Jump to content

Talk:Mormon missionary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

The following external link is repeatedly being added: http://lds4u.com/. I and other editors have removed this link repeatedly. I feel that it runs afoul of WP:ELNO, especially #11 and #12. It appears to be a website that is not controlled or owned by any recognized authority or reliable source. It also contains much general information about beliefs of the church rather than information specific to missionaries of the church, which runs afoul of #13. Does anyone else wish to comment on this? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, if you don't mind
  1. First of all that site is not a blog, personal webpage or a fansite; I suggested that you look up definitions of those earlier in our private talk, to no avail.
  2. Absolutely no relation to #12 of WPELNO
  3. There is a lot of information specific to missionaries
examples: Mormon missionary rules ( all 167 of them )
http://www.lds4u.com/Missionaries/rules.htm
reasons for young people to serve on a mission
http://www.lds4u.com/Missionaries/whyserve.htm
goals to achieve
http://www.lds4u.com/Missionaries/Objectives.htm
and many more
PS Chasing off non-Mormon editors from contributing is no different than reserving the right to edit Third Reich articles to Neo-Nazies only. Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.1.84 (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this link does not belong on Wikipedia. In addition to ELNO #11 and #12, also violates #2. —Eustress talk 16:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, even ignoring the impressive use of Godwin's Law, it's an unofficial fansite. tedder (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor have I ever seen Godwin's law invoked so rapidly with so little warrant. They're "Nazis", as well. I'm not a Mormon (although I have a decent knowledge of many topics LDS-related, as do I for most Western religions; I don't do anything but copy-edit on subjects I know nothing about), and I made quite major changes to the lead which worked perfectly according to WP:BRD. No one chased me off. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ — Preceding undated comment added 07:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert baptism analysis

[edit]

I just reverted a good faith edit that analyzed convert baptisms. It appears to violate WP:NOR, specifically the prohibition of "...any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." 72Dino (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the edit was problematic. It appeared to be an attempt to demonstrate that the LDS Church's missionary work is stagnating and/or that it is not growing as fast as the Assemblies of God. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image pertinence

[edit]
Headstone of a missionary that was murdered by the Zarate Willka Armed Forces of Liberation while serving in Bolivia.

I removed File:JBBall Gravestone.jpg (pictured right), but anon User:208.81.184.4 reverted my action (diff), arguing the image has a "direct relationship to the risks [of] missionary work -- this person was murdered on his mission, as described in the caption". However, MOS:Images states that "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." The image by itself has no direct pertinence to the article -- the headstone doesn't say anything about the deceased person's missionary service. Therefore, I suggest the image be removed for good. —Eustress talk 22:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and thank the IP editor for finding it and adding it to the article. Before the picture there was none in the Incidents subsection. I have inserted a sentence in the section on the incident (in retrospect a notable omission, given the wide publicity it received when it occurred), and have attached its cite to the picture's caption as further explanation. Ylee (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support Eustress's reasoning. It struck me as out-of-place and irrelevant while reading the article. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 07:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead issues

[edit]

Hello and thank you for your assistance in making the lead compliant with enwp guidelines. Here are some of my thoughts:

  • I'll concede on the bolding issue in the first sentence -- it's not ideal, but I understand your concern. Perhaps someone else can suggest a superior alternative?
  • Per WP:LDS, first reference to church should be "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)".
  • "Personnel" is not ideal for describing missionaries, since the word typically connotes employment (see wikt:personnel); nor are they commissioned at the mission-level -- they are called at the worldwide level and then organized geographically into missions, in a very centralized process

Regards —Eustress talk 15:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still here and I've come back to read the lead once a day to try to figure out a better way of phrasing the first sentence to avoid the wikilink in the title as per MOSBOLDTITLE, but I'm still clueless. Any passers-by with a clue stick, please hit me. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 07:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality in Missionary Conduct Section

[edit]

There are a couple things I noticed about this section:

  1. This section has a sentence which does not appear to be religiously neutral: "A missionary's first priority is to the Lord, then to the mission president and finally to their companion." By using the words "to the Lord", the author implies that there is a lord, which obviously is not neutral in a religious sense. I basically just want to make sure that this should be rephrased.
  2. This section's sources are almost all from the Mormon Handbook, which itself seems like it would be of biased nature. However I do not really know if this is the case. It could be a totally acceptable source.

Any responses would be great! Das Pferd (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that, in context, "to the Lord" means "to the Lord as Mormons believe". How else would you word it?
Since this section has a whole subsection called "the Missionary Handbook", I think it's appropriate that a lot of material comes from it. If you can find third-party references for it, go for it. But I don't think you'll find many. Who would want to comment on Mormon Missionary conduct unless they have a problem with it? I think most critics of Mormons have a problem with Mormon theology, not how their missionaries behave. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missionary death

[edit]

Do you think this would clear WP:NOTNEWS? http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865582049/LDS-missionary-killed-in-electrical-accident-in-Guatemala.html?pg=all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.9.231 (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it belongs in the article. There have been a number of missionaries that have died in accidents while serving. While tragic, I don't think it's notable for an encyclopedia. Bahooka (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule

[edit]

I'm a very visual person, so I'm planning to add this to the Schedule section.

