS leadership and administration should be addressed in Prophet, seer, and revelator and President of the Church. This is particularly appropriate as this role has been filled by many men in the past and will be filled by others in the future. position  WBardwin (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Image
Personally I don't like the image on this page. There is another I personally like better File:Thomas S. Monson.jpg. However, I know that the image currently on this page is used in alot of places, so I thought I would ask what other think before I replaced one image for the other.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not in love with the current image, but I feel it is better than the one proposed. ...comments? ~B F izz 20:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the image currently in use but would be open to considering superior pics. However, I agree with B Fizz that the proposed replacement is quite inferior to the one currently in use. —Eustress talk 23:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats why I asked first.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Image2
I was able to get permission from the copyright holder to upload an image that I thought might be better then the one here. Ether the full body image File:Thomas S Monson2.jpg or the cropped face only image File:Thomas S Monson3.jpg. However, again this being a Good Artical and the image is in alot of place, I'm not Bold enough to do it on my own.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This image as a stand-alone portrait isn't spectacular, but the uncropped version is a great action shot! I've inserted it in the Temple dedications section. Also, be sure to properly document permission to use the picture via the instructions at Commons. —Eustress talk 13:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this iamge? File:Thomassmonson.jpg. I think it's better then the one used.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please Correct the second sentence of the article. Monson is NOT the president of the naacp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.121.50 (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This was corrected on Oct 26. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Category question
Should Thomas S. Monson be placed in the category "American military personnel of World War II"? He was in the Navy reserves and in training in San Diego at the end of the war. Is this enough to place him in that category? I would say yes, but I figured it was best to let this issue be decided by arbitration because it is one on what the exact contours of that category are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the category explanation says "This category includes people who served in the United States military during World War II" and the Navy Reserve is part of the United States military, I will go ahead and categorize Thomas S. Monson in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
No criticism or controversies at all? Hard to believe.andycjp (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Subsequent to Good article reassessment/Thomas S. Monson/1, please provide specific issues that are covered by reliable sources elsewhere but not discussed in this article, and we can work to make sure they are integrated here. Regards —Eustress talk 14:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Political activism
This section looks either underdeveloped or out of place. Suggest either:

(1) expansion so it is clear why a 2008 event remains relevant--more sources on it.

(2) moving it to the bottom of the section as "awards" is longer

(3) elimination for brevity,

obviously #3 would raise POV flags, but if prop 8 won't be associated with him greatly, it is an option 76.27.41.184 (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Alzheimers
This article should include mention or refutation of these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.252.74 (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the first I've heard of any such claims. Cite where you're getting this information from, then we can discuss it. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose but have a suggestion This Alzheimer's claim has been going on for a year or more, and he's shown up at Conference-- the sources are nor credible.  However, I would not oppose citing his 5-year update stating he was "subject to all manner of infirmities, both of body and mind." jj (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Immigration reform?
Here is a good summary from mormon.com, a website not affiliated with the Church, about President Uchtdorf's meeting with Obama on immigration refrom, and previous endorsements of immigration reform by the Church. . Since the First Presidency acts in tandem, and some of these actions have included President Monson's signiture, I am wondering if it would be worth mentioning anything relatated to this in this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuit against President Monson
I have watched this issue be debated back and forth. I personally think this is too frivolous a matter to be included in the article. However, I am willing to discuss it and see what the consensus rules on the matter. I have copied the proposed text and am posting it here for discussion. I believe it should be discussed in depth before being readded, and hope that you will all agree with me. Here's the proposed change:
 * "On January 31, 2014, two summonses were issued to Monson to attend a hearing at the Westminster Magistrates' Court in London, England on March 14, 2014 to answer accusations that key tenets of the LDS faith are untrue and have been used to secure financial contributions. "

Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it is premature to add it to the article at this point. If anything comes of it (e.g., Monson actually flies there to testify, etc.), then maybe it should be added.  Most of the references indicate this appears to be just a frivolous lawsuit by a former member of the LDS Church. I'd wait to see if this has merit first, especially in a BLP. Bahooka (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * (after EC) I agree with Jgstokes and Bahooka. WP:RECENTISM probably applies - imo it's too soon to know whether this will pass the ten-year test. We're under no deadline here so I think it'll be more important to see what happens come March 14 and the subsequent coverage. Additionally, WP:BLPCRIME or WP:WELLKNOWN would apply (most likely the latter since Monson probably is a public figure and not exactly a relatively unknown person), but in that case we need evidence that the allegation is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented - a threshold that I don't think we've crossed yet nor can we (WP:CRYSTAL) until maybe March. Also, there is already what looks like off-wiki canvassing for meatpuppets (Keep the fraud charges on Wikipedia!). --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My position is likely evident, having reverted several attempts to add this - and having also suggested the talk page be used before adding back. This appears frivolous in nature and isn't a significant event.  The notion of this being a "real event" and having some newspaper articles about it doesn't in and of itself make it notable and worthy of adding.  This isn't about protection or bias toward the positive nature of the article - is every single lawsuit or issue raised toward any public figure suddenly notable and worthy of inclusion in an article that captures and summarizes the life of such an individual.  I would not be in favor of its inclusion in the article. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Lawsuits like this happen all the time against all sorts of religions, and it's not the first time something like this has been directed against this church. From the article I read, this lawsuit doesn't even appear to be directed against Monson personally. It sounds like it's against the church and Monson is just being called in as a witness. It's unusual for the summons to be for Monson to appear himself, usually just a representative from the legal department would be sufficient, but that probably doesn't make it notable enough. These types of lawsuits are interesting, but a more appropriate place for the reference would probably be Lds church, Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Criticism of Mormon sacred texts (this last one goes to some of the key claims of fraud in the suit, none of which if true, would have originated with Monson). I would only have it in Monson's article if he is actually found guilty of something, or a defining aspect of his presidency turns out to be responding to these types of legal complaints on behalf of the church. It will be some time before we know if that ends up being the case.Vojen (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with most everyone here. The fact is this is a something that both appears to be just a frivolous lawsuit and it is not something we normally include.  I think the arguments against at they away to go.  Additionally, if you see Tom Phillips interview (Tom Phillips is the one suing) it was decided that he has a Conflict of interest and is Not Reliable.  Unless a judge actually rules for him, I think this is just a publicity stunt and one of thousands of frivolous lawsuit famous people get, but we don't include.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I add my voice to the consensus. jj (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that Tom Phillips is still on the books as a member of the LDS. Also, since the LDS Church is the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it's probably not completely fair to suggest the fraud allegations are not directed toward Monson, the president. It will indeed be interesting to see how this plays out. People seem to be overlooking that Tom Phillips has some credit after revealing the secret Second Anointing that takes place in the temple for privileged chosen members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler D14 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What "books" are you referencing? It is most likely that this Tom Phillips you mention is not in good standing, so his view should have no bearing on this issue. Indeed, a Google search for "Tom Phillips Mormon" reveals that he is a disaffected Mormon with no current ties to the Church. We will have to wait and see what comes of this. Tom Phillips's so-called "credit" for "revealing" what takes place in the temple should have no bearing on whether to include these allegations. What takes place in temples is not "secret." It is sacred. Anyone who qualifies to participate in temple ordinances can be privy to what takes place there. The fact that it is not to be discussed outside the temple is due to its sacredness. Tom Phillips' "revealing" what takes place there just goes to prove that he is not in good standing, and as such, his views should not be taken as notable. WP thrives on striking a NPOV voice. To include this information would violate that voice. I am still very much in favor of leaving this information out of the article until the results of this frivolous "lawsuit" are revealed. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

According to this article, even British legal experts are surprised about this issue and believe that Monson won't be required to come to Britain to face his accusers/answer these charges. Based on information in this article, I would again suggest holding off mentioning this in the WP article about Monson until we know how it will play out. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As the first sentence of my prior post points out, I was simply making a note of some aspects of the situation that people are overlooking or getting wrong. When I said he is still on the "books," that was referring to the fact that he is still technically a member of the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, he is dissatisfied and not active, as he - like many other dissatisfied members - have learned truths about mormonism that are not openly taught. Tom Phillips is also a former bishop and stake president. Many members parrot the saying that the temple is "scared" and not "secret," but that temple is clearly secret and once involved blood oaths for discussing its practices. Tom Phillips has received the Second Anointing which most active mormons don't even know about because of its secrecy. It's also incorrect to label the lawsuit as "frivolous." You are not qualified to make that call and all of the evidence in the case is not known to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler D14 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)‎


 * Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point, but whether or not Tom Phillips is neutral in his attitude toward the church is irrelevant (clearly he's not as he is a party to the lawsuit at question), because we aren't using anything written by Tom Phillips as source material to reference this lawsuit. The neutrality of the USA Today article as a source isn't being questioned. Whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous is ultimately a legal question that will have to be answered by a judge, but in some sense this doesn't even matter to us. Whether or not a lawsuit is notable is the question at hand,and that is something that is determined by the community consensus within the guidelines of the wikipedia rules. I'm only a casual wikipedian at best and by no means am I an expert on wikipedia policies and practices, but my understanding is we generally don't report on every lawsuit that gets filed or even every lawsuit that gets appealed and is confirmed non-frivolous, even if a notable figure is involved (U.S. Supreme Court cases might be the exception). Only lawsuits of a more extraordinary nature are reported (being notable in and of themselves), or a pattern of lesser important lawsuits would be reported (no single lawsuit being notable on its own, but taken collectively they become notable because of the pattern).


 * This lawsuit will certainly be more notable to me if Monson actually testifies or if the British government seeks to have him extradited, and even more so if the church loses, but given the commentary of the British legal experts cited in our sources it's unlikely that either will be the case. What will most likely happen, is the church will have one of its attorneys represent it in court, appeal the request for Monson to appear, and Monson won't have to show up. If that happens, I say this lawsuit is not notable on its own, but we will have to wait to see before we really know.


 * However, I think a pattern of repeated lawsuits could still be notable even if they are all dismissed as frivolous, because it represents a larger phenomenon. Several lawsuits against the church are probably filed every year, but the ones that I am aware of largely deal with issues we wouldn't consider super significant, such as property or employment disputes. The last real interesting lawsuit against the church that looked at the doctrine that I'm aware of occurred when Hinckley was president, and I never saw the outcome, so I imagine the church was either dismissed as a party or the suit was settled. Which brings me back to my point from my previous comment above.


 * This lawsuit is interesting, and may be an appropriate addition to one of several articles discussing criticisms of the church, but I don't think it is appropriate for Monson's article page unless it becomes a defining moment of his presidency. When we talk about the notability of any event we have to look at it and ask notable for whom. I don't know if Tom Phillips is notable enough to have his own wikipedia article, but as he appears to be a more prominent activist given the above references to the Second Annointing, this lawsuit seems like a worthy addition to an article about Tom Phillips describing actions he's taken as part of his activism. Yes the suit is against the corporation of the presidency, and yes Monson is the current president, but they are not one and the same. Monson is not being charged personally (at least that's not how it appears from our sources--it might be different if someone can get a copy of the actual summons) which means even if he lost, the consequences for fraud won't apply against him, but against the church. I.e. Monson wouldn't go to jail. Issues that transcend the specific church president are better placed in articles about the church in general, unless it becomes a defining issue for the tenure of that specific president. Please see my above comment for three articles where I think a reference to this lawsuit would be more appropriate given the current situation. I would even welcome and encourage the reference if a larger pattern of these lawsuits can be established.


 * Anyhow, sorry for the long comment, but the short of it is I think it's too early to place this in Monson's article. People can keep the discussion going if they want, but it looks like the consensus for now at least is to wait and see before adding a reference to the lawsuit to this page. If anyone disagrees, please let the group know. Vojen (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Reaffirm-- it shouldn't be included, because it is not long-term news. jj (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree also, it shouldn't be included. It's not long-term news, its a blatant WP:NOPV, WP:BLP and Conflict of interest violation, on top of Tom Phillips being  Not Reliable.  To included this information will only input a PVO problems.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The case was thrown out as reported here. Bahooka (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's also important to note that the case not just thrown out. The judge said the case was "an abuse of the process of the court", that "No judge in a secular court in England and Wales would allow that issue to be put to a jury" and that is was "an abuse of the court process and an effort to provide a high-profile forum to attack the religious beliefs of others".  Clearly this was nothing but a publicity stunt to push and Anti-Mormon POV and it should never be included on this page. (see here and here)--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Added clarity:

