Talk:Mormon fundamentalism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mormon fundamentalism 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

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Mormon fundamentalism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Mormon fundamentalism at the Reference desk.

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

United Latter-day Church of Jesus Christ

According to the ULDC official website, Owen Spencer Smith was confirmed by a member of the Council of Fifty (most likely his grandfather) instituted by Joseph Smith Jr. The group was founded as the Smith clan or Smithites about the time of Winter Quarters in Nebraska. It became known as the "United Latter-day Church of Jesus Christ" most recently under Heber Gerald Smith's leadership. Heber just passed away between August 5th and 6th in the night. -Sthatting 06:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentalist Mormon Groups

There should be a list with more information about different Mormon Fundamentalist groups on Wikipedia. I know that MF.org is a good resource, but I've also done some researching on the subject and there appears to be a larger church growing (though I am unsure how big because it is in Utah and I'm in California.) called the United Latter-day Church of Jesus Christ that is a spin-off of the FLDS Church. I suppose you can do what you want with the info, unless you folks already know. -71.102.141.168 03:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "fundamentalist" here, is a misnomer. Continuing revelation from God is without question the most fundamental doctrine of the "Mormon" people and religion. Plural marriage, communal living, restrictions against tea, coffe, cola drinks or beards -- these are non-fundamental issues that change.

As with Muslim suicide bombers, these people are not adhering to the fundamentals of their own religion, and would more properly be defined as "para-Mormons" or perhaps "fringe-Mormons". Drjackcv (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Fundamentalism or Fundamentalist Mormonism is not a self-ascribed term, but was one which journalists first introduced, and which historians have adopted. Nevertheless the term fundamentalism suggests two things - 1) that a religion has changed, and 2) that there those who continue to believe those pre-change tenets (whatever they may be). Does anyone disagree those points, or that this is the situation in this case? Fundamentalist Mormons do not dispute the doctrine of continual revelation, only the validity of that revelation that conflicts with what they consider to be fundamental principles. Whether they are justified in their beliefs or actions is not the responsibility of an neutral encyclopedia entry to determine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobeyjaggle (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree basically with what Tobeyjaggle has said. The first application of the term "Mormon fundamentalist" was actually by Mark E. Petersen, an LDS Church apostle. He used it in a disparaging way, but it was picked up by the media and has been used ever since. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does LDS church disassociate itself from fundamentalism?

Does anyone have a reference for the reason in:

For doctrinal and image reasons, the LDS Church works hard to disassociate itself from Mormon fundamentalism

If not, may I remove "For doctrinal and image reasons"? Nereocystis 17:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a specific reference for this. It's one of those things that everybody in the church knows, but nobody has bothered to talk about it officially. I don't think it's necessary to include that characterization in the article, though, so you can probably delete it. I think it's probably pretty obvious, anyway, why the church wants to disassociate itself from fundamentalist groups. COGDEN 00:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

However, the article read that the sole reason for the LDS church distancing itself from the group was "image reasons" - which is incorrect.

In fact, when asked about "Mormon Fundamentalism, President Hinckley stated the following doctrinal reasons for distancing itself from polygamy and fundamentalism:

I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.

If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" (A of F 1:12). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.

There is no such thing as a "Mormon Fundamentalist." It is a contradiction to use the two words together.

More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage. [1]

That is "doctrinal" as it deals with revelation - not an image seperation. Apostates from an organisation are seperated by doctrine, not image. If you are going to remove the word "doctrine," remove the word "image." -Visorstuff 16:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The citations for the doctrinal argument is stronger than the image argument. In the 1890s, there was probably an image argument. I'm glad you added the section the word doctrinal. How about this, letting the reader follow the links if s/he cares, and adding the link:

The LDS Church works hard to disassociate itself from Mormon fundamentalism, and will excommunicate any of its members who practice plural marriage. [2]

Nereocystis 17:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another reference for "doctrinal" [3]. In any case, we can remove both, if you want, but the reasoning would be doctrinal. The church seldom caters to image issues reactively, but proactivly. -Visorstuff 18:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I think both should be deleted, but just as an aside, I think there is a strong image issue, as well. For many people not very familiar with the church, their first thought when they think of Mormons is polygamy, and that fact clearly hurts missionary work. I think this is pretty obviously a factor in why the church tries to distance itself from polygamists who call themselves Mormons, but I don't know of any authoritative church statement that says this explicitly.