Sample schedule of missionary serving in their native language
Time
Activity 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Eat
Personal study
Companion study
Exercise
Shower and dress
Proselyte
Plan and pray

Any objections? Any tweaks on wording (e.g. "Consume food" or "Meal" vs. "Eat")? Colors? Or on width? For example, we could render it wider, like this:

Time
Activity 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Eat
Personal study

If there are no objections or suggestions, I'll add it within the next few days. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the nature of visual learning, but I think this would add more space to an article that is already sufficiently large. It can also place undue weight on what is an item that not only is not central to the article, but currently is a very small section. It can also start an unusual precedent for other sections - would an editor want to start including an organizational chart for that section, etc. I applaud the good faith effort, but I don't see the need to add this. ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the desire to not place undue weight on such a small section, but the visual is much easier for me to digest than the prose (which would stay in place). When I was serving, time management was a huge issue. I think it's a huge boon to the article. We can make it smaller as well; the way it's rendered above is just the default size.
This is precisely the type of feedback I wanted. Anyone else? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Proselyte" should be "Proselytize", I think. "Proselyte" was originally a noun, but it's gradually becoming a verb synonym for "proselytize", but I think its acceptance as a verb is still largely limited to the U.S. (and perhaps by extension among LDS Church missionaries and membership). I have no problem with it being added to a section on schedule/time management. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure the use of 'proselyte' as a verb is limited to the US. It may be 'gradually becoming a verb synonym' for 'proselytize', but most people - that's assuming they even know what the word means! - would consider it incorrect English.213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not representational of all missionaries; specifically many foreign language missionaries have more time for language study each day in addition to gospel study. Additionally it doesn't account for the major increase in recent years for non-proselytizing service hours. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...and yes I know you specify "serving in their native language" in the title of the table, but how many people are going to completely gloss over that, as I did until I closely reexamined that table? Are we going to give an approximate percentage of missionaries are proselytizing in their own language, verses the overall population which includes non-native speakers &/or non-proselytizing service missionaries? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Good Olfactory and 208.81.184.4. ChristensenMJ, would you feel better about this addition if it were rendered in a smaller font, such as this:
Sample schedule of missionary serving in their native language
Time
Activity 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Eat
Personal study
Companion study
. . .
?
208.81.184.4, yes, it only represents missionaries serving in their native tongue. Pointing it out in the title was my attempt at making it clear. I don't know of how to resolve this other than add an additional chart for foreign language missionaries, but I fear that would lead to even more undue weight to this section, which one editor is already troubled about with just the one chart. And the prose does point out that those serving in a foreign language spend an additional hour studying the language. I don't know how to account for service hours (I don't even know what they are). Do you have any ideas?
As for "an approximate percentage of missionaries are proselytizing in their own language, verses the overall population which includes non-native speakers &/or non-proselytizing service missionaries", that's not an issue for this schedule section or this graphic. However, I would love to see those stats in the article. The problem, of course, is finding a reliable source that has this info. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 208.81.184.4, one solution would be render the heading in a larger font, as below, to emphasize it's just for native language missionaries. Would this be acceptable to you? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sample schedule of missionaries serving in their native language
Time
Activity 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Eat
Personal study
Companion study
. . .
By the way, the times don't really match up with the schedule in Preach My Gospel and the Missionary Handbook. Bahooka (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By George, Bahooka, you're right. I'll edit the table to match the schedule in the handbook. Thanks for pointing that out. I based the graphic on the prose in the article, which I guess should be updated as well. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments and since I was specifically asked about whether a smaller font would be better, for me it's still no. Perhaps another way to express my thought is that in some ways a missionary's day is not all that unique. They get up and prepare for the day - granted it's different than what others do to prepare - but then they go out and work, with breaks to eat at appropriate times. It's not a lot different than any of us getting up, getting ready for the day, and heading to work. I just don't think it's so unique that it needs special attention or additional information, above the existing small section which provides an explanation. This doesn't even address other issues such as those 208.81.184.4 has raised and further attempt to address any and all intricacies of schedule by a second graph would certainly be overkill. A better, more direct ref, such as those provided above by Bahooka would also be good in the section, rather than the pdf currently there. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, ChristensenMJ, for clarifying your position. I guess their day is largely similar to most people's, but I don't study for two to three hours every morning, and I still absorb information much easier visually, so my position hasn't changed.
I edited the section to reflect the references and included them. It didn't even match the PDF version it linked to.
So, so far, I have two yes (me, Good Olfactory), one no ChristensenMJ and two no vote (208.81.184.4, Bahooka). So we really don't have a consensus yet. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, as I noted above, their mornings are indeed very different than what others do to prepare for a day. If there's a way to extenuate that, it might be worth a shot. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, almost a week and no further comments or input. Is there a way to get more editors involved? My mention on the LDS Project page didn't draw in any editors. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up this subject on the main project talk page in hopes of more input. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The feedback I received in total was several neutral responses, a few yes votes and just one no vote (I'm assuming Bahooka is fine with it now that I've updated the information to match the sources). Per the discussion on the Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject talk page, I went ahead and added it. I would have preferred more input and discussion, but it appears few people care about this. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on including it. My main concern was accuracy with the sources, and that has been resolved. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lowering of age

[edit]

I added a paragraph to the History section about the lowering of the age for missionary service. It is rather historical. It is somewhat redundant, since it's mentioned in passing in other parts of the article. But I went into more detail and it was a glaring omission since before, it just ended with M. Russell Ballard's statement that the bar to qualify for missionary service had been raised. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not super up on this history—but how did/does the "raising the bar" relate to the changes in age? Did the change in age supercede the raising of the bar? It seemed that the raising of the bar resulted in a drop in the number of missionaries, but then the lowering of the age resulted in a surge. So has the church dropped the emphasis on raising the bar? I can't really find any sources on the relation between the two. Things seem to kind of gone quiet on raising the bar since the age change. Or am I missing something? Good Ol’factory (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lowering the age from 20 to 19 in 1960 was also historic at the time and should be mentioned along with the more recent lowering of age requirements (see the first paragraph here.) I have not heard mention of "raising the bar" requirements since the lowering of the age, but I also have not heard of any change in those requirements. The bar is still up there where they raised it, but has not been lowered. There does not appear to be a connection between lowering the age and raising the bar unless it is in a reliable source that I have not seen. Bahooka (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a relation between the two events, outside of them both relating to missionary service. But, yes, it hasn't really been discussed much since the age change. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree with Bahooka that information on the first age lowering in 1960 should be included as well, but I think it needs more research first. It would be great to get information on its impact like we have on the more recent one. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable changes

[edit]

I reverted these edits by an anon IP user for several reasons:

  • The Church does not mandate young men to serve missions. They kind of sort of used to, but not anymore. They do strongly encourage it, however, hence the revert which states that.
  • Calling out how much time missionaries "work" each week and how little time they have off borders on original research and synthesis. Can the time they sleep and time for meals be considered "working"?

