Talk:Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Headquarters

Sandy, UT? Is that real? Warren Jeffs, prophet lives in CC, AZ. Hawstom 09:34, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nice addition. Maybe the Sandy location is (or was) the "official" headquarters, with all the members living elsewhere. I can't verify, so I'm removing the Sandy, Ut. reference. COGDEN 03:54, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Jeff compound was located at the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon in Sandy, UT until the family left for CC. During 1970's Warren and his siblings attended local public schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:205.188.208.10 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 2004 Feb 4

Integrate this into Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

Posted

12:17, 2004 Jan 17 . . 64.78.74.74

as entire text of Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter (sic: no "Day Saints" at end):

Leader and Prophet Rulon T. Jeffs died in 2002 leaving his son, Warren Jeffs as the leader of this organization. (Rulon Jeffs--married 22 women, fathered more than 60 children his son is quickly coming up the ranks as well.) The headquarters are in Hildale, Utah, but the group has a strong presence in the border Colorado City, Arizona as well. Those towns, once known as Short Creek, were the site of the last effort to prosecute polygamists in 1953. Public sentiment turned against authorities after newsreels showed children being taken from their mothers and fathers being thrown in jail.

Welfare fraud, tax fraud, incest, statutory rape, physical, emotional and psychological abuse are all elements interwoven in this community, hidden behind a veil of secrecy, isolation, and deprivation. Roughly 20,000 men, women and children participating this illegal lifestyle, 33% are receiving state and federal aid. They also lay claims to 0% unemployment in the 2000 census.

Placed on Wikipedia:Cleanup Jan 18, and then blanked (after moving text here) and put on VfD. Recommend those more familiar w/ the subject evaluate, NPOV, and move into article as needed.
--Jerzy 19:12, 2004 Jan 18 (UTC)

Will do my best. Thanks. Umm, should I leave the text here or remove it?
--Hawstom 20:31, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Umm, I am a little confused by this deletion business. That Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter (sic: no "Day Saints" at end) page was clearly a mistake caused by an associate of mine clicking on a deformed link in an e-mail I sent. On the page I see you have put that it is slated for deletion. But I don't find it on Votes for Deletion. How long does it take to delete an obvious mistake like that, and where and how is it done? Can it not be put on a speedy deletion list? I don't understand why it is still around. Can you explain what is happening?
--Hawstom 16:23, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

H, i don't recall; it seems to be gone now; it may be that it was not done quickly bcz the VFD was treated as applying to the article, not just the redirect that got created when the article was renamed. Sorry not to have noted your question earlier.
--Jerzy(t) 03:39, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

For the record, back in early '04 neither moves nor deletions were documented as they are now, and i doubt there was such a thing as a history merge, unless via labor-intensive intervention by a developer. I was presumably confused in describing a "renam[ing]". My best guess -- w/o having looked into old revisions on the very busy pages VFD (forerunner to AfD) and CU -- is that

someone pointed out on CU that the title looked like an error,
someone provided the correct title,
someone blanked the text of the article, probably replacing it by the markup for rdr'g to the accompanying article,
i got the text (either by being the one who blanked it, or (my guess, based on hazy recollection of long-past events) from the history, before the Rdr-ized page was deleted), and copied it into this section of this talk page, to facilitate a cut-and-paste text merge (which probably was the best that was practical at the time),
Hawstom effected that text merge,
the Rdr was deleted on a presumption of uselessness, sometime in the next 50 days, and
IIRC, viewing or restoring deleted pages from that period later became impossible due to their non-redundant storage and a destruction of data in a malfunction that i don't recall hearing any details of.

--Jerzy•t 22:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Mention Krakauer?

Should there be any mention of the increased public attention given this sect after Jon Krakauer published Under the Banner of Heaven? That book seems to have sold well, and I imagine it had some impact on this group -- is there anything verifiable that would be worth noting about that here? Jwrosenzweig 21:04, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

CBC stories

CBC website has a longer story about Canadian colony at Bountiful from January 2003 [1] and a recent story about police investigating abuse allegation at the colony [2].

