Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] User:BenMcLean/naming

Anyone interested in revising the Mormonism naming conventions so as to ensure that RLDS views are not called "Mormonism" might want to help contribute to the new version of the page that I am working on. --BenMcLean 20:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping the discussion in one place

I don't want eto bifurcate this discussion from what has already been discussed earlier, but despite my painstaking efforts to copy and paste earlier discussion into one place, the discussion has become separated again. I don't want to rehash the same stuff again and again. So, for the sake of efficiency, I'm going to move the naming-convention-articles and their talk pages back into one place at least for the time being. B 19:34, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Note that this discussion has split into at least two places. I'm going to avoid commenting further, to give B enough time to refactor the discussion into a single place. --Uncle Ed 19:56, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ok I think all the relevant discussion is in place again. B 20:06, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Old discussion from various articles relating to naming convention

Members of the church prefer to avoid the (often pejorative) label "Mormons" and reference to the church as the "Mormon Church". I have preserved initial use of these terms (offered as frequently-used alternatives) to enable searching, but have altered them in the larger body to more neutral and common words like "church members" (&c). Also, I altered one paragraph that used terms like "claimed" and "allegedly" with distracting frequency for such a small body of text. --branteaton

This is fuzzier nowadays - some people dislike it, and others
don't mind.  It's also commonly used within the church when
speaking casually.  Its connotations seem to swing back and
forth every so often...

Why should it matter what they like or dislike? This is an encyclopedia. Members of the church are commonly called Mormons; this is an important fact that should be reported. If you want to also report that they dislike this fact, that's good too. --LDC

Lee, this fact is reported and retained in the beginning of the article. The text that follows then refers to Mormons as "members" or "adherents," or somesuch. An article about any group may diplomatically contain mention of a pejorative label, and use more neutral language in the rest of the article. This sort of policy or convention seems appropriate in Wikipedial treatment of all groups. --BrantEaton

Yes, I think the article as it is now is fine. I just wanted to make the point that the term preferred by the people being described is not necessarily the most neutral or most accurate one. We should respect other beliefs, but we shouldn't coddle them at the expense of clarity. --LDC

The LDS church has their official statement on the matter here: http://www.lds.org/media2/library/display/0,6021,198-1-168-15,FF.html Should this be worked into the article? [The statement has moved since the link was posted to it. —B]

I think it is essential to maintain the term Mormon, because Mormonism is wider than just the LDS church -- there is also the RLDS church, the polygamy practicing groups, and various other groups (Hendricites, Strangites, Bickertonites, Church of Christ Temple Lot, Church of Christ Elijah Message). We need a term to describe all these groups collectively, since (whichever one if any is right) they are all closely related in historical origin, beliefs and practices. Thus I would use Mormonism as a collective term for all those groups which see Joseph Smith as their founder; therefore LDS shouldn't be called Mormonism, but rather a particular Mormon sect/denomination. -- Simon J Kissane

Simon, I believe the common practice is to apply the term "Mormon" and "Mormonism" only to the Utah church. This doesn't make a lot of sense, because all of the groups accept the Book of Mormon, or at least trace their origin to it. But nevertheless I believe this is established practice. I think this came about because the term "Mormon" was so closely associated in the public mind with the doctrine and practice of polygamy, which the RLDS (in particular) rejected. I agree that a general term to include all the derivative churches would be very useful, but I think that using "Mormon" and "Mormonism" for this purpose would be confusing. I believe the term "Restoration churches" is sometimes used in this sense. - Hank Ramsey

Well Melton, the respected religion scholar, uses the term in the sense I do in his "Encyclopedia of American Religions". -- User:Simon J Kissane

As far as I know, all groups involved do not want the term "Mormon" and "Mormonism" to refer to all such groups. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't like the term "Mormonism" to begin with, and would rather restrict the term "Mormon" to refer to people of their faith.

The RLDS church never liked the appellation "Mormon" and has now, in fact, even changed their name to something entirely different. I don't know about the other sects, but I truly doubt they would take fondly to being called "Mormons".

Perhaps some other word/phrase could be used that seems more impartial? "Restoration churches" seems too broad ... maybe simply refer to the group as "denominations who consider Joseph Smith their founder"? I'm at a loss here, but I think that to refer to this group as "Mormons" would simply confuse most people and offend some. -- User:Dlugar

As an encyclopedia article ostensibly written for the neutral point of view, it would be good to explain what the common usage of the term "Mormon" is, and then state how the various groups do or do not identify themselves with it. Reality is that the general public uses the term Mormon, and a Wikipedia reader will probably come searching for it. It would be unhelpful to have the article take pedantic view that is too narrow. --User:Alan Millar

"Mormon" appears in the body of the article, enabling searchers to find it. A separate article Mormons discusses some groups that can or have been identified by that label. --branteaton

Perhaps this has been debated elsewhere, but shouldn't we strive to use the correct name[s] for the Church where possible?

From http://www.lds.org/newsroom/page/0,15606,3899-1---15-168,00.html, we have the Church's preferences clearly stated. I have no problem with these preferences, given that we universally allow entities (both individual, corporate, and religious) to choose their own names.

Specifically, I'd like to reduce the amount of times we see "LDS Church" in favor of the correct title. And I'd like to go ahead and use "Mormonism" when this makes sense ("the Mormons" refers to a people, not the body of doctrine, history, and culture). But I'm not trying to rock the boat. Is there any consensus on this isssue? LennyG

This was debated quite a bit and archived I believe, but I haven't read it. Regardless, I feel significantly dogmatic about this subject (even if I don't apply it consistently sometimes). I'm partial to the "LDS Church" usage, just because it is more specific than "the Church" and it is nicely shorter than the full name or "the Church of Jesus Christ". However, I absolutely agree that certain parts of the Church's style guide should be strictly followed: All references in wiki to "Mormon Church", "LDS Church" or "the Church of the Latter-day Saints" or the like should be changed to one of the acceptable formats. One of us interested folks should start going through the articles to make sure that they are all consistent and make changes where needed. This should include a change to "Latter-day Saints" where "Mormons" is used unless it is clear that the reference is intended to be used in a broader sense. There are also articles (many mine, I'm sure) where the a reference to the Church is followed by a parenthetical like "(LDS/Mormon)". Use of parentheticals like that is a poor practice too. B

I don't see why we have to pay attention solely to what the Church wants. Suppose the legal name of some bloke is Jeremiah Smith but he started a cult and now wishes to be solely known as The almighty ruler of the universe in bold italics. Calling him as he calls himself is a violation of NPOV for the billions of people who don't see Jeremiah as the almighty ruler of the universe. Calling him Jeremiah Smith is a violation of NPOV for him and a handful of his followers, and is clearly the lesser evil.