If you think the changes are worthy, let's discuss here first. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 20:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I agree that "mandate" is a bit too strong. It's referred to as a "duty", a "call", even in some sources an "expectation", but as far as I know there are no negative repercussions for young men who do not go, apart from perhaps general social disappointment or disfavor. Certainly it would not make someone unworthy enough to be denied a temple recommend or the ability to participate in priesthood ordinances, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Actually, mandate is a very appropriate word. Most who see missionary service for men as mandatory do so in light of the quote by John Taylor, as found in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: John Taylor (2001), 164. It says: "If you do not magnify your callings, God will hold you responsible for those you might have saved, had you done your duty." And further, when Thomas S. Monson announced in October 2012 the age changes for missionary service, he said, "We affirm that missionary work is a priesthood duty—and we encourage all young men who are worthy and who are physically able and mentally capable to respond to the call to serve. Many young women also serve, but they are not under the same mandate to serve as are the young men. We assure the young sisters of the Church, however, that they make a valuable contribution as missionaries, and we welcome their service." (emphasis added) From this quote, service for young men is mandated. This means the wording is not only acceptable, but highly appropriate. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Mandate" usually implies that something is "mandatory". Serving a mission is not mandatory for young men in the usual sense of the word, in that there are no repercussions imposed by the church on one who chooses not to go. I think "duty", "responsibility", or "expectation" captures the reality better. I think Monson (and Taylor) were probably speaking in a somewhat spiritual sense—that it is a spiritual mandate and the person who chooses not to go with suffer spiritual repercussions. But that's not what the WP article needs to get at—what readers are probably going to want to know from the statement is a more practical issue: "does a young person have to go on a mission, or is it optional?". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I agree with Good Olfactory here. It is expected, but not mandatory. There are no negative repercussions from the Church for not serving. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Well, while there are no formal consequences, in modern post-McKay era LDS society any male member that seems able-bodied who doesn't serve is looked at with a certain degree of suspicion, especially if he is from a multi-generational Mormon family. He will generally be perceived as having been either unworthy or lacking in testimony, either of which engenders a degree of prejudice with other members, and it will be difficult for him to remain active, even though this is the point he actually needs the church the most so far in his young life. It is especially difficult for those struggling from non-obvious reasons that kept them from serving (which they may try to keep private), such as mental health issues, which itself is compounded by the social stigma and general lack of openness about that among church membership. Not serving will impact his perceived eligibility as a potential husband, his ability to seek higher education at CES schools, and his eligibility for programs reserved for returned missionaries (like the Perpetual Education Fund). The lack of mission information on his membership record will impact how every bishop (and others in leadership positions) perceive him for the rest of his life, which can make a difference in how he is asked to serve. He will be forced over and over to either come up with a cover-story for why he didn't serve (perhaps even falsely admitting to transgression he later repented of, instead of mental illness he may still be struggling with), or make it known he isn't open to discussing it, and thereby letting imaginations run wild in the ward gossip vine. In short there are strong incentives built in for serving (even when you really shouldn't) and even stronger disincentives for not serving, assuming this theoretical "Prospective Elder" wants to remain active. However, coming home early can be even worse... -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It sounds like it's fair to say that there are no sanctions, but it may have an impact on how others in the church perceive him in a variety of circumstances, and could even potentially disqualify him from certain privileges, such as PEF participation. Though I would still categorize that as non-mandatory, i.e., lacking a non-spiritual "mandate". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. That's quite a sermon, 208.81.184.4, but unless you can find verifiable refs for all your claims (which I agree with to some degree), they can't go in the article. I once again agree with Good Olfactory's tempered perspective. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that this very real scenario specifically should go in the article, but our personal observations and experiences can help inform editorial choices and the weight given to certain statements. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Frecklefoot: I considered your suggestion about finding references, as this discussion has brought up several issues that I don't think are properly addressed in this article, including the circumstances and impact that not serving or returning early has on young Latter-day Saint men. As the refs I found demonstrate that a large portion of those in these two circumstances are struggling with mental health issues (sometimes euphemistically called "emotional issues" in some of these sources), I've also included refs describing 'Mormonism and mental health' in more general terms, as some context may likely be needed. I'm not great at writing big blocks of text (I'm really an editor not an author), so hopefully this material will give someone a firm foundation for writing that material. There may be enough here to write a separate article specifically about 'Mormonism and mental health', and not just about missionaries, but I'll leave that for others to decide. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential refs

[edit]

Given the request for refs in the section above, here is a sample of related ones that may be of use; they are sorted by date:

Undated
  • "Motivating Observations", YSA Leaders.org (ysa-leaders.org), If you simply count who attends Sunday meetings in our YSA wards, or who attends YSA activities in stakes where there are no YSA units, the women often outnumber men by 3:1. Where did the young men go? In one area of the church, about 40% of our young men and women of record are active at age 16. About 20% of our young men of record, aged 19-24, have served or are serving missions. Because we correctly hold honorable missionary service up as such a strong ideal, however, those who do not or cannot serve missions often feel that they don't then belong in the Church. If a young man chooses not to serve a mission or isn't qualified to serve, the probability that he will remain active is nearly zero. We fail in not sending them, and then we fail again when we do not have a way to catch them, help them build their faith, and stay active in the Church as adults.