"Origins" subsection changes

Robert1947 (talk · contribs) changed

Although officially claiming roots back to John Taylor and the LDS Church, the FLDS Church traces their inception back to a schism from the LDS Church.

to read

Rooted in the LDS Church, the FLDS Church traces their inception back to what they regard as the apostasy of the LDS Church in 1890.

and summarized that edit with

revise wording to outline FLDS beliefs, rather than an LDS perspective, thus enhancing NPOV

which AFAI can see could be a reason for some other edit, but is nonsense in this context: it's not an "LDS perspective" that FLDS claims "roots" in the guy who led the LDS until he died. Rather, that seems objectively to be part of the FLDS's beliefs.
I am restoring the previous rev'n's mention of John Taylor, which is part of the narrative of their PoV that their schism represents faithfulness to LDS principles that the LDS abandoned by caving to secular pressure.
Also, in either case, the lk www.childbrides.org/history_SLTrib_plig_throughout_history.html has become a page (that suggests the content has been purged because it was a copyvio), which is why it has to change to a fact tag or be replaced.
As far as the rest goes, i think both wordings are kind of muddy. Here's what i find an improvement over both:

The FLDS traces its claim to spiritual authority to accounts, starting with that published in 1912 by Lorin C. Woolley, of a purported 1886 divine revelation to then LDS President John Taylor. They see this as precluding validity of the 1890 Manifesto, against new plural marriages by church members, issued by Wilford Woodruff, whom the LDS recognizes as Taylor's successor.

Unfortunately, i don't know what ground is covered by the childbrides.org ref. (It's not on Wayback Machine either.) The ref i've inserted for the time being is, overall, a criticism of FLDS, but what i've drawn from it sounds likely to coincide with FLDS accounts -- except that i've left out the PoV language they are likely to prefer. But perhaps there are FLDS sources that would confirm that; equivalent refs from both sides could show that these bare facts are not in dispute.
--Jerzy•t 06:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

perhaps use the fldstruth.com website for the ref...it has roughly the same info to support the statements on John Taylor. BTW...though written by me (the original sentence), and yes I am LDS, I was trying to present the information as best as I could from the scant resources available, I meant no POV and in fact I have been trying to neutralize this webpage from the first edit I made, I didn't revert the change because I don't want to be "owning" this page, even though I have been one of a very few maintaining it for years now. Thanks for your help in coming in and editing this article, just remember there are very few NPOV sources to draw information from for the FLDS, possibly mormonfundamentalism.comorg could be another good page to quote from though not FLDS it's maintained by the Apostolic United Brethren,(they share common origin) but. Another site mormonfundamentalism.com has fairly accurate info that is reasonably NPOV. Twunchy (talk) 15:45, 8 & 03:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's important to say how important the attitude of non-ownership you express is (even tho i've made no effort to see how well you're handling that difficult position).
  I don't think i want to make a serious (regular) effort to help develop the FLDS-related articles, and my expedient of lk'g to Lorin C. Woolley#Plural_marriage (in ignorance of the 1886 revelation article) is suggestive of one big reason why: i don't know my way around the related articles, and i don't think i want to make the effort of changing that. Rather, i want to encourage your taking heart at a bit of recognition of the importance of this corner of the WP vineyards and your labor there, and boldly fixing that lk and the other stupid things i certainly have done and will do.
  I do expect to keep a half eye on activity on the accompanying article, so you'll probably see more of me eventually. I think it's fine that you edit here; so far, my impression is that you do a good job of drawing on the knowledge that LDS background grants you, without trying to be an advocate. (And having said that, and thanked you for your labor in the vineyards, i probably need to say that my face-to-face exposure to LDS is limited to working with a Mormon, for maybe dozens of hours, on an unrelated common interest. But that i also understand -- along the same lines you seem to for your part -- that what i share of Bill Maher's assessment is of not what my editing on this topic is about. I say that not for you, but for anyone looking over our shoulders and suspecting an LDS cabal.)
  --Jerzy•t 21:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  

• It was specifically in the context of my reference to

...my expedient of lk'g to Lorin C. Woolley#Plural_marriage (in ignorance of the 1886 revelation article)...

that my colleague made the following contribution (which -- for the sake of clarity, and to avoid seeming to endorse more confusing and potentially misleading instances of responding to signed contribs by interrupting them -- i've moved from its former interrupting position).
--Jerzy•t 05:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I made that article today :). just FYI, you didn't miss anything. Twunchy (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon blog

