Talk:Thomas S. Monson

Image2

I was able to get permission from the copyright holder to upload an image that I thought might be better then the one here. Ether the full body image File:Thomas S Monson2.jpg or the cropped face only image File:Thomas S Monson3.jpg. However, again this being a Good Artical and the image is in alot of place, I'm not Bold enough to do it on my own.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 18:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This image as a stand-alone portrait isn't spectacular, but the uncropped version is a great action shot! I've inserted it in the Temple dedications section. Also, be sure to properly document permission to use the picture via the instructions at Commons. —Eustress ^talk 13:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

How about this iamge? File:Thomassmonson.jpg. I think it's better then the one used.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 17:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please Correct the second sentence of the article. Monson is NOT the president of the naacp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.121.50 (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This was corrected on Oct 26. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Category question

Should Thomas S. Monson be placed in the category "American military personnel of World War II"? He was in the Navy reserves and in training in San Diego at the end of the war. Is this enough to place him in that category? I would say yes, but I figured it was best to let this issue be decided by arbitration because it is one on what the exact contours of that category are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the category explanation says "This category includes people who served in the United States military during World War II" and the Navy Reserve is part of the United States military, I will go ahead and categorize Thomas S. Monson in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

No criticism or controversies at all? Hard to believe.andycjp (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Thomas S. Monson/1, please provide specific issues that are covered by reliable sources elsewhere but not discussed in this article, and we can work to make sure they are integrated here. Regards —Eustress ^talk 14:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Political activism

This section looks either underdeveloped or out of place. Suggest either:

(1) expansion so it is clear why a 2008 event remains relevant--more sources on it.

(2) moving it to the bottom of the section as "awards" is longer

(3) elimination for brevity,

obviously #3 would raise POV flags, but if prop 8 won't be associated with him greatly, it is an option 76.27.41.184 (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Alzheimers

This article should include mention or refutation of these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.252.74 (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of any such claims. Cite where you're getting this information from, then we can discuss it. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose but have a suggestion This Alzheimer's claim has been going on for a year or more, and he's shown up at Conference-- the sources are nor credible. However, I would not oppose citing his 5-year update stating he was "subject to all manner of infirmities, both of body and mind." jj (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Immigration reform?

Here is a good summary from mormon.com, a website not affiliated with the Church, about President Uchtdorf's meeting with Obama on immigration refrom, and previous endorsements of immigration reform by the Church. [1]. Since the First Presidency acts in tandem, and some of these actions have included President Monson's signiture, I am wondering if it would be worth mentioning anything relatated to this in this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuit against President Monson

I have watched this issue be debated back and forth. I personally think this is too frivolous a matter to be included in the article. However, I am willing to discuss it and see what the consensus rules on the matter. I have copied the proposed text and am posting it here for discussion. I believe it should be discussed in depth before being readded, and hope that you will all agree with me. Here's the proposed change:

"On January 31, 2014, two summonses were issued to Monson to attend a hearing at the Westminster Magistrates' Court in London, England on March 14, 2014 to answer accusations that key tenets of the LDS faith are untrue and have been used to secure financial contributions."

Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is premature to add it to the article at this point. If anything comes of it (e.g., Monson actually flies there to testify, etc.), then maybe it should be added. Most of the references indicate this appears to be just a frivolous lawsuit by a former member of the LDS Church. I'd wait to see if this has merit first, especially in a BLP. Bahooka (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

(after EC) I agree with Jgstokes and Bahooka. WP:RECENTISM probably applies - imo it's too soon to know whether this will pass the ten-year test. We're under no deadline here so I think it'll be more important to see what happens come March 14 and the subsequent coverage. Additionally, WP:BLPCRIME or WP:WELLKNOWN would apply (most likely the latter since Monson probably is a public figure and not exactly a relatively unknown person), but in that case we need evidence that the allegation is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented - a threshold that I don't think we've crossed yet nor can we (WP:CRYSTAL) until maybe March. Also, there is already what looks like off-wiki canvassing for meatpuppets (Keep the fraud charges on Wikipedia!). --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

