Category talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconLatter Day Saint movement Category‑class
WikiProject iconThis category 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
CategoryThis category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Definition[edit]

Can we define this category? It seems to be used in a very bad way. It should not, for example, embrace every trivia of history that happens to concern the LDS Church. Similar categories mostly just include organizations relevant to the religion in the region. The laws just don't belong. I also feel this is over-categorization. Cool Hand Luke 19:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar categories include people, events, organizations, and properly that directly relate to the specific church in the specific country or area. See, for example Category:Roman Catholic Church in Mexico. To me, American laws/court cases that directly involved the LDS Church seem to fit nicely. Snocrates 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the definition of this category? Should we include practically all Mormon history in it? Has a similar category ever included laws? Cool Hand Luke 06:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just from the top of my head, but Category:Roman Catholic Church in Poland contains Concordat of 1993. Not precisely analogous, but perhaps there are others that could be found. If the law involves the church and the country in question, what's the problem with including it? Snocrates 07:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no bright lines here—a bilateral accord is not the same as a unilateral law imposed without the Church's consent. These laws were clearly aimed at Mormons in Utah, but we could come up with other laws and rulings. Reynolds status is controversial, for example. It's not clear whether it was an LDS Church-orchestrated test case or a bona fide prosecution. It's not clear whether it would even matter under out non-extatnt criteria.
How about the primary question, which would answer all the rest: what is the definition of this category? Cool Hand Luke 22:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no definition for the category listed right now. Are you proposing one, or are you trying to get others to do so? Snocrates 22:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I propose that the category be restricted to organizations, places, monuments, and discrete actions undertaken by the LDS Church that specifically relate to the United States. General history, and acts taken by other parties do not belong here. This makes the category most consistent with similar categories elsewhere. Cool Hand Luke 05:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good proposal to me. What about missionaries of working in U.S.? Is that part of "acts taken by ..."? Snocrates 10:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like most similar categories include nationals of that faith. This is a sensible extention. I just don't want this category to include practically everything in Mormon history. Existing U.S.-related subcategories should be included though. Cool Hand Luke 19:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood — and I agree with your concern and the suggestions and that the majority of laws/cases should probably be removed. What about a U.S. case that directly deals with the church — I'm thinking of Late Corporation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. United States — would you agree that this one should remain since the church was one party and the United States was the other party? Similarly, a U.S. statute that directly mentions the church specifically — here I'm thinking of Edmunds-Tucker Act — I would think could/should remain. Snocrates 21:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are different because the LDS Church was a party to them (which is more like the Polish-Catholic accord). Similarly, we would probably include the Corporation of Presiding Bishop... v. Amos (1987), an establishment clause case that someone should write an article on. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed some of the cases/laws per our discussions. Feel free to remove anything else that you don't think would fit with your proposed defintion. Snocrates 21:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added your proposed definition and tried to set it out as clearly as possible, including what the category should not include. Feel free to add/delete/tweak as needed. Snocrates 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Sorry for being so adversarial at first. I was just afraid that this category could get out of hand due to the historical roots of the LDS Church in the United States. Cool Hand Luke 00:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK — I didn't take offence, and everybody has bad days and gets annoyed in WP by real or potential problems from time to time. Your concerns were valid, IMO. Snocrates 01:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_in_the_United_States&oldid=235468177"