I agree with COGDEN about deleting both. The statements against those practicing the United Order, or other early Mormon teachings, are not as strong as those against polygamy, suggesting that image is an issue. Deleting both image and doctrine seems like the best solution. Nereocystis 20:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed. -Visorstuff 21:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Mormon Fundamentalism & Polygamous Mormon Fundamentalists

I am in favour of merging the articles. It seems pointless and sloppy to have them separated. However I do think it would be wise to add the "Polygamous Mormon Fundamentalists" section as a subtopic of the article itself.

do not merge the articles. some people probably come to wiki searching for the difference between what they have heard called "mormon fundamentalism" and "mormon." different articles is the best way to clarify this.

I'm in favor if -

Its first made clear that Mormon Fundamentalism includes a variety of beliefs, and that the majority of those under that term are not polygamous. (unsigned by User:Tobeyjaggle)

I need more reasoning behind why this is needed. To me, the article titles are wrong (I think we should go back to Polygamous clans of Utah) but definitely seem like seperate topics to me. Not aly Mormon polygamous groups are fundamentalists, and not all fundamentalists are polygamous. There is not enough overlap in my mind. I may be persuaded, however. More discussion is needed. -Visorstuff 23:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to merge them. Not all fundamentalists are polygamous, but don't 99% of them believe polygamy is ordained by God? I say go for it.--Gillespee 20:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Polygamous clans of Utah" isn't a good name because:

Not all polygamous Mormon groups are in Utah.
Not all polygamous groups should be described as clans.

Polygamous Mormons are somewhat fundamentalist by definition, since practicing or believing in plural marriage is a return to one belief which is considered fundamental by those who believe in it.

Perhaps this title "Polygamous Mormons" would be better. "Post-Manifesto polygamous Mormons" or "Modern polygamous Mormons". I don't like that last name, because the definition of modern is subject to change over time. Nereocystis 20:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree — it covers the topic at hand with as few words as possible. Deadsalmon 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Polygamous Mormons" is an inappropriate title, as the people themselves do NOT refer to themselves in this way. They refer to themselves as "Fundamentalist Mormons" or "Mormon Fundamentalists". The fact that at least half of all Fundamentalist Mormons are not currently practicing polygamy, in my opinion, further supports the use of "Fundamentalist Mormon" as the title. I am not aware of any "Fundamentalist Mormons" who do NOT espouse polygamy as part of their belief system. However, it would be inaccurate to refer to all Fundamentalists as polygamists, since they are not all actually practicing polygamy, and many may never practice it. I myself am an Independent Fundamentalist Mormon, but I am not currently a polygamist. It would be inaccurate of me to refer to myself as a polygamist, even though I support the practice as part of my belief system.

To clarify some confusion: Not all "polygamists" are Fundamentalist Mormons. There are those who are Christian, Muslim, etc. Not all Fundamentalist Mormons are polygamists. Not all Fundamentalist Mormons are affiliated with "polygamous" groups; some are Independents and affiliate with NO ecclesiastical organization at all, but may associate socially with other Independents. If the Wikipedia is going to be accurate, it needs to be SPECIFIC. 67.172.251.100 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Mary at Principle Voices, www.principlevoices.org[reply]

