Talk:David O. McKay

Vacancy in the 12

It isn't real clear from what I can quickly find if McKay replaced Cowley or Merrill - but since Cowley most likely ceased to function as part of the 12 in 1905 and McKay is ahead of Ivins in senority I put Cowley in the Infobox. Trödel|talk 05:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

In the biographical summary box it refers to 'Ordination:' as Church President. To the best of my knowledge the highest ordination is to an Apostle in the Council of the Twelve. The term should be 'Set Apart' as President of the Church. Fedraboy (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No longer oldest president in history

Gordon B. Hinckley just surpassed David O. McKay as the oldest President, so I am removing that line. --72.8.86.100 11:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

CCH/BYUH/PCC

No mention of his prophetic statements given at the dedication of the CCH grounds in Laie, HI? Should probably consider including something about those institutions. --65.40.115.228 (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

CarolinaPete's "vampire" claims

Hello. Though I may have been party to reverting it myself a time or two in the recent past, I have tried for the most part to stay out of CarolinaPete's continued attempts to assert McKay's status as a "vampire" without providing an adequate verifiable source to prove it. His continued attempts to insert this may constitute an edit war if they continue. I am starting this subject because of the apparent need to have a consensus decision on this point. I think any claim that an LDS leader was a vampire is categorically false and unable to be verified by any reliable source. It is therefore my viewpoint (with which I am sure the consensus will fully agree) that unless there is an excellent source to verify that point and justify its inclusion on this article, any effort to do otherwise should be automatically reverted. If this does wind up devolving into an edit war, obviously further action will be needed. FWIW, that's my opinion on this matter. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jgstokes: This "CarolinaPete" editor isn't claiming McKay was a vampire, he cites Morrill (1966) saying that McKay "was well-known for wearing fake vampire fangs while he taught, a practice he would continue while preaching in the LDS church."

In any case, while it might be properly sourced (I haven't checked), I think this anecdote is not really notable and thus shouldn't be included in the article.  White Whirlwind  咨  16:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jgstokes: You have my agreement on this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

@White_whirlwind, you are right about the claim being more about vampire fangs than about McKay actual being a vampire. But that's neither here nor there. Even though it was apparently properly sourced, technically speaking, that's a very far cry from it being reliably sourced. As one who does not hesitate to admit to being actively and devoutly LDS, I am always leery of any "source" that claims something which is not properly able to be verified by a majority of the other sources out there. The claim of the use of vampire fangs by McKay is outlandishly misrepresented at best and blatantly and categorically false at worst. And since other sources don't agree with that claim, particularly those that anyone would consider logically to be more reliable in regards to this point than the one cited, that is reason enough to have motivated me to make this a matter for discussion, as ridiculous as it is to have to do so.

I can't personally address the second person who made the other comment above by name because his comment is unsigned, even though in looking at the history of this page, it was made by a Wikipedian whose name I am well familiar with, but which I cannot quite recall at the moment. To him I say, thanks for expressing your agreement with my original comment. I hope you take no offense at my taking the liberty to add the unsigned template to your comment above.

And, FWIW, just so you both are aware of the latest on this, I took the liberty of posting a gentle reminder to the talk page of the user in question to the effect that since he was coming close to violating the 3 revert rule, among other policies, he would be wise to rethink his behavior before repeating the same assertions. I tried to make it clear that I had no authority to threaten him with potential disciplinary action, and that I took no pleasure at all in even having to call him on his continued misconduct, but that it might be wise for him to reconsider things. I hope I did that in the proper spirit and that it was done well enough. I thought I would try to resolve this peacefully before doing anything else regarding his conduct, even though other avenues may have been open to me in terms of lodging a complaint about the ridiculous conduct on his part. It seems the only other comment on his talk page is from another user who let him know about an earlier issue related to his misconduct. I hope he gets the message. I hate the idea that further action might be needed, which is why I wanted to nip this thing right in the bud by making the assertion in question subject to a consensus decision. If he is smart, he will either let it rest or have the decency to at very least let us know here on the talk page why he feels so strongly about having this assertion in the article. If he had bothered to explain his reasoning, it might have been different. But in my mind, he crossed the line by coming so close to violating policy. And as one who has been called out personally here on Wikipedia for my own policy violations, it is my hope that he will have the sense to learn from this experience what he should not do in terms of future Wikipedia edits. I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure the fact that such nonsense doesn't belong here is well understood and appreciated by most other Wikipedia editors. It should go without saying. I just wish he had gotten the point before things happened the way they did. The fact that it came to this is disheartening. Thanks to you both again for supporting me on this. If others want to comment, I would welcome that, even if it opens the situation up all over again. In the meantime, unless anyone else feels a need to oppose this, I feel sure about stating that, since the three of us are in agreement, that should be enough to constitute a consensus decision. If more time needs to be allowed for comment to take place, that's fine. As for me, unless new viewpoints come to light, I will be viewing this matter as decided. Thanks again to you both. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Default Pro-Mormon Entries in Wikipedia

Wikipedia editors are so vociferous about objectivity. Yet an entry like this, typical of many Mormon-topic entries here, seems to kind of pretend that no LDS leader, certainly not gentle President McKay, ever did a controversial or questionable thing in his 60-year tenure as leader. Many entries on Mormon subjects seem to be mildly pro-Mormon by default, rather than objective, probably because the Mormon editors are so eager to jump in here on Mormon topics. McKay inherited Brigham Young's decision that took priesthood power away from black male Mormons who already had received it, and helped enforce the policy to withhold priesthood ordination from any more blacks. He inherited the polygamy policy reversal and continued it. He maintained, as a good Mormon must, the historical veracity of the Book of Mormon in spite of essentially zero archaeological evidence showing that its grand civilizations ever existed outside of the mind of Joseph Smith. He largely maintained the "barefoot and pregnant" approach to the role of Mormon women, and was president when feminism first gained national prominence. During his tenure, the First Presidency sent a letter out declaring that the Mormon Church had never taken a position on how old the Earth was, or on whether evolution was accurate. I learned this from a biology teacher at Brigham Young U. Anybody care to enrich the quality of this article that in April 2017 reads a bit like an LDS press release? Closest it comes to saying anything Mormons don't want to hear is probably the mention of Fawn McKay Brodie. Any input? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moabalan (talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

McKay quietly stood by the Book of Mormon passages I see as racist, in which white skin is associated with "delightsome" and God-serving, and darker brown skin is announced as punishment for turning away from God's guidance. The book explicitly stated many times that, if a distant-from-God Lamanite, or brown-skinned American Indian, turned back and served God, his/her skin would become whiter and more delightsome. I as a high school student was shown pictures of Indians who had become Mormons. The claim by comparing early and later photos was that these "Lamanites" were becoming whiter, year by year. Some editing of these texts occurred after McKay's time.Moabalan (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)