Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 10:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article, could take up to a week. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm happy to help with any question, comments, or edit requests. --Trevdna (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my thoughts are below! --Cerebellum (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I don't think the lead needs citations since the information is cited later in the body of the article, however WP:LEADCITE says "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." What do you think?

Personally, I am fond of the balance it currently strikes. The article lead and infobox are prime targets for disruptive edits, and it seems that having at least some citations deters them. Trevdna (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because of doctrinal differences, Catholic, Orthodox, and several Protestant churches consider the church to be distinct and separate from mainstream Christianity. That qualifier "several" suggests that some Protestant churches consider the church to be part of mainstream Christianity, is that the case? I can't access the whole Christianity Today article, judging by Mormonism and Nicene Christianity#Non-recognition of Mormon rites I suspect "several" should be removed or changed to "many".

It was "many", but I changed it a while back. To me, it seemed like that was implying "most", and I thought "several" sounded less conclusive. ... But, as I've reviewed it in more depth now, I've been unable to find even a single instance of another Christian faith accepting Mormon baptism. So, you've convinced me: I've changed it to "many." Trevdna (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the majority of the church's canon constitutes revelations received by Joseph Smith This states a religious belief in Wikipedia's voice, we need to rephrase it to something like this sentence from Quran: Muslims believe that the Quran was orally revealed by God to the final prophet, Muhammad.. What about the majority of the church's canon consists of material believed to have been revealed by God to Joseph Smith? I prefer "consists of" rather than "constitutes".

I like that. Updated. 04:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

History

This is one of the best history sections I have seen for a complex topic. Summarizes the main points but does not get bogged down in excessive detail.

I wish I could take credit for it, then. It was mostly complete when I got here. 04:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is Zion italicized?

Not sure. Changed. Trevdna (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However, in 1833, Missouri settlers brutally expelled the Latter Day Saints from Jackson County. Do the sources use the word "brutally"? I would prefer "violently", Google Books won't show me Bushman pages 226-7 but the characterization I see on page 222 is "Jackson County citizens were demanding that the Mormons leave and, under pressure, the Church leaders had agreed to go." The next paragraph says that the locals threw rocks and bricks and burned haystacks.

I have the Bushman book and I can look it up if anyone else really wants to keep "brutally," but I think "violently" works well. Mormon sources generally talk up the persecution the Church experienced in this time period, but I think "violently" is more NPOV anyhow. Changed. Trevdna (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #50 is elaborating on the practice of polygamy, to me it seems more like a footnote than a reference so I recommend moving it to the "Notes" section and adding a different reference for the sentence about Young and polygamy. Also need a better source for the claim Only a small percentage of church leaders participated in plural marriage believing it was a part of a restitution of ancient Priesthood blessings and a commandment of god to raise up a righteous generation, it is sourced to a Deseret News article from 1852. Probably need a modern secondary source.

I've reworked this and removed a lot of material that is not supported by modern, secondary/tertiary sources. Also helps with the summary style. Trevdna (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #52 again seems more like a footnote than a reference. What is the reasoning behind mentioning the Mountain Meadows massacre in that note rather than in the article text? Regardless, it contains POV language ("tragic", "misfortune") and uncited claims contrary to top church leaders orders, the Mormons feared the mobs which murdered their families at the Haun's mill massacre.

I'm guessing that the POV language may have been the reasoning behind putting it in a note. Regardless, I've cut out the POV language and integrated it into the article's body. Trevdna (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph beginning "During the second half of the 20th century" has no sources.

Sourced. I've left the last sentence unsourced as interested parties can visit the linked subarticles for further clarification. Good? Trevdna (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matters concerning its minority members have come to the forefront in this timeframe, such as its positions on homosexuality, women, and black people. According to List of countries by sex ratio women are a majority in the US, not a minority. Not sure about the LDS church worldwide.

Reworded. Trevdna (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the section is very well written, but you need to better distinguish between notes and references, #53 is another example. I also think you need a reference for footnote g, the personages in question are strongly implied - though never expressly stated - to be God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ is an interpretive claim.

Reference for the footnote added. In general, the lines can blur quickly between an efn that has a citation, and a citation with its corresponding quote. It doesn't help that this section was essentially complete, with citations, when I came in and introduced efn's. In any case, I've found one more ref that does better as an efn and converted it. If you have any more specific places where I can improve, I'd be happy to make further changes. Trevdna (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teachings and practices

This is a good and succinct summary of LDS doctrine as far as I can tell. Would it be appropriate to mention the Temple garments somewhere in this section? They're prominent in popular ideas of Mormonism, I'm not sure if they're actually important to LDS theology.

