Talk:The Doctrine and Covenants

Naming Convention
The naming Covenant 1, Covenant 2, etc. is completely no standard - does anyone object to renaming those pages to D&C 1, D&C 2, etc. Trödel 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "Section 1", "Section 2", etc. which is more commonly used. 204.113.19.8 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've no objections to either. It's entirely possible to have both, too, by creating redirects. I'll rename them to sections, create D&C redirects, and leave the Covenant redirects, then. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If the text is to be accurate it must be edited to read "Section 1", " Section 2" etc. I object to "Covenant 1", "Covenant 2" etc. because it is factually wrong. This is verifiable. All printed and online versions of the book use "Section". To simply make "Section" an alternative to "Covenant" when "Covenant" is factually wrong doesn't seem to be the Wiki way to me.

Further to this, the correct name of the publisher of this version is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". This is verifiable. The printed and online copies of this version of the book use "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

The section prefaces in the text are annotations and different to the original document, having been heavily condensed. The annotations diminish the value of the original and need to be improved. If it is a good thing to have the verses of the text faithful to the printed and online version of the book then the same rule should apply to the prefaces.

Your comments are welcome. --Eric 10:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am confused by this comment as all the pages have already been move to "Section" days ago. I am not sure where you see a publisher listed, but this is a wiki.  Feel free to fix any mistakes.  I do not understand the last paragraph at all. What do you mean by "section prefaces" and "anotations."  Can you give links? Perhaps we are looking at different versions of the text.  Lets make sure we are on the same page. You would probably be surprised at how many varations different text have between editions.  You never really notice till you work on adding things to an online library--BirgitteSB 13:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm working currently on moving the names inside of all of the sections to the word section, so as to be standard. However, it's alot to do... Tuvas 22:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've given up at Section 55, so... Tuvas 22:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problem
We need to standardize on a particular edition. And it probably shouldn't be the 1981 LDS edition, I don't think, because some aspects of that edition are probably still under copyright, and the LDS Church is still claiming copyright. We could use the LDS 1921 edition, whose copyright has clearly expired. That would actually be beneficial, because that edition isn't, as far as I am aware, available on the internet, but it would take lots of work. You could also use the original 1835 edition, which is available on the internet in pdf form. COGDEN 23:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)