I refer to myself as a "Mormon Fundamentalist" and do not understand that Gordon B. Hinkley has any right to say that there is no such thing... I am not calling myself a "Mormon" (Fundamentalist Mormon) therefore I am not infringing on his membership status criteria. I am just stating that I am a Fundamentalist who believes in the fundamentals of Mormonism. I am also a "Polygamous Mormon Fundamentalist" because I believe and abide the patriachal law of Abraham given to him by God. A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist of whatever he believes in as long as it is congruent with the original (or fundamental) doctrines of the organizer of those beliefs, i.e. God (plural marriage), Joseph Smith (mormonism), etc. Maybe there are some "Polygamous Fundamentalists" out there that do not want to be connected with Mormonism in anyway or with a "Group" of polygamists, but I understand these pages to be about those who believe in polyganous relations because of what was origianlly taught by Joseph Smith, the organizer of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So, I say merge it all together and give a few short expanations.

History of Polygamous fundamentalists

Thought this recap of how most of the major mormon fundamentalist polygamous groups trace their authority would be useful at a later date [4]. -Visorstuff 18:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Why has Mormon Fundamentalist not been merged with this article? Bytebear 01:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why has Polygamous Mormon fundamentalist not been merged with this article? Bytebear 01:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. They should be merged. --66.233.54.205 20:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merged Polygamous Mormon fundamentalist into this page. Original page can be found here Talk:Mormon fundamentalism/merged article Old talk page can be found here Talk:Mormon fundamentalism/merged article talk page or here Talk:Polygamous Mormon fundamentalist. Kewp (t) 19:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged histories... See also Talk:Polygamous Mormon fundamentalist. Cool Hand Luke 07:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protest Image

Is that image a pro-mormon protest or an anti-mormon protest? I know of some people from suych famlies abandoning the mormon religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.132.2 (talk • contribs)

I also came to this talk page to ask this. The sign is cut off. The image lacks description. The image's source merely says its someone who took it and released it into public domain. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LDS excommunication for beliefs vs. practices

One editor has stated in an edit summary: "The LDS General Handbook of Instructions could be interpreted to allow for excommunication for personal beliefs where such beliefs are considered to be the 'teachings of apostate sects'."

I don't know what your reference is for that statement, but the latest (2006) Handbook of Instructions would not allow for excommunication based on beliefs alone. For excommunication to proceed on the basis of "apostasy", there must be some action or practice of the LDS member apart from mere beliefs. Examples are repeated teaching of "apostate doctrine", joining another church, affiliating or following the teachings of Mormon fundamentalists, etc. All these things are "actions."

The Handbook says that apostasy occurs when a member "repeatedly act[s] in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders" and also includes those who repeatedly present information as church doctrine that is not church doctrine and those who repeatedly follow the teachings of apostate sects or those who formally join another church.^[1]

I would love to hear of how to justify an excommuncation for beliefs alone based on these criteria. –SESmith 04:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1998 edition of the General Handbook of Instructions consulted says that a disciplinary council may be called (and excommunication follow) in the case of apostasy where a member is found to "Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or higher authority." It makes no distinction between mentally following or putting such beliefs into action, or between privately held and publicly preached beliefs.

The issue is not whether the LDS Church officially states that excommunication is justified for personal and private belief (without public opposition, or claiming the Church accepts such beliefs), but whether Mormon Fundamentalists have been excommunicated for such beliefs by their Bishops and Stake Presidents. There are many Mormon Fundamentalists (as well as others with strong personal beliefs that differ from the LDS Church) who claim they were excommunicated solely for their personal and private beliefs.

One orthodox LDS author who writes on Mormon Fundamentalist topics, Brian C. Hales, admits that such excommunications take place, although he regrets their personal selectiveness in their beliefs - see http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/Adam-God6.html (Reaction #6)

--Tobey 06:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That same quote is included as you quoted it in the 2006 version unchanged. I interpret "follow" to mean, as one dictionary definition says, "to conform to, comply with, or act in accordance with; obey". To me anyways, this implies that the person is actively doing something beyond believing these things in his own head. He could be (1) teachings them to others or (2) putting beliefs into actions, by, for example, engaging in plural marriage. If there are not actions demonstrating a following, I am seriously skeptical that excommunication would ever take place.