I removed

* BerryKnoll FLDS 101: This blog contains information about the basic teachings and history of the FLDS church

from the "Further reading" section. I doubt an anonymous blogger, unendorsed by any sponsor, is enuf of a reliable info source to be listed there. It may, on the other hand, be a good source to editors, of things worth looking for verification of. In particular, it seems to quote heavily some kind of series in "WSJ", which (shall i say) doesn't rule out its being the Wall Street Journal. (Or Wilbur's Second-hand Junk.)
BTW, it's a 6-issue old blog that's attracted 4 comments from 3 (or fewer) people. I won't complain if someone removes it from even this talk page as spam.
--Jerzy•t 02:06 & 11:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If his blog had been more than skimmed, it would have been painfully obvious that apparently former-or-current fundamentalist Latter Day Saint (and expert on its doctines and history) Knoll quotes extensively from the lectures of the FLDS's Prophet, WSJ himself [Warren Steed Jeffs]. Sure let's keep links to the infotainment level of sensationalism/"scholarship" in such sources as Banking on Heaven [quote: "In the FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints), women are chattel and young boys are kicked out so older polygamous men can have sex with young girls. Everybody does what they’re told, because the prophet, Warren Jeffs, is God [...]]"----but retain links to more informed sources of scholarly analysis such as Knoll's as well. [snippet: "The FLDS 'yearn for Zion,' to live in a society free from sin and contention, where all things are held in common without jealousy -- a heaven on earth. As the FLDS leadership continued to prophesy that the end of the world was quickly approaching, they taught the people that wickedness needed to be purged from their society. Jeffs taught, 'One or two covenant breakers can cause the Lord to stop blessing this people. As long as we have evil doers among us, the Lord's blessings will be withheld. Zion must be pure. We can't have evil people among the priesthood for the Lord to appear and bless us like He would like to. Be this a warning.' (WSJ 12/26/95) Jeffs laid the doctrinal groundwork to justify a cleansing of the FLDS. Their theology teaches that an ancient city lead by a prophet named Enoch, was taken up into heaven because of their righteousness. The FLDS believe they can be taken up too as the wicked world is destroyed."/*/] That is, sure, let's keep our nice glossy issue of People magazine, "Life in the Cult", on our coffee table but still let's not pull out the essays by an informed insider out of our file cabinet and burn 'em just 'cause they're in typescript.
-- — Justmeherenow (   ) 02:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

_____

/*/"Yearning for Zion"

a hymn by WSJeffs

3rd verse

Imagine the people of Enoch of old, trained in the order of heaven

A beautiful city the Lord called his own and forever made his abode

Coming to join with the Zion on earth when finally the earth finds its rest

A kingdom established in celestial laws, a people the Lord can accept

A New Jerusalem it will be, a land of refuge, a city of peace

[ . . . ]

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 04:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please be so kind as not to presume to know what others have done, based on what effort it would have taken you to infer what they have not inferred. (Nor what i find painful, or even desperately dull and tedious and stuffy and boring.)
  Even tho you use "his or her" for to the writer, you now refer to "Knoll", as if you believe it to be a surname -- this in place of your styling them, in the entry i removed, with the Elia- or Q-like "BerryKnoll". But in any case your "expert" source of "scholarly analysis" is not enough of a scholar to state, or even hint what you assert: that "WSJ" followed by a date means instances of "Jeffs['s] lectures, [identified by] dates they were delivered".
  IMO this reeks of non-verifiability more than i realized when i was deciding how thoroly to examine, given the absence of any hint that these lectures are published, and the value foreseeable, during Jeffs's two-yearish fugitive period, of new Ministry of Truth editions that could be used to rebut earlier editions. By my standards, any appeal to single copies of unpublished documents, directly or via a writer relying on such, fails to verify. If there is controversy about what they believe, there is no established knowledge on the subject, but at most established knowledge about what is widely believed by outsiders about their beliefs. And we only document established knowledge.
  I was indeed not exhaustive in my examination, and i erred by understating the number of "issues" by 17%, and overstating its duration by, apparently, 200% -- as a result of having limited that examination to what i still think it deserved.
  Your enthusiasm for keeping Banking on Heaven sounds like a sarcastic claim that it does not meet the standards cited against the blog. That's irrelevant to what to do abt the blog, and what i for instance did abt the blog offers little insight into what we should do abt BoH: i only evaluated the brand new entry for the the blog. Verifiability applies to BoH, but "sensationalism" is not a criterion per se. In this case, the charges the jury convicted Jeffs of, and the testimony offered against him, were pretty damn sensationalistic, so your characterization of BoH does little to suggest to me any lack of verifiability. ("Jeffs is god" sounds like a sloppy way of saying "Jeffs's word is taken as the word of god", but i doubt the reporter said it, as opposed to quoting someone with strong feelings.) But i encourage any interested editor to review that entry, and the rest as well.
  --Jerzy•t 11:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  