Similarly, the LDS Church might wish to be referred to as "the Church of Jesus Christ", but this is violating NPOV for the billions of people who consider that the LDS church is not the church at all, but rather one of a number of such churches.

I'm not saying that the wishes of the LDS Church should be ignored, but they should be weighed against other concerns, such as:

Martin


I agree that we don't have to do "what the Church wants," and I didn't mean to imply that we should bow to their requests at any time. BUT, I do think that their request is reasonable. The difference between this and the "almighty ruler of the universe" example is that one appears reasonable while the other does not. Let me give another example, that of the "Houston Oilers" NFL franchise, which moved recently to Tennessee and became the "Titans." Do we continue to call them the "Oilers," even though that's all they were ever known as for a long span of years? The answer is "no," even though there might be a few diehard Oilers fans out there who would disagree.

And the Church has an even stronger position in many ways: it was named "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" on its founding day in 1830. The various nicknames have an important historical context and should not be erased or never mentioned; all I'm saying is that whenever possible, we should use the correct name. Perhaps from some perspective the shortened "The Church of Jesus Christ" pushes the envelope of NPOV, but there are good arguments on both sides of that point.

I do agree that the term we use to describe should be weighed against the three concerns you mention. LennyG

Hi, Martin. Thanks for joining in. Neither of us is suggesting that the Church's preferences are or should be the sole determining factor here. Since you probably know that I'm committed to abiding by wiki policies and making wiki a non-partisan endeavor, then you probably know that when I say that I'm dogmatic about the naming convention it is because in light of other factors that should be considered, I feel that the Church's preferences are consistent with wiki policies and should be respected. As your example points out, avoiding offence can cut many ways. "Mormon" began as a pejorative term by detractors of the Church. It is offensive to refer to the Church as "Mormon Church" or "LDS Church"; the Church does not purport to be the church of the disciples of Mormon or the church that is dictated by the Latter-day Saints. The primary issue here is in title brevity and brevity in articles once that the full name is stated and the Church is referred to repeatedly afterward. These points should be relatively uncontroversial:

  • the first reference to the Church in any article should be by its full, formal, conventional and legal name
  • usage of the shorthand version in articles and titles should be consistent throughout wiki
  • usage of "the Church" is ok in wiki
  • "Mormon Church" should not be used at all
  • avoidance of offense and courtesy take priority over brevity (even in titles)

Here is what I propose (which is consistent with wiki policy and the Church's preference):

  • do not use "LDS", "LDS Church", "Mormon Church" or "the Church of Jesus Christ"
  • use the Church's full name only in articles and only as the first reference or when necessary to clearly refer to the Church
  • articles that are titled like "Priesthood (LDS)" should be titled like "Priesthood (Mormonism)"
  • "Latter-day Saints" should be used over "Mormons"

If no one disagrees, let's see if we can get by for now using these guidelines going forward and we'll revisit the issue if it doesn't seem to be working... B

I think this is an excellent compromise. Use the official full name upon first reference, a simple "the Church" instead of "the Church of Jesus Christ" thereafter where it is unambiguous (perhaps considering this abbreviation or the full name when needed to disambiguate), and use "Mormonism" as a descriptor for the rest. LennyG

The only problem I see with this compromise is that "the Church" is used in many other contexts to refer to either the aggregation of everyone who calls themself a Christian, some other particular "branch" of Christianity, or to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church referred to in the Nicene Creed. Perhaps to avoid this confusion, the first reference could include the full name followed by "(hereinafter referred to simply as the Church)", and leaving the references as they are. Would everyone find this clarifying addition to the beginning acceptable? As an aside, why would referring to them as the LDS Church for brevity be objectionable, as it appears to be a simple contraction of the full name? Wesley 15:27 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Wesley, I think you and Lenny are suggesting the same thing: full name in the first use, then abbreviated use thereafter. "LDS Church" is only a partial contraction of the full name. From a Latter-day Saint POV, use of "LDS Church" is objectionable for the same reason that "Mormon Church" is objectionable: it claims to be the church of Jesus Christ, not the church of (the) Mormon(s) nor the church of the Latter-day Saints. —B 22:43, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
I think I can go along with abbreviating it as "the Church" in most cases, as long as the first usage contains the full name so it's clear what is meant. There might be a few instances where something like "LDS Church" might be needed to disambiguate it from other groups. This shouldn't be seen as pejorative or a negation of the Church's claims, but comparable to how many articles use terms like "Roman Catholic Church" or "Eastern Orthodox Church" to clarify who is meant, even though the first could well argue that they extend far beyond Rome and have Patriarchs all over, and the second isn't just Eastern anymore but has a presence throughout the world. And both also claim to be the church of Jesus Christ.
As far as calling members Latter-day Saints, I suppose that can work as long as the context makes clear who is meant. My personal idea of a latter-day saint of course would be someone like Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco, who lived in the 20th century and was officially dubbed an Orthodox saint I think sometime in the 1980s, well known for his piety and his miracles. In the articles here, given context, we can probably avoid that sort of confusion fairly easily. Wesley 13:03, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] OLD DISCUSSION ENDS HERE

[edit] Latter-day Saints and the Church's POV on terms referring to them

I think the term "Mormonism" should be avoided. This is a term used primarily by church opponents, so it's not suitable as a "neutral" term. We could say, however, that a particular church critic refers to LDS beliefs as "Mormonism".