Legal affairs
Thomas S. Monson has been subpoenaed for his testimony more than once regarding a group of people suing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over accusations of sex abuse. In 2017, the attorneys have renewed the deposition subpoena for President Thomas S. Monson. Subsequently, a judge quashed the deposition subpoena of the leader and is instead allowing the church to appoint a representative to give testimony instead. However, a federal judge ordered the abuse lawsuits heard in Navajo Nation Court. Another subpoena of the LDS Church leader is still being litigated in that court system. Monomoinut (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to stop adding things that have been discussed and determined would be WP:UNDUE weight in the article. Pretty much any time someone sues the LDS Church, the president of the church is mentioned as one of the plaintiffs (this often happens with suits against companies or organizations in general, too). This one is not not some special one. If you add it again without proper consensus, you will be blocked. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2014
Please add new and groundbreaking information about Thomas Monson receiving summonses for fraud. "On January 31, 2014, two summonses were issued to Monson to attend a hearing at the Westminster Magistrates' Court in London, England on March 14, 2014 to answer accusations that key tenets of the LDS faith are untrue and have been used to secure financial contributions."

This can be verified by USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/04/mormon-president-ordered-to-court/5216645/

Tyler D14 (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tyler D14, thanks for the request. Wikipedia has very strict rules about the kinds of material that can be added to biographies of living persons, and we always try to err on the side of caution. In the case of legal proceedings, we always presume innocence unless a guilty verdict is procured, and we specifically avoid mentioning frivolous law suits. (You'll notice that our article on Barack Obama doesn't mention any of the law suits against him, even though a quick Google search shows that they exist.) Anyway, I'm going to decline this edit request, but if you feel there are compelling reasons to add the material feel free to make your case. ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, feel free to participate in the discussion in the section just above this one on the topic.ChristensenMJ (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Obscene and offensive language next to the name
I am new to this but I needed to make this known anyway I could. The words: "DEEZ NUTS IN YO FACE BITCH !!!!" have been written next to Thomas S. Monson's full name in bold. What is the purpose of putting this phrase? How can I submit a correction to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.114.26.54 (talk • contribs)
 * A vandal defaced a template used by the page. The problem has been corrected. Thanks for bringing it to our attention! alanyst 18:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Significant re-write, needs more citations
I removed a fair amount of duplication, consolidated timelines, and worked to improve readability. Also some removal of culture-specific terms and church jargon was re-worded. A number of vague claims, though probably believable, lack citations. Deaddebate (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the efforts to improve the article. One thing I think would be helpful when making such large amounts of change would be to do it in smaller chunks, allowing other editors to follow what has been done more easily. ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I normally would have, but as a re-write it was much easier to read and edit it as a whole.  Thanks for your continued editing. Deaddebate (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Monson's 90th birthday
I applaud how ChristensenMJ reverted a well-intentioned edit to this article about what President Monson would want for a 90th birthday gift. I fully support that revert. However, Monson marking 90 years a couple of days ago puts him as the 7th LDS Church President to be a nonagenarian. I felt that was important to mention. What I don't know is whether or not the source I cited in adding this information to the article mentions the historical nature of this milestone. If it does not, I am happy to have that source replaced or removed. But I felt the fact of the milestone warranted some mention. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In view of the citation needed tag that has (rightfully) been added to the sentence in question (as the cited article does not explicitly state this), I just wanted to note that I will be looking this weekend to try and find a better source for this information. The only reason I know this is the case is that I keep files of random information like this fact, so based on those records, it is accurate. However, in the same breath I know that it takes something more reliable than that to verify such information. So I will work on that. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Thomas S. Monson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.historyofmormonism.com/Thomas%20Monson.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422090803/http://story.philippinetimes.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/3e5bbccc730d258c/id/35983190/ to http://story.philippinetimes.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/3e5bbccc730d258c/id/35983190/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619133815/http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1%2C5143%2C695250351%2C00.html to http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1%2C5143%2C695250351%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2017
change "Successor: Boyd K. Packer" to "Successor: Russell M. Nelson" 24.205.68.163 (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC) –
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Aside from the note above about the request, it should remembered that this is not a correct edit. The succession being addressed is that of president of the Quorum of the Twelve, not as president of the church.  Boyd K. Packer did succeed Monson as president of the Twelve, with Nelson then being the successor upon Packer's passing. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)