Speaking from personal experience solely, the temple garment probably has an outsized role in the public perception of Mormons and Mormonism. Just because it's so... different (some would say weird). It is relatively minor, theologically speaking. It is properly explained and linked to in the Endowment (Mormonism) article, which in turn is included in this article under the "Temple Worship" section. Still though, if you have a useful citation showing how they are prominent in popular ideas of Mormonism (and therefore deserving its own top-line mention), I'd be happy to work it in somewhere. Trevdna (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

conditional substitutionary atonement What does conditional mean here?

Conditional on the recipient's worthiness of it. I've tried to clarify by adding a quote from the cited source. Some Christian denominations, I think, believe the atonement is unconditional, that is, everyone will be freed from sin by Christ's atonement. Trevdna (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Officially, some major Christian denominations view the LDS Church as standing apart from creedal Christianity. Similar to the lead, this implies that some denominations consider Mormons to be Christians. Is that the case? I'm also not sure what the word "officially" adds here, is there a difference between the official and unofficial positions of these denominations?

I've reworded this. I'm not sure of any that do consider Mormons Christians, but I'm also trying to avoid implying that the positions of the denominations cited form a consensus: maybe there are some that I'm just not aware of. Trevdna (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #86 needs a page number.

I've removed this citation. The Bushman citation is fine, and there are any number of other reliable sources that say the same thing as this, both within and outside of the Church, if Bushman were ever to be challenged. Trevdna (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why does ref #87 cite Irenaeus? Probably need to include a quote to show why he is relevant to LDS doctrine since he wrote in the second century AD.

Same as above. I think whoever created this citation probably intended it polemically. Trevdna (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of doctrine

Need a source for the first paragraph.

Sourced. Trevdna (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Organization and structure

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: does this need to be bold?

Not really. Changed. Trevdna (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 1887, the LDS Church was legally dissolved in the United States by the Edmunds–Tucker Act because of the church's practice of polygamy.[133] For the next century, the church as a whole operated as an unincorporated entity. I found this explanation confusing. Is the church still unincorporated? When was it incorporated? I think you are saying that the church was incorporated in 2021 but I may be misunderstanding the text.

I'm not exactly an expert on the Church's legal status over the years. But my understanding is there was no legal entity called "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" between the late 1800's and 2021. The holding corporations that controlled the Church's assests and so legally constituted "the Church" were the "Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and the "Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Only in 2021 were they legally folded into each other. It's not clear from free public sources that I've found whether the Church is currently incorporated as a Church, a corporation sole, or anything else. The best explanation I've found is here. (Let me know if you need help getting around the paywall.) Some previous versions of this article had a little more explanation on the previous status of the Church, although I edited most of it out as it was based on dubious sources and dead links.

If anyone else has more insight, I'd be happy to hear it - and if you think that can be explained better in the article, I'd be happy for an assist here. Trevdna (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The priesthood is divided into three Aaronic priesthood quorums for young men 11 and up, and a Melchizedek priesthood quorum for men 18 and up "Aaronic priesthood quorums" and "Melchizedek priesthood quorum" are confusing terms to me, could we change to something like The priesthood is divided into an order for young men 11 and up (called the Aaronic priesthood) and an order for men 18 and up (called the Melchizedek priesthood).

I like it. Changed. Trevdna (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

as of 2007, some done by Deloitte & Touche. Can we remove this? Inelegant and probably unnecessary.

Good point. Removed.

It has been estimated that the LDS Church received $33-billion in donations from its members in 2010 and, during the decade of the 2010s to net about $15-billion gains per year. Not the best phrasing, I would change to something like It has been estimated that the LDS Church received $33 billion in donations from its members in 2010, and that during the 2010s its net worth increased by about $15 billion per year.

Changed. Trevdna (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In December 2019, a whistleblower alleged the church holds over $100 billion in investment funds Has this been confirmed? If so I would change "alleged" to "disclosed", the term used in "Criticism". If not, I would change the "Criticism" section to reflect that the information is uncertain. Also, if there are sources to back it up, it would make sense to replace the 2011 estimate of net worth ($30 billion) and 2012 ($40 billion) with more current estimates from after the Ensign Peak allegation/disclosure. Right now it's not clear if the total is $40 billion plus the $100 billion fund or if the $40 billion included the fund.