I see no problem with using "LDS" whenever convenient. The church's website is http://www.lds.org and I've heard members use the acronym frequently. --Uncle Ed 15:32, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ed, have you even bothered to read the prior discussion on this subject: Naming conventions (Mormon)?! Or even noticed Visorstuff's post and mine to YOU a few days ago!? The Church's website itself explicitly states: "The term “Mormonism” is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." As a sixth-generation Mormon, I'm not happy with your well-intentioned, poorly executed attempt to NPOV Church and Mormon related articles. I specifically setup this naming convention article to avoid the sort of reckless, uncollaborative editing you and Anome have undertaken. I'm pissed! B 17:53, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
Ed, don't get me wrong. I want you and Anome and whoever else (the more the merrier) to participate and help formulate the convention, but you guys were not paying attention. Let's try and get on the same page and have some consensus before you start making dramatic changes like that. Maybe we should go in the direction you've driven recently, but let's have some discussion first and get on the same page, please. At the moment, I think your changes are for the worse, not the better. B 17:59, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Well, I sympathize with the bloke [above] who wrote the following at Naming conventions (Mormon):

This was debated quite a bit and archived I believe, but I haven't read it. Regardless, I feel significantly dogmatic about this subject (even if I don't apply it consistently sometimes). I'm partial to the "LDS Church" usage, just because it is more specific than "the Church" and it is nicely shorter than the full name or "the Church of Jesus Christ".
I am the bloke above who wrote that. As a newbie wikipedian I used that terminology...but you didn't complete the whole quote in which I said: "However....All references in wiki to "Mormon Church", "LDS Church" or "the Church of the Latter-day Saints" or the like should be changed to one of the acceptable formats." B 20:13, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Here's my take: I don't it when people refer to my own religion, Unificationism, as "the Moonies" -- although on some occasions I admit that nickname kind of tickles my funnybone, as it reminds me of The Monkees, one of my favorite Sixties rock groups (not to mention a bosso keen TV show!).

Similarly, I think we ought to avoid put-down words like "Mormonism" in any context that requires neutral terminology. If only LDS opponents use it, that would be kind of like letting pro-life forces win the name game by referring to all abortion rights activists as "anti-life"; we have pretty much agreed to call them "pro-choice" instead here at Wikipedia.

Neither Mormonism nor Mormon are necessarily put-downs...it depends on the context. B 20:15, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
Of course, and Mark Twain was not being racist when he called the darkies niggers in Huckleberry Finn. The question, of course, is whether Wikipedia articles should use niggers rather than blacks in articles. And likewise whether Mormonism is the best way to refer to LDS doctrines or practices. --Uncle Ed 20:19, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

When we need an abbreviation, "LDS" is ideal. They call themselves "Latter Day Saints" or maybe "Latter-day Saints", but we can simply call them "members" of their "church" in every case where this isn't ambiguous.

Okay, they have the longest official church name of anybody in the whole world: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". So what? My own church is, technically, "The Holy Spiritual Association for the Unification of Christianity", and it isn't really supposed to be a "church", let alone a "denomination", but that hasn't stopped us from adopting an abbreviation that everyone can use: the "Unification Church".

So, let's refer to Mormons as "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" where needed, and then call them "Latter Day Saints" or simply "members" thereafter.

What's all the fuss? --Uncle Ed 18:15, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If we can agree that Mormon and Mormonism are only pejorative depending on context, I suggest that Mormonism is a useful shorthand reference because it covers both the Church and Mormons. If the name of the Church or some abbreviation of it is used, then the topic of the article becomes too narrow because not every person who can claim to be a Mormon is necessarily a member of the Church. Mormonism is a much broader term and also a term which even the Church itself finds acceptable to referring to its doctrine, culture, etc. B 20:29, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
Hear! Hear! Hawstom 07:03, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If we need a broad term to cover "every person who can claim to be a Mormon", fine. If the Church itself finds the term Mormonism acceptable, fine.

But hardly any part of any of the dozens of articles I've recently read or skimmed concern non-mainstream LDS members or doctrine, so I don't see how that applies. Nor have I seen anything to indicate even a grudging acceptance of the term Mormonism by the mainstream LDS church. --Uncle Ed 20:35, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I quote again the Church's explicitly policy at its website: "The term “Mormonism” is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." The mainstream Church does accept use of the term Mormonism in reference to itself. B 21:08, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
I agree that generally articles related to Mormonism now focus on the Church and its members rather than non-Church-member-Mormons, but eventually Mormonism related articles will be filled out more broadly. Your last comment about grudging acceptance seems to contradict your comment that the Church finds the term acceptable. B 21:01, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, no, it's much worse than that! The Mormons themselves say they don't object to Mormonism when describing "the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

But there's no way I'm going to call them "the Church of Jesus Christ" for short: that makes way too much of an exclusive claim. And if they don't want to called the "LDS Church", then I'll avoid that term except on talk pages.

I agree that "the Church of Jesus Christ" as an abbreviated reference for the Church is not NPOV enough for wikipedia. B

Is it all straightened out now? Do you want to roll back my hasty changes to the conventions article, or what? :-) --Uncle Ed 21:52, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've mostly reverted the convention article (with a proviso), but I've not reverted any other articles because I feel there is more that should be hashed out and a broader consensus reached on that. I'll state my thoughts later because I'm not sure I can devote as much attention to it today as I'd like. B 22:42, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

I've revised the Guiding Principles section. Please re-edit as you please. The Guiding Principles should help us determine what the Guidelines should be. B 05:01, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Outstanding Issues

What I want to see hashed out further is:

  1. Why not use the full name of the Church instead of a shorter term like "Mormonism" in titles?
  2. Why not use "LDS" as a short reference for "Latter-day Saints"
  3. Why not use "LDS Church" as a short reference for the full name of the Church?

If someone else has lingering concerns add it to the list. Are interested parties satisfied with the conventions that are now stated in the meta-article? I want to make sure we get this right. --B 05:21, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Coming to this late, but here are some important statements.

  1. The guidelines say to use 'the church' to refer to the CoJCoLDS. This should only be done where there is not danger of confusing it with any other church, i.e. in articles that talk only about the CoJCoLDS and no other churches.
  2. Most of our articles don't distinguish between CoJCoLDS and other Mormon churches, so presumably we should use 'Mormon' in them wherever possible.
  3. 'Church members teach'. They may teach woodworking or Chemistry; what 'The church teaches' is a much better way to describe the accepted doctrines of the church.

