Talk:Wilford Woodruff

Quotes
Shouldn't we move quotes to wiki quotes? There are a lot more quotes than this.

Poligamy
If you read a book about him, you realize there is a lot more about him than polygamy. But the only quote about him when I came to this site is about that... I don't want wikipedia to be like The Enquirer. (submitted by User:Myclob 22:03, 6 May 2006)


 * I've been intending on adding a more comprehensive "Mission" section -- as he was truly outstanding there. Some of your new quotes could go in that area.  And, of course, we need to focus on his lifelong journal as a primary historical resource.  Plural marriage, the Manifesto, and the rumors of ongoing plural marriage are some of the primary markers for people who are relatively unfamiliar with the Woodruff and the Church, so the topic often gets disproportionately addressed in early Church articles here at Wiki.  Look forward to working with you.  WBardwin 04:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for saying hi. I don't really deserve much respect. I put out 1/2 thought out ideas. (submitted by User: Myclob, 21:09, 8 May 2006)

New section: The family
I think that the major contribution that Wilford made was the modification of the way families are sealed. I think we should include something about this in the article.

From the book that I mention in the external link:

About three months before the Prophet Joseph Smith was martyred, he delivered a discourse to a large assembly of Saints. Elder Wilford Woodruff, who recorded a synopsis of the discourse, said that the Prophet spoke on “one of the most important and interesting subjects ever presented to the Saints.”44 As part of this sermon, the Prophet testified of the eternal nature of families. He spoke of the need to be sealed to our parents and to continue that sealing ordinance throughout our generations: “This is the spirit of Elijah, that we redeem our dead and connect ourselves with our fathers which are in heaven and seal up our dead to come forth in the first resurrection, and here we want the power of Elijah to seal those who dwell on earth to those which dwell in heaven. . . . Go and seal on earth your sons and daughters unto yourself and yourself unto your fathers in eternal glory.”45 For the next few decades, the Latter-day Saints knew that there was to be “a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children” (D&C 128:18). However, their procedures were not completely set in order; as President Woodruff observed, the Prophet Joseph had not lived long enough to “enter any further upon these things.”46 Acting according to “all the light and knowledge [they] had,”47 they often had themselves sealed, or “adopted,” to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or other Church leaders of their day rather than to their own fathers and mothers. As President of the Church, President Woodruff referred to this practice, saying: “We have not fully carried out those principles in fulfillment of the revelations of God to us, in sealing the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. I have not felt satisfied, neither did President [John] Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt that there was more to be revealed upon this subject than we had received.”48 That additional revelation came to President Woodruff on April 5, 1894.49 Three days later, in a general conference address, he told of the revelation: “When I went before the Lord to know who I should be adopted to. . ., the Spirit of God said to me, ‘Have you not a father, who begot you?’ ‘Yes, I have.’ ‘Then why not honor him? Why not be adopted to him?’ ‘Yes,’ says I, ‘that is right.’ I was adopted to my father, and should have had my father sealed to his father, and so on back; and the duty that I want every man who presides over a temple to see performed from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is, let every man be adopted to his father. . . . That is the will of God to this people. I want all men who preside over these temples in these mountains of Israel to bear this in mind. What business have I to take away the rights of the lineage of any man? What right has any man to do this? No; I say let every man be adopted to his father; and then you will do exactly what God said when he declared He would send Elijah the prophet in the last days [see Malachi 4:5–6]. . ..

“We want the Latter-day Saints from this time to trace their genealogies as far as they can, and to be sealed to their fathers and mothers. Have children sealed to their parents, and run this chain through as far as you can get it. . . . “Brethren and sisters, lay these things to heart. Let us go on with our records, fill them up righteously before the Lord, and carry out this principle, and the blessings of God will attend us, and those who are redeemed will bless us in days to come. I pray God that as a people our eyes may be opened to see, our ears to hear, and our hearts to understand the great and mighty work that rests upon our shoulders, and that the God of heaven requires at our hands.”50


 * In the Joseph F. Smith article we have a section called Doctrinal Contributions which discusses revelations and policies instituted during his presidency. A passing reference to Woodruff's revelation on eternal sealings is stated there.  A similar section would be quite easy to do here.  Take a look and see if you agree.  WBardwin 03:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To do list:

 * 1) Add more things to the historical summery.
 * 2) Cut out duplication.
 * 3) Move things to wiki-quote. I did it for Mitt Romney, but can't remember how to do it...
 * 4) We need an image!

Nonsequitor
There was a character on Pushing Daisies tonight called 'Wilford Woodruff' - an Asian guy whose ancestor fought in the Civil War. Weird.

