Talk:Solemn assembly

Latter Day Saint movement Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name[edit]

Shouldn't this page be at Solemn assembly? If there is no other use of this term needing a disambiguator, why do we have a disambiguator in parenthesis? Right now Solemn assembly simply redirects to this page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to cover all the bases. According to my Google searches, the string, "solemn assembly" occurs in LDS related pages in about 12 out of 26 WP pages; slightly less than half the time. On the small chance that someone were to search WP for non-LDS related, "solemn" and "assembly", they would be re-directed to this article (forced to without a choice). I am now wondering if I should take out the redirect page, but leave this article title as is. Any other opinions? Leon7 (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latter Day Saints vs. Latter-day Saints[edit]

This article discusses Solemn Assemblies for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but no other religious denomination. If it is only to be about one religion, then technically, the naming of the article should reflect the proper written format of the name. Accordingly, since the term "Latter Day Saints" refers to denominations OTHER than the LDS Church, I would propose either expanding this article to include the procedure of solemn assemblies for other Latter Day Saint denominations, if applicable, or else renaming the article to reflect the proper usage of the term "Latter-day Saints" as applied ONLY to the LDS Church. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas; the diambiguating term "(Latter-day Saints)" is not in use in WP, so it would have to be "(LDS Church)", which is what is usually used. However, according to the Latter Day Saints naming conventions, the use of unidenominational disambiguation terms is "discouraged" and should only be used "if it is absolutely necessary for disambiguation", i.e., if you need a disambiguator and the term refers to something in the LDS Church but not in any other Latter Day Saint organization. A good example of this is Ward (LDS Church). Going back to my comments in the above section, there is no need right now for any disambiguation, since Solemn assembly still redirects here, and I would still favor getting rid of the disambiguation term altogether. Alternatively, I'm not sure whether or not other Latter Day Saint orgs have "solemn assemblies" or not. If they do, then according to the naming conventions there is no need to change the name whether or not the article is immediately expanded (since it could always be in the future). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solemn Assembly Sustaining of Church Officers[edit]

It is mentioned in this article that after the apostles have been sustained by the different groups and the congregation at large, that "the names of all other general authorities are read and voted upon." That's been true for most Solemn Asssemblies. But in the most recent one, when President Monson was sustained, after the sustaining of all the apostles, only the new general authorities and officers were mentioned by name. For proof, please see this article. This should be mentioned in the article, but I'm just not sure how to do that. Any ideas? ––02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Jgstokes (talk)

It's been roughly four months since I raised this issue, and no one has commented on it. I am really unsure how to handle this. I was looking at the article again today and thinking that something should be done about it, but I'm just not sure what. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that something should be included in the article about this. Today's Solemn Assembly didn't even include the other church business, including sustaining of all other general authorities. That occurred during the second session. I think it might just be worth mentioning that this has been in the practice in the past, but the most recent solemn assemblies have not included this element. Tjbliss (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]