DJ Clayworth 05:46, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Glad you are participating, DJ. Everyone agrees with your first comment. Please clarify your second comment. Two problems with "the Church teaches": it is a category mistake; and it is a sloppy substitute for citing doctrines and has been a problem of misstating doctrines. If the wikipedian cares enough to add the material, it should be well-cited in the first place. It is far harder to fix misstatements than get it right in the first place. --B 06:29, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
  1. Why not use the full name of the Church instead of a shorter term like "Mormonism" in titles? -- I can't think of a good reason, provided there are copious redirects from shorter titles.
  2. Why not use "LDS" as a short reference for "Latter-day Saints" -- Because the LDS church doesn't like it?
  3. Why not use "LDS Church" as a short reference for the full name of the Church?-- Because the LDS church doesn't like it? (irony intended)

Has anyone contacted a representative of the church for suggestions on how to deal with DJ Clayworth's point - IE, what should we use as a shortened reference when "the Church" or "the Church of Jesus Christ" are inappropriate? That seems the logical next step to me. Martin 18:48, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

the concept of 'The Church does not teach, members of the Church teach' is not NPOV as it is a declaration of specific Mormon dogma. Actually, the entire idea that the Mormon church should have a set of guidelines specifically for it to enforce a positive outlook on the Theocracy of Utah is in essence a violation of NPOV, but if it must be here, at least do not attempt to include the Mormon rules for how to refer to the Mormon church. This is an encyclopaedia, not a tract. -66.199.69.117

66.199.69.117, as noted above, the statement "the Church teaches" is a category mistake. Your claim, that 'The Church does not teach, members of the Church teach' is not NPOV and is Mormon dogma, is false: avoiding category mistakes has nothing to do with Church doctrine, and they should be avoided because wikipedia is made the worser for such poor prose; and you need to cite a specific source that this is Mormon dogma, but you won't be able to because there is absolutely no such thing. Your sloppy claim is specifically the sort of thing the guideline suggests you avoid. Even your edit specifies that such claims should have specific references, but YOU fail to give one; instead you present false speculation. The current state of inconsistency and confusion in the Mormonism-related articles for lack of a clear convention is good reason for having a naming-convention-meta-article on this topic to normalize the convention. There has to be some kind of convention... Your suspicion of its purpose is unfounded. If you don't like some aspect of the conventions, that is understandable, but to suspect the meta-article of some sort of non-wikipedian-agend is stupid. Other things in your other comments like "Theocracy of Utah" reflect your ignorance and bigotry rather than an attempt to expose some supposed agenda to insert Mormon rules or propoganda. --B 16:00, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

I emailed the media folks at the LDS Church. I was told that use of LDS or LDS Church as a second reference is not a problem as far the Church is concerned so long as the full names are used on the first reference. I was told that the Church's problem was with "Mormon Church". So, in terms of wikipedia not trying to be offensive, use of LDS and LDS Church isn't a problem. I'm going to make some changes to the conventions accordingly. B 01:21, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] The other Mormon churches--LDS church and greater Mormonism

What do the other religions which believe in the Book of Mormon think of this naming convention? It sounds as though they consider themselves to be Mormons in the same way that Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (TCOJCOLDS) considers itself to be a Christian church, even though many Christians appear to disagree with that claim. JamesDay 17:52, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good Question, I've never thought of that. (Noldoaran is "LDS") Noldoaran 06:14, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
From what I can gather, many of these organizations consider themselves "Mormons", and some even consider themselves to be "Latter-day Saints". And some who follow Joseph Smith, Jr. would not call themselves either "Mormons" or "Latter-day Saints", but would nevertheless argue that they practice or believe in "Mormonism". Thus, I think that "Mormonism" is the probably the broadest, most agreeable term for those who trace their belief system back to Joseph Smith.COGDEN 18:22, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Something to consider is that TCOJCOLDS dwarfs all other Mormon-related splinter groups at over 11 million. The next closest is the RLDS which doesn't even go by that name any more...their members number around 137,000. After that most other splinter groups are even substantially smaller. Given the theological differences, these smaller groups identify themselves very strongly with their group...not to put words in their mouth, but I would venture that even though these folks might identify themselves as Mormon, generally they would prefer to be referred to by the group to which they belong such as "the Church of the Firstborn". B 05:36, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

But a wiki umbrella term is needed for the offspring of Joseph Smith, and I don't know anything that comes close to working as well as Mormonism. If necessary, Mormonism could be defined as anything produced or taught by Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet. Hawstom 07:17, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

B, Wikipedia has trouble distinguishing between LDS Church and Mormonism. Your Naming page does not help this, but it could. I propose setting forth the following:

  • Mormonism is the heritage stemming from JS and BofM. Includes all branches and should not be used in Wikipedia to refer specifically to LDS Church. I think this is a common convention of historians.
  • Mormons (to NPOV Wikipedia) are the spiritual or cultural heirs of JS. So to Wikipedia, Fundamentalist Mormons has to be accepted as about as good a term as could be crafted for some of the offshoots. And Community of Christ is a (marginally) Mormon Church that is merging from Mormonism into mainstream Christianity.
  • Articles that are about LDS Church should not be titled Mormonism unless they can be applied to all branches of Mormonism. For example, it would not be NPOV to say "Mormons no longer practice polygamy" or "Mormons Restricted Africans from their priesthood until 1978." Such statements are not global, but provincial, in their perspective.
  • Articles about Mormonism should not focus inordinately or exclusively on the modern LDS Church. For example, the Book of Mormon and BofM Controversies articles have no use for mention of the LDS Church other than as the current sole publisher or in the course of discussing differences in editions.

Is this a valid point as you see it? Hawstom 07:12, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I feel I am qualified to answer the original question under this heading, as I am a member of an RLDS Restoration Branch The term "Mormon" and "Mormonism" should either:

  1. Only apply to the Utah-based LDS church, OR
  2. Only apply to those churches that use the term

I think:

  1. Latter Day Saint is a broader term than "Mormon", as it also refers to other groups (such as mine) that believe in the Book of Mormon but are not Mormons and do not believe in "Mormonism."
  2. So, "Latter-Day-Saintism" would be a much better term than "Mormonism" for all issues that don't just deal with the aforementioned Utah folks. --Nerd42 14:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Nerd42, not just the utah folks (Brighamites) - it should also apply to the Strangites, who consider themselves Mormons. It is the culture of Mormonism as well as its doctrines that make it unique in the broader Latter Day Saint movement.