Additionally the following are not really directly citable, but still may contain useful individual articles or other information on this topic:

Thanks. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added your refs (except uncitable refs) to "refideas" ideas above to protect against loss via archiving at some future date. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, looking at some of these—there's a lot that could be written about the issue. I had no idea there was so much. At least some mention of it should be in this article, I think, since so much of it is related to the mental health of potential or actual LDS missionaries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

outside the bathroom

[edit]

This is bogus correct? All MTCs have this rule? [THERE IS NO SOURCE]:

At the missionary training center, missionaries are instructed to wait directly outside of the restroom if their companion is inside.

I could not find the term "sexual" more than once, and in different context. I could not find this on page 30? Bogus?

The rule is also intended to defend missionaries against complaints of sexual abuse, because one companion could always serve as a witness for another companion if needed for legal purposes.[1]: 30 

Thewhitebox (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference MissionaryHandbook was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

"preparation day"

[edit]

This phrase is used a few times, but without explanation. What is it? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Error on the graph

[edit]

The graph showing the number of converts per missionary has an error in the lower right corner. "2001" should read "2010" 67.193.198.15 (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well here we are almost five years later and that typo is still there.
Not only that; the chart itself is over a decade since its last update. TravellerDMT-07 (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a new graph with data up to 2022 which also adds the number of missionaries and converts each year to give more context to the ratio number. The file description has the gnuplot code and data so it should be easier to update in the future. Unfortunately I couldn't find a source for missionary numbers before 1977 so I had to estimated earlier data from the previous graph. Gabriellyas (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Church MOS vs. Wikipedia LDS MOS

[edit]

Hello again, everyone! As outlined here, there is a big difference between the updated MOS from the Church and Wikipedia's manual of style relating to articles about the Church. That said, both of those manuals of style are in agreement on one point: The full name of the Church should be used in the first reference thereunton in each article about Church-related topics. After that, abbreviations remain acceptable. Therefore, it is inappropriate for any Wikipedia user to try and incorporate the full name of the Church on every mention thereunto in every article about Church-related subjects. Post any questions on this on the talk page to which I linked above. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"thereunton?" TravellerDMT-07 (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changes just made (Alumni vs. Prominent RMs)

[edit]

Hello again, everyone! In looking over this page just now, the usage of the term "alumni" in one of the subsection headings caught my attention. The textbook definition of that term doesn't seem to me to be a good fit for our purposes here, so I decided to be bold and change the term in question to "prominent RMs". This is just a placeholder for now, and I welcome any input on any further tweaks. But i don't think employing the term "alumni" is appropriate here. That term seems to indicate that once their missionary labors were concluded, their role as missionaries came to a permanent end. And Church leaders have stressed that every member should involve themselves in missionary work, with or without a formal full-time call as such. So to say they are instead prominent returned missionaries to me better captures the intended notion. Just my own thoughts, for what they may be worth. Does anyone else have any opinion on this issue? Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jgstokes the only thing that I have to comment is that perhaps it could be changed to "Prominent Returned Missionaries." RM is fine, but maybe it isn't the best to use an acronym in a section heading. Rollidan (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with utilizing "Returned missionaries" instead of "RMs", which, on reflection, might confuse the readers of this page. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to the article title (LDS Church) vs. (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

[edit]

