Talk:Blood atonement

takes controversial points for granted

It is strongly debated weather or not Joseph Smith practiced or preached polygamy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnBUfIDl0gE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:C581:F960:9F33:94B3:C7DE:1E96 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I hope you can see why a YouTube video by what could charitably be called an amateur historian isn't a useful source to contest accepted history. XeCyranium (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

"in spite of evidence to the contrary" - please source

I noticed this phrase in the partway through a paragraph, but neither source at the end of that sentence discuss this evidence - merely state the official response from TCoJCoLDS.

While I do not wish to dismiss this entirely, could it please have a cited source? OldMateFromAus (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

OR and UNDUE weight

As mentioned in the edit summary, I see problems with the recent edits. The phrase "is a custom LDS Church" is just bad grammar/English - maybe its missing a prepositional phrase or something. It's also replacing the summary statement about the doctrine in Mormon fundamentalist groups. The word "allegedly" is a word to avoid and appears to be used to imply the statement is actually inaccurate (without supporting sources in the body of the article). Finally, Aldrich is not mentioned anywhere in the article and I can find no sources that they justified their heinous actions with this doctrine or that they were a Mormon extremist. -- FyzixFighter (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Citation style standardization

I propose to standardize this article's citation template style per WP:CITESTYLE which says "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style". I've already recently done so on Mormonism and violence, Joseph Smith Papyri, and Criticism of the LDS Church. Are there any opposed to me making the citation style uniform to inline "cite x" and "ref name" for this article? If anyone is opposed, are they willing to volunteer to do the standardizing labor to make it all "harv" style? I'm only willing to do the labor to the "cite x" form I'm more familiar and comfortable with, and arguing to just leave it as is with mixed styles, without offering to help correct it isn't constructive. If I don't receive any opposing votes who volunteer to standardize it all the other way within a week or so I'll go ahead and do it. Pastelitodepapa (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)