We've tried to do a (Latter Day Saint) or (Mormonism) as a suffix as appropriate in Wikipedia entries that are under such umbrellas. For example, Temple (Mormonism) is unique to the Mormon strain of the Latter Day Saint movement. Strangites and Brighamites both at one time practiced or believed in some rites there, but the RLDS branch did not as a whole. Although the CoC temple is mentioned there, it was as an afterthought under the more neutral heading "Temples in Other Latter Day Saint denominations."

However, I know that there are a number of incorrect articles, etc. and this will need to eventually be cleaned up. Other thoughts? -Visorstuff 23:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interest in this topic

I've lost interest in this topic. It's as bad as Mother Teresa or Republic of Macedonia. All these attempts to create conventions, or guidelines ABOUT forming conventions, or over-arching principles governing how we devise guidelines, etc., are just giving me a headache :-(

Let's be clear and neutral, and (if it's not too much trouble) try not to offend. That's all we gotta do... --Uncle Ed 18:57, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ed, it gives me a headache too, but wikipedia needs some consistent convention on this. Your simple one sentence statement above is well said. I want to go forward with the convention as it is now and start cleaning up articles, but if some or all of the convention needs to be changed for good reason, then now is the time for people to speak up. My fear is that there are so few wikipedians interested enough in this topic to participate. I'm glad Martin piped in...of the other admins I recently invited, he's the only other one who's participated so far. :( --B 22:02, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Ed, you are a patient man - thank-you. I do think the discussion is helping in this subject. I'm not sure about the Mother Teresa page though. Thanks for your help ironing this process out. Visorstuff

[edit] Separate Articles for Mormon and Mormonism

I agree with COGDEN that Mormon and Mormonism should have their own articles. Related articles follow the rule where Protestant redirects to Protestantism and Catholic redirects to Catholicism...and that makes sense. However, Mormon has multiple meanings in contrast to Protestant or Catholic. B 05:15, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Solution?

I've made up my mind about how to wrap up what I think are the outstanding issues for the convention...at least as it relates to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Articles should generally be titled like this:

Other articles do not necessarily focus on the Church and so should be broader. For example:

There may be instances where it makes sense to have a broader and narrower article of the same subject. For example:

With regard to articles focusing primarily on the Church, generally the rule would be to use the full name of the Church in the article title unless it makes sense to go with the abbreviated "Latter-day Saint" in parens following the subject-matter-name in the article title. Note "Latter-day Saint" (with the hyphen and lower case "d"), in contrast to "Latter Day Saint" (or even "LDS Church") uniquely identifies the article as relating primarily to the Church and its members. Articles with "Mormonism" in the title would include info for all LDS sects including the Church. I'm confident about this formulation, but if any interested wikipedian disagrees, please criticise or offer an alternate rule before I become too intransigent about it. Also, if you agree with my latest formulation, please mention that too. I'll give folks a week or so before I take any action with respect to this latest rule. B 23:52, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with this formulation. It makes the most sense, and is most consistent with Wikipedia practice in other contexts. In titles specifically about the COJCOLDS with parentheticals, we can't use names such as "(LDS Church)" that could also apply to other churches. The use of "Latter-day Saint" in parenthetical titles is much more convenient than spelling out the entire name of the church, as in "Apostle (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)", which is probably too long for a parenthetical. On the other hand, in articles such as History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there is no reason not to spell out the entire name of the church. COGDEN 07:18, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
What we also need is a convention for how to refer in parentheticals to churches other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Here is a table with some rough suggestions:
CHURCH REFERENCE IN TITLE
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Latter-day Saint)
Community of Christ (Community of Christ)
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) (Strangite)?
(Strangite Latter Day Saint)?
Church of Christ (Temple Lot) (Temple Lot)?
(Temple Lot Mormons)?
(Temple Lot Latter Day Saints)?
(Hendrickite)?
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS Church)?
(Fundamentalist Latter Day Saint)?
Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (PLDS Church)?
(Pentecostal Latter Day Saint)
Others (full name of denomination)

COGDEN 07:18, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Since nobody has voiced an opinion otherwise, I have edited this article consistent with BoNoMoJo's suggestions. Please comment.COGDEN 01:44, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Er, what article? Hawstom 22:45, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism) article.COGDEN 00:33, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merging of "Controversies" articles with their parent articles

My comment that follows would be more suited to a meta.wikipedia article on Mormonism, but since there isn't one at the moment this place seems as good as any. There is a discussion going on about the possibility of merging Mormonism-related-"Controversies"-articles with their parent articles. Interested parties should go here to read the discussion so far and participate: User_talk:Eloquence#Book of Mormon controversies --B 23:58, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] consensus of interested wikipedians

Well explicitly or by implied consent, there seems to be consensus of interested wikipedians on the convention. I'll change the disclaimer accordingly and archive this talk page in a few days. B 23:49, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hawstom 18:03, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Streamlining

I did some streamlining and clarifying. I don't think I made any changes in the conventions, but I made it a little more verbose. One thing I did add is the conventions regarding "Latter Day Saint movement". Please review to see if this makes sense. COGDEN 04:06, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalizing The in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Should the naming conventions express a preference for whether or not to capitalize the The in the name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I don't think so. Even the church itself has not been consistent about this. In the current edition of the canon and other church publications, the name of the church is listed both ways. The The is capitalized in D&C 115:4, Official Declaration 2, Guide to the Scriptures, and Bible Dictionary, the Ensign, and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, whereas the the is not capitalized in D&C 127:12, 136:2, Official Declaration 1, JS-H 1:1, Answers to Gospel Questions, and most older publications. Moreover, my impression is that most non-LDS writers do not capitalize, either. For example, MSN Encarta does not, nor does the Encyclopædia Britannica, the Utah History Encyclopedia, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Columbia Encyclopedia, or the Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. COGDEN 19:37, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I usually try to, and I'm very sorry that I sometimes forget, but I could go either way. However, it's not concise to type "[[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]," so should it be acceptable to link to the redirect with the "The"? I worry about not including it in the link, becuase it probably looks like an error to some outside editors, and I think they're less liable to change it when it's under a link. As part of the link it's more clearly part of a full name. Cool Hand Luke 23:30, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we change it in every reference. However, using the word the has a very slight connotation associated with it. I don't belong to "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," or "a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," rather, I belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This emphasizes it is THE Church of Christ, not just a Church. -Visorstuff 00:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that the The needs to be included and capitalized. It's part of the Church's name. Cookiecaper 02:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Putting aside that even the Church is not consistent in using its own official name in its publications (which sure makes me chuckle, btw), it is still the official name of the Church by its own account, and given that the full name should only appear once in the article followed by shortened references, it can't hurt to use "The". Even if the Church isn't consistent, Wikipedia should be...decision should be made one way or the other. Agree with Visorstuff that "The" has a connotation that goes beyond the usual meaning of "the". (Ugh, sounds so Clintonian: is "is" is, like "The" is "the"?) I vote for "The" given the unique connotation. —B|Talk 03:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One consequence of adopting a The policy with regard to the name of the church is that we would have to change the name of a few articles, such as History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Women and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Authority and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, etc. Do we really want to do that? Maybe it's just a matter of personal Taste, but liberal use of capitalization seems a bit Stilted to me, like how in the 1800s everybody used to capitalize words as a matter of Emphasis. And it might also be a bit Confusing, as it's not common practice to capitalize a the in the middle of a title, and in the Wikipedia, you can't link to an article unless you capitalize properly. COGDEN 17:27, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