My position is likely evident, having reverted several attempts to add this - and having also suggested the talk page be used before adding back. This appears frivolous in nature and isn't a significant event. The notion of this being a "real event" and having some newspaper articles about it doesn't in and of itself make it notable and worthy of adding. This isn't about protection or bias toward the positive nature of the article - is every single lawsuit or issue raised toward any public figure suddenly notable and worthy of inclusion in an article that captures and summarizes the life of such an individual. I would not be in favor of its inclusion in the article. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuits like this happen all the time against all sorts of religions, and it's not the first time something like this has been directed against this church. From the article I read, this lawsuit doesn't even appear to be directed against Monson personally. It sounds like it's against the church and Monson is just being called in as a witness. It's unusual for the summons to be for Monson to appear himself, usually just a representative from the legal department would be sufficient, but that probably doesn't make it notable enough. These types of lawsuits are interesting, but a more appropriate place for the reference would probably be Lds church#Controversy and criticism, Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Criticism of Mormon sacred texts (this last one goes to some of the key claims of fraud in the suit, none of which if true, would have originated with Monson). I would only have it in Monson's article if he is actually found guilty of something, or a defining aspect of his presidency turns out to be responding to these types of legal complaints on behalf of the church. It will be some time before we know if that ends up being the case.Vojen (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most everyone here. The fact is this is a something that both appears to be just a frivolous lawsuit and it is not something we normally include. I think the arguments against at they away to go. Additionally, if you see Tom Phillips interview (Tom Phillips is the one suing) it was decided that he has a Conflict of interest and is Not Reliable. Unless a judge actually rules for him, I think this is just a publicity stunt and one of thousands of frivolous lawsuit famous people get, but we don't include.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I add my voice to the consensus. jj (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that Tom Phillips is still on the books as a member of the LDS. Also, since the LDS Church is the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it's probably not completely fair to suggest the fraud allegations are not directed toward Monson, the president. It will indeed be interesting to see how this plays out. People seem to be overlooking that Tom Phillips has some credit after revealing the secret Second Anointing that takes place in the temple for privileged chosen members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler D14 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What "books" are you referencing? It is most likely that this Tom Phillips you mention is not in good standing, so his view should have no bearing on this issue. Indeed, a Google search for "Tom Phillips Mormon" reveals that he is a disaffected Mormon with no current ties to the Church. We will have to wait and see what comes of this. Tom Phillips's so-called "credit" for "revealing" what takes place in the temple should have no bearing on whether to include these allegations. What takes place in temples is not "secret." It is sacred. Anyone who qualifies to participate in temple ordinances can be privy to what takes place there. The fact that it is not to be discussed outside the temple is due to its sacredness. Tom Phillips' "revealing" what takes place there just goes to prove that he is not in good standing, and as such, his views should not be taken as notable. WP thrives on striking a NPOV voice. To include this information would violate that voice. I am still very much in favor of leaving this information out of the article until the results of this frivolous "lawsuit" are revealed. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

According to this article, even British legal experts are surprised about this issue and believe that Monson won't be required to come to Britain to face his accusers/answer these charges. Based on information in this article, I would again suggest holding off mentioning this in the WP article about Monson until we know how it will play out. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As the first sentence of my prior post points out, I was simply making a note of some aspects of the situation that people are overlooking or getting wrong. When I said he is still on the "books," that was referring to the fact that he is still technically a member of the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, he is dissatisfied and not active, as he - like many other dissatisfied members - have learned truths about mormonism that are not openly taught. Tom Phillips is also a former bishop and stake president. Many members parrot the saying that the temple is "scared" and not "secret," but that temple is clearly secret and once involved blood oaths for discussing its practices. Tom Phillips has received the Second Anointing which most active mormons don't even know about because of its secrecy. It's also incorrect to label the lawsuit as "frivolous." You are not qualified to make that call and all of the evidence in the case is not known to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler D14 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)‎

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point, but whether or not Tom Phillips is neutral in his attitude toward the church is irrelevant (clearly he's not as he is a party to the lawsuit at question), because we aren't using anything written by Tom Phillips as source material to reference this lawsuit. The neutrality of the USA Today article as a source isn't being questioned. Whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous is ultimately a legal question that will have to be answered by a judge, but in some sense this doesn't even matter to us. Whether or not a lawsuit is notable is the question at hand,and that is something that is determined by the community consensus within the guidelines of the wikipedia rules. I'm only a casual wikipedian at best and by no means am I an expert on wikipedia policies and practices, but my understanding is we generally don't report on every lawsuit that gets filed or even every lawsuit that gets appealed and is confirmed non-frivolous, even if a notable figure is involved (U.S. Supreme Court cases might be the exception). Only lawsuits of a more extraordinary nature are reported (being notable in and of themselves), or a pattern of lesser important lawsuits would be reported (no single lawsuit being notable on its own, but taken collectively they become notable because of the pattern).