The persons excommunicated over Adam–God were—I speculate—actively engaged in teaching it to others. The same author you quote says, "To find members who are so selective in their beliefs and so adamant and impatient in their declarations, that they are excommunicated is very unfortunate." This mention of the member being so "adamant" in their beliefs and "impatient in their declaration" reveals that these people were either teaching others or announcing their views in public, which are actions. It's semantics, I know, but the distinction is important. No one is excommunicated for beliefs unless they are manifested in some sort of practice or teaching. –SESmith 08:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ LDS Church (2006). Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1: Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics. Salt Lake City: LDS Church, p. 110.

The LDS church IS NOT affiliated with mormon fundamentalism

The LDS church strives to separate itself from polygamy and the Mormon fundamentalist groups. This site portrays that the LDS church and the Mormon fundamentalist groups are related. I've tried to fix that but someone keeps changing it, please do your research and stop relating the LDS church and the Mormon fundamentalist groups.

I see nothing in the article that indicates that the modern LDS Church is affiliated with Mormon Fundamentalism. They share a common history and many common beliefs, and in that way are 'philosophically' related, but explanations of their differences take up a major part of this article, and it is hard to imagine someone equating the two movements after reading this article. --Tobey (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the very first sentences says "Mormon fundamentalism is distinct from Mormonism as it is practiced today by the LDS Church." How can this be misunderstood? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. "Mormon fundamentalism is distinct from Mormonism as it is practiced today by the LDS Church." and IS practiced today by the LDS church" Mormon fundamentalism IS NOT practiced today by the LDS church, it is practiced by the FLDS and other "spin offs" of the LDS church. But it is NOT practiced by the LDS church today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwhin2010 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says Mormonism is practiced by the LDS Church, not Mormon fundamentalism. Both groups practice a form of Mormonism, and the sentence is pointing out they are distinct forms. You've managed to misread it, which before I didn't think it could be. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess the sentence should be phrased different. Because it says Mormon Fundamentalism is distinct from Mormonism and it is practiced by the LDS church. it sounds like Mormon Fundamentalism, not Mormonism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwhin2010 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "it" refers to the last noun that preceded it, which is "Mormonism". However, an editor has made the change I believe which does clarify it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to whoever revised that sentence. It clears up confusion. Thanks again

I don't think this is cleaned up at all. It is impossible to tell, from this article, that what Wikipedia calls "Mormon fundamentalism" is not Mormon. And, guess who decides what is Mormon? The LDS Church, and they've decided these polygamists fundamentalists are spin off sects. This information should be in the first paragraph, and the article should be retitled. --Blechnic (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The view that the LDS Church alone "decides what is Mormon" is not very NPOV, and it has even been rejected by intellectual property courts in the United States, so I don't think the view should be given much credence. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious freedoms are decided under "intellectual property courts in the United States?" Guess what, that's what Mormonism is: the religion defined by the LDS Church, not by US intellectual property courts. --Blechnic (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Shouldn't this article be named Latter Day Saint fundamentalism or Fundamentalism in the Latter Day Saint movement? Most non-LDS groups tend to shy away from using the term "Mormon" for themselves, and the LDS church agrees. 69.182.119.70 (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What most groups do doesn't seem relevant: Mormon fundamentalists use this term. Cool Hand Luke 18:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:Mormon fundamentalism/Comments

The following was originally posted to Talk:Mormon fundamentalism/Comments, but should have been added here instead, so moved. Could not put in approximate chronological order, as this sections on this talk page is not currently ordered that way. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Mormon fundamentalism is distinct from Mormonism as it practiced today by the LDS Church.-needs rewording. These people aren't actually Mormon(LDS).

