Talk:1886 Revelation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1886 Revelation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Latter Day Saint movement Mid‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weasel words

The first sentence reads:

The 1886 Revelation is a purported revelation received by John Taylor, the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), that restates the permanence of certain revelations received by Joseph Smith, Jr., supposedly including plural marriage.

Is there any way we can reduce the number of weasel words and qualifiers being used in this sentence? The words that could be considered "weasel words" are bolded. It's not that all such words are always bad, but the number in this sentence makes it look like an awfully weaselly sentence. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

purported: Assumed to be such; supposed, reputed or claimed; alleged. This is an accurate word to describe the revelation based on conflicting accounts of its validity. There is some proof of the existence and validity of this text, but for obvious reasons it cannot be "proven" to be a revelation.

certain Referring to a specific portion of revelations (it does not address them all) supposedly addressed by this 1886 revelation.

supposedly including is a qualifying statement because nowhere in the actual text of this 1886 revelation does it specifically mention, or even allude to plural marriage. The plural marriage aspect of interpretations comes from the fundamentalist mormon movement using assumption that possibly the "works of Abraham" could refer to his many wives and concubines, or even possibly a few other interpretations. I used this wording because the text is ambiguous at best, the only certain item addressed is "The New and Everlasting Covenant", which typically is seen by those of the LDS faith as "temple marriage" or "sealing for time and eternity", even baptism, etc. it does not ONLY include plural marriage. Twunchy (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/questions_concerning_the_1887.htm for interesting discussion on this topic. Twunchy (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realised why the words were used, but as it stands now the sentence is extremely clunky, especially for a lead sentence. You would never find a lead sentence like that in a print encyclopedia. Rather, it would state what the document is believed to be by the Mormon fundamentalists. It wouldn't add so many qualifiers. That's material to be explained in body of the article itself, not the lead. My point in bringing it up here was to canvas input about how to fix it, not to discuss its meaning, because it needs fixin'. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.fldstruth.com/sysmenu.php?MParent=HISTORY&MIndex=0
- In 1886 Revelation on 2011-05-25 02:11:13, Socket Error: 'No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it'
- In 1886 Revelation on 2011-06-01 23:37:53, Socket Error: 'No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it'

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfortunately, his was a copy written in his own hand"

The original source cited (http://web.archive.org/web/20131021173709/http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/questions_concerning_the_1887.htm) claims it was written in John Taylor's handwriting, not John W. Taylor's. This sentence is worded to imply the opposite. Also, this source is cited multiple times in this article, but it appears to be unreliable. Its author is anonymous. There is no citation to the primary source of the handwriting analysis. The website itself appears to be a collection of sourced documents with added unsourced and opinionated commentary. Can we either get reliable sources added or remove the content that references this source?

2601:B00:C601:B040:4942:C44F:B364:53D6 (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1886 Revelation. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]