Lydia Mountford
In regard to the alleged marriage betweeen Woodruff and Lydia Mountford, the footnote about that was not actually connected to any kind of reference. I went back through the edit history and put in what sources the note had cited in the past (the referencing styles on Wikipedia have changed in the last couple of years). I have not checked those sources myself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

St. George Temple President Changes
I have noticed the very short back and forth changes of the St. George Temple President section from 20 October 2011‎ to 31 October 2011‎. While I disagree with the idea that anyone has to "ask" before making changes (see No vested contributors and wp:own), in an effort to keep thing wp:civil, rather than just make the changes as WP:Bold allows, I will bring up this issue hear as requested.

Note that I have not made any of the changes to this page since September, so I am not in the back and forth.

If I have to chose which seems more appropriate, I believe the Apo-kalypso/208.81.184.4 is more appropriate then the Canstusdis version. I agree with Apo-kalyps this his version appears to restore the idea that the visitation was a "subjective experience" even than "objective fact". As written now I think it violated WP:NPOV. I think the most resent change (here should be reverted.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears that Canstusdis may be somewhat put out with me because of a recent, related discussion we had regarding one of his contributions to the article on necromancy that did not turn out in his favor. I did not come over here to antagonize him, although it would not surprise me if he believed that was my intent. Any neutral party (i.e., anyone who is not Canstusdis) can see I did nothing that might be construed as disruptive or harmful; in fact, my edit clearly improves upon his in a variety of ways, such as by simplifying internal links (e.g., "Declaration of Independence" and "Founding Fathers" are sufficient without the need for additional qualifiers such as "United States" and "American", respectively) and providing a higher quality source (page scans from the original Journal of Discourses) with proper inline citation format (something Canstusdis neglected to do). I am also compelled to mention that, up until his edit on 20 October 2011 – which took place during the time we were having our discussion about the necromancy article (purely by coincidence, I'm sure) – Woodruff's vision had been described as just that, a vision, and was furthermore presented as a claim rather than fact, as is only proper. After the necromancy issue, I was really hoping not to get into another conflict with Canstusdis because it can be quite difficult to engage him in straightforward, rational dialogue. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly do not mean to overload anyone with a large quantity of detailed information, but all the same, I feel that it is necessary to back up my assertion about the use of "claim" and "vision" in previous versions (going all the way back to the article's creation almost eight years ago) of the content which has now unfortunately become the subject of dispute. To this end, I have compiled a log of all relevant changes with a date, username, and edit summary for each iteration:


 * 08:55, 3 January 2004‎ : Creation of article.
 * During his time as temple president in Saint George, Woodruff standardized temple ceremonies and was baptized for the dead in behalf of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and other founding fathers, after he claimed to recieve a vision, visitation or manifestation of the departed spirits of these men.


 * 03:54, 7 March 2005‎ : Restructure paragraphs.
 * He was baptized for the dead in behalf of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and other founding fathers, after he claimed to receive a vision, visitation or manifestation of the departed spirits of these men.


 * 00:30, 19 September 2007‎ : General clean-up; delete unneeded information; delete quotes section which was of questionable importance (why these quotes and not others?)
 * He was baptized for the dead on behalf of the signers of the United States Declaration of Independence and other American Founding Fathers after he claimed to visitation from the departed spirits of these men in a vision.


 * 10:33, 27 April 2011‎ ‎ →St. George Temple President: Clean up section.
 * Woodruff was baptized for the dead on behalf of the signers of the United States Declaration of Independence and other American Founding Fathers after he claimed to visitation from the departed spirits of these men in a vision.


 * 20:13, 28 June 2011‎ →St. George Temple President [no edit summary provided]
 * Woodruff was baptized for the dead on behalf of the signers of the United States Declaration of Independence and other American Founding Fathers after he had a visitation from the departed spirits of these men in a vision.


 * 23:14, 28 September 2011‎ ‎ →St. George Temple President: We should hardly be stating as fact that he was "visited by the departed spirits" of the long-dead founding fathers.
 * Woodruff was baptized for the dead on behalf of the signers of the United States Declaration of Independence and other American Founding Fathers after he stated that he had a visitation from the departed spirits of these men in a vision.


 * 01:41, 21 October 2011‎ →St. George Temple President: Text correction/ added quote.
 * Woodruff was baptized for the dead on behalf of the signers of the United States Declaration of Independence and other American Founding Fathers after he stated that he had a visitation from the departed spirits of these men.


 * 00:49, 29 October 2011‎ →St. George Temple President: Expanded quote, applied citation template and added source details, revised preceding paragraph to restore sense that visitation was more subjective experience than objective fact, but not deny or invalidate it.
 * During his time as the temple president, Woodruff was baptized on behalf of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and other Founding Fathers after claiming to have been visited by the departed spirits of these men, an experience he recounted in a discourse given on September 16, 1877.