I forgot about these articles - yes, they will have to be changed. Let's used re-directs as appropriate. -Visorstuff 18:16, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added this as a item under WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement before I saw that it was discussed here - the concensus above seems to be that adding The to the front of the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is appropriate. If there are no objections indicating a need for a vote - I will make the change. Following the name change I will work on the project to correct links to properly point to the new page and underline the word The in the link. See more detail at the project talk page --Trodel 18:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There has been a request for additional comments re this issue and request for comments on renaming similar pages as History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which I support)(as mentioned by COGDEN above) -- For additional comments please go to Latter Day Saint movement project talk page so there will be one place fore comments/discussion. --Trodel 23:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This was planned to be done on an as-needed basis and as appropriate as to not overwhelm the editors of the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. If you want to take on the task, it would be greatly appreciated. -Visorstuff 00:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"...greatly appreciated." Guffaw! I guess we miscalculated the community response on that little task! Tom Haws 05:30, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Style guide precedent

Well, seemingly agreeing these conventions is one thing, and getting them to be be taken seriously is another. Does anyone have a Style Guide from a neutral source that covers this usage issue? (Closest I could find is AP talking about "The" as part of the titles of newspapers, but not of organisations in general.) The BBC uses "The", the Guardian uses "the" (on the first web-site reference I found in either case). Alai 04:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalizing The in the Book of Mormon

On a similar note to the above discussion concerning the The in the name of the church, Tom has raised (on the Talk:Reformed Egyptian page) the issue of whether we should be capitalizing The in all references to the Book of Mormon. This time, however, the CoJCoLDS has apparently been more consistent (not that the Church should necessarily dictate Wikipedia policy on a multi-denominational as well as secular matter). Looking through recent issues of the Ensign (a bellwether of church stylistic trends), I can't find any places where the the is capitalized in the middle of a sentence referring to the Book of Mormon. Apparently, the Ensign has adopted a policy of non-capitalization. Same with all other church publications I can find, including the Book of Mormon Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual. It also looks like secular references to the book also do not capitalize, in keeping with common stylistic practices. COGDEN 17:44, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

That is good enough for me. Any other thoughts? Tom - Talk 17:49, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I concur with this. Both intuitiveness and actual usage speaks against "The Book of Mormon". Cool Hand Luke 18:00, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again I'll weigh in - this has a different historical context than the name of the Church. No capital "The" is neccesary - the difference would be if you have five "Books of Mormon" or five of "The Book of Mormons". The proper grammatical usage is Books of Mormon, although the proper title is "The Book of Mormon" (Although current LDS edition is "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ"), as registered by the Library of Congress. Confused? Bottom line is that from a Latter Day Saint viewpoint, giving the different edition titles and early usage in the Church prior to the administration of Brigham Young (prior to the great divide, if you will), the proper reference should be "Book of Mormon" - no capital 'T' in "the." If referring to specific editions of the book, it should be noted as it was registered, when the edition was registered and which edition it is being referred to. Stupid, but CoC folks would get upset in a Latter Day Saint article to LDS referring to the "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" as part of the title - it wasn't when Smith first published it as the Book of Mormon. -Visorstuff 18:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If we are talking about reasons for the convention, I am still having a hard time understanding the logic behind Book of Mormon. Was not the title from day one The Book of Mormon? Doesn't proper grammar say I have ten copies of The Book of Mormon and there are currently X printed editions of The Book of Mormon. Now I am beginning also to wonder if COgen's count above of Ensign usage includes adjectival uses. As an adjective, the reasonable usage would be of course Book of Mormon. Hence:
  • "I believe The Book of Mormon to be an ancient document."
  • "I have 6 copies of The Book of Mormon at my home."
  • "I am interested in studying Book of Mormon archeaology."
  • "Were the Book of Mormon source plates claimed to be gold, or merely golden?" (This is an actual question I want to address :-D).
Tom - Talk 21:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, The Book of Mormon was translated from actual plates of gold. Please refer to here for more info. Iamunknown 08:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes. Moroni is quoted (Joseph Smith History) as telling Joseph Smith in his first visit that there were "gold plates deposited". Tom - Talk 16:44, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the prevailing theory among scholars (including FARMS) is that the plates were really the alloy tumbaga, a wildly varying combination of gold and copper used often in ancient Central and South American civilizations. In the Book of Mormon case, it's estimated that the plates were about 1/3 gold and 2/3 copper. See [1] and [2]. Cookiecaper 09:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "the Church"

Following this poll, we need to add a stipulation about the use of "the Church". Anyone have any reaming issues they'd like to air before an addition is made? Alai 23:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I realize this was posted over a year ago, but I feel it merits further discussion. I notice that on this page this guideline is not respected "the The in the Church's title should always be capitalized".
Personally, I think that this guideline should not apply specifically to the LDS Church, but to all articles on Wikipedia. Currently Roman Catholic Church uses "the Church", as does (some of the time) Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
On the other hand, I don't really care which one is used, and I don't feel that a capital C - in any religion's article - is a problem. In fact, I think it looks a little better with a capital C. That being said, my feelings aren't strong enough to actually put up a fight either way. --Lethargy 02:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why favor Mormonism in forming naming conventions?