Should WP readers follow the link to Bannking on Heaven, I trust they'll quickly size up it's a journalistic expose; should they click over to Rick Ross Institute, that they're at a Christian apologetic anti-heresy site; and should they somehow end up over at FLDS 101, that they're at an anon blog (one that seems, at least, tinged with an "insider" FundyMo viewpoint) attempting to dispassionately examine the sect's beliefs and history. — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

_______

This is part of clearing up the (very probably innocent) irregularities it specifies: The following contrib was made by an IP, at a later time than the "02:06, 9 May" timestamp, and placed between the end of the body of the 02:06 contrib and its sig and timestamp. As such, it is

1. a forgery as to the time of contribution (which has now been remedied by my action of moving it out of the 02:06, contrib and attaching an {{unsignedip2}} tag with the actual timestamp, as shown by the edit history of this talk page), and
2. presently indistinguishable from a forgery as to the contributor. (Any such forgery is technically remedied by the same tag, with the IP editor's ID. If

   Justmeherenow (talk · contribs) and

   96.240.101.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

   are in fact the same person, that person should normally be able to establish the fact by so stating in each of two separate contributions, one while logged on via the appropriate password, and one logged off but using a terminal attached to the 'Net via the same IP address. (Courtesy would call for signing each accordingly.) Doing so would demonstrate that the forgery as to contributor resulted from misunderstanding of WP's contributor-verification standards, and perhaps unawareness that their logged-in state had ended. A convenient place for such a demonstration immediately follows my signature.)

--Jerzy•t 11:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement of User:Justmeherenow:

Statement of User:96.240.101.244:

_______

[quote: "The FLDS 'yearn for Zion,' to live in a society free from sin and contention, where all things are held in common without jealousy -- a heaven on earth. As the FLDS leadership continued to prophesy that the end of the world was quickly approaching, they taught the people that wickedness needed to be purged from their society. Jeffs taught, 'One or two covenant breakers can cause the Lord to stop blessing this people. As long as we have evil doers among us, the Lord's blessings will be withheld. Zion must be pure. We can't have evil people among the priesthood for the Lord to appear and bless us like He would like to. Be this a warning.' (WSJ 12/26/95) Jeffs laid the doctrinal groundwork to justify a cleansing of the FLDS. Their theology teaches that an ancient city lead by a prophet named Enoch, was taken up into heaven because of their righteousness. The FLDS believe they can be taken up too as the wicked world is destroyed."/*/] That is, sure, let's keep our nice glossy issue of People magazine, "Life in the Cult", on our coffee table but still let's not pull out the essays by an informed insider out of our file cabinet and burn 'em just 'cause they're in typescript.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.101.244 (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2008

Oy vey. User 75.167.176.1 curiously states in his most recent edit summary, "Crapola: not one source does the self proclaimed expert list." However, actually going to Knoll's blog----a practice I would recommend those who'd wish to edit links to it----reveals e/g his or her most recent blog essay, in addition to three references to Jeffs lectures, specifying dates they were delivered, also makes one reference to a page in past-FLDS prophet Leroy S. Johnson's book; so, for just in this single essay, would three plus one equal four or would it be more accurate to haphazardly allege that "3+1=0"? <shrugs>
-- — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• No, not "3+1=0", but by my calculation 3×0 + 1×0 = 0. I've addressed the (3) Jeffs refs above, where you sneered at me with the same logic. The Johnson book, of some thousand or more pages, evidently has no title worth mentioning, and also reeks of unpublished material that will only contribute to verification if and when professional scholars, never brainwashed by the church, get to do what literary scholars do, by comparing all the published editions, the various manuscripts, the relevant correspondence, and in this case, the depositions and transcripts from the trials and psychiatric examinations.
  --Jerzy•t 11:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  