Erm, it hasn't really been confirmed. The Church isn't really saying anything one way or the other, and they're the only ones who could confirm anything. That said, the whistleblower provided many corroborating documents that are either expertly forged (and the Church would have called them out immediately) or prove pretty clearly that his claims are accurate. Also, other sources treat the $100 billion figure as legitimate. One WSJ article, for example, is headlined "The Mormon Church Amassed $100 Billion. It Was the Best-Kept Secret in the Investment World" and bases its reporting on "interviews with more than a dozen former employees and business partners (that) provide(s) a deeper look inside an organizaion that ballooned from a shoestring operation in the 90's into a behemoth rivalling Wall Street's largest firms." So in my view, it's in a grey area where it hasn't officially been confirmed, but all indications make it look highly probably correct.

Also, there is no reliable update on the Church's net worth. There's no way it's less than $100 billion, as the Church is famous for avoiding debt, so it's certainly north of $100 billion. Which makes it a little hard to know what to do with the 2011 estimate. Was it low? Was it right at the time but the Church's assets ballooned in 8 years? No one who knows is saying anything substantial.

So again, if you can think of a way to get all that clarified and cited correctly, I'm all ears. The current wording is the best I could do, while keeping it all sourced and neutral. Trevdna (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

The image of the Tabernacle Choir mentions them winning many awards, but that info is not in the article text.

Updated that section. Trevdna (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does ref #178, about the ten fittest cities, support the sentence They sometimes come into conflict with local retail businesses that serve non-members?

Really not sure, good catch. Removed that reference as it was redundant. Trevdna (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the 116th United States Congress: The current congress in the 117th, needs to be updated.

Updated. Trevdna (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from issues that it considers to be ones of morality, however, the church maintains a position of political neutrality, but encourages its members to be politically active, to participate in elections, and to be knowledgeable about current political and social issues within their communities, states, and countries. Run-on sentence, I would change to Apart from issues that it considers to be ones of morality, however, the church maintains a position of political neutrality. Despite this it encourages its members to be politically active, to participate in elections, and to be knowledgeable about current political and social issues within their communities, states, and countries.

Updated. Trevdna (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The first two paragraphs of "Early criticism" do not have any sources. Same with first paragraph of "Modern criticism".

Cited. I have left some points uncited in the "Modern criticism" where there are literally multiple Wikipedia articles on each point. If anyone has any serious doubts as to what is being said, they can take a few minutes to peruse the well-cited subarticles. Trevdna (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Mormonism 101 a reliable source?

I would argue it is. It has an extensive bibliography, and the author has published his contact information for any inquiries. Although the exact sentence quoted in the article is not explicitly cited inside the body of the article itself, it is sandwiched between two other directly cited sentences. Those works, by Ostling & Ostling, and Quinn, are highly referenced works. Although I do not have access to them myself, I understand they are very well-researched. Also, in support of this assertion, I've included an additional efn that details very similar allegations from the whistleblower behind the $100 billion fund disclosure. Trevdna (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like I think you can remove the sentence starting "Due to doctrinal differences", that info is already mentioned earlier in the article.

Removed, although I've transferred the references to the earlier location. Trevdna (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

Some sources like Williams 2003 are listed in the Bibliography then again in Further reading, I'd say Further reading is just for sources not cited in the article.

Good catch. Looks like lots of those were not cited in the article, so I've removed them from the Bibliography. Trevdna (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

Well written. Excellent prose!
Verifiable. For the most part, just a few issues noted in the comments.
Broad. Yes! Excellent use of summary style.
Neutral. Most of the time, some issues.

If you have any other locations where neutrality is an issue, besides those raised in the comments above, please let me know and I'll get to them. Trevdna (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stable. Yes.
Images. Good captions, images are tagged.

Great work on this article! It's tremendously difficult to synthesize all of the information on such a broad topic, my favorite part about the article is that you've managed to be succinct and capture only the important points. Not quite GA level yet, I'll place the article on hold so you can respond to my comments above. Please don't allow me to use the fact that I'm your reviewer to force changes on the article, you are welcome to push back if you think my comments are unreasonable. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think all your requests and questions are spot-on. I will respond to them as my schedule allows over the next several days. —Trevdna (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I've responded to all your comments in one way or another. Please let me know if you have any follow-on comments or concerns. --Trevdna (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you :) I appreciate the explanations on the legal status and the finances, I don't have any ideas on how to improve on what you've written. Happy to pass as GA! --Cerebellum (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, thanks! It’s my first. Thanks for your time and effort in reviewing. —Trevdna (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]