 * The difference between "he stated that he had a visitation" (Canstusdis) and "[he] claim[ed] to have been visited" (myself), though perhaps subtle to the point of being indistinct on their surface, is actually quite significant. Consider the following definitions from Merriam-Webster: state – 1) to set by regulation or authority; claim – 3a) to assert in the face of possible contradiction. This makes all the difference where neutral point of view is concerned. Wikipedia policy does not permit certain content like "The angel Gabriel visited Muhammad" or "Jesus rose from the dead" if it is presented as incontrovertible fact, no matter how many centuries the faith traditions based on these alleged events have been around or how many people believe that they did indeed occur. As I said in my original edit summary, I am not trying to show any disrespect towards Wilford Woodruff, the LDS Church, or their beliefs; however, it is important to maintain the distinction separating belief from fact, which can be easily accomplished to the detriment of neither. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I want to assure all interested parties that I am not trying to make this situation more tense or complicated than it already is by having recently undertaken a pair of edits concerning the disputed content. The first was undoing the wholesale reversion of my initial edit by Canstusdis, and the second was undoing the changes implemented by 208.81.184.4; both of these actions were performed with the intent of restoring the article to its 29 October 2011 version, which I believe ARTEST4ECHO said was "more appropriate" than the others I reverted. Let me emphasize again that I am not seeking to instigate, perpetuate, or escalate any sort of conflict over this issue; I do not wish to upset, anger, or vex anyone involved. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I need to clarify my thoughts. 208.81.184.4 is correct that WP:CLAIM dose seem to apply.  The version I choose was not really related to 208.81.184.4 edits, but Canstusdis edits.  If you note I said, "I believe the Apo-kalypso/208.81.184.4 (versions are) more appropriate then the Canstusdis version."  However, I really don't think there is all that much different between the 208.81.184.4 and Apo-kalypso versions.  I think it really is just a matter of "semantics" so to speak.  Perhaps a compromise can be reached?  Unfortunately "English be my worstest subject and I an't gonna get non better", so that is something someone else will have to come up with.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok perhaps I figured out something. Ignoring Grammar (which my all means please fix) perhaps (using The angel Gabriel visited Muhammad as a guide)
 * During his time as the temple president Woodruff recounted and event in which he is said to have been visited by the departed spirits of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and other Founding Fathers, after which he was baptized on their behalf. He stated in a September 16, 1877 discourse that:
 * Note I copied "event in which he is said to have been visited by" from The angel Gabriel visited Muhammad page.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Disputation over "stated" and "claimed" aside (by having chosen the latter, I was not casting any aspersion on Woodruff's credibility, but instead trying to find a means to convey that "he believed it happened" rather than "it happened" in keeping with the examples I mentioned above), my primary concern regarding the edit by 208.81.184.4 is that the sentence is phrased in such a way as to make it seem like Woodruff was baptized after giving the discourse, rather than after having the vision. I propose this simple correction which dispenses entirely with the subordinate conjunction "after" and divides the single sentence into two parts without making any other changes:
 * During his time as the temple president, Woodruff was baptized on behalf of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and other Founding Fathers. He stated in a September 16, 1877 discourse that he had been visited by the departed spirits of these men:
 * This, in my mind, would be a perfectly satisfying compromise, although the final decision is, of course, not left to me alone. I hope others might also find this to be an acceptable solution. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of content cited from Erickson
Erickson's Thief in the Night is an unprofessional plagiarism according to Grant Underwood's review in [http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/mormonhistory/vol25/iss2/1/ Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 25, Iss. 2], pg. 176.

As this source is used to embarrass President Woodruff in the given article, it'd be satisfactory if the cited content was either removed or had the citation adjusted to reflect the primary source for said quotations (i.e., the place where Erickson found the quotation). cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 11:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That review is quite the smackdown of Erickson's book. I removed the references to it. I was able to find other sources for most of the material. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wilford Woodruff. 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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20111006012827/http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/banner-gospel-wilford-woodruff/wilford-woodruff-and-rise-temple-consciousness-among-latte-0 to http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/banner-gospel-wilford-woodruff/wilford-woodruff-and-rise-temple-consciousness-among-latte-0

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) 09:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Spelling of Beulah/Bulah's name
Hi Jgstokes and Ashleyn256, I happy to go with "Beulah" if there is a reliable source (according to WP:RS) that uses it. Findagrave, unfortunately, is explicitly not accepted. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Rachel Helps What about familysearch.org, Ancestry, familypedia, geni.com, wikitree, or geneanet? They all agree on the spelling "Beulah." Ashlyn256 (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Ashlyn256

recent reversions
Hi, I recently reverted several substantial edits that replaced secondary sources with primary sources (Wilford Woodruff's diary). According to WP:PST, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Replacing secondary sources with primary ones does not accord with this Wikipedia policy. If you have questions, please discuss it with me here or on my talk page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good job reverting. The primary sources could be used in addition to the secondary sources, but only if needed. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)