I propose that creating a naming convention for Mormonism alone excludes other religions. If we determine a naming convention for one religion, it should be generalized to apply to the way Wikipedia articles reference other religions as well. As such, the page discussing naming conventions should not identify Mormonism alone, but a generalized naming convention for all religions should be created (and then Mormonism should be added as a subset, if needed).

Also, the conventions Wikipedia uses in reference to religious names should be determined independent of the wishes of the religious group and its opponents. The tone of the current guidelines seem to suggest that using pejorative or disapproved terms constitutes a violation of the NPOV policy and that compliance with the religious group's wishes is merely respectful. Wikipedians are encouraged to "note that this is the Church's POV, and not necessarily the POV of other denominations or the media." I contend that the tone of the convention, as it is written now, is not neutral toward all religions because it actively discourages pejoritave names while only mildly suggesting that preferred names can be a violation of the NPOV. -- backburner001 00:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Are there any other comments on this issue? -- backburner001 14:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with you. I've been saying for a while that alot of WP's coverage is slanted towards the Utah LDS church. (without acknowledging other Latter Day Saint denominations) --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  15:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summarize?

In light of a couple of questions/issues this week --- as we have many new members on the LDS project at the moment, and are now picking up new people regularly, would it be good to summarize the naming standards on the front page? Then we could help the new members get used to them, revisit them for clarity, and perhaps solicit any contrary opinions. It could be a brief statement -- even in a box or template if you techie types prefer. Opinions? WBardwin 05:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revisiting use of Mormonism to refer to Community of Christ, et al.

I was a supporter in the original discussion back in 2003 of using the parenthetical (Mormonism) to refer broadly to all Joseph Smith-derived religions, and I think it's worked fairly well. However, over time I've begun to wonder if the reason it has worked so well is because there haven't been many editors, until fairly recently, from the Community of Christ and related branches. I'd like to make sure that we include these folks in all our articles, but I'm not sure that will happen under the title Mormonism.

I think resistance to Mormonism is pretty high among prairie Saints, although I've seen some resistance to the term Latter Day Saint movement. With regard to the movement, I think Latter Day Saint movement is about as NPOV as we can get. The CofC uses "Restoration Movement", but that phrase is taken by the Stone-Campbell people. (I suppose we could appropriate the phrase for Latter Day Saints, but I think that would piss off lots more people than it would appease)

But with the term Mormonism, I think in retrospect the biggest reason we chose it was because it was convenient, not necessarily because it was entirely NPOV. Is there some other usage? There's mention of "Latter-Day-Saintism", which seems a bit awkward. We really need input from somebody who is well-indoctrinated with a Community of Christ background or some other prairie Saint denomination, who can give us suggestions of how to bridge the gap, linguistically. There has to be a way that we can talk about doctrines and canon common to the entire Latter Day Saint movement without using the word Mormonism.COGDEN 09:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Doing a little browsing on CofChrist websites, I found this website that went over the history of the CofChrist's name change. It appears that at one time, they were considering the use of the word Saints as a descriptor, and the word Saints seems to be acceptable to everybody. I thought about Restoration Saints, which has a certain following. I also thought about Saintism, but that sounds too much like Satanism, and Websters says the word means "hypocritical pretense of holiness". And besides, we can't coin a new word out of whole cloth here. I think, to avoid using original research, there has to be some outside usage of a term before we can use it here. Any thoughts? Has anybody seen an instance of the term Restoration Saintism or something like it? Another idea is to refer, somehow, to Joseph Smith, as in Patriarch (Joseph Smith theology). Not sure what I think about that. COGDEN 09:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It is easier to characterize the Community of Christ today as an antithesis to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than it is to suggest extensive similarities that would constitute a common genus. Much of its early history as a movement apart from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was centered in anti-polygamy teachings. Even today, they state "The Community of Christ affirms its long history of vigorous opposition to polygamy as a doctrine or practice, regardless of what historical research may ultimately conclude about its origins in the early Latter Day Saint movement." They also espouse fundamentally different views on the trinity, which is the key test of orthodoxy for most Christians. Furthermore, the Community of Christ essentially rejects the historicity of the Book of Mormon, accepting it as metaphor with a message. But the message is even discussed critically, for example the apparent racism in the text. These differences make it untenable to suggest that there is any sort of common "movement" today that spans the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Community of Christ. I believe it is impossible to characterize them as part of a contemporary movement without violating WikePedia's NPOV policy and engaging in original research. The best approach is to treat them as completely seperate denominations, such as one would the Church of Christ (Campbellites) and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sure, you can point to early historical roots and mention both, but to try to classify them in a denominational grouping is no longer valid. Glenn4pr 06:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Apart from the situation today, I'm more interested, for example, in what to call Smith's doctrines and teachings circa the 1830s. Is it Mormonism? Apart from the question of whether the Book of Mormon is history or allegory (and many LDS accept it as Book of Job-like fiction as well), the question is, is it Mormonism? The churches went their seprate ways, of course, but they both still accept the authority of Joseph Smith as a prophet and apostle. So the question is, what do you call the doctrine that Joseph Smith taught before he died? If the Community of Christ has no problem with calling Smith's teachings and doctrine Mormonism, then that's great. It makes things easier. But from what I know about the denomination (which isn't really that much, frankly) I get the feeling they would oppose calling Smith's theology Mormonism. COGDEN 09:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
A case could be made for following the convention of Lutheranism, Calvinism and Wesleyanism, by calling it Smithism. The problem is that the Community of Christ denomination has gone a long way to dissociate itself from Smith and especially the Book of Mormon. For example, the CofChrist missionary tracts mention Smith's vision, but not the Book of Mormon. I do not believe the Community of Christ considers Smith to have been an "apostle" and even if they did, they attach no impportance to the term. Officially, they say "we can genuinely affirm the prophetic vision of Joseph Smith Jr., while acknowledging the fallibility present in his life and in the lives of all prophetic leaders." The CofC has peeled back the onion on Joseph Smith as far as they possibly can to his first vision experience.
Glenn's statements about CofC being an antithesis to LDS, and about the Book of Mormon reflect either his own views, or his opinions of others' views. They are not the stated positions of the CofC. Of course the many denominations coming out of the Mormon tradition have different beliefs, doctrines, and practices—that is why the schisms happened in the first place. The organization of the articles under the banner Mormonism is historical, not contemporary. I think it remains the best compromise. The CofC did experiment in the 1970s with using The Saint's Church as a nickname, but it was dropped after it was realized that to outsiders it sounded like a term of aggrandizement. J.J. Strang's group suggests calling themselves "Great Lakes Mormons" as contrasted with "Rocky Mountain Mormons" (and presumably "Prairie Mormons" or "Missouri Mormons") as geographical distinctions, so they don't seem to have a problem with it. Probably many members of the CofC would feel uncomfortable being called Mormons because of the term's close association with the LDS church, but they embrace their "Mormon" beginnings with J Smith jr. nonetheless. (And they still have that Book of Mormon on the shelf.) --Blainster 22:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The statements from the Community of Christ website are fairly official: "Our faith is grounded in the gospel of Jesus Christ and not in the actions of any particular person. ... As a policy, the Community of Christ does not legislate or mandate positions on issues of history. We place confidence in sound historical methodology as it relates to our church story. We believe that historians and other researchers should be free to come to whatever conclusions they feel are appropriate after careful consideration of documents and artifacts to which they have access. We benefit greatly from the significant contributions of the historical discipline." Keep in mind that the historians being praised were paid employees of the Community of Christ and had developed strong cases against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Virtually all members of the Community of Christ reject the label "Mormon."