In the WP:NCLDS, it states in the section Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints)#Articles_about_a_single_denomination that: "Articles about only one Latter Day Saint denomination should use the full name of the denomination as it exists on the denomination's Wikipedia page". I almost reverted Johnpacklambert's edit, but feel that it was justified after reading the MOS, as this article is about a single denomination. My recommendation is that it be reverted back to Johnpacklambert's title, using the full name of the LDS church. Epachamo (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 September 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. There appears to be a rough consensus to move the article as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Missionaries (LDS Church) → Mormon missionaries – I realize that this is probably not the name that the LDS Church would want (they are trying to get away from "Mormon"), but nevertheless this is the common name (as acknowledged by the article's lead sentence) and has the added benefit of being a form of natural disambiguation, which is preferred. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. SITH (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. SITH (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Reagan Red Slash 21:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A move like this is somewhat of a tricky subject. I understand the policy-based rationales for this proposal, which may, on their own merits, be sound. At the same time,. however, given the fact that the church that sends out the missionaries referenced in this article is trying to move away from imporper usage of the "Mormon" moniker, and with the Church trying to turn the focus more towards the name of Jesus Christ, which is prominently centered in the logo thereof, the idea of such a change, even if soundly based in policy, could be seen as problematic. The current article name, with (LDS Church) in parenthesis, and not giving undue weight to the usage of an informl terminology to which the church appears to object, strikes me as far more nuetral in tone than would be the case in employing and using a name for this article that the church is trying to get away from. I know that the guidelines from the church on the naming issue have not been universally applied, but there already seems to be mass confusion on the part of several editors here about the extent to which those guidelines should be applicable here. And during a time when we are trying to step in the right direction and strike the proper balance in the degree to which we acknowledge those guidelines, I could see several editors considering the proposed change as a major step backwards. I haven't done the research myself, but I'd be curious to know: does anyone have an idea as to how commonly the informal moniker is used vs. how frequently the preferred term is used at this point? If the concerns I've outlined here can be addressed, I might be more inclined to get on board with changing the name of this article. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • My google hits turn up the following results (in order of hit rate):
        1. "Mormon missionaries"=383,000
        2. "LDS missionaries"=177,000
        3. "Latter-day Saint missionaries"=88,000
        4. "missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"=74,700
        5. "LDS Church missionaries"=10,700
        6. "Mormon Church missionaries"=9,940
        7. "missionaries of the Mormon Church"=60
        8. "missionaries of the LDS Church"=52
    • The current name is in a format that is most similar to #8, and it only get gets 52 hits, the least of the eight. The proposed name is #1. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good Ol’factory, thanks for mentioning the numbers for the search breakdown. I appreciate you doing the work to figure that out. That part of my concern about this move proposal has been resolved. I still have some concern about this move possibly being interpreted as a step back for an article covering the modern-day Church, but I'm sure there's a way around that. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by it being interpreted as a step back for the modern-day Church. It's not Wikipedia's job to move the Church forwards or backwards, whatever that may mean. My nomination is simply based on the proposed name being the common name and it being a name that naturally disambiguates from other missionaries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When there is a very, very clear policy shift away from using a certain name, doing google searches that take in in main articles on other material that was created before that policy shift is a very questionable action.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This is a close call, but I think that the existing WP-wide guidelines on article titles, in conjunction with those specific to articles related to the Latter Day Saint movement, are best read to keep the title as is. The rule of thumb that "Wikipedia... generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" is because "such names will usually best fit the five criteria" (Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency) that must be considered when determining an article title. And while I agree that "Mormon missionaries" is the best fit for the recognizability and naturalness criteria, and on conciseness I think it's about a wash between the two options, I think the status quo "Missionaries (LDS Church)" is a better fit overall when the precision and consistency criteria are considered too.
Re: precision, the common name section of the guidelines for article titles, "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources," which I think applies here. "Mormon missionaries" is actually the less precise term, aka a worse choice for disambiguation (natural or otherwise), imo, because "Missionaries (LDS Church)" is not ambiguous, whereas "Mormon missionaries" is. Other "Mormon" sects besides the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints send out missionaries (including some Mormon fundamentalists and The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)), so unless we want to broaden the scope of the article to cover those as well, the proposed title is ambiguous. Further, WP:NCLDS states that "If necessary for disambiguation, articles that apply in the context of only one Latter Day Saint denomination should contain the following parentheticals:" The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -> LDS Church. This article is only about the LDS Church's missionaries, so it should have the "(LDS Church)" suffix. And relatedly, on the consistency criterion, the current title is consistent with, e.g., Temple (LDS Church) and Priesthood (LDS Church). I also give some weight to what an organization (or person) prefers to call itself (or themself). While that is not determinative, and I personally think the LDS Church gets unrealistically persnickety about this issue in some circumstances, I think this situation is one where it deserves at least some consideration—and for me helps push this question towards keeping things as is.
Finally, at least per Good Olfactory's google statistics, the LDS-related terms (#2–5 and 8) are almost as prevalent as the Mormon-related ones in total, so while as I said above I agree that "Mormon missionaries" is the most recognizable and natural term here, having a redirect from that to the current title doesn't seem like it would result in a huge hit on the quality of those criteria. ― biggins (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with biggins. If the name of the page changes to "Mormon missionaries", it should include information about missionaries from non-LDS sects of Mormonism. Otherwise why are we making the name of the page less specific when a redirect can help with discoverability issues? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that biggins makes some good points. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also concur with biggins. The observations made provide a sound policy-based metric to measure the merits of the proposed changes.--Jgstokes (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. This is how they are known to most people all over the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Current name is frightful by any measure. Proposal is supported by policy and a great improvement. Andrewa (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nominator). One thing I forgot to mention is that category-space has used "Mormon missionaries" for some time without objection. See Category:Mormon missionaries and its subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Mormon missionary. Move seems fine, and has broad support above, but per WP:SINGULAR, and also the parent article Missionary, I don't see a reason why this would be pluralised. The article was actually at Mormon missionary until a 2007 move, and was most recently at Missionary (LDS Church) until a bold move in April this year. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not a common name issue. This is an issue of showing respect for the naming conventions of an institution. In this case these are people who are missionaries for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is an institutional identification, and we should respect the naming conventions of the institution itself. In this case common name should bow to the reality of what an institution is called. Especially when that institution has signaled that it does not approve of, support or like the name in current use. In this case the proposed name boils down to being an unacceptable pejorative term that should not be tolerated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All the comments above fail to show appreciation for changes that occurred in 2018 and to respect the rights of groups of people to change how they are referred to. This change was implemented in 2018, yet people are refusing to readjust article and category names to comply with this. A recent study showed that in current media a large percent are using the full name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with the only major exception being those articles that have negative editorial content about the Church. This year thousands of articles have been published about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints donating loads of 20 tons of goods to various local food banks, and not a one of them has seen a need to identify the Church by any other name than the correct one. There is no reason to use in an article name a term that has been extremely depricated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like the see the "recent study" you refer to. Are you saying we should keep "Missionaries {LDS Church}"? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I presume what is being referred to is from this article. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current name is much, much better than the proposed name. I was referring to that study. I also think it is notable that MOS:LDS is largely based on quotes from articles in 2012 and in no ways shows any incompratation of changes since 2018. Common name should not be used to perpetuate names that people have declared they find totally unacceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Mormon missionaries" is the common name. The church's missionaries are widely, almost universally, recognized as that, and the conciseness of that name makes it unlikely to die out in the near future. And up until a couple years ago the church was actively promoting the use and acceptance of the term "Mormon", for example, in its I'm a Mormon ad campaign and its documentary Meet the Mormons. I would also assume that a large portion of Mormon missionaries lived and died before the church's 2018 rebranding.
    I don't have a strong preference on singular vs. plural, but one argument for plural is that the missionaries always come in pairs. ~Awilley (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't sound like a very strong reason to abandon the WP:SINGULAR policy to me... Not to mention consistency with missionary and other similar articles.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "I'm A Mormon" campaign was ended. www.mormon.org has been renamed www.comeuntochrist.org. We should not act as if events 8 years ago can determine current correct usage when there have been major declarations on correct usage from a group since then. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made it very clear it wants people to use the full name of the Church more, and even more clear that using the word "Mormon" as a reference to anything other than the Book of Mormon or the eponomous ancient prophet-historian-military leader who wrote it, is not acceptable. They have rebranded the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square, they have rebranded the main outreach website. They have ended the mentioned campaign. Antiquated things do not determine current proper usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This one is close. "Mormon Missionary" is clearly the common name. It is also clearly no longer NPOV. Despite the "I'm a Mormon" campaign, etc., it is legitimately considered offensive to the demographic it represents, even though it wasn't really before 2018. Per WP:NPOVTITLE, "the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: ... Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious" An example given in the policy is Octomom, which is the common name but POV, that redirects to Nadya Suleman. I would argue that there is a similar case here. "Mormon Missionary" is a colloquialism. The current title is more encyclopedic. "Mormon Missionary" should redirect. Epachamo (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mormon is not offensive, and we should not let it be treated as such. Place Clichy (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If people find the term offensive, they have a right to say so. This is one of the worst examples of Orientalist imposing of outside views on others and telling them they have no right to any feelings on how they are represented in a long time. Not since the Democrat candidate for governor in Utah attending a bigotted play attacking Joseph Smith in very biased ways and then told people who found this support offensive they had no right to be offended. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints find the term offensive, and you have no right to tell us otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • A group does not get veto power over article naming on Wikipedia because they arbitrarily decide a term is suddendly now offensive when it clearly wasn't offensive to them only a couple of years ago. I'm sure there are lots of neo-nazis that find the term "nazi" offensive and would like us to move the Nazism article to National socialism. Too bad. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Rreagan007: Latter Day Saints don't get to dictate Wikipedia policy, and that is NOT my argument. My argument is that NPOV must be taken into account per Wikipedia policy found in WP:NPOVTITLE. I am not a Latter Day Saint, but I interact on a daily basis with Latter Day Saints, and I can tell you that using the term is offensive, and will automatically slant readers viewpoints (the majority of whom are probably Latter Day Saints). The current name is satisfactory. Nobody is going to be confused when they read the title. Why poke someone with a stick when there is no reason to do so? Epachamo (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's somewhat ironic that Johnpacklambert would discuss being offended by terminology while using the obviously incorrect—and to some, offensive—"Democrat" as an adjective. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on 2 grounds: 1°) WP:COMMONNAME as emphasized by "—widely known as Mormon missionaries—" in the first words of the article and 2°) religious missionaries from every faith are better described by an adjectival or possessive form, rather than parenthetical disambiguation, as seen in Category:Missionaries by religion. The current parenthetical name makes it look like Missionaries would be the best unambiguous universally understood way to describe the mormon missionaries would it not be for an unfortunate homonymy, which is wrong on all accounts. We have Catholic missionaries, Muslim missionaries, Methodists missionaires, not Missionaries (Catholic), Missionaries (Islam) or Missionaries (Methodist). I could live with Missionaries of the LDS Church but it does not solve the COMMONNAME issue and acronyms are usually discouraged. Place Clichy (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Missionary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The missionaries are institutionally tied to the Church, the way they operate is 100% connected to the Church, and this is the most correct and clear identifier. This is a case where we should avoid the use of pejorative terms that are in the process of being depricated. I have to admit I am not very hung up on the missionary v. moissionaries name. I can see following general convention. I would also point out that missionaries functioning as companionships has not always been a universal thing. Pre-1950 or so the rules were not quite the same. In the late 19th-century some missionaries at times would travel alone for extended periods of time. John H. Groberg spent most of his mission in Tonga without a companion (although he did have companions while he was a dock-strike delayed missionary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Orange County, California). My current branch of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints right now has 9 missionaires of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints assigned to it in 3 areas, which is 3 missionaries per area. Especially in the 19th-century I could find all sorts of interesting missionary configurations going on, so I can see no strong argument for using the plural, but to me that is not the big issue period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not super clear whether "Mormon" equals the LDS Church or the LDS movement. An alternative title like LDS Church (Mormon) missionaries, with a redirect from Mormon missionaries, may resolve that problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. per Place Clichy & others. "Mormon missionaries" is very much the COMMONNAME. The changes being promoted by commentators above are far too recent. And what may be LDS church policy today may change again tomorrow, and Wikipedia articles should not twist and turn to every seasonal whim, or until the next slate of image consultants is hired. Until there is perceptible change in common usage, it should be "Mormon missionaries". Walrasiad (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Walrasiad, your policy-based comments are on point. As to the rest of what you said, as a member of the Church in question here, I can attest to the fact that the Church does not use image consultants in decisions like this. Let me refer you to the words of Russell M. Nelson, the Church President who members believe is a prophet inspired by the Lord in such matters. This is what he said about what the changes are, what they are not, and directly regarding whether this would be a temporary effort: The quotes I share here are pulled from the [ https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng address he gave] when highlighting the specifics behind the effort in question to correct the name of the Church:
"Today I feel compelled to discuss with you a matter of great importance. Some weeks ago, I released a statement regarding a course correction for the name of the Church.1 I did this because the Lord impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He decreed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.2
"As you would expect, responses to this statement and to the revised style guide3 have been mixed. Many members immediately corrected the name of the Church on their blogs and social media pages. Others wondered why, with all that’s going on in the world, it was necessary to emphasize something so “inconsequential.” And some said it couldn’t be done, so why even try? Let me explain why we care so deeply about this issue. But first let me state what this effort is not:
It is not a name change.
It is not rebranding.
It 'is not cosmetic.
It is not' a whim.
And it is not inconsequential.