Very bad wording and sources

71.145.156.14 (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks mighty fine now98.250.41.169 (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plyg merge

An article on the slang term "plyg" has been created, and there is is not enough to support it as a standalone article, so it should be merged here. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for a merge, is you can figure out one that works. However, I'm also all for deletion as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been taken care of. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should "fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist" be used in such an article?

IMHO: Fundamentalism and fundamentalist have been turned in somewhat a slur word dating at least from the time when the media began to use the term to mean extremist and in particular Moslem bombers, none of which to my knowledge call themselves by the term fundamentalist. These terms properly refer to the movement which arose around the time of post-WWI,movement which sought to maintain the historical basics of Christianity in opposition to the modernist movement which was denying those basic truths. Fundamentalism insisted that although there was a lot of permissible disagreement among Christians, to be Christian required at least a belief in some few basics like the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Bible as God's Word, justification by faith, the resurrection, and the substitutionary atonement of Christ. I suggest that this article would be better entitled Mormon movements which embrace polygamy. (PeacePeace (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

"Mormon fundamentalism" is the common name for this movement used in reliable sources, so it's the one we use on Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"polygyny first taught by Joseph Smith," ??? I don't think Joseph Smith was the first to teach that a man could have plural wives. I suggest that "first" be deleted. Perhaps it would better read: "polygyny taught by the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith. (PeacePeace (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I think what it means is that Smith was the originator of the idea within Mormonism. He was the first prophet of Mormonism to teach it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be revised to state clearly that the LDS still believe in polygyny?

Isn't it a fact that the LDS still believe in polygyny, only they have moved it to life after death? Don't they believe that after death a man can have several wives in Heaven or on the New Earth? And do they seal plural wives in this life with the proviso that it won't actually be practiced until Heaven or until the New Earth? (PeacePeace (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

In the LDS Church today the doctrine is unclear, or unsettled, at best. Yes, men can still be sealed to more than one wife if he has two wives in separate monogamous marriages, but now so too can a woman be sealed to more than one husband if she was in the same position. It's therefore unclear what these multiple sealings mean as far as the afterlife goes. I suspect that you would find a variety of beliefs about it among LDS Church members. I don't think the article needs to get into this issue, since it's about Mormon fundamentalism, not the LDS Church. The content of the doctrine in Mormon fundamentalism is much clearer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. (PeacePeace (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Is Polygyny a fundamental?

So is it a fact that for such men, polygyny is not just allowable, but an essential to a proper religious life? And then polygyny is not just a "true belief," but a basic belief, without which a man should not be called a Mormon or a Latter Day Saint? So without a plurality of wives, a man would go to the Lake of Fire as fornicators do? (PeacePeace (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]

It relates to the degrees of glory. In Mormon belief, there is far more than just a heaven/hell division. In Mormon fundamentalism, men who don't practice plural marriage will not go to hell or the lake of fire just because they did not practice plural marriage, but to reach the highest level of the celestial kingdom, men must practice plural marriage. So yes, it is fairly fundamental since it is essential for the highest level in the afterlife. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Mormon fundamentalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mormon fundamentalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with conservative RLDS groups distinguish template

Now, obviously the grand majority of people who hear the words "Mormon Fundamentalist" are going to think of the mostly Rocky Mountain groups that practice polygamy, but "Fundamentalist" can refer to the conservative RLDS groups such as the Restoration Branches. Deseret News also called them Fundamentalists, see here: https://www.deseret.com/1990/7/8/18870563/fundamentalists-vow-to-retrieve-reins-of-rlds-church

Also BYU article discussing them (and referring to them as RLDS Fundamentalists). https://atom.lib.byu.edu/smh/30052/

Writing this to explain further the reasons for my edit if necessary. 69.120.202.15 (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think having the head note there is fine. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] LDS Church (2006). Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1: Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics. Salt Lake City: LDS Church, p. 110.

[1]