In 2001, Community of Christ President W. Grant McMurray articulated clear doubts about the Book of Mormon: "The proper use of the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture has been under wide discussion in the 1970’s and beyond, in part because of long-standing questions about its historicity and in part because of perceived theological inadequacies, including matters of race and ethnicity." McMurray went on to say: "We cannot mask with theological apologetics or cultural acrobatics the inadequate and destructive consequences of language such as that. Whatever our view of the Book of Mormon may be, we must purge from our consciousness any notion that the color of people’s skin is an indicator of their worthiness, or that white skin is "delightsome" while black or brown skin is "loathsome." While good people made substantial effort to move beyond the folklore and language of the book, it was very difficult to form an outreach program of ministry around such an understanding in a time of increased sensitivity to culture and language." See http://www.cofchrist.org/docs/NativeAmericanConference/keynote.asp In addition, read the two volume church history written by Historian Emeritus Richard Howard. It is correct that the Book of Mormon is on the shelf ... gathering dust, even though it is still officially called an "additional witness" of Jesus Christ.

At any rate, the antithetical tension between the two groups on the key test of orthodoxy remains: namely that the Community of Christ is explicitly trinitarian, essentially rejecting Joseph Smith's viewpoint and aligning itself with mainstream Christianity. As the Wikipedia article on the trinity states, "Many Christians believe that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is so central to the Christian faith, that to deny it is to reject the Christian faith entirely." So the distinction between the two groups is not a trifle. Some ecumenical groups, use the trinity as a test when considering new denominational members. Based on this test, they reject "Mormons" and accept the Community of Christ. If the goal of Wikipedia is accuracy, the common connection between the two groups should be limited to the historical context. They are not affiliated groups. The theological evolution has taken them on very divergent paths. Glenn4pr 10:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interesting quote from an independent biography of W. Grant McMurray found on the Kansas City Interfaith Council's biography page: "It is not a Mormon church and hasn’t been since it broke with the Mormons in 1844. It has no secret rituals. Its temples and services are open to the public. It has a far greater affinity with Christian Protestantism than Mormonism. It does not proclaim itself as the one true church or the only source of salvation." http://www.cres.org/oldifc/biography.htm Glenn4pr 04:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason I brought this issue up is that I'm toying with the idea of moving away from the (Mormonism) parenthetical and toward a (Latter Day Saint) parenthetical. Whatever the Community of Christ believes, it certainly has not backed away from the idea of their being saints in the latter days, which I think is the essence of the movement, and the main historical tie. Jettisoning the word Mormon and its various forms, I think, might result in higher participation by CofC editors in these articles where a parenthetical is absolutely necessary, such as Church of Christ (Mormonism). Thus, that article would become Church of Christ (Latter Day Saint), and this conventions page would become Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saint). COGDEN 01:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The move would be supported by AP style guide who adopts Latter Day Saint churches instead of Mormonism. -Visorstuff 18:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I just did a search of the AP Stylebook on Amazon, and it says "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after Smith's death" (page 48). I hadn't really thought about the phrase "Latter Day Saints churches" (plural), but it sounds strange to me. COGDEN 21:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revised conventions: (Latter Day Saints) parenthetical and (Latter-day Saint) vs. (Latter-day Saints) vs. (LDS Church)

COGDEN, what do you think about the (Latter-day Saint) appendage to articles for naming conventions. I see you've revisited the Latter Day Saint and Mormonism naming conventions lately - is it time to make some better changes to the conventions? -Visorstuff 16:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the naming conventions definitely need a reworking. I've updated the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) with what I think are becoming the de facto best practices, but the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saint) are a bit confusing. The conventions currently suggest the parenthetical (LDS Church), but I wonder whether (Latter-day Saint) (or (Latter-day Saints)) might be better. We just haven't yet really had articles that needed the very-specific parenthetical. I'm also torn between (Latter Day Saint) and (Latter Day Saints) as parentheticals. In many situations, such as the name of the above Manual of Style, the parenthetical (Latter Day Saint) seems strange, as if the Manual itself were a Latter Day Saint. Do you have a good reason, Visorstuff, to favor the singular form? COGDEN 22:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the plural (Latter Day Saints) should rule over the singular form (Latter Day Saint). I completely agree with you on that, and will suppport it fully. It is the style used by the associated press as they talk abou "other Latter Day Saints churches," but I'm not so sure of Latter-day Saints over Latter-day Saint. I'm undecided on that one. My reasoning is that you may be talking about the "Latter-day Saint Church" as it is referred to in historical documents. Its not referred to in the plural in historical documents. I need more time to noodle that one before making my decision on what I prefer. Thoughts to persuade me? -Visorstuff 23:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
For the specific church-based parenthetical, maybe we should stick with (LDS Church) as it is now in the naming conventions. Of course, I still haven't seen an article where I think the parenthetical is justified. COGDEN 18:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/m/Wikipedia_talk%7ENaming_conventions_%28Latter_Day_Saints%29_8fc9.html"