"Instead, it is a correction. It is the command of the Lord. Joseph Smith did not name the Church restored through him; neither did Mormon. It was the Savior Himself who said, 'For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.'"

Later on in that same address, Nelson further noted: "Thus, the name of the Church is not negotiable . . .there are many worldly arguments against restoring the correct name of the Church. Because of the digital world in which we live and with search engine optimization that helps all of us find information we need almost instantly—including information about the Lord’s Church—critics say that a correction at this point is unwise. Others feel that because we are known so widely as 'Mormons' and as the 'Mormon Church,' we should make the best of it. If this were a discussion about branding a man-made organization, those arguments might prevailw. . .The rest of the world may or may not follow our lead in calling us by the correct name . . ."

On other occasions (for which I know the sources exist, I'm just not able to find them at the moment, as it is almost 4:00 AM in my current time zone), Russell M. Nelson, his two counselors, and many members of the Quorum of the Twelve (who consistute the highest level of mortal authority in the Church) have frequently mentioned that, not only is this not a temporary whim, but that it is something that the Church will not be reversing or retracting at any point. Given time, over the next few days, I should be able to find the sources in which those indivieduals have made such statements. The world may view this as a temporary effort from which the Church could conceivably back away in the future under different leadership, but on matters similar to this when there is a sound revelatory basis for a decision, it's not very likely to be reversed or retracted in the future. That is the understanding of those of us who are members of the Church, and who accept the process by which the decision was reached, and have observed what has been, continues currently to be, and will yet be done to implement these changes. This will be a concentrated, long-term effort that moves forward with never a backward step. So I concur with you on the relevance of the Wikipedia policy you cited on this matter, but do want to help you understand that the Church does not now and likely will not ever intend to go back to the way things were before this effort to correct the usage of the name of the Church was begun in earnest just under two years ago. Aside from that, the assertion that the name of this article should be changed because the church may go back on their current efforts sounds to me like an argument that violates this policy. As a result, we should factor in the relevant information that, in the two years since those efforts began, there has been no retraction, reversal, or shift back to older terminology. Take from these observations whatever you will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgstokes (talk • contribs)

Jgstokes, we simply don't know how long-lasting this approach will be. One can speculate, but it's just that—speculation. What we do know is this is not a new idea coming from Nelson—he gave a talk in 1990 about using the full name of the church. It didn't seem to have much effect at the time. His latest effort seems to have been more consequential, probably because he is now President of the Church, but Nelson is rather elderly and there's no reason that a future president might not choose to de-emphasize this new effort. In any case, I'm not sure how significant any of this in determining the name of this article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good Olfactory, hope you know how much I respect and appreciate you. My comments above were a direct response to someone suggesting that the current emphasis on correcting the name of the Church was likely to be temporary. As far as the Church is conceerned, Nelson has tasked the members of the Quorum of the Twelve with oversight on this process, and even Gong and Soares, as the newest apostles, have been tasked to assist therewith. That suggests more to me that the current efforts to change the usage of the name of the Church will last at least as long as any of the current apostles continue to serve. But again, my comment above was in direct response to the editor whose comments on the Church being likely to discontinue these efforts after a certain period of time appeared to violate this policy. That being said, I agree that the comment to which I was replying, and my reply itself, is not in any way relevant to the dsicussion on the name of this article. That being said, the prospect of renaming this or any other articles about the Church for me still raisies all kinds of concerns about where the line is now and where it might be drawn if changing the name of this article also leads to a suggestion to change the names of other articles.
In any case, the larger problem still remains that three key definitive terms are used on Wikipedia for articles such as this. The Latter Day Saint movement refers to all sects tracing their established origins back to the church organized by Joseph Smith in 1830. Mormonism is generally understood to define the shared beliefs of those sects, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remains the largest denomination in the Latter Day Saint movement. To use the terms interchageably, and particularly to use "Mormon missionaries" to define missions from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may serve to create confusion. This is exactly why there needs to be a more thorough discusssion about how to navigate the process of differentiating beteween the three, and also why renaming individual articles one way or the other provides logistical problems for other articles meant to specifically share information relative to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
And that is also why I cannot personally get on board with the idea of changing the name of this article as suggestied above, because with current Wikipedia definitions of the three distinct terms being what they are, it would only make sense to change the name of this article if it was covering the missionary work of the Church as conducted before the succession crisis, when the term "Mormon missionaries" was originally applied to those who served within the first century or so following the Church's 1830 establishment. Changing individual article names one way or the other would indeed create future logistical nightmares where the three terms as currently definied by Wikipedia are concerned, so until those logistical issues can be addressed appropriately, I do not think it would be appropriate or wise to change the name of this article at this time. And if there's even one good policy based reason not to do something here, that's a pretty strong indication it shouldn't be done until doing so would not create policy-based problems going forward. Hope that clarifies my perspective and opinion on this. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"...it would only make sense to change the name of this article if it was covering the missionary work of the Church as conducted before the succession crisis..." Well, the article does seem to do this. It mentions that in 1830 Samuel H. Smith was the first missionary of the church. In the history section it also refers us to Mission (LDS Church), which includes pre–succession crisis history of missions and missionaries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have interpreted my comments correctly, but only halfway so. Perhaps it would have properly clarified my meaning if I had added the word "solely". My point was that coverage of missionary work in this article was not exclusive to that of the Church prior to the succession crisis. Since it covers the broader history of missionary work both pre- and post-succession, and does not solely cover the period from 1830-1844, then the current title, which makes reference to the largest religious sect in the Latter Day Saint movement that ascribes to the general beliefs of Mormonism, should be maintained as correct as far as the substance thereof is concerned. I apologize if I did not make that clear enough in my prior comments. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider LDS Church missionary. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • SmokeyJoe, that is a possibility. One problem we face is that the church in question now opposes use of the word "Mormon" and the use of the abbreviation "LDS" or "LDS Church". So "LDS Church missionary" is not much better (from the church's standpoint) than "Mormon missionary". I'm not suggesting we be governed by the church's preferences, but it has been raised here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good Ol’factory, it’s good to see you around again. I wasn’t aware that they were against “LDS”. The full name is too long. Is their objection to “LDS” “just” styling? I think there is more than styling in the objection to “Morman”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Encouraging avoidance of both is part of an overall effort of the church to encourage the use of the full name of the church and to emphasize the centrality of Jesus in the religion. I think that until recently it was largely a stylistic preference, but the avoidance of both has now become more of something beyond stylistic. The president of the church said exclusion of Jesus' name from the abbreviated church name is a victory for Satan. Some WP users – who I assume are Latter Day Saints – have said anything but the use of the full name is offensive. I'm not sure how reasonable that is, but everyone decides for themself what is offensive I guess. Until secondary sources stop using the shortened forms, I don't think it can be regarded as generally offensive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this is a good reference for the discussion. I think “Mormon” is easily enough avoided in favour of “LDS Church”. The nickname is a bigger issue than the abbreviation. I note that sltrib.com and deseret.com contain instances of “LDS”, as an adjective, to the exclusion of “Mormon” as the adjective. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose specifically "Mormon". While well known from outside by this nickname, they have long-term disliked the nickname. Suggest "LDS" or "LDS Church" instead, as a much more palatable abbreviation, and the next best thing from the unacceptable spelling out of the full official name. I think the current Missionaries (LDS Church) is inferior to LDS Church missionary per WP:NATURAL and WP:PLURAL. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In support of LDS Church missionary, I note that it is currently used in running text in Henry D. Moyle and Alma Eldredge, and it works very well, and looking at categories, I note Category:Latter Day Saint missionaries works, and Category:Mormon missionaries I think is a candidate for merging into it. Good Ol’factory, is there a meaningful difference between the terms "Latter Day Saint missionaries" & "Mormon missionaries". I note your 2008 edit which is a little too subtle for me. I was guessing that maybe there are LDS denominations that are not properly called LDS, but are colloquially named from the outside as "Mormon"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is subtle—probably too subtle. The Category:Latter Day Saint missionaries category is holding missionaries from any Latter Day Saint denomination (there are Category:Community of Christ missionaries) as well as Latter Day Saint missionaries prior to the 1844 succession crisis. The Category:Mormon missionaries subcategory of this is for missionaries of TCOJCOLDS. The vast majority of Latter Day Saint missionaries are of TCOJCOLDS. It's not a great way to distinguish the two groups, but it is difficult to come up with something better; one way would be to exchange "Mormon" with "LDS Church". I thought I would try a rename of the article before tackling the categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 11 November 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon missionaries → Mormon missionary – This article was recent renamed from another pluralized form to the current name, which is also pluralized. During the discussion, an editor pointed out that the article name should be singular, not plural, per WP:SINGULAR. This line of discussion was not pursued, but I agree with the editor. I think this would be a relatively non-controversial move, but I wanted to use the formal process since the article was renamed not too long ago. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

