Talk:Standard works

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

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

Article policies

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

Latter Day Saint movement Top‑importance

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

Untitled

I have moved the material from the main Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article here, and restructured it. I intend to edit the main article's contents to reduce the length. Suggestions welcome. WBardwin 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move Article?

Would the article be better titled as: Standard Works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Standard works (LDS Church)? I don't think standard works by itself makes much sense outside the LDS context. WBardwin 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - unless there is a possibility of confusion with something else called the Standard Works - no clarification is necessary in the title. Though the article makes it clear it is for the CJC. --Trödel 02:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking about the alphabetical index and the difficulty non-LDS people might have in finding the article. How many people outside LDS culture would recognize this title as relating to scriptures? The only other context in which I've seen standard works is computer code/talk -- and that's relatively rare and would probably not be a source of confusion. So would Scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints work better in the index? Maybe as a redirect page? WBardwin 04:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - we should probably read over the title creation policy as well. If we do move it to Scriptures... this should stay a redirect, as if one heard the term Standard Works and wondered exactly what it meant they should be able to easily find it. --Trödel 12:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Standard Books

The traditional RLDS / Restoration Branches have three books of scripture, not accepting the Pearl of Great Price or the LDS version of the D&C. Perhaps a seperate article should be written about those. --BenMcLean 18:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While an article about what the CoC accepts as scripture would be useful, they don't use the term "Standard Works" and so that info would be out of place on this article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard work

Need I say more? Please " { { disambiguation } }" do. Good night! Ludvikus 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Works vs. Standard works vs. Stand works DISAMBIGUATION is needed very badly here! Ludvikus 13:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see your point? This is, so far as I know, the only article on Wikipedia dealing with this topic and using this title. Your links above all come here. We could put this page on a disambig dealing with scriptures or holy texts? Comments?WBardwin 23:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Found your stub Standard work. Hope the sentence on the top of that page helps for now. We are discussing a possible name change, and there may be a third article dealing with RLDS standard works. If so, we could develop a disambig page. Best wishes. WBardwin 23:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears this stub has been deleted. Should the material relating to the other usage also be removed from the article? See my most recent revert. WBardwin (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how the Standard work (disambiguation) page got Speedily Deleted. But you clearly need a disambiguation page. You don't want people to think that every time a professor refers to a "standard work" on a subject he means the books here? --Ludvikus (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no use in keeping the material relating to the other usage. It has been tagged for citations for almost half a year anyway. I'll remove the dab redlink. Huon (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typeface

I was wondering what typeface the Standard Works are printed in. Anybody know? Knowledgesmith 03:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recent BYUtv program "That Promised Day: the Coming Forth of the LDS Scriptures"[1] likely has that information, as it describes in in detail the typesetting process of the modern (1979+) editions of the standard works, starting with the LDS edition of the Bible. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many Standard Works are there?

The wording could be improved. How many Standard Works are there?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the LDS Church, the standard works is a single collection of canonized scripture. It may be printed/produced in various forms (with or without study helps, in inexpensive paperback or leather bound deluxe editions, in a very compact "travel size" to a large print edition, with the Old & New Testament bound separately from the rest of the works or with all of it bound together) but it is still only a single collection. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he may have been referring to the fact that such things as the Journal of Discourses have been called Standard Works by general authorities in the past (or that some books are treated as Standard Works even if they're not). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 11:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bible and Book of Mormon unanimously accepted at scripture?

The chronology says that on April 6, 1830, at the organization of the church, the membership unanimously accepted the Bible and Book of Mormon as scripture. As far as I have been able to see, there is nothing in any of the accounts of the organizational meeting that says this was done formally on that date. Informally, of course, it was probably understood by those in attendance to be the case—and D&C 20 speaks about how the Book of Mormon confirms that "the scriptures" (the Bible) are true—but I can't see that there was ever any official action in this regard. Perhaps it occurred at a later date? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]