WP isn't edited according to any single editor's point of view about a work but according to what the consensus of editors specifically deem of value---or not of value---in it. Jerzy (it's hoped, for his or her sake, without reading the work in question) suggested FLDS 101 doesn't contain references. I pointed out four in its then most recent essay. Until Jerzy materially challenges this observation, the rationale for his or her objection to this work remains unsupported. — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous newspaper commentary by one "Twain, Mark" should rise or fall according to what Mr. or M/s. Twain wrote. And if Mr/s Twain simply references sources in a completely uncontroversial and neutral manner, then WP shouldn't have a problem with it. If WP were to accept some Born Again Christian site's allegedly NPOV/"scholarly" characterization of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha as "obvious pedophilia"---and if someone signing his essays "Mark Twain" who uncontroversially draws from primarily sourced quotations points out that Muhammad was allowed his wives by Allah, it'd be OK to accept both. (And, truly, anybody editing the Mormon pages who'd bat an eye at the locution "BRM 1st ed" (British Royal Marine 1st Expeditionary forces".....?) or the Islam pages who'd squint at the abbreviation "PBUH" or this page who'd scratch their head at "Jeffs said, ..." [snippet], followed by "(WSJ, [date])" and Johnson said, ... " [snippet] followed by "(LSJ's book, [page number])" would do better to admit their humility with regard familiarity with the respective subject matters at hand.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 13:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

p/s Berry Knoll styles Knoll as his surname himself. See here. And here's the source of the name from the FLDS's website: "Just about that time the sirens went off, and they just came full length from the town clear out to the Berry Knoll, just spaced at intervals. The whole distance was filled with patrol cars with their sirens screaming and all their red lights flashing!" (Also note this from Rick Ross's site: "[...T]he story [has...] the righteous members lifting off from the base of a juniper-covered hill south of town known as Berry Knoll, which is said to be the site for the temple the polygamous church had hoped to construct one day. Berry Knoll was coincidentally the site of a tragedy in April 1866 when early pioneer settlers Joseph Robert and his wife, Isabella, were slaughtered by the local American Indians.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 23:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent Capitalization...

I'm no grammar wizard but there's an inconsistency in the article that needs to be fixed. What is the proper way to write these: FLDS Church vs. FLDS church, or alternately LDS Church vs. LDS church. I'm mystified as to the correct capitalization here, the article extensively uses both...well actually it's typically FLDS church and LDS Church. It could be my own doing but please pipe up you grammar geeks, we need to know what's correct! Twunchy (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, probably FLDS Church (since it seems as though it's Catholic Church, United Methodist Church, etc., when speaking of a denomination as a whole, but Catholic church, Baptist church, when speaking about a local parish, etc.'s, house of worship).

Interestingly, perhaps: the mainline Mormon Church has said it doesn't really care for either the Mormon Church or the newspaper abbreviation LDS anymore but says it prefers the Church's full official name on first usage thereafter followed by the Church (or alternately, for short, the Church of Jesus Christ----however note that the Church-owned Salt Lake City daily, the Deseret News itself continues to use LDS Church and never, to my knowledge, the Church of Jesus Christ for the LDS Church). — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been lots of previous discussions about this & related topics, which resulted in the creation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints), which covers articles about Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement. Both the LDS Church & the FLDS Church would be covered by this guidance. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

While the mainstream LDS use a more British style hyphenation and capitalization----Latter-day Saint (adopted by the Mormon Church just before the turn of the 20th century)----the FLDS use the original capitalization: Latter Day Saint. — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Religious Persecution

If this article attempts to support the claim that religious persecution is not occurring here, then it will need to address these questions:
Under what pretext were authorities spying on the ranch and taking aerial photographs prior to the raid?
How is it that the main victim, ‘Sarah,’ went to a hospital for broken ribs in a domestic dispute that didn’t result in the hospital calling the police?
How is it that the main suspect, Dale Evans Barlow, has been living in Arizona for the last 31 years?
Why do none of the cell towers around the ranch have a record of a cell phone call occurring for the time and duration of the distress call?
How were the authorities able to mount such a huge raid on such short notice?
Why would authorities overreact in sending in men in full combat gear with assault rifles and armored personnel carriers against such a passive group?
Why did the police confiscate cameras and pictures FLDS members took of the raid?
Why is it that the First Baptist Church of Eldorado Texas provided busses to carry off the children?
Why did police want to break into and confiscate belongings in locked dressers?
Why did authorities lie to the mothers?
Why did authorities take cell phones from the mothers?
Why is guilt by association applied to this group and not to more legitimate cases of child abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests?
Is it not the souls of these children that Texas officials are trying to protect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.85.26 (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing Wikipedia with a blog. Please read up on WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:MOS and feel free to make additions to the article. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are some answeres to all of your questions.

1. The authorities were stopped at the gate and stayed there, it was a stand off.
2. The hospital does not investigate unless thay see or hear something amiss, pepole brake bones every day.
3. You can live any where you want.
4. How do you know that thay do or don't?
5. A warrent.
6. Thay did not know what thay would come up aguenst, thay had to be prepared for the worst.
7. Too see if there were any other photos on the cameras/cell phones that could be used as evedence.
8. Someone had to take them.
9. It was a rade, and thay had a warrednt, to look for evedence. would you leave something you don't want anyone to see out in the open.?
10. To get them to go easy (I'm not saying that was right).
11. Evedence.
12. The caholic church has no extencive recored going back years.
13. How do you know.

User talk:Miajmw Miagirljmw14 (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

75.172.85.26,

Despite the extent of sexual child abuse by Catholic clergy (What of Anglican clergy? Neglect to mention high incidence of similar abuse of children by Anglican clergy in your "argument" and you demonstrate what I suspect is either ignorance or prejudice against Catholics in general, i.e. what was it, Religious Persecution), Catholic moral theology and clergy and laity alike DO NOT foster a sick and paedophiliac culture wherein underage girls are little more than sociliased livestock for adult males. Although misogyny indubitably infects the minds of religious leaders the world over, this cult season it with a perverse, ironically pornographic, hypermasculine paedophilia which is sociopathic - AT LEAST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.34.5 (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Clothing

Anyone got an pics of those beautiful dresses and hairstyles of the women of the FLDS? Or anyone know where to buy those in the local wal-mart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Balancing Ross, Krakaeur et al with FLDS sites...and Knoll. A redux

(The following is chiefly excerpted from commentary above.) External links are many. Should readers follow the link to Banking on Heaven, they'll quickly size up it's journalistic expose by Jon Kraukaeur and Ruth Cooke, featuring Elaine Jeffs, Carolyn Jessop, and Penny Peterson; should they click over to Rick Ross Institute, that they're at a Christian apologetic anti-heresy site; and should they end up at FLDS 101, that they're at an anon blog by a highly informed partisan giving his take, albeit much more dispassionately in many aspects than either of the two alternate sources I just mentioned.

Anyways, a fundamentalist Latter Day Saint (at least generically by culture and or belief, although obviously not currently beholden to the Jeffs-led, specifically FLDS faith) is in the process of blogging a veritable compendium of FLDS doctrines and beliefs known as FLDS 101, blogging under the psuedonym Berry Knoll, in which he quotes extensively from the lectures of Warren Steed Jeffs and from excerpts of interviews with current and former members of the polygamous splinter group. (Insiders would recognize Berry Knoll as the "juniper-covered hill south of town" (Colorado City, Arizona/Hildale, Utah...) "said to be the site for the temple the polygamous church had hoped to construct...." one day.")

Banking on Heaven: "In the FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints), women are chattel and young boys are kicked out so older polygamous men can have sex with young girls. Everybody does what they’re told, because the prophet, Warren Jeffs, is God [...]]"

FLDS 101: "The FLDS 'yearn for Zion,' to live in a society free from sin and contention, where all things are held in common without jealousy -- a heaven on earth. As the FLDS leadership continued to prophesy that the end of the world was quickly approaching, they taught the people that wickedness needed to be purged from their society. Jeffs taught, 'One or two covenant breakers can cause the Lord to stop blessing this people. As long as we have evil doers among us, the Lord's blessings will be withheld. Zion must be pure. We can't have evil people among the priesthood for the Lord to appear and bless us like He would like to. Be this a warning.' (W.S.J. 12/26/95) Jeffs laid the doctrinal groundwork to justify a cleansing of the FLDS. Their theology teaches that an ancient city lead by a prophet named Enoch, was taken up into heaven because of their righteousness. The FLDS believe they can be taken up too as the wicked world is destroyed."

[... ... "Yearning for Zion," a hymn by W.S. Jeffs; 3rd verse]:
Imagine the people of Enoch of old, trained in the order of heaven/ A beautiful city the Lord called his own and forever made his abode/ Coming to join with the Zion on earth when finally the earth finds its rest/ A kingdom established in celestial laws, a people the Lord can accept/ A New Jerusalem it will be, a land of refuge, a city of peace [ . . . ].

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

'

What we need here is a verifiable reliable source, a link please, to someone besides you discussing why this blog is notable to the FLDS. I'll look, too, but I don't see any arguments here by you that the blog itself is notable, just quoting its content. --Blechnic (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe inclusion of an external link to Knoll's blog and its in depth discussion of FLDS doctrines and history improves Wikipedia, on its own merits. However, if others truly dispute my assessment here----well, that is, besides the assertion "Blogs aren't reliable sources, so we cannot link to 'em" (which is, really, rather a canard)----I'll not contest the point.... — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that if you can establish that the blog itself is noteworthy, then you can include a link to the blog in the article, along with the relevant source showing its noteworthyness. The problem is I can't find anything about the blog, other than what you say here, so it seems others don't find it noteworthy. All I can find is that it appears to be named after a landform in the Texas settlement, but that's not about the blog, but about the knoll. --Blechnic (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oi! Welcome to Wikipedia. The landform is near Short Creek on the border of Utah and Arizona. — Justmeherenow (   ) 03:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do love the absolute trivial nature of some of the information I pick up here, there's a Berry knoll near the Utah/Arizona FLDS settlements! --Blechnic (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Which landform figures prominently in the FLDS's historical eschatology; which a reader seeking to read further about the FLDS would have been able to click over to Berry Knolls' blog in order to discover...except for the fact that you deleted its link! lol — Justmeherenow (   ) 03:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, if it figures, it is reputably sourced or it's gossip. --Blechnic (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What the guidelines say should be linked includes
[... ...s]ites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
Links to be considered [include ... ...s]ites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

Whereas the guidelines do not proffer notability as the end-all be-all criteria, as some editors might otherwise be wont. — Justmeherenow (   ) 04:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think something else is going on here besides a discussion of whether or not this site should be in the article, so I'm going to leave this conversation with the site out of the article. I will carefully check the other links, also. --Blechnic (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Re your "I think something else is going on here": Huh!? In any case, you've fail to established any grounds under relevant guidelines to disallow the link. — Justmeherenow (   ) 04:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And you fail to establish any grounds for including it. The burden's on you. --Blechnic (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe it would be better to read a representative sample of something an article links to and discern whether it offers information of value before a contributor would brazenly refuse others an opportunity to click over to it. I sincerely wonder: if minutia about a subject is thought crufty, and if a contributor would insist, in excess of applicable guidelines, that compendiums on the subject be made to pass arbitrary tests of notability----well, might it be better for believers of such things to recuse themselves from deciding whether readers should have the opportunity of clicking over to carefully organized sources of information on a subject in question, in which such a contributor has only nominal interest? — Justmeherenow (   ) 08:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you've firmly established this isn't about the article, but about some need of yours to spam Wikipedia with this blog. There are no sources because the blog is important to no one but you. Your personal interest in the blog does not make it noteworthy. --Blechnic (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Tacking from a discussion on the merits toward veiled personal attacks is a bit trollish, Blechnic. Instead of maligning my motives, please accept my sincere assertion that I truly believe any dispassionate examinion of the blog in question's merits would agree with my assessment that it's inclusion on a list of external links would beneficially augment the information available to those researching this topic. In other words, speak to the authority or non-authority of the information it contains or else counter my interpretations of the guidelines above with your own arguments and specifics. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Dispassionate examination of the blog in question's merits" as to whether or not it should be included in this article would be original research, and Wikipedia has a policy of no original research. Kindly provide a link to someone else's evaluation of the blog, and dispense with your beliefs about it. That's all, a link to someone else discussing the merits of the block, a verifiable reference. --Blechnic (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Major restructuring proposal in a related article

A major restructuring proposal for all polygamy articles related to Mormonism has been made at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy#Series and Restructuring proposal. Please visit and give your two cents. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Doctrine and Beliefs?

Shouldn't there be at least some description of their doctrine and beliefs? What are their "inspired texts" if any, and religious practices? The article understandably focuses on their reasons for being noticed, but some balancing should be added. If they are non-evangelical and don't reveal much detail to outsiders, then at least a statement of such could be added. Carltonh 21:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Tom, lets retain a semblance of logic here. When the law is broken, it should be reported as broken. For instance, the murder page does not mention that many people find a fulfilling lifestyle in serial killing, and likewise the Holocaust page doesn't say that some concentration camps were extremely loving, warm and fuzzy environments. When you force a 14 year old to marry you illegally, the law is violated, end of story. There is nothing warm or fuzzy about that fact. 68.60.53.141 (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Eldorado, Texas

Aren't the new headquarters now in Eldorado, Texas? Why does the article still say it's in Hildale, Utah? 69.120.98.246 (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not officially verified information, the article implies a shift to Eldorado, but it's far from an announced move or anything that could be verified, so therefore the best information is to keep what we know, or knew, to be true. Twunchy (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Blood atonement

The distinctive doctrines section was changed by 216.83.150.243 from my original "Critics claim that Warren Jeffs has indicated his desire to resurrect the 19th-Century Mormon doctrine of 'blood atonement'...." to "...has indicated his desire to institute the doctrine...."

I believe that the original should stand. This was originally a Mormon doctrine taught by leaders of the church, as stated in the blood atonement article. I don't see a reason to not point out that fact. The word "institute" implies that Jeffs has come up with an entirely new doctrine, which is not true. Here's a quote from the intro to that article:

In Mormonism, blood atonement is a controversial doctrine taught by some early Latter-day Saint leaders, and expanded by Brigham Young, that within a theocracy, there are certain sins such as murder that requires that murderers "have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins" in order for the Atonement of Jesus fully operative in the repentance process.

I don't want to revert this if there is some legitimate reason to go with the new wording, but I can't see any. Mycota 05:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The genuine Mormon church has never practiced or taught “blood atonement” as it is often represented by our critics. The following quote from Doctrine and Covenenants 134:10 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/134/10#10 was written in 1835; and stands as a statement of official doctrine of the church from that time, up until now, and forever (or at least until God tells us otherwise):

“We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.”

This was the official doctrine and policy of the church when Joseph Smith was running it, it was the official doctrine and policy when Brigham Young was running it, and it remains the official doctrine and policy today. It was the doctrine and policy when various leaders of the early church are alleged to have taught otherwise; and any that may have so taught did so in error and without authority. To claim that this “blood atonement” was ever an actual practice or teaching of the genuine Mormon church is dishonest and inaccurate. Bob Blaylock (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The current article states:

"Richter also claims that he was asked to design a thermostat for a high-temperature furnace that would be capable of destroying DNA evidence if such "atonements" were to take place"

The sourced article has gone off-line, but as near as I can tell Richter never made the link between the incinerator and destroying DNA - that was done by a Texas newspaper editor. A simple google search of "2,700 degree furnace" shows that such furnaces are also used in making asphalt and steel. Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary, I'm thinking of removing it. Objections?Mgy401 1912 (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

external links

The list over here is in violation of both WP:EL and WP:SEH. Wikipedia does not advertize. While also seeking to cut down links, 2 documentaries become redundant. We dont need to advertize to each film maker's views. In that interest I have removed the link that seems to have less. For the "Audio clips reveal..." I removed the POV language as that is not for Wikipedia to ascertain, the individual listener can decide.

In the media/news articles part: firstly, web logs are not reliable sources to list here, and, secondly, the articles don't provide a "unique resource" to the article. It may be a good source but it is better as a citation within the article.

Most importantly, a cursory glance at the guidelines will show "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Lihaas (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Short Creek Raid

I have added a new section, that just contains a link ot the main article but I think there should be a brief synopsis here in the article. Please add to it if you have the time or knowledge. Twunchy (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)