This lawsuit will certainly be more notable to me if Monson actually testifies or if the British government seeks to have him extradited, and even more so if the church loses, but given the commentary of the British legal experts cited in our sources it's unlikely that either will be the case. What will most likely happen, is the church will have one of its attorneys represent it in court, appeal the request for Monson to appear, and Monson won't have to show up. If that happens, I say this lawsuit is not notable on its own, but we will have to wait to see before we really know.

However, I think a pattern of repeated lawsuits could still be notable even if they are all dismissed as frivolous, because it represents a larger phenomenon. Several lawsuits against the church are probably filed every year, but the ones that I am aware of largely deal with issues we wouldn't consider super significant, such as property or employment disputes. The last real interesting lawsuit against the church that looked at the doctrine that I'm aware of occurred when Hinckley was president, and I never saw the outcome, so I imagine the church was either dismissed as a party or the suit was settled. Which brings me back to my point from my previous comment above.

This lawsuit is interesting, and may be an appropriate addition to one of several articles discussing criticisms of the church, but I don't think it is appropriate for Monson's article page unless it becomes a defining moment of his presidency. When we talk about the notability of any event we have to look at it and ask notable for whom. I don't know if Tom Phillips is notable enough to have his own wikipedia article, but as he appears to be a more prominent activist given the above references to the Second Annointing, this lawsuit seems like a worthy addition to an article about Tom Phillips describing actions he's taken as part of his activism. Yes the suit is against the corporation of the presidency, and yes Monson is the current president, but they are not one and the same. Monson is not being charged personally (at least that's not how it appears from our sources--it might be different if someone can get a copy of the actual summons) which means even if he lost, the consequences for fraud won't apply against him, but against the church. I.e. Monson wouldn't go to jail. Issues that transcend the specific church president are better placed in articles about the church in general, unless it becomes a defining issue for the tenure of that specific president. Please see my above comment for three articles where I think a reference to this lawsuit would be more appropriate given the current situation. I would even welcome and encourage the reference if a larger pattern of these lawsuits can be established.

Anyhow, sorry for the long comment, but the short of it is I think it's too early to place this in Monson's article. People can keep the discussion going if they want, but it looks like the consensus for now at least is to wait and see before adding a reference to the lawsuit to this page. If anyone disagrees, please let the group know. Vojen (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Reaffirm-- it shouldn't be included, because it is not long-term news. jj (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree also, it shouldn't be included. It's not long-term news, its a blatant WP:NOPV, WP:BLP and Conflict of interest violation, on top of Tom Phillips being Not Reliable. To included this information will only input a PVO problems.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The case was thrown out as reported here. Bahooka (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2014

Please add new and groundbreaking information about Thomas Monson receiving summonses for fraud. "On January 31, 2014, two summonses were issued to Monson to attend a hearing at the Westminster Magistrates' Court in London, England on March 14, 2014 to answer accusations that key tenets of the LDS faith are untrue and have been used to secure financial contributions."

This can be verified by USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/04/mormon-president-ordered-to-court/5216645/ Tyler D14 (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tyler D14, thanks for the request. Wikipedia has very strict rules about the kinds of material that can be added to biographies of living persons, and we always try to err on the side of caution. In the case of legal proceedings, we always presume innocence unless a guilty verdict is procured, and we specifically avoid mentioning frivolous law suits. (You'll notice that our article on Barack Obama doesn't mention any of the law suits against him, even though a quick Google search shows that they exist.) Anyway, I'm going to decline this edit request, but if you feel there are compelling reasons to add the material feel free to make your case. ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, feel free to participate in the discussion in the section just above this one on the topic.ChristensenMJ (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)