expansion of the service missionary program

[edit]

there has been an expansion of the service missionary program, it is not only for people with disabilities or health issues anymore, as healthy members can be directly called to service missions. I will gather sources and add some information about the program. 2600:100E:B1C5:1225:D9D2:2BAB:F5AB:5DE7 (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

also, the range of assignments is not displayed. I myself have served a wide variety of assignments, I have served by troubleshooting church apps, aiding institute teachers, being a clerk at a family services office, and much more. 2600:100E:B1C5:1225:D9D2:2BAB:F5AB:5DE7 (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to whom I'm addressing this comment. I'd be happy to look over whatever you have in the way of sources, but your statement that "[service missions are] not only for people with disabilities or health issues anymore, as healthy members can be directly called to service missions" is not quite correct. In recent years, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have indicated that all who are preparing to render service of any kind go through the same process of preparation (including filling out the necessary forms, completing the necessary medical exams, and sending in information pertinent to indvidiaul capabilities of the applicant.
Then it is the general Church leadership who make the call as to whether those on the applications they are reviewing should serve full-time or part-time. This page from the Church's website details the parameters under which a call to fill a service mission will be recommended. In the source I cited above, which has been updated very recently, the following paragraph contains the parameters that are used to determine eligiblity for a service mission:
"Worthy young men (ages 18 to 25) and young women (ages 19 to 25) who are unable to serve a proselyting mission for physical, mental, or emotional reasons may be called to a service mission. A worthy young man who is unable to serve a proselyting mission does not have a priesthood duty to serve a service mission.
"Proselyting missionaries who return home early due to accident, illness, or other health conditions and have a desire to continue their service may be reassigned to a service mission if recommended by General Authorities in the Missionary Department and the stake president and approved by the Quorum of the Twelve."
Further, I found this in the Church Handbook to which all members and friends of the Church have online access. Chapter 24 of that Handbook provides the following direction relative to an assignment as a service missionary:
"Some young missionaries are assigned to serve in the Church and the community while living at home. These assignments are given by revelation to Apostles and are given to candidates whose circumstances are best suited for a service mission (see 24.3.3).
These individuals have the same standards for preparation and worthiness as those who are assigned to a teaching mission. All young missionary candidates are recommended through the same process.
Service missionaries serve locally under the direction of the stake president. Each of them receives assignments that are tailored to their circumstances and based on service opportunities (see 24.7.1). They serve to the full extent of their capacity."
These quotations and resources I mentioned here don't say anything about "healthy individuals" being called as service missionaries. So unless your assertions are verified by citing anything different, I fail to see anything that proves that "healthy members can be directly called to service missions",
By the way, just to be clear about my own experience, I was also excused from full-time missionary service, having two part-time opportunities tailored to my needs. I am also one who extensively follows official information released by the Church, particularly when it comes to the missionary program. And no official source I've come across that is endorsed by the Church bears out what you claimed at the beginning of this thread. If I am missing something in my analysis about service missions here, please feel free to enlighten me and to clarify which sources you have on this subject. In the meantime, hopefully the sources I have shared will prove useful to this discussion as it continues. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mormon_